Do you believe in God?

[zzz_pt]

Every single point you have raised here can be applied to various members of humanity, a point I have raised at least twice now and you have utterly failed to address.

If members of humanity also can't meet your criteria and you are unwilling or unable to address that point I would say that undermines your position to quite a large degree (and yours is a position that has changed).

You're trying to make me say that some people are equal to animals. But where did you read that the only thing diferent from animals and humans are (racional) thinking/thoughts? You belive that we are animals, I don't. Simple. I won't enter in a discussion that you're trying to make arround something I didn't even wrote about.

@Denur Mind =/= brain. We have a lot of books about our mind / conscious but we are completly ignorant about the objectivity of it. There is no consensus about what is it.

 

[Duke]

I will not withdraw my claim. I stated my side and that should be it, agree with it or not, I stand with my claim and I do not have to retract my claim until you prove I am completely wrong.

That is absolutely NOT how it works. YOU are making the assertion. That means YOU are responsible to prove it.

Can you imagine if it was your way in the real world? "You killed the victim. We refuse to withdraw our claim, whether you agree with it or not. You'll stay in prison until you can prove we are completely wrong."

 

[Scaff]

You're trying to make me say that some people are equal to animals. But where did you read that the only thing diferent from animals and humans are (racional) thinking/thoughts? You belive that we are animals, I don't. Simple. I won't enter in a discussion that you're trying to make arround something I didn't even wrote about.

I'm not trying to make you say anything. I am simply pointing out that a percentage of humans would fail to reach the standard that you have set for what constitutes ability to think and asking you for your thoughts on what the implication of this would be.

That you have already quite clearly been able to see the rather massive flaw in the approach you have used and are still totally unwilling to rethink your criteria says plenty, as does your unwillingness to discuss it.

 

[zzz_pt]

I'm not trying to make you say anything. I am simply pointing out that a percentage of humans would fail to reach the standard that you have set for what constitutes ability to think and asking you for your thoughts on what the implication of this would be.

That you have already quite clearly been able to see the rather massive flaw in the approach you have used and are still totally unwilling to rethink your criteria says plenty, as does your unwillingness to discuss it.

We can discuss in portuguese if you want.

 

[niky]

Would you rather Chinese? Or Spanish? Or Dolphin?

Sadly, the rules of this board mandate the use of English. And the problem here is not one of communication, but rather your unwillingness to admit an uncomfortable truth.

I'm not an expert in these subjects.

I simply don't think animals think (by my concept and idea of thinking).

As Scaff points out, some humans (and I am sort of an expert on this subject, having studied developmental psychology and brain disorders in my Bachelors in Special Education...) don't pass your criteria. What makes them human, then?

We've already pointed out: Animals clearly can solve logical puzzles. Animals have an aesthetic sense and aesthetic preferences. Some of them paint. Some of them do music. If you've had animals, you will likely have heard a dog sing along with you or the radio at one point or another (and this is not instinctual behaviour, but pure social play).

In the end, play is perhaps the greatest argument for animal intelligence. Social animals play. They create make-believe worlds in which they're fighting for pack dominance with their siblings (without hurting each other) or are hunting a favorite stuffed toy. I've seen animals treat other species with respect and empathy (something most humans fail at). My dog was fast friends with a cat and a goat, and the three would sometimes cuddle up and sleep together.

Just because animals don't have 100 point IQs doesn't mean they have personalities or consciousness. Many humans are less intelligent than some animals, and do not possess the power of speech, either. This does not make them animals.

Whether you believe it or not, animals exhibit all the signs of intelligence or sentience.

Luckily, the demonstration of this doesn't require belief.

Animals are not human. But that doesn't mean they cannot think or feel. To claim that these two attributes are things only humans possess is foolish.

 

[BobK]

I will not withdraw my claim. You sound like the combination of an annoying little kid and a broken repeating record. I stated my side and that should be it, agree with it or not, I stand with my claim and I do not have to retract my claim until you prove I am completely wrong.

