[Abood]

Efficient bipedalism. This is the only clear distinction between humans and other animals. I would say language but I don't think we can rule out the existence of animal languages in some other species.

The title of this thread is misleading. Yes, there are things that separates humans from non-human animals, but they don't necessarily make us superior.

assuming we can get off this planet in the next several billion years, the only thing that could trully end humanity would be the slow dissolution of the universe.

Are you saying we'll have enough time to colonize the entire universe? How would that even work, considering the universe expands infinitely. We'd have to be able to colonize it faster than it expands. And are you saying that humanity would develop such mobility that it'd jump from one planet to another whenever a planet it has colonized reaches the end point of its life cycle? Because all celestial bodies have a life cycle, and the universe as a whole remains intact when their lives come to an end.

We're not as insignificant as you wish we were.

Do you actually think I wish we're insignificant, or is that some sort of rhetorical device to trigger a reaction? Because I don't think anyone wishes to be a nihilist, it's just that we can't find any meaning or significance to our existence. Being a nihilist comes with a lot of depression and a constant struggle to find reason to live. I wish every day to find a reason to stop being a nihilist, but I'm not capable of deceiving myself.

[Figlio di Moros]

Are you saying we'll have enough time to colonize the entire universe? How would that even work, considering the universe expands infinitely. We'd have to be able to colonize it faster than it expands. And are you saying that humanity would develop such mobility that it'd jump from one planet to another whenever a planet it has colonized reaches the end point of its life cycle? Because all celestial bodies have a life cycle, and the universe as a whole remains intact when their lives come to an end.

Who knows? We're still a young species with a rather finite understanding of the universe, which I'm sure will continue to grow exponentially as mankind matures. Perhaps we'll never reach the speed of light, perhaps when we discover more about the universe we'll find a means of bypassing it. The point is, this nihilism is simply a pessimistic view of the unkown.

Do you actually think I wish we're insignificant, or is that some sort of rhetorical device to trigger a reaction?

I'm sure you're familar with the concept of the memeplex; you wouldn't believe that man is insignificant unless it already fit your world view. What I've seen on this site is that you're a largely miserable and pessimistic personality, and it only fits that you'd project your own sense of being onto the world.

Because I don't think anyone wishes to be a nihilist, it's just that we can't find any meaning or significance to our existence. Being a nihilist comes with a lot of depression and a constant struggle to find reason to live. I wish every day to find a reason to stop being a nihilist, but I'm not capable of deceiving myself.

You seem to confuse cause and effect; again, it fits your memeplex. If you trully wanted a reason to live, watch some hockey, eat some poutine, get drunk and fuck barflies.

[DanDaMan]

What Separates Animals From Humans?

We like them with mustard.

[ninurta]

While by the definition used (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.) we are just a different animal, like every other species.

Though we are apart from animals, because each species that can see and know itself, sees things in a selfcentric manner, where it's species (if its a group animal) or itself is different from the rest and more important. Though beyond blind anthropocentricism, we are just another animal.

We are better though, and are at the top, simply because:
- We are one of the most efficient and best long distance runners on the planet (not kidding, even better than Cheetahs and your housepets (regardless of what it is, unless its a kangaroo)).
- We have one of the best means of communication, complex enough to get large amounts of info acrossed from one human being to another
- the above coupled with our tool use alone makes us thee best hunters on the planet, though we hardly survive on that
- the use of tools to adapt our enviroment to suit us, and to make technological advancements, with the above, simply makes us greater than anything that came before on this planet.

Aside from that, we're at the top, that's what sets us apart from the rest, there isn't anything higher.

[Le Rouge]

We like them with mustard.

And some of them like us rare with no sides.

The title of this thread is misleading. Yes, there are things that separates humans from non-human animals, but they don't necessarily make us superior.

I agree. The divisions between us and animals is nonsense. We are simply animals with a highly developed ability for social learning.

[Figlio di Moros]

I agree. The divisions between us and animals is nonsense. We are simply animals with a highly developed ability for social learning.

This is minimizing the impact of this difference; like I said earlier, sapience allows us to exist on a wholly different plane of existance from animals. They can't contemplate their existance, create art, design buildings or utilyze petroleum. The division between us and animals are perfectly understandable considering the implications of this.

[Le Rouge]

Again, I agree. But the difference between man and animals being something spiritual or mystical is hogwash. Most of our distinctions from animals--art, religion, science, technology, etc.--derive from our highly-developed sense of social learning. That is the real distinction.

[Abood]

I'm sure you're familar with the concept of the memeplex; you wouldn't believe that man is insignificant unless it already fit your world view.

