Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Can a Christian be an animal rights advocate?

Stupidape
Posts: 171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 9:30:13 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
I read somewhere that the two are mutually exclusive because God's will is that humans are superior to animals. By giving animals rights we are in contradiction of God's will.

http://www.opposingviews.com...
David_Debates
Posts: 243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 11:03:34 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/3/2016 9:30:13 AM, Stupidape wrote:
I read somewhere that the two are mutually exclusive because God's will is that humans are superior to animals. By giving animals rights we are in contradiction of God's will.

http://www.opposingviews.com...

I am not a supporter of animal rights in any way, and I am still a Catholic. A simple syllogism shows this:
a) Animals are not humans.
b) Things that are not humans are not given rights.
c) Therefore, animals are not given rights.
Simple enough.
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 11:13:26 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/3/2016 11:03:34 AM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 9:30:13 AM, Stupidape wrote:
I read somewhere that the two are mutually exclusive because God's will is that humans are superior to animals. By giving animals rights we are in contradiction of God's will.

http://www.opposingviews.com...

I am not a supporter of animal rights in any way, and I am still a Catholic. A simple syllogism shows this:
a) Animals are not humans.
b) Things that are not humans are not given rights.
c) Therefore, animals are not given rights.
Simple enough.

Who is it that bestows rights?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
David_Debates
Posts: 243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 11:14:10 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/3/2016 11:13:26 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/3/2016 11:03:34 AM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 9:30:13 AM, Stupidape wrote:
I read somewhere that the two are mutually exclusive because God's will is that humans are superior to animals. By giving animals rights we are in contradiction of God's will.

http://www.opposingviews.com...

I am not a supporter of animal rights in any way, and I am still a Catholic. A simple syllogism shows this:
a) Animals are not humans.
b) Things that are not humans are not given rights.
c) Therefore, animals are not given rights.
Simple enough.

Who is it that bestows rights?

God.
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 11:33:08 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/3/2016 11:14:10 AM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 11:13:26 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/3/2016 11:03:34 AM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 9:30:13 AM, Stupidape wrote:
I read somewhere that the two are mutually exclusive because God's will is that humans are superior to animals. By giving animals rights we are in contradiction of God's will.

http://www.opposingviews.com...

I am not a supporter of animal rights in any way, and I am still a Catholic. A simple syllogism shows this:
a) Animals are not humans.
b) Things that are not humans are not given rights.
c) Therefore, animals are not given rights.
Simple enough.

Who is it that bestows rights?

God.
Why do we always come back to your inability to provide evidence that your claim that gods exist is a true claim?
Because what you are actually saying is that your imaginary friend bestows rights on real people and animals, I suppose trees and plants as well.
Your imaginary friend has no authority other than that you bestow on it in your imagination, nothing in the real world relates to your imagination.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 12:07:22 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/3/2016 11:03:34 AM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 9:30:13 AM, Stupidape wrote:
I read somewhere that the two are mutually exclusive because God's will is that humans are superior to animals. By giving animals rights we are in contradiction of God's will.

http://www.opposingviews.com...

I am not a supporter of animal rights in any way, and I am still a Catholic. A simple syllogism shows this:
a) Animals are not humans.
b) Things that are not humans are not given rights.
c) Therefore, animals are not given rights.
Simple enough.

Humans ARE animals.
David_Debates
Posts: 243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 7:58:32 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/3/2016 11:33:08 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/3/2016 11:14:10 AM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 11:13:26 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/3/2016 11:03:34 AM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 9:30:13 AM, Stupidape wrote:
I read somewhere that the two are mutually exclusive because God's will is that humans are superior to animals. By giving animals rights we are in contradiction of God's will.

http://www.opposingviews.com...

I am not a supporter of animal rights in any way, and I am still a Catholic. A simple syllogism shows this:
a) Animals are not humans.
b) Things that are not humans are not given rights.
c) Therefore, animals are not given rights.
Simple enough.

Who is it that bestows rights?

God.
Why do we always come back to your inability to provide evidence that your claim that gods exist is a true claim?

Oh, I have the ability. Just don't want to waste my time attempting to convince you. You would simply dismiss my claims without analysing them first.

Because what you are actually saying is that your imaginary friend bestows rights on real people and animals, I suppose trees and plants as well.