As several others have already pointed out, that's not the way it works. The onus is on the one who made the claim to provide evidence for the claim, not on everybody else to disprove the claim.

The only way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Jewish remembrance of their time as slaves in ancient Egypt is false, is to prove that the Jews are not the people of God.

Nobody is asking for proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. All that's being asked for is some real, hard evidence there were roughly a million Jewish slaves in ancient Egypt other than a list of a hundred some odd names, of which less than half sounded like they might possibly be Jewish.

Oh, and even if one were somehow able to prove the Jews are or are not the people of God, that would have no bearing at all on the existence of Jewish slaves in Egypt.

I know it's a tall task, but if you feel so insistent upon me withdrawing my claim, then I dare you to try. You prove to me the Jews are not the people of God and you will succeed in what Hitler failed to do, and what the Pharaohs failed to do.

Again, the onus is not on me to prove anything. For all you know, I may actually agree the Jews are the people of God. This has nothing to do with Jewish slaves in ancient Egypt.

You can believe there were a million (roughly) Jewish slaves in Egypt all you want. I don't care. I'm not asking you to renounce your faith or anything. But you're claiming it as a historical fact. If you were to say something along the lines of "I believe there were around a million Jewish slaves in ancient Egypt even though there is no significant evidence for it", that would be okay too. But don't try to claim it's an established fact.

 

[zzz_pt]

No. The problem here is misunderstanding. As you can see I'm not english. Spanish would be slightly worse than english for me.

Where did you saw me saying animals don't feel? Are you trying to make me feel stupid? lol Where did I wrote that racional thinking is the only (or even a critiria) thing that I consider that makes us diferent from animals? From the begining I used the words feelings and thinking (or thoughts) with racional and delibarate cause in mind. We humans can think ABOUT. We can think about what we will do tomorrow. We can reflect about the existence of god. We know we'll gonna die and that is possibly one of the major diferences between humans and animals.

Again, animals have no moral values (in de discussion, this point was forgotten because probably the "think / don't think" part was more arguable). Objective moral values or not they don't have them.

About people who can't make decisions or think as we do, I won't say nothing because I they're a minority and not the large majoraty of humanity but I consider them as human beeings OF COURSE. What about the opposite? Gifted animals (I'm not sure this is the right word)? Animals who paint, play music spontaneously or have a debate in their natural environments without human interference?

 

[useauget]

what a waste of good minds

 

[DQuaN]

what a waste of good minds

Care to elaborate what you mean by that?

 

[Denur]

We can think about what we will do tomorrow. We can reflect about the existence of god. We know we'll gonna die and that is possibly one of the major diferences between humans and animals.

So can some animals:Chimps are known to plan ahead when e.g. they go to war with another tribe. And there are animals that separate themselves from the herd when they are about to die (can't remember which ones though). Neanderthals are even known to have had death rituals.

 

[niky]

Again, animals have no moral values

So, when a dolphin saves a swimmer from sharks... a swimmer who doesn't look like a dolphin, sound like a dolphin or smell like a dolphin... risking personal injury or death to protect a human being... are you saying a dolphin does this in the complete absence of moral values? For what reason? That swimmer is a stranger to the dolphin, and a human. Humans hunt dolphins, enslave them and kill them on occassion.

What animal instinct leads the dolphin to do that? What logical reason is there to protect a human being when there is no survival advantage in doing so?

When a Killer Whale takes revenge on a shark that has killed its calf, tracking it for thousands of miles, hunting it down and killing it... where is the survival value in that? The calf is dead. If the Killer Whale has no moral code (no arguments on the quality of that code. Old Testament "eye for an eye"), then what reason is there for it to seek revenge in cold blood, days or even weeks after the death of its offspring?

The only thing special about our moral code is that we've verbalized it and put it down in writing. And don't say it's a universal code, as many human societies and tribes have so-called moral codes that are not quite as benevolent as those of some animals.