You're the one confusing cause and effect. I shape my worldview to make it fit my interpretation of reality, not the other way around.

If you trully wanted a reason to live, watch some hockey, eat some poutine, get drunk and fuck barflies.

I'm talking about a metaphysical reason to live, obviously. Humanity's attempts at creating worldly meanings for existence does nothing but show that there's no other reason to live. We only seek to enjoy life because we know it's all we've got. Religious people don't seek to enjoy life, they seek to suffer, as they believe suffering is a virtue that'll lead them to Heaven or whatever other meaning for existence they have.

The point is, this nihilism is simply a pessimistic view of the unkown.

Even if we were cosmically significant, how does that give us a metaphysical reason to live? Seems just a constructed, worldly meaning, and an expression of frustration and existential anxiety, as if by taking over the universe we'd be forcing it to give us meaning.

This is minimizing the impact of this difference; like I said earlier, sapience allows us to exist on a wholly different plane of existance from animals. They can't contemplate their existance, create art, design buildings or utilyze petroleum. The division between us and animals are perfectly understandable considering the implications of this.

No one is disagreeing that humans are different from animals. What we're disputing is that they're somehow "superior", which by itself is a very ambiguous term.

[Zyx]

Not sure where you got this...but it didn't come from the bible...

That's Lucifer's stand. It's why "hell" is said to exist. Demons are fallen angels, remember?

One day, the universe will tell us, begone, and all of our existence and history will disappear without a trace. We're cosmically irrelevant.

This is very true.

[Godstud]

One day we will RULE the universe as we slowly discover and then unravel all the secrets around us. This will certainly be a considerable distance in the future, but we'll do it eventually. Humans aren't going anywhere.

[Nattering Nabob]

That's Lucifer's stand. It's why "hell" is said to exist. Demons are fallen angels, remember?

I don't understand how this answer explains your claim that "The Christian god tells us that even the angels should bow to man"...

[Zyx]

I don't understand how this answer explains your claim that "The Christian god tells us that even the angels should bow to man"...

This is over what the angel rebellion was fought. The angels were ordered to bow to men, but Satan, refusing, lead some angels against the Christian god. A war was fought and the angels who lost became demons and were cast to Hell where Satan rules.

[Verv]

First, I want Abood to tell us why the coming of humanity was 'inevitable.'

Second, Le Rouge has a good, new signature. Good job, Le Rouge.

Third, I agree with a lot of what Fig is saying.

[Nattering Nabob]

The angels were ordered to bow to men

From what source did you get this about the angels bowing or being ordered to bow to men?

I've never see a reference to this...

[Godstud]

Figlio's answer seems the best, so far.

[ninurta]

This is over what the angel rebellion was fought. The angels were ordered to bow to men, but Satan, refusing, lead some angels against the Christian god. A war was fought and the angels who lost became demons and were cast to Hell where Satan rules.

Why does judeo-christian mythology smell alot like mesopotamian mythology?

When Nergal was supposed to bow before the person sent to a party for Ereshkigal and didnt, he was sent to Kur/Irkalla (hebrew sheol, not really analougous to hell though) and ended up living there and being its ruler.

[Jackal]

Mankind was made in the image of God. Animals and plants where made from the imagination of God.

[Vera Politica]

Humans communicate with each other using a language sufficiently complex to allow abstract symbolic thought.

That is all.

I also think this is the definitive answer to this thread.

The use of language, especially formal language, is the most indicative distinction between human and animals: formal logic, mathematics, physics, biology, etc. The fact that human beings can create a formal syntax for abstract languages (like logic or mathematics) shows a quantum leap between humans and animals. The difference between humans and animals is so evident I am not sure, outside of liberalism and environmental philosophy, why it is even an issue.

The reduction of humans to animals is idealized in hedonism, behaviorism and utilitarian approaches to human interactions and socialization.

[Abood]

Verv, the exact reasoning escapes me, but it's related to the vastness of the universe, the number of planets that have the conditions necessary for life, etc., etc., to the smallest detail. Richard Dawkins does a good job of explaining it in The God Delusion.

Asking why we're here the way we are is problematic. The fact is, if we didn't evolve to be the way we are, we wouldn't even be asking these questions in the first place -- it is sentience itself that makes us ask such questions. Non-human animals can't ask why they're the way they are, why they're not sentient.

[ninurta]

Mankind was made in the image of God. Animals and plants where made from the imagination of God.

Umm....God was made in the image of mankind, while mankind was reflecting upon what God might look like if they were able to see him.

Whether or not there is one or not, or a creator of anything, thats another issue.

Another thing that seperates animals from humans, humans spend way too much time thinking about fantasies of what they wish to be (the divine and an afterlife).