Smart Christianity / Dumb Christianity

[Systematic]

I have a new opinion:

https://imgur.com/a/N4kqFjk

[RCSaunders]

There are other thinking species besides homo sapiens.

Can you recommend any of their books?

I'm not going to downplay the advantages of the written word, but it doesn't follow that all thinking species must have the written word.

If, "thinking," is going to mean just anything that goes on in the consciousness of some organism, there needs to be another word for that unique human consciousness that is able to learn, hold knowledge, think, reason, and make choices by means of language. That is what thinking usually means in philosophy, but there is no authority that says you have to use it that way.

Animals are certainly conscious, but they do not think in human terms. No animal thinks about what it had for dinner yesterday, what it plans to do next week, or anything else that requires language to think about. The reason I like to use the example of books is because any book contains thousands of words which any human reader knows and takes for granted, but no animal knows what any of those words mean or even that they exist. The difference between animal and human consciousness is so profound it is absurd to compare them.

Wherever you are at the moment, look around at all the things you see. You are able to identify every one of them--what they are, what they are used for, how they got there, etc. If you have a cat or dog, neither will be able to identify a single one of those things as you can, and certainly cannot think about them.

Also see Immanuel Can's good comment above.

[RCSaunders]

There are other thinking species besides homo sapiens.

Can you recommend any of their books?

Good one, RC.

And just to add to your case, we might consider that if, say, our alleged closest "relatives" the apes, had even 1/1,000,000th of our ability to generate culture, than over the span of the millions or even billions of years said to be the span of their existence, animals ought to have very elaborate cultures with vast quantities of cultural artifacts, erudition, and so forth.

Or heck...just a little something. One book isn't too much to ask.

But only humans generate any culture, no matter how long time passes. The apes of a 1,000 years ago, we can certainly say, are not different from the apes we have today in that regard. They've made no progress at all. The apes the Persians traded and the Romans used in their circuses are, to all evidences, the very same sorts of creatures we have now.

We certainly agree here and I mentioned your comment to Systematic as well. I am always amazed by how many people think the only difference between animal consciousness and human consciousness is just a matter degree. If the animals thought as humans do, they would be responsible for their acts, but no one believes that. I especially like the view that animals have rights but no obligations. The animals can kill (each other and human beings), steal, torture, eat their young, rape, (especially cats) eat their mates, destroy each others' habitats, defecate and urinate anywhere they like without being held responsible for their actions (because they're just dumb animals) but human beings have to grant them rights (because they think just like humans). There's no shortage of idiocy.

[Systematic]

There are other thinking species besides homo sapiens.

Can you recommend any of their books?

Good one, RC.

And just to add to your case, we might consider that if, say, our alleged closest "relatives" the apes, had even 1/1,000,000th of our ability to generate culture, than over the span of the millions or even billions of years said to be the span of their existence, animals ought to have very elaborate cultures with vast quantities of cultural artifacts, erudition, and so forth.

Or heck...just a little something. One book isn't too much to ask.

But only humans generate any culture, no matter how long time passes. The apes of a 1,000 years ago, we can certainly say, are not different from the apes we have today in that regard. They've made no progress at all. The apes the Persians traded and the Romans used in their circuses are, to all evidences, the very same sorts of creatures we have now.

So humans can lie to each other, believe it, try to live it.
We're so superior--perched on the edge of a cliff of potential lies that can be told.
They told the communist civilians that they couldn't buy food in the West either. For example.
I don't even want to think about the number of lies I've "learned".

[Immanuel Can]

Can you recommend any of their books?

Good one, RC.

And just to add to your case, we might consider that if, say, our alleged closest "relatives" the apes, had even 1/1,000,000th of our ability to generate culture, than over the span of the millions or even billions of years said to be the span of their existence, animals ought to have very elaborate cultures with vast quantities of cultural artifacts, erudition, and so forth.

Or heck...just a little something. One book isn't too much to ask.

But only humans generate any culture, no matter how long time passes. The apes of a 1,000 years ago, we can certainly say, are not different from the apes we have today in that regard. They've made no progress at all. The apes the Persians traded and the Romans used in their circuses are, to all evidences, the very same sorts of creatures we have now.

We certainly agree here and I mentioned your comment to Systematic as well. I am always amazed by how many people think the only difference between animal consciousness and human consciousness is just a matter degree. If the animals thought as humans do, they would be responsible for their acts, but no one believes that. I especially like the view that animals have rights but no obligations. The animals can kill (each other and human beings), steal, torture, eat their young, rape, (especially cats) eat their mates, destroy each others' habitats, defecate and urinate anywhere they like without being held responsible for their actions (because they're just dumb animals) but human beings have to grant them rights (because they think just like humans). There's no shortage of idiocy.

I agree.

That reminds me of the old "speciesist" critique some people try to float. PETA types, you know.

If you've heard it, you know that they argue that human beings are "speciesist" (a sort of twist on "racist," I guess) because human beings prioritize human beings over lower animals. But the problem is that the same people expect our species, uniquely among all, to have special regard for other species, and to take responsibility for their alleged rights and the welfare of the environment.

But wait a minute: if the human species is nothing special, why are they putting on us duties that they would never ask of another species? Why don't they ask the foxes, the fish or the paramecia to take care of the environment or to secure the rights of other species? They say human beings are just another animal; and then they want them to take unique moral responsibility for every other animal, and for the environment itself...even though they're nothing special?

It shows these loonies can't even make sense of the view themselves. They're talking out of both sides of their mouths.

