Q For Darwinists: Are Fish Birds or Dinosaurs?

[Greg1234]

You still don't seem to get it.

Point 1: Humans ARE animals.

From the Darwinist/atheist point of view. Everytime you point that out, the retort is always along the lines of some sentimental reverence on the part of man to distinguish himself from the animal kingdom. But water doesnt want to freeze at 0. Thats just the way it is. And Your perception is still derived solely from your eyes.

 

[DDdreamer]

From the Darwinist/atheist point of view. Everytime you point that out, the retort is always along the lines of some sentimental reverence on the part of man to distinguish himself from the animal kingdom. But water doesnt want to freeze at 0. Thats just the way it is. And Your perception is still derived solely from your eyes.

Darwinist/ Atheist point of wiew? Not really. Atheism has nothing to do with it really. My grandmother is a christian and she still considers humans animals. My acceptance of Evolution doesn't really play into it much either. I thought humans were animals way before we even had basic biology in school. I mean, we eat, breathe, mate, and defecate. Just like other animals. Our bodies shares tons of similarities with other animals. Classifying a human as an animal(albeit a very clever animal) just came natural to me.

Marcus

 

[AV1611VET]

Classifying a human as an animal(albeit a very clever animal) just came natural to me.

Marcus

Why aren't we protected by the SPCA then?

Is a hospital an 'animal clinic'?

I have a feeling that, within the halls of "higher" academia, they tell us one thing; but out on the street, the rhetoric changes.

 

[Greg1234]

Darwinist/ Atheist point of wiew? Not really. Atheism has nothing to do with it really. My grandmother is a christian and she still considers humans animals. My acceptance of Evolution doesn't really play into it much either. I thought humans were animals way before we even had basic biology in school. I mean, we eat, breathe, mate, and defecate. Just like other animals. Our bodies shares tons of similarities with other animals. Classifying a human as an animal(albeit a very clever animal) just came natural to me.

Marcus

Precisely. You just look, and group. Contrary to popular belief, this is actually the primitive swing. Not the other way around. And yes, classifying humans with animals is an atheistic point of view, be it derived from your grandmother, the president, or the pope. No man can change law.

 

[DDdreamer]

Why aren't we protected by the SPCA then?

Well, maybe because there's a difference in taking care of humans(who are very smart, can communicate with other humans etc.) and other animals(who aren't as smart, can't communicate as effectively and rely more on instinct than humans).

It could also be because humans have considered themselves more than other animals for a really long time(some evidently still do). The segregation between humans and other animals might just be result of that. We accept it because it has been part of our culture for a long time.

Is a hospital an 'animal clinic'?

I would say that, technically, it is. It's a clinic that treats a particular type of animal(humans).

[quote
I have a feeling that, within the halls of "higher" academia, they tell us one thing; but out on the street, the rhetoric changes.[/quote]

Well, in some cases I guess that'd be true(like the case with the word "theory"). In this case I think its because humans have considered themselves more than other animals for a really long time(some evidently still do). The segregation between humans and other animals might just be result of that. We accept it because it has been part of our culture for a long time.

Marcus

 

[DDdreamer]

Precisely. You just look, and group. Contrary to popular belief, this is actually the primitive swing.

Sure, grouping stuff together is a primitive reflex. However, with humans sharing so many similarities with other animals and with us having never discovered a sentient being that was not an animal, I think it's only rational to classify humans as animals and not as some other type of being.

And yes, classifying humans with animals is an atheistic point of view,

Classifying humans as animals has nothing to do with either atheism nor theism. As I said, my theistic grandmother classifies humans as animals, how can it then be an atheistic point of view? It's incompatible with a certain theistic point of view. Doesn't make it an atheistic point of view.

be it derived from your grandmother, the president, or the pope. No man can change law.

Well, I didn't derive it from my grandmother. I never met her until I was about 13 years old. She's a non-factor in me thinking this.