Have you read my argument? It gives rights to humans, as they are made in the image of God. My argument is as follows:
a) Things that are made in the image of God (humans) are given rights.
b) Animals are not things made in the image of God.
c) Therefore, animals are not given rights.

Your imaginary friend has no authority other than that you bestow on it in your imagination, nothing in the real world relates to your imagination.

He is not an imaginary friend, but I have already tried convincing you on this site. Your simple retort is that of "yeah, right." It is pointless attempting to convince you of the existence of a God. You will dismiss my evidence without considering its merit.
David_Debates
Posts: 243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 7:59:21 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/3/2016 12:07:22 PM, desmac wrote:
At 8/3/2016 11:03:34 AM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 9:30:13 AM, Stupidape wrote:
I read somewhere that the two are mutually exclusive because God's will is that humans are superior to animals. By giving animals rights we are in contradiction of God's will.

http://www.opposingviews.com...

I am not a supporter of animal rights in any way, and I am still a Catholic. A simple syllogism shows this:
a) Animals are not humans.
b) Things that are not humans are not given rights.
c) Therefore, animals are not given rights.
Simple enough.

Humans ARE animals.

I'm assuming you are a believer in Darwinism, then.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 8:04:45 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/3/2016 7:59:21 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 12:07:22 PM, desmac wrote:
Humans ARE animals.

I'm assuming you are a believer in Darwinism, then.

FYI - Darwinism isn't the source of that statement; general biology is.
David_Debates
Posts: 243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 8:09:50 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/3/2016 8:04:45 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/3/2016 7:59:21 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 12:07:22 PM, desmac wrote:
Humans ARE animals.

I'm assuming you are a believer in Darwinism, then.

FYI - Darwinism isn't the source of that statement; general biology is.

Biology based upon the roots of Darwinism, yes. That we all originated from the same organism, and that all life forms are related.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 8:23:13 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/3/2016 8:09:50 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 8:04:45 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/3/2016 7:59:21 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 12:07:22 PM, desmac wrote:
Humans ARE animals.

I'm assuming you are a believer in Darwinism, then.

FYI - Darwinism isn't the source of that statement; general biology is.

Biology based upon the roots of Darwinism, yes. That we all originated from the same organism, and that all life forms are related.

No, the biological classifications of objectively identifiable characteristics is the basis for humans qualifying for the definition of "animal", regardless of the ToE. Any distinction between humans and animals regards a different usage. Even the basic Oxford definition qualifies us:

animal : a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.
David_Debates
Posts: 243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2016 8:14:01 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/3/2016 8:23:13 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/3/2016 8:09:50 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 8:04:45 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/3/2016 7:59:21 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 12:07:22 PM, desmac wrote:
Humans ARE animals.

I'm assuming you are a believer in Darwinism, then.

FYI - Darwinism isn't the source of that statement; general biology is.

Biology based upon the roots of Darwinism, yes. That we all originated from the same organism, and that all life forms are related.

No, the biological classifications of objectively identifiable characteristics is the basis for humans qualifying for the definition of "animal", regardless of the ToE. Any distinction between humans and animals regards a different usage. Even the basic Oxford definition qualifies us:

animal : a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

Have you heard of the Porphyian tree?
It states that there are 5 levels of existence, so to speak. It's difficult to explain, but I'll try my best. I'll link a photo for reference though.
The first level of existence is substance. If something is substantive, it exists. The second level is that it has a body (it is made of material). If something has a body, it is both substantive and exists. The third level is that it has life. If something has life, it has a body, is substantive, and exists. The fourth level is that it is an animal, and the final level is that it is a human.

So to answer your question, yes, humans are technically animals, but no animal could be considered as human.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2016 12:18:36 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/4/2016 8:14:01 AM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 8:23:13 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/3/2016 8:09:50 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 8:04:45 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/3/2016 7:59:21 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 12:07:22 PM, desmac wrote:
Humans ARE animals.

I'm assuming you are a believer in Darwinism, then.

FYI - Darwinism isn't the source of that statement; general biology is.

Biology based upon the roots of Darwinism, yes. That we all originated from the same organism, and that all life forms are related.

No, the biological classifications of objectively identifiable characteristics is the basis for humans qualifying for the definition of "animal", regardless of the ToE. Any distinction between humans and animals regards a different usage. Even the basic Oxford definition qualifies us:

animal : a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

Have you heard of the Porphyian tree?
It states that there are 5 levels of existence, so to speak. It's difficult to explain, but I'll try my best. I'll link a photo for reference though.
The first level of existence is substance. If something is substantive, it exists. The second level is that it has a body (it is made of material). If something has a body, it is both substantive and exists. The third level is that it has life. If something has life, it has a body, is substantive, and exists. The fourth level is that it is an animal, and the final level is that it is a human.