-

I put this challenge to you. We have NO DIRECT PROOF of morality in other human beings. Proof of the type that you seem to desire. A man may say that this is his moral code, yet do something completely against it. This is all too common. Many people lie about their morality.

We cannot see into other people's minds or hearts, meaning we cannot directly measure their morality.

How then, do we say that (some) people are moral beings?

Simple: we know people have a moral code by what they do to other people.

Similarly: we know animals have a moral code by what they do to other animals.

-

That was easy, wasn't it?

 

[zzz_pt]

I'm open to see some scientific stuff about animals having moral values. That is what you, as human, think. And that single example doesn't prove that animals have moral values. Look at every (I said every) animal spieces and you will see behaviours that would put you in jail forever if you tried to do it.

A lion kills another lion offspring is claiming dominance. A person kills somenoe is muderer.
A bee kills an entire colonie of bees, is claiming terrorory or whatever. Hitler and his regime wipe out thousands of people it's a genocide.
Gorillas kill another gorilla is because they are protecting their clan. Some group kills another person from a diferent race, it's racism.
A shark forces a female to mate is natural. Some guy forces as woman to have sex is rape.

I think I'll stop here...And these are the most basic and obvious. If we go to the "right" moral values is even more obvious.

About animals planning ahed I say the same thing. I'm open to see something clear about that. Saying that lions plan to hunt before they go hunting doesn't count.

 

[niky]

I'm open to see some scientific stuff about animals having moral values. That is what you, as human, think. And that single example doesn't prove that animals have moral values. Look at every (I said every) animal spieces and you will see behaviours that would put you in jail forever if you tried to do it.

A lion kills another lion offspring is claiming dominance. A person kills somenoe is muderer.
A bee kills an entire colonie of bees, is claiming terrorory or whatever. Hitler and his regime wipe out thousands of people it's a genocide.
Gorillas kill another gorilla is because they are protecting their clan. Some group kills another person from a diferent race, it's racism.
A shark forces a female to mate is natural. Some guy forces as woman to have sex is rape.

I think I'll stop here...And these are the most basic and obvious. If we go to the "right" moral values is even more obvious.

About animals planning ahed I say the same thing. I'm open to see something clear about that. Saying that lions plan to hunt before they go hunting doesn't count.

The challenge is: Prove that humans have moral values without relying on their word. Because, as I've said: Many people say they have certain moral values, but don't practice them.

The examples you've given are perfect. You've proven that some humans have the same (deficient? wrong? evil?) moral values as some animals. None of that contradicts what I've said.

What "right" moral values do humans exercise that animals don't?

What is there about a Killer Whale following a Great White Shark thousands of miles before killing it in cold blood that doesn't suggest forethought and planning?

And who says that forethought is a requirement for being considered an intelligent/thinking being, considering most people don't think ahead before doing stuff, anyway?

 

[sid_chiclana]

My nannie once told me, when they ask you at school who's god, you tell them, my nannie, because she gives me sweets
She wasn't too far out, let me tell you!

 

[zzz_pt]

The challenge is: Prove that humans have moral values without relying on their word. Because, as I've said: Many people say they have certain moral values, but don't practice them.

The examples you've given are perfect. You've proven that some humans have the same (deficient? wrong? evil?) moral values as some animals. None of that contradicts what I've said.

What "right" moral values do humans exercise that animals don't?

What is there about a Killer Whale following a Great White Shark thousands of miles before killing it in cold blood that doesn't suggest forethought and planning?

And who says that forethought is a requirement for being considered an intelligent/thinking being, considering most people don't think ahead before doing stuff, anyway?

It's hard to take you seriously after that post and the edit part you've add to the preivious.

I think that at some point in this thread I'll be reading that animals have moral values and humans do not and animals plan their lives, know they gonna die, play GT6...

And as I've said before, I belive in objective moral values (independent of us and of what we think or do).

 

[Hun200kmh]

We are seriously debating animal morality. Really. Soon we'll reach vegetals I'm sure. They do plan, they do kill, they do move, we can even seriously state they make choices. Some follow the light, some follow the water, some defend their ground, some defend their offsprings, some even use animals to help in the continuation of their species. This all happens kind of slowly, but they do.