Marcus

 

[rockaction]

Precisely. You just look, and group. Contrary to popular belief, this is actually the primitive swing. Not the other way around. And yes, classifying humans with animals is an atheistic point of view, be it derived from your grandmother, the president, or the pope. No man can change law.

Linnaeus, the Father of Taxonomy, an ardent CREATIONIST, classified man as an animal. It's not an "atheistic" or "evilution" conspiracy.

 

[Greg1234]

Sure, grouping stuff together is a primitive reflex. However, with humans sharing so many similarities with other animals and with us having never discovered a sentient being that was not an animal, I think it's only rational to classify humans as animals and not as some other type of being.



Classifying humans as animals has nothing to do with either atheism nor theism. As I said, my theistic grandmother classifies humans as animals, how can it then be an atheistic point of view? It's incompatible with a certain theistic point of view. Doesn't make it an atheistic point of view.


Well, I didn't derive it from my grandmother. I never met her until I was about 13 years old. She's a non-factor in me thinking this.

Marcus

Classifying humans with animals is an atheistic point of view. There's no two ways about it. It is only in compliance with a purely materialistic philosophy, within which life is made to accommodate, does this type of classification suffice. Theism, which goes beyond the material, cannot entertain this outlook as life is distinguished beyond the physical.

I have no problem with your beliefs though. It is in fact a part of atheistic doctrine and culture. The belief that text came from ignorant hominids, the belief that God is primitive, the belief that man is beast, etc, which all stem primarily from the belief that bacteria can turn into men. All this you as an atheist will adhere to. These are your beliefs. Its when you attempt to imbue it unto people in order to escape scrutiny does problem surface.

And you already told me about your grandmother, who still pales in comparison to those who consider themselves "TE".

 

[Greg1234]

Linnaeus, the Father of Taxonomy, an ardent CREATIONIST, classified man as an animal. It's not an "atheistic" or "evilution" conspiracy.

Classification based only on physical traits. Classification based solely on the purely materialistic perception. By definition, atheistic. To bring about a sense of order is fine. To go as far as saying man is beast because xy is of the beast, is atheism.

 

[rockaction]

Classification based only on physical traits. Classification based solely on the purely materialistic perception. By definition, atheistic. To bring about a sense of order is fine. To go as far as saying man is beast because xy is of the beast, is atheism.

Why is so hard to believe that we are of this world? Even in Genesis, we were part of the creation.

 

[Greg1234]

Why is so hard to believe that we are of this world? Even in Genesis, we were part of the creation.

...

These are your beliefs. Its when you attempt to imbue it unto people in order to escape scrutiny does problem surface.

 

[rockaction]

Tool is the most atheistic band out there. You're doing God a disservice by having such blasphemy as your avatar.

 

[DDdreamer]

Classifying humans with animals is an atheistic point of view.

Then please explain how theists like Linnaeus and my granny can hold that posistion. You haven't given a reason why. Saying the same thing over again doesn't change it.

There's no two ways about it. It is only in compliance with a purely materialistic philosophy, within which life is made to accommodate, does this type of classification suffice. Theism, which goes beyond the material, cannot entertain this outlook as life is distinguished beyond the physical.

No, wrong, there are theists who hold this position too, as have been said to you.

I have no problem with your beliefs though. It is in fact a part of atheistic doctrine and culture.

Oh, you're one of those people who thinks that there are atheist doctrine and culture. There isn't. As I said before, there are stuff that does not fit with a certain theist point of view. That doesn't make it an atheist point of view.
There are no "atheist doctrines". What you call "atheist doctrines" seems to just be stuff that doesn't agree with your version of theism. Atheism is the disbelief in gods, that is all.
Neither are there an "atheist culture". You seem to believe that atheism is some sort of religion. You should visit Sweden sometime. See what an atheist-rich country really is like.