Nope, never heard of that. The diagram in your following post helps explain it.

So to answer your question, yes, humans are technically animals, but no animal could be considered as human.

I would definitely agree that while all humans are technically animals, not all animals are humans. We often use that word informally to contrast between what's human and not.
David_Debates
Posts: 243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 7:12:08 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/4/2016 12:18:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/4/2016 8:14:01 AM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 8:23:13 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/3/2016 8:09:50 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 8:04:45 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/3/2016 7:59:21 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 12:07:22 PM, desmac wrote:
Humans ARE animals.

I'm assuming you are a believer in Darwinism, then.

FYI - Darwinism isn't the source of that statement; general biology is.

Biology based upon the roots of Darwinism, yes. That we all originated from the same organism, and that all life forms are related.

No, the biological classifications of objectively identifiable characteristics is the basis for humans qualifying for the definition of "animal", regardless of the ToE. Any distinction between humans and animals regards a different usage. Even the basic Oxford definition qualifies us:

animal : a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

Have you heard of the Porphyian tree?
It states that there are 5 levels of existence, so to speak. It's difficult to explain, but I'll try my best. I'll link a photo for reference though.
The first level of existence is substance. If something is substantive, it exists. The second level is that it has a body (it is made of material). If something has a body, it is both substantive and exists. The third level is that it has life. If something has life, it has a body, is substantive, and exists. The fourth level is that it is an animal, and the final level is that it is a human.

Nope, never heard of that. The diagram in your following post helps explain it.

So to answer your question, yes, humans are technically animals, but no animal could be considered as human.

I would definitely agree that while all humans are technically animals, not all animals are humans. We often use that word informally to contrast between what's human and not.

So, can we treat a non-human animal (say, a dog) the same way as a human?
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 7:17:50 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/4/2016 8:14:01 AM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 8:23:13 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/3/2016 8:09:50 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 8:04:45 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/3/2016 7:59:21 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 12:07:22 PM, desmac wrote:
Humans ARE animals.

I'm assuming you are a believer in Darwinism, then.

FYI - Darwinism isn't the source of that statement; general biology is.

Biology based upon the roots of Darwinism, yes. That we all originated from the same organism, and that all life forms are related.

No, the biological classifications of objectively identifiable characteristics is the basis for humans qualifying for the definition of "animal", regardless of the ToE. Any distinction between humans and animals regards a different usage. Even the basic Oxford definition qualifies us:

animal : a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

Have you heard of the Porphyian tree?
It states that there are 5 levels of existence, so to speak. It's difficult to explain, but I'll try my best. I'll link a photo for reference though.
The first level of existence is substance. If something is substantive, it exists. The second level is that it has a body (it is made of material). If something has a body, it is both substantive and exists. The third level is that it has life. If something has life, it has a body, is substantive, and exists. The fourth level is that it is an animal, and the final level is that it is a human.
That sort of blows your invisible friend's existence out the window.
So to answer your question, yes, humans are technically animals, but no animal could be considered as human.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
David_Debates
Posts: 243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 7:20:52 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 7:17:50 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/4/2016 8:14:01 AM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 8:23:13 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/3/2016 8:09:50 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 8:04:45 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/3/2016 7:59:21 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 12:07:22 PM, desmac wrote:
Humans ARE animals.

I'm assuming you are a believer in Darwinism, then.

FYI - Darwinism isn't the source of that statement; general biology is.

Biology based upon the roots of Darwinism, yes. That we all originated from the same organism, and that all life forms are related.

No, the biological classifications of objectively identifiable characteristics is the basis for humans qualifying for the definition of "animal", regardless of the ToE. Any distinction between humans and animals regards a different usage. Even the basic Oxford definition qualifies us:

animal : a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

Have you heard of the Porphyian tree?
It states that there are 5 levels of existence, so to speak. It's difficult to explain, but I'll try my best. I'll link a photo for reference though.
The first level of existence is substance. If something is substantive, it exists. The second level is that it has a body (it is made of material). If something has a body, it is both substantive and exists. The third level is that it has life. If something has life, it has a body, is substantive, and exists. The fourth level is that it is an animal, and the final level is that it is a human.
That sort of blows your invisible friend's existence out the window.

