May 30th, 2014, 01:34 PM
I was just looking at my cat and this occurred to me:
Is she a bad cat because she attacks me when I don't feed her enough on occasion? Or is she a bad cat because she may attack when I don't give her enough attention? Now I take care of my cat don't get me wrong. Just thinking this. Anyways, is my cat evil because she does bad things like this ONLY when she does not get her natural needs met?
Can we look at humans the same way?
Also do Hindus think cows have souls?
Yes, indeed we should. Many (all) religions put humans on some of pedestal that's quite inaccurate and all-to-often forms the justifications for wholesale destruction of our environments. Humans are just animals.Originally Posted by Sarah1234
Although I commented I'm finding this difficult to see as a scientific subject beyond the mundane fact that we are biologically animals which makes many religions decidedly wrong.
If your cat is attacking you, just get rid of her. Problem solved.
Lynx, I don't see the connection between us being animals and religions being wrong. No other animal species treat other species the same as their own, so it would be highly un-animal like to treat other species the same as us.
And no other animal species treats other species or its own in exactly the same why--so what's your point?
Religion almost always defines humans as both separate and superior from all other animals as if we aren't animals, both of which are factually wrong positions and lead to inaccurate and imprecise language such as used by Sarah in both her threads.
No, it's not factually incorrect. You are using definition 1 and they are using definition 2.
As far as Sarah is concerned, I have no idea what she's trying to say.1. A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure.
2. An animal organism other than a human, especially a mammal.
They are using one based in mythology--which is my point.
Humans are a subgroup of animals, the more prefered by a long shot given this is a science forum...it's that simple. The mythology is factually wrong.
So, you are saying that because there is a scientific definition of animal, that all previous definitions are false?
I'm not getting where there is a factual error, unless you are saying the Bible is factually wrong because God didn't actually say that man had dominion over animals. But that doesn't say it's wrong to define "animals" as "all mammals that are not human." It's just another definition, and one that is older than dictionary definition 1 above.
Sarah, is she attacking or is she playing? Anyway, yes we are animals just like all the other animals.
All it means to be an animal is that we can (generally) outrun plants.
Yes and archaic; just as if someone says element in reference to what something is made of we shouldn't be thinking of earth, water, wind and fire. Definitions are important and shape people's thinking.
--
As for the cat, most behavior problems are related to something she needs or forms of insecurity. And just like other animals, to include people, figuring out the cause and an solution can be challenging and sometimes not possible.
So, since power is scientifically defined as the rate of doing work, we should never refer to government power, will power, power point presentations, etc. Right?
You're example is a completely different type of classification and definition--a difference I think you are well aware of is an invalid comparison.
We are discussing a classification of organisms based on mythology and the newer more educated classifications (of the same kind) based on science, the mythology one is inaccurate, wrong and obsolete no matter how badly religious apologist try to assert the obsoletely classification as valid. (and honestly when I read Sarah's two OPs I had to remind myself of the old definition--one that the biosphere would be better off to put behind us)
Last edited by Lynx_Fox; May 30th, 2014 at 08:31 PM.
G-d basically did say that, actually. But it came with responsibility. I often find it odd that religious people, (at least Abrahamic religions,) aren't more environmentalist and have greater belief in aliens, because both would seem to follow. *Shrug*
Anyway, yeah, humans are animals but there is nothing wrong with that. Other social animals are capable of unethical behavior, just as I believe other conscious/sentient animals could be capable of moral/immoral actions.
I am aware of no such thing. The use of the word "animals" to mean non-human animals is very common. It's not obsolete at all, and it is perfectly acceptable in ordinary conversation, when not discussing biology.
Sarah's OP is actually at odds with the traditional Judeo-Christian view which holds that man is above the animals, and only man has a free will and a conscience. It's silly to refer to a cat as evil, in that context.We are discussing a classification of organisms based on mythology and the newer more educated classifications (of the same kind) based on science, the mythology one is inaccurate, wrong and obsolete no matter how badly religious apologist try to assert the obsoletely classification as valid. (and honestly when I read Sarah's two OPs I had to remind myself of the old definition--one that the biosphere would be better off to put behind us)
Is your cat really attacking you or just playing? All of my cats, especially when they are young, liked to hide and ambush me when I came around the corner. I have two cats, they will do this with each other and wrestle around on the floor (sometimes at 2am). I think it keeps them in practice in case they actually do need to stalk something or fight, or maybe it's just fun.
Even the most loving cat will "attack" in some circumstances. My sister's very, very affectionate, not to say annoyingly clingy, cat has some oddities. She hates using a litter tray inside the house, so she prefers go outside to attend to these needs. Unfortunately, she also hates wet weather. She's been known to angrily hit out at sis's legs if she makes the mistake of being near the door when damp cat returns from outdoors, or even when dry cat observes that she'll get wet if she goes outside.
My cat has an evil "meow."
Then I feed her.
Sarah 1234. Your cat has what I call attitude.. A feisty beast is a fun cat.. but beware.. that blood is yours..
The domestic Cat can be a very rewarding pet and they unlike dogs do not look on you as a master.. In the social structure of the cat.. You are tolerated.. just. Where as the dogs social behavior will find you as the pack leader.. Convincing a Cat that it is not in charge.. good luck with that..
Yes, indeed we should. Many (all) religions put humans on some of pedestal that's quite inaccurate and all-to-often forms the justifications for wholesale destruction of our environments. Humans are just animals.
Although I commented I'm finding this difficult to see as a scientific subject beyond the mundane fact that we are biologically animals which makes many religions decidedly wrong.
That's a bit severe. The word "animal" is defined as referring to non-human organisms with intelligence. Religion may teach that all such organisms are "inferior" to a human being, but to say a human is "just an animal" is an oxymoron. How can a human be "just an intelligent organism different from a human"?
Or even if we take the definition of "animal" as meaning a creature inferior to a human, how can a human be inferior to a human? That's like defining X such that X is less than X.
But if you want to devise a practical and useful system of morality - you need to figure out who is going to be the participants in that morality. Most systems of morality only work well "if everybody does it." Most "lower" life forms lack the intelligence necessary to understand that system and play their part in it, so it's not practical to include them.
First of all the cat is a good cat. Second of all, you guys do not speak in a language that I can understand most of the time so I just skim and see what I can pick out that I understand. Thirdly, I am just proposing that animals are also pure as I already think humans are. Probably based on my cat attacking me ONLY when her needs are not met. I do not get if any of u agree that I can say humans and possibly cats are pure based on my example. Can I yes or no? Let's just try to keep this simpler.
Also, God did or didn't say that we have dominion over animals?
In a sense, but that dominion is a responsibility more so than a license to use the environment solely for our benefit. Humans have sentience and a large amount of creative power, so it makes sense to me that G-d would make us stewards of the other life on the planet.
What do you mean by pure? Surely your religion does not tell you that humans are pure. In fact, it says we are all sinners. Science doesn't say humans are pure. Purity as you are using the term is not a scientific concept. You are speaking in a language that nobody but you understands, either from a religious or scientific viewpoint.
This is not science.Also, God did or didn't say that we have dominion over animals?
| « Have the ancient Israelites thought that other gods existed? | are we becoming more kind ? thoughts on evolution » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
4Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