The belief that text came from ignorant hominids,
You think that it is impossible for primitive hominids to develop primitive languages? And for those languages to be improved upon?
There are theists who believe this too.

the belief that God is primitive,
I dont believe that god is primitive, I don't believe in a god at all.

the belief that man is beast,
Which has nothing to do with atheism as I have repedeatly stated.

etc, which all stem primarily from the belief that bacteria can turn into men.
No they don't stem from that. Primitive humans developing a primitive language has nothing to do with the origins of life. My non-belief in gods do not stem from a hypothesis on the origins of life. It stems from me never seeing evidence for the existence of gods.
Why I believe that humans are animals, I have already said.

All this you as an atheist will adhere to. These are your beliefs.
I don't believe these because I am an atheist and if they were proven wrong then I'd accept it. I don't dogmatically accept them just cause' I believe these things because people who have studied these things in depth, who knows more about this than I do. Consider them valid.

Its when you attempt to imbue it unto people in order to escape scrutiny does problem surface.
Escape scrutiny? What? the things that you have listed has been scrutinized by people of science. I'm not against scrutiny. Scrutinize all you want. That's the only way to learn whats fact and whats not.

And you already told me about your grandmother, who still pales in comparison to those who consider themselves "TE".

Are you saying that she not a "True Christian™"

Anyway, I have some stuff to do so I'll probably not respond in a while. I will check back on this thread sometime later today. Toodles!
Marcus

 

[Targ]

Even the Bible itself states that humans are no different to animals:

I said in my heart with regard to the children of man that God is testing them that they may see that they themselves are but beasts. For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity. Ecclesiastes 3:18-19

As DDdreamer says, we eat, breathe, mate and defecate. The Bible agrees and says we are all just like beasts, we all breathe in the same way, we all die in the same way. Anatomically, we are only marginally different from apes and like other beasts we have flesh, we grow, we get ill, we die and then we decay.

The difference between man and other animals though, is that only we are capable of perceiving the universe in a higher way and only we can grapple with the concept of a higher being. Only we are capable of understanding mathematics, science and history. Only we have language complex enough that we can communicate effectively with almost any other human on the planet about subjects as vast as astronomy, history, art and electronics. And only humans are capable of practising spirituality. That's how we are different from other animals - apart from these we are no different to other animals.

 

[AV1611VET]

As DDdreamer says, we eat, breathe, mate and defecate. The Bible agrees and says we are all just like beasts, we all breathe in the same way, we all die in the same way.

That's right; and that's where the similarity ends.

Solomon did not say we came from the beasts.

In fact, Solomon, who had apes imported:

1Ki 10:22 For the king had at sea a navy of Tharshish with the navy of Hiram: once in three years came the navy of Tharshish, bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks.

... concluded this:

Ecclesiastes 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

Note how he compares [prescient] evolution to inventions?

I'm sure "higher" academia calls evolution a 'discovery'.

 

[Greg1234]

Then please explain how theists like Linnaeus and my granny can hold that posistion. You haven't given a reason why. Saying the same thing over again doesn't change it.

Classification based only on physical traits. Classification based solely on the purely materialistic perception. By definition, atheistic. To bring about a sense of order is fine. To go as far as saying man is beast because xy is of the beast, is atheism.

No, wrong, there are theists who hold this position too, as have been said to you.

And yes, classifying humans with animals is an atheistic point of view, be it derived from your grandmother, the president, or the pope. No man can change law.

Its not about who holds it, but by definition, in light of what is, what it is classified as. And it is atheistic.

Oh, you're one of those people who thinks that there are atheist doctrine and culture. There isn't. As I said before, there are stuff that does not fit with a certain theist point of view. That doesn't make it an atheist point of view.
There are no "atheist doctrines". What you call "atheist doctrines" seems to just be stuff that doesn't agree with your version of theism. Atheism is the disbelief in gods, that is all.