Substantive things exist. He does not have a physical body, though. Did you read my post/examine the photo?
Plus, this isn't what we are discussing now. We are attempting to see if we can treat humans the same way as non-human animals. What do you think? Can we treat my neighbor the same way as his dog?

So to answer your question, yes, humans are technically animals, but no animal could be considered as human.
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 7:26:30 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 7:20:52 AM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/5/2016 7:17:50 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/4/2016 8:14:01 AM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 8:23:13 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/3/2016 8:09:50 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 8:04:45 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/3/2016 7:59:21 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 12:07:22 PM, desmac wrote:
Humans ARE animals.

I'm assuming you are a believer in Darwinism, then.

FYI - Darwinism isn't the source of that statement; general biology is.

Biology based upon the roots of Darwinism, yes. That we all originated from the same organism, and that all life forms are related.

No, the biological classifications of objectively identifiable characteristics is the basis for humans qualifying for the definition of "animal", regardless of the ToE. Any distinction between humans and animals regards a different usage. Even the basic Oxford definition qualifies us:

animal : a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

Have you heard of the Porphyian tree?
It states that there are 5 levels of existence, so to speak. It's difficult to explain, but I'll try my best. I'll link a photo for reference though.
The first level of existence is substance. If something is substantive, it exists. The second level is that it has a body (it is made of material). If something has a body, it is both substantive and exists. The third level is that it has life. If something has life, it has a body, is substantive, and exists. The fourth level is that it is an animal, and the final level is that it is a human.
That sort of blows your invisible friend's existence out the window.

Substantive things exist. He does not have a physical body, though. Did you read my post/examine the photo?
Plus, this isn't what we are discussing now. We are attempting to see if we can treat humans the same way as non-human animals. What do you think? Can we treat my neighbor the same way as his dog?

So to answer your question, yes, humans are technically animals, but no animal could be considered as human.
Your claim is that you can't because your unsubstantive god doesn't give them rights and your tree proves that your god doesn't actually exist. So do you have another reason for treating animals differently?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
David_Debates
Posts: 243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 8:16:18 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 7:26:30 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/5/2016 7:20:52 AM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/5/2016 7:17:50 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/4/2016 8:14:01 AM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 8:23:13 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/3/2016 8:09:50 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 8:04:45 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/3/2016 7:59:21 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 12:07:22 PM, desmac wrote:
Humans ARE animals.

I'm assuming you are a believer in Darwinism, then.

FYI - Darwinism isn't the source of that statement; general biology is.

Biology based upon the roots of Darwinism, yes. That we all originated from the same organism, and that all life forms are related.

No, the biological classifications of objectively identifiable characteristics is the basis for humans qualifying for the definition of "animal", regardless of the ToE. Any distinction between humans and animals regards a different usage. Even the basic Oxford definition qualifies us:

animal : a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

Have you heard of the Porphyian tree?
It states that there are 5 levels of existence, so to speak. It's difficult to explain, but I'll try my best. I'll link a photo for reference though.
The first level of existence is substance. If something is substantive, it exists. The second level is that it has a body (it is made of material). If something has a body, it is both substantive and exists. The third level is that it has life. If something has life, it has a body, is substantive, and exists. The fourth level is that it is an animal, and the final level is that it is a human.
That sort of blows your invisible friend's existence out the window.

Substantive things exist. He does not have a physical body, though. Did you read my post/examine the photo?
Plus, this isn't what we are discussing now. We are attempting to see if we can treat humans the same way as non-human animals. What do you think? Can we treat my neighbor the same way as his dog?

So to answer your question, yes, humans are technically animals, but no animal could be considered as human.
Your claim is that you can't because your unsubstantive god doesn't give them rights and your tree proves that your god doesn't actually exist. So do you have another reason for treating animals differently?

My tree states that anything substantive exists. The definition of substantive is having a separate and independent existence. It not being material doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
I gave you my two reasons right there:
1) God gave humans rights, not animals.
2) The Porphyian tree shows that we can't treat humans the same way as animals.
So, could you answer my previous question? Can we treat my neighbor the same way as his dog?
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 9:21:02 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 8:16:18 AM, David_Debates wrote:
My tree states that anything substantive exists. The definition of substantive is having a separate and independent existence
And nobody has ever been able to show that your god is independent of your imagination.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 9:27:25 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 8:16:18 AM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/5/2016 7:26:30 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/5/2016 7:20:52 AM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/5/2016 7:17:50 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/4/2016 8:14:01 AM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 8:23:13 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/3/2016 8:09:50 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 8:04:45 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/3/2016 7:59:21 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 12:07:22 PM, desmac wrote:
Humans ARE animals.