@zzz_pt using Scaff's educated English words, I think you have UTTERLY succeeded in getting your point across. And you did it in a language that is foreign to you. I understand why you invited Scaff to discuss this in portuguese, somehow you feel at a disadvantage because you can't be as clever in language use as the natives can, but I think it speaks volumes that you kept your ground thus far. And in anyway this is an English official language forum so if you write here you already know you are handicapped in debates that require a greater knowledge of that language. Whatever. I think you can rest your case.

 

[huskeR32]

I think that at some point in this thread I'll be reading that animals have moral values and humans do not and animals plan their lives, know they gonna die, play GT6...

We are seriously debating animal morality. Really. Soon we'll reach vegetals I'm sure. They do plan, they do kill, they do move, we can even seriously state they make choices.

This sounds an awful lot like the old "Gay marriage can't be allowed because, what's next? Letting somebody marry an animal?" argument. And, to paraphrase:

It's hard to take you seriously after that post.

 

[zzz_pt]

This sounds an awful lot like the old "Gay marriage can't be allowed because, what's next? Letting somebody marry an animal?" argument. And, to paraphrase:

I used to act/think like that. When I was 15.

___

I can't force anyone to read what I write so I can't take any kind of reply seriously. If you don't want to think it's OK. But don't try to make up incoherent arguments and nonsense theories because of that.

 

[Touring Mars]

You belive that we are animals, I don't. Simple.

Humans are animals. And no... that is not an opinion.

Obviously, humans are a very special case in the animal kingdom - but the more we learn about the natural world, the more it is becoming apparent that supposedly uniquely human traits are not so unique after all. I like to think of it more like we have a unique set of abilities rather than possessing abilities that are uniquely human, that when taken in combination make us especially capable.

 

[huskeR32]

I can't force anyone to read what I write so I can't take any kind of reply seriously. If you don't want to think it's OK.

Might want to address niky's very relevant questions before suggesting that anybody else here is unwilling to participate in the discussion.

 

[Hun200kmh]

This sounds an awful lot like the old "Gay marriage can't be allowed because, what's next? Letting somebody marry an animal?" argument. And, to paraphrase:

That's a very funny observation and comparison, considering what's being debated. However, I do think gay marriage is a debate about laws governing human societies. It does not apply to OTHER (wink wink @Touring Mars ) animals. Because OTHER animals, gay or straight regardless, are not human.

And indeed, don't take me seriously. I'm not taking you seriously also.

 

[huskeR32]

That's a very funny observation and comparison, considering what's being debated. However, I do think gay marriage is a debate about laws governing human societies. It does not apply to OTHER (wink wink @Touring Mars ) animals. Because OTHER animals, gay or straight regardless, are not human.

I wasn't suggesting that the two topics are related whatsoever. Just observing that you're using a similar logic (i.e. find the most ridiculous, extreme extension of somebody's statement, then dismiss their argument as if that's what they were actually saying).

And indeed, don't take me seriously. I'm not taking you seriously also.

 

[Scaff]

I'm open to see some scientific stuff about animals having moral values. That is what you, as human, think. And that single example doesn't prove that animals have moral values. Look at every (I said every) animal spieces and you will see behaviours that would put you in jail forever if you tried to do it.

Actually a single example does prove it.

The statement you made was basically that 'Homo-sapiens are the only species to have a moral code', not the exact words but I believe this is the point you are making. Now that point is falsafiable (in other words it can be tested to see if it is false), and it doesn't matter if only one other species is shown to have a moral code, if that occurs then the statement is false.

A lion kills another lion offspring is claiming dominance. A person kills somenoe is muderer.
A bee kills an entire colonie of bees, is claiming terrorory or whatever. Hitler and his regime wipe out thousands of people it's a genocide.
Gorillas kill another gorilla is because they are protecting their clan. Some group kills another person from a diferent race, it's racism.
A shark forces a female to mate is natural. Some guy forces as woman to have sex is rape.