Actually atheism has its beliefs. You may be to conditioned to realize that now, but the range of beliefs outlined is not fact, but a belief. Drawn from a materialistic perception, held by the atheist and is atheistic. How nice it would be to escape on the "this is the definition of atheism" train enabling you to preach your world view without resistance. They are beliefs. Your beliefs.

Neither are there an "atheist culture". You seem to believe that atheism is some sort of religion. You should visit Sweden sometime. See what an atheist-rich country really is like.

It is.

The belief that text came from ignorant hominids,
You think that it is impossible for primitive hominids to develop primitive languages? And for those languages to be improved upon?
There are theists who believe this too.

Man's dvelopment is sharply contrasted, having being created as intelligent beings rather than developing from beasts. The belief that texts came from ignorant hominids is derived from the belief that bacteria can turn into men.

the belief that God is primitive,
I dont believe that god is primitive, I don't believe in a god at all.

Thats ok. Your ability to believe and not believe is because you were created by God. There is only rebellion. Darwinism persists as a buy out from this basic clause. Its atheism.

the belief that man is beast,
Which has nothing to do with atheism as I have repedeatly stated.

Classification of man as beast is based on a materialistic philosophy and looking at life based solely on the physical. The relinquishing of the non physical aspect, or God, is atheism.

etc, which all stem primarily from the belief that bacteria can turn into men.
No they don't stem from that. Primitive humans developing a primitive language has nothing to do with the origins of life.

It does.

All this you as an atheist will adhere to. These are your beliefs.
I don't believe these because I am an atheist

You are an atheist because you believe them.

Its when you attempt to imbue it unto people in order to escape scrutiny does problem surface.
Escape scrutiny? What? the things that you have listed has been scrutinized by people of science. I'm not against scrutiny. Scrutinize all you want. That's the only way to learn whats fact and whats not.

In progress.

Are you saying that she not a "True Christian™"
Marcus

I'm saying that the belief that man is beast because he looks like beast is atheistic.

 

[Targ]

Ecclesiastes 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

Note how he compares [prescient] evolution to inventions?

I'm sure "higher" academia calls evolution a 'discovery'.

"Inventions" in that passage is used in the sense of "devising schemes" or "crafting evil". It is not connected with inventions such as people sitting down and inventing scientific theories and gadgets.

 

[Targ]

I'm saying that the belief that man is beast because he looks like beast is atheistic.

Well done, you've just labelled a vast proportion of Christians as atheists. You may think that, but repeat it in public and people will just pity you, just like I pity people who insist on viewing evolution as being a purely atheistic belief. Given the demographics of who actually believes these things (i.e. a large proportion of Christianity), nothing could therefore be further from the truth, no matter how much you may want it to be.

 

[Greg1234]

Even the Bible itself states that humans are no different to animals:

The quote is talking about death. For a discernment in relation to the topic at hand refer to Genesis 1.

As DDdreamer says, we eat, breathe, mate and defecate. The Bible agrees and says we are all just like beasts, we all breathe in the same way, we all die in the same way. Anatomically, we are only marginally different from apes and like other beasts we have flesh, we grow, we get ill, we die and then we decay.

The difference between man and other animals though,

Is beyond the material. Reality does not exist only the physical. Life follows. If only religion were as simple as the atheist wanted it to be. But then it has to be, seeing [it is believed] that it came from menbeasts who were inferior. It had to come from them seeing that [it is believed] bacteria gave rise to man. The circle of atheism.

 

[Greg1234]

Well done, you've just labelled a vast proportion of Christians as atheists. You may think that, but repeat it in public and people will just pity you, just like I pity people who insist on viewing evolution as being a purely atheistic belief. Given the demographics of who actually believes these things (i.e. a large proportion of Christianity), nothing could therefore be further from the truth, no matter how much you may want it to be.

Darwinism is atheism. There's no question about that. Its not about who accepts what. Its not science, but a belief. A belief which is accommodated by an atheistic philosophy.