I'm assuming you are a believer in Darwinism, then.

FYI - Darwinism isn't the source of that statement; general biology is.

Biology based upon the roots of Darwinism, yes. That we all originated from the same organism, and that all life forms are related.

No, the biological classifications of objectively identifiable characteristics is the basis for humans qualifying for the definition of "animal", regardless of the ToE. Any distinction between humans and animals regards a different usage. Even the basic Oxford definition qualifies us:

animal : a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

Have you heard of the Porphyian tree?
It states that there are 5 levels of existence, so to speak. It's difficult to explain, but I'll try my best. I'll link a photo for reference though.
The first level of existence is substance. If something is substantive, it exists. The second level is that it has a body (it is made of material). If something has a body, it is both substantive and exists. The third level is that it has life. If something has life, it has a body, is substantive, and exists. The fourth level is that it is an animal, and the final level is that it is a human.
That sort of blows your invisible friend's existence out the window.

Substantive things exist. He does not have a physical body, though. Did you read my post/examine the photo?
Plus, this isn't what we are discussing now. We are attempting to see if we can treat humans the same way as non-human animals. What do you think? Can we treat my neighbor the same way as his dog?

So to answer your question, yes, humans are technically animals, but no animal could be considered as human.
Your claim is that you can't because your unsubstantive god doesn't give them rights and your tree proves that your god doesn't actually exist. So do you have another reason for treating animals differently?

My tree states that anything substantive exists. The definition of substantive is having a separate and independent existence. It not being material doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
I gave you my two reasons right there:
1) God gave humans rights, not animals.
2) The Porphyian tree shows that we can't treat humans the same way as animals.
So, could you answer my previous question? Can we treat my neighbor the same way as his dog?

My tree keeps getting peed on by my neighbour's dog. Can I morally shoot him?
David_Debates
Posts: 243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 9:32:10 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 9:27:25 AM, desmac wrote:
At 8/5/2016 8:16:18 AM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/5/2016 7:26:30 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/5/2016 7:20:52 AM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/5/2016 7:17:50 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/4/2016 8:14:01 AM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 8:23:13 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/3/2016 8:09:50 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 8:04:45 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/3/2016 7:59:21 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 12:07:22 PM, desmac wrote:
Humans ARE animals.

I'm assuming you are a believer in Darwinism, then.

FYI - Darwinism isn't the source of that statement; general biology is.

Biology based upon the roots of Darwinism, yes. That we all originated from the same organism, and that all life forms are related.

No, the biological classifications of objectively identifiable characteristics is the basis for humans qualifying for the definition of "animal", regardless of the ToE. Any distinction between humans and animals regards a different usage. Even the basic Oxford definition qualifies us:

animal : a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

Have you heard of the Porphyian tree?
It states that there are 5 levels of existence, so to speak. It's difficult to explain, but I'll try my best. I'll link a photo for reference though.
The first level of existence is substance. If something is substantive, it exists. The second level is that it has a body (it is made of material). If something has a body, it is both substantive and exists. The third level is that it has life. If something has life, it has a body, is substantive, and exists. The fourth level is that it is an animal, and the final level is that it is a human.
That sort of blows your invisible friend's existence out the window.

Substantive things exist. He does not have a physical body, though. Did you read my post/examine the photo?
Plus, this isn't what we are discussing now. We are attempting to see if we can treat humans the same way as non-human animals. What do you think? Can we treat my neighbor the same way as his dog?

So to answer your question, yes, humans are technically animals, but no animal could be considered as human.
Your claim is that you can't because your unsubstantive god doesn't give them rights and your tree proves that your god doesn't actually exist. So do you have another reason for treating animals differently?

My tree states that anything substantive exists. The definition of substantive is having a separate and independent existence. It not being material doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
I gave you my two reasons right there:
1) God gave humans rights, not animals.
2) The Porphyian tree shows that we can't treat humans the same way as animals.
So, could you answer my previous question? Can we treat my neighbor the same way as his dog?