I think I'll stop here...And these are the most basic and obvious. If we go to the "right" moral values is even more obvious.

Now apart from the fact that you human/animal examples here quite clearly have missmatched examples (which does rather invalidate them) a few other issues exist with them.

• You assume that every species has a moral code, no one has claimed any such thing.
• You assume that the moral code of all species is the same. Why would it be?
• You assume that moral code should be the same as humans have
• You assume that humans have a set and agreed moral code
• You assume that every thing follows the moral code. Why, humans clearly don't?

All of these things are enough to raise questions about the examples above and show flaws in your reasoning around them, but lets look at one of your examples with a better human/non-human match.

Gorilla kills another gorilla because they are protecting their clan. Human solider kills another human solider to protect their country. Not quite so different now is it

About animals planning ahed I say the same thing. I'm open to see something clear about that. Saying that lions plan to hunt before they go hunting doesn't count.

Why exactly doesn't it count?

 

[LeMansAid]

All I see is the manifestation of the potential dangers of attaching a multitude of exacting religious views to a belief in God.

Religious people. Let your belief in God be sacred and untouched. With all the other machinations of life and history, why not be like others, and discuss logically and sensibly?

 

[niky]

It's hard to take you seriously after that post and the edit part you've add to the preivious.

I think that at some point in this thread I'll be reading that animals have moral values and humans do not and animals plan their lives, know they gonna die, play GT6...

And as I've said before, I belive in objective moral values (independent of us and of what we think or do).

Did I say anywhere in my post that humans have no moral values?

You yourself pointed out that some humans do not follow your objective moral values. Does that make them non-human?

Again, whether or not animals have intelligence (they do), emotions (they do) or moral values (some animals apparently do), they are not human.

Even if a human lacks intelligence, emotions or moral values, he/she is still a human being.

-

I'm not saying that humans = other animals. I'm saying, simply, that claiming that these traits are uniquely human is wrong.

Now if we're talking about religion... hmmm... while some animals do seem superstitious, discussions of spirituality might have to wait until we can teach dolphins to type.

 

[Famine]

I was tempted to post this in the Britain thread, but it's as useful here.

British Magistrate's court summons head of Mormon church over charges that asking church members for donations while teaching falsehoods classes as fraud.

 

[Dotini]

From wikipedia

Justiciability concerns the limits upon legal issues over which a court can exercise its judicial authority.[1] It includes, but is not limited to, the legal concept of standing, which is used to determine if the party bringing the suit is a party appropriate to establishing whether an actual adversarial issue exists.[2] Essentially, justiciability in American law seeks to address whether a court possesses the ability to provide adequate resolution of the dispute; where a court feels it cannot offer such a final determination, the matter is not justiciable.

-----

All that said, it cannot be denied that the teaching of the Mormon church is fraudulent. It is a heresy within the larger heresy of Christianity. But is it the fraud of an inventive madman, a poor self-deluded fool, firm in the belief he has spoken to God - or in this case the angel Moroni? Or is it the fraud of the cynic who has invented a religion for profit? Who has the duty to determine the truth?

 

[BobK]

Holy crap -- if that becomes any kind of precedent, just about every church in the world could find itself in trouble. So could the Scientologists, although they'd immediately launch a countersuit.

 

[niky]

Holy crap -- if that becomes any kind of precedent, just about every church in the world could find itself in trouble. So could the Scientologists, although they'd immediately launch a countersuit.

Wouldn't mind seeing Scientology taken down a peg. Or two. Or three. Or four. Or...

 

[Scaff]

Interesting piece on the point at which camels became domesticated in the middle east, which is at a point long after the events in Genesis which mention them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/science/camels-had-no-business-in-genesis.html?_r=0

It kind of throws a bit of a spanner in the works of claims the Torah has remained unedited over the millennia, as it would clearly have had to been if domestic camels pop up a good few hundred years before they should.