My tree keeps getting peed on by my neighbour's dog. Can I morally shoot him?

No. The dog is your neighbour's. It's his property, and destroying his property is not moral. Does that make sense?
David_Debates
Posts: 243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 9:34:07 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 9:21:02 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/5/2016 8:16:18 AM, David_Debates wrote:
My tree states that anything substantive exists. The definition of substantive is having a separate and independent existence
And nobody has ever been able to show that your god is independent of your imagination.

You are straying farther and farther away from the point of this thread. The topic is:
Can a Christian be an animal rights advocate?
Find another thread, and message me it's name. I'll talk to you more there.
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 9:46:53 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 9:32:10 AM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/5/2016 9:27:25 AM, desmac wrote:
At 8/5/2016 8:16:18 AM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/5/2016 7:26:30 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/5/2016 7:20:52 AM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/5/2016 7:17:50 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/4/2016 8:14:01 AM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 8:23:13 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/3/2016 8:09:50 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 8:04:45 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/3/2016 7:59:21 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 12:07:22 PM, desmac wrote:
Humans ARE animals.

I'm assuming you are a believer in Darwinism, then.

FYI - Darwinism isn't the source of that statement; general biology is.

Biology based upon the roots of Darwinism, yes. That we all originated from the same organism, and that all life forms are related.

No, the biological classifications of objectively identifiable characteristics is the basis for humans qualifying for the definition of "animal", regardless of the ToE. Any distinction between humans and animals regards a different usage. Even the basic Oxford definition qualifies us:

animal : a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

Have you heard of the Porphyian tree?
It states that there are 5 levels of existence, so to speak. It's difficult to explain, but I'll try my best. I'll link a photo for reference though.
The first level of existence is substance. If something is substantive, it exists. The second level is that it has a body (it is made of material). If something has a body, it is both substantive and exists. The third level is that it has life. If something has life, it has a body, is substantive, and exists. The fourth level is that it is an animal, and the final level is that it is a human.
That sort of blows your invisible friend's existence out the window.

Substantive things exist. He does not have a physical body, though. Did you read my post/examine the photo?
Plus, this isn't what we are discussing now. We are attempting to see if we can treat humans the same way as non-human animals. What do you think? Can we treat my neighbor the same way as his dog?

So to answer your question, yes, humans are technically animals, but no animal could be considered as human.
Your claim is that you can't because your unsubstantive god doesn't give them rights and your tree proves that your god doesn't actually exist. So do you have another reason for treating animals differently?

My tree states that anything substantive exists. The definition of substantive is having a separate and independent existence. It not being material doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
I gave you my two reasons right there:
1) God gave humans rights, not animals.
2) The Porphyian tree shows that we can't treat humans the same way as animals.
So, could you answer my previous question? Can we treat my neighbor the same way as his dog?

My tree keeps getting peed on by my neighbour's dog. Can I morally shoot him?

No. The dog is your neighbour's. It's his property, and destroying his property is not moral. Does that make sense?
So it has nothing to do with the rights your imaginary friend bestows, you haven't recanted that yet. Do you intend to?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 10:12:57 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 9:32:10 AM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/5/2016 9:27:25 AM, desmac wrote:
At 8/5/2016 8:16:18 AM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/5/2016 7:26:30 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/5/2016 7:20:52 AM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/5/2016 7:17:50 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/4/2016 8:14:01 AM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 8:23:13 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/3/2016 8:09:50 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 8:04:45 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/3/2016 7:59:21 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 12:07:22 PM, desmac wrote:
Humans ARE animals.

I'm assuming you are a believer in Darwinism, then.

FYI - Darwinism isn't the source of that statement; general biology is.

Biology based upon the roots of Darwinism, yes. That we all originated from the same organism, and that all life forms are related.

No, the biological classifications of objectively identifiable characteristics is the basis for humans qualifying for the definition of "animal", regardless of the ToE. Any distinction between humans and animals regards a different usage. Even the basic Oxford definition qualifies us:

animal : a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

Have you heard of the Porphyian tree?
It states that there are 5 levels of existence, so to speak. It's difficult to explain, but I'll try my best. I'll link a photo for reference though.
The first level of existence is substance. If something is substantive, it exists. The second level is that it has a body (it is made of material). If something has a body, it is both substantive and exists. The third level is that it has life. If something has life, it has a body, is substantive, and exists. The fourth level is that it is an animal, and the final level is that it is a human.
That sort of blows your invisible friend's existence out the window.

Substantive things exist. He does not have a physical body, though. Did you read my post/examine the photo?
Plus, this isn't what we are discussing now. We are attempting to see if we can treat humans the same way as non-human animals. What do you think? Can we treat my neighbor the same way as his dog?

So to answer your question, yes, humans are technically animals, but no animal could be considered as human.
Your claim is that you can't because your unsubstantive god doesn't give them rights and your tree proves that your god doesn't actually exist. So do you have another reason for treating animals differently?

My tree states that anything substantive exists. The definition of substantive is having a separate and independent existence. It not being material doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
I gave you my two reasons right there:
1) God gave humans rights, not animals.
2) The Porphyian tree shows that we can't treat humans the same way as animals.
So, could you answer my previous question? Can we treat my neighbor the same way as his dog?

My tree keeps getting peed on by my neighbour's dog. Can I morally shoot him?

No. The dog is your neighbour's. It's his property, and destroying his property is not moral. Does that make sense?

I meant the neighbour.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 12:01:35 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/5/2016 7:12:08 AM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/4/2016 12:18:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/4/2016 8:14:01 AM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 8:23:13 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/3/2016 8:09:50 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 8:04:45 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/3/2016 7:59:21 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 12:07:22 PM, desmac wrote:
Humans ARE animals.

I'm assuming you are a believer in Darwinism, then.

FYI - Darwinism isn't the source of that statement; general biology is.

Biology based upon the roots of Darwinism, yes. That we all originated from the same organism, and that all life forms are related.

No, the biological classifications of objectively identifiable characteristics is the basis for humans qualifying for the definition of "animal", regardless of the ToE. Any distinction between humans and animals regards a different usage. Even the basic Oxford definition qualifies us:

animal : a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

Have you heard of the Porphyian tree?
It states that there are 5 levels of existence, so to speak. It's difficult to explain, but I'll try my best. I'll link a photo for reference though.
The first level of existence is substance. If something is substantive, it exists. The second level is that it has a body (it is made of material). If something has a body, it is both substantive and exists. The third level is that it has life. If something has life, it has a body, is substantive, and exists. The fourth level is that it is an animal, and the final level is that it is a human.

Nope, never heard of that. The diagram in your following post helps explain it.

So to answer your question, yes, humans are technically animals, but no animal could be considered as human.

I would definitely agree that while all humans are technically animals, not all animals are humans. We often use that word informally to contrast between what's human and not.

So, can we treat a non-human animal (say, a dog) the same way as a human?

In many fundamental aspects, yes. Obviously, humans are intellectual exceptional and so there are considerations that are exclusively applicable to humans.
David_Debates
Posts: 243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 5:48:27 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/5/2016 9:46:53 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/5/2016 9:32:10 AM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/5/2016 9:27:25 AM, desmac wrote:
At 8/5/2016 8:16:18 AM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/5/2016 7:26:30 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/5/2016 7:20:52 AM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/5/2016 7:17:50 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/4/2016 8:14:01 AM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 8:23:13 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/3/2016 8:09:50 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 8:04:45 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/3/2016 7:59:21 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 12:07:22 PM, desmac wrote:
Humans ARE animals.

I'm assuming you are a believer in Darwinism, then.

FYI - Darwinism isn't the source of that statement; general biology is.

Biology based upon the roots of Darwinism, yes. That we all originated from the same organism, and that all life forms are related.

No, the biological classifications of objectively identifiable characteristics is the basis for humans qualifying for the definition of "animal", regardless of the ToE. Any distinction between humans and animals regards a different usage. Even the basic Oxford definition qualifies us:

animal : a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

Have you heard of the Porphyian tree?
It states that there are 5 levels of existence, so to speak. It's difficult to explain, but I'll try my best. I'll link a photo for reference though.
The first level of existence is substance. If something is substantive, it exists. The second level is that it has a body (it is made of material). If something has a body, it is both substantive and exists. The third level is that it has life. If something has life, it has a body, is substantive, and exists. The fourth level is that it is an animal, and the final level is that it is a human.
That sort of blows your invisible friend's existence out the window.

Substantive things exist. He does not have a physical body, though. Did you read my post/examine the photo?
Plus, this isn't what we are discussing now. We are attempting to see if we can treat humans the same way as non-human animals. What do you think? Can we treat my neighbor the same way as his dog?

So to answer your question, yes, humans are technically animals, but no animal could be considered as human.
Your claim is that you can't because your unsubstantive god doesn't give them rights and your tree proves that your god doesn't actually exist. So do you have another reason for treating animals differently?

My tree states that anything substantive exists. The definition of substantive is having a separate and independent existence. It not being material doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
I gave you my two reasons right there:
1) God gave humans rights, not animals.
2) The Porphyian tree shows that we can't treat humans the same way as animals.
So, could you answer my previous question? Can we treat my neighbor the same way as his dog?

My tree keeps getting peed on by my neighbour's dog. Can I morally shoot him?

No. The dog is your neighbour's. It's his property, and destroying his property is not moral. Does that make sense?
So it has nothing to do with the rights your imaginary friend bestows, you haven't recanted that yet. Do you intend to?

I honestly don't understand what you are talking about. My answer, I guess, would then be no?
David_Debates
Posts: 243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 5:49:23 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/5/2016 10:12:57 AM, desmac wrote:
At 8/5/2016 9:32:10 AM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/5/2016 9:27:25 AM, desmac wrote:
At 8/5/2016 8:16:18 AM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/5/2016 7:26:30 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/5/2016 7:20:52 AM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/5/2016 7:17:50 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/4/2016 8:14:01 AM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 8:23:13 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/3/2016 8:09:50 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 8:04:45 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 8/3/2016 7:59:21 PM, David_Debates wrote:
At 8/3/2016 12:07:22 PM, desmac wrote:
Humans ARE animals.

I'm assuming you are a believer in Darwinism, then.

FYI - Darwinism isn't the source of that statement; general biology is.

Biology based upon the roots of Darwinism, yes. That we all originated from the same organism, and that all life forms are related.

No, the biological classifications of objectively identifiable characteristics is the basis for humans qualifying for the definition of "animal", regardless of the ToE. Any distinction between humans and animals regards a different usage. Even the basic Oxford definition qualifies us:

animal : a living organism that feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

Have you heard of the Porphyian tree?
It states that there are 5 levels of existence, so to speak. It's difficult to explain, but I'll try my best. I'll link a photo for reference though.
The first level of existence is substance. If something is substantive, it exists. The second level is that it has a body (it is made of material). If something has a body, it is both substantive and exists. The third level is that it has life. If something has life, it has a body, is substantive, and exists. The fourth level is that it is an animal, and the final level is that it is a human.
That sort of blows your invisible friend's existence out the window.

Substantive things exist. He does not have a physical body, though. Did you read my post/examine the photo?
Plus, this isn't what we are discussing now. We are attempting to see if we can treat humans the same way as non-human animals. What do you think? Can we treat my neighbor the same way as his dog?

So to answer your question, yes, humans are technically animals, but no animal could be considered as human.
Your claim is that you can't because your unsubstantive god doesn't give them rights and your tree proves that your god doesn't actually exist. So do you have another reason for treating animals differently?

My tree states that anything substantive exists. The definition of substantive is having a separate and independent existence. It not being material doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
I gave you my two reasons right there:
1) God gave humans rights, not animals.
2) The Porphyian tree shows that we can't treat humans the same way as animals.
So, could you answer my previous question? Can we treat my neighbor the same way as his dog?

My tree keeps getting peed on by my neighbour's dog. Can I morally shoot him?

No. The dog is your neighbour's. It's his property, and destroying his property is not moral. Does that make sense?

I meant the neighbour.

No. People have a right to life as well. Stripping that away would be immoral, right?
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 6:08:16 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/3/2016 9:30:13 AM, Stupidape wrote:
I read somewhere that the two are mutually exclusive because God's will is that humans are superior to animals. By giving animals rights we are in contradiction of God's will.

http://www.opposingviews.com...

Christians cannot be animal rights advocates because they have a poor record on human rights. They will be particularly harsh on talking snakes.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2016 6:31:23 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/3/2016 9:30:13 AM, Stupidape wrote:
I read somewhere that the two are mutually exclusive because God's will is that humans are superior to animals. By giving animals rights we are in contradiction of God's will.

http://www.opposingviews.com...

If all living things had "equal rights", you'd starve and die. If men and women had equal rights, women would go for beta males instead of alpha males who are "superior" to them. That comes from biology. Argue with science.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...