[Belinda]

Good one, RC.

And just to add to your case, we might consider that if, say, our alleged closest "relatives" the apes, had even 1/1,000,000th of our ability to generate culture, than over the span of the millions or even billions of years said to be the span of their existence, animals ought to have very elaborate cultures with vast quantities of cultural artifacts, erudition, and so forth.

Or heck...just a little something. One book isn't too much to ask.

But only humans generate any culture, no matter how long time passes. The apes of a 1,000 years ago, we can certainly say, are not different from the apes we have today in that regard. They've made no progress at all. The apes the Persians traded and the Romans used in their circuses are, to all evidences, the very same sorts of creatures we have now.

We certainly agree here and I mentioned your comment to Systematic as well. I am always amazed by how many people think the only difference between animal consciousness and human consciousness is just a matter degree. If the animals thought as humans do, they would be responsible for their acts, but no one believes that. I especially like the view that animals have rights but no obligations. The animals can kill (each other and human beings), steal, torture, eat their young, rape, (especially cats) eat their mates, destroy each others' habitats, defecate and urinate anywhere they like without being held responsible for their actions (because they're just dumb animals) but human beings have to grant them rights (because they think just like humans). There's no shortage of idiocy.

I agree.

That reminds me of the old "speciesist" critique some people try to float. PETA types, you know.

If you've heard it, you know that they argue that human beings are "speciesist" (a sort of twist on "racist," I guess) because human beings prioritize human beings over lower animals. But the problem is that the same people expect our species, uniquely among all, to have special regard for other species, and to take responsibility for their alleged rights and the welfare of the environment.

But wait a minute: if the human species is nothing special, why are they putting on us duties that they would never ask of another species? Why don't they ask the foxes, the fish or the paramecia to take care of the environment or to secure the rights of other species? They say human beings are just another animal; and then they want them to take unique moral responsibility for every other animal, and for the environment itself...even though they're nothing special?

It shows these loonies can't even make sense of the view themselves. They're talking out of both sides of their mouths.

Your God, Immanuel, is first and foremost God of Power. He can so He does. Man made this God in man's image. Man assumes power over the other species because man can do.

Opposed to the God of Power is the God of Reason who is exemplified for Xians by Jesus of Nazareth. Reasoners, unlike powers, begin from the standpoint of universality. It follows man's power (even including the days of coronavirus pandemic)is a given which must be a variable for reason to deal with.

God is either tribal or universal. If God is universal then God is not a chauvinist vis a vis other species.

[Dubious]

There are other thinking species besides homo sapiens.

Can you recommend any of their books?

Interesting! I wonder what WE were doing until the first book came out!

[Dontaskme]

Your God, Immanuel, is first and foremost God of Power. He can so He does. Man made this God in man's image. Man assumes power over the other species because man can do.

It's extremely difficult if not impossible, except to guess what a mans God is to the man.

We can only know our own God, the God of our own understanding. If there is an understanding to be understood, then it's always going to be a personal one, and is of no one elses business...but this too is just another fictional story arising within the consciousness reading it.

Any thing that knows it's got the power to do, as in can do..can be intentionally dangerous and destructive. So personally I wouldn't trust any mans God except my own.

.

[Belinda]

Your God, Immanuel, is first and foremost God of Power. He can so He does. Man made this God in man's image. Man assumes power over the other species because man can do.

It's extremely difficult if not impossible, except to guess what a mans God is to the man.

We can only know our own God, the God of our own understanding. If there is an understanding to be understood, then it's always going to be a personal one, and is of no one elses business...but this too is just another fictional story arising within the consciousness reading it.

Any thing that knows it's got the power to do, as in can do..can be intentionally dangerous and destructive. So personally I wouldn't trust any mans God except my own.

.

Well I would trust some other man's God if I trusted and admired the man. All I know of Immanuel Can is his messages on this forum, and while I respect and make use of his Biblical knowledge, I also appreciate the opportunity he gives me to flex my muscles.

[Sculptor]

Your God, Immanuel, is first and foremost God of Power. He can so He does. Man made this God in man's image. Man assumes power over the other species because man can do.

It's extremely difficult if not impossible, except to guess what a mans God is to the man.

We can only know our own God, the God of our own understanding. If there is an understanding to be understood, then it's always going to be a personal one, and is of no one elses business...but this too is just another fictional story arising within the consciousness reading it.

Any thing that knows it's got the power to do, as in can do..can be intentionally dangerous and destructive. So personally I wouldn't trust any mans God except my own.

.

Well I would trust some other man's God if I trusted and admired the man. All I know of Immanuel Can is his messages on this forum, and while I respect and make use of his Biblical knowledge, I also appreciate the opportunity he gives me to flex my muscles.

He's lost my respect since he never responds to me except with some patronising quip.

[Dontaskme]

He's lost my respect since he never responds to me except with some patronising quip.

He's really not all he seems to be.

Same for any one really, one can put on a mask and be any one they like.


And another thing, I wouldn't trust that which only exists as idea, to inform or impress me of any thing to do with God.

Ultimately, one has to make up their own mind about what they want to believe is true or not.

[Sculptor]

He's lost my respect since he never responds to me except with some patronising quip.

He's really not all he seems to be.

Same for any one really, one can put on a mask and be any one they like.


And another thing, I wouldn't trust that which only exists as idea, to inform or impress me of any thing to do with God.

Ultimately, one has to make up their own mind about what they want to believe is true or not.

True. But I try to be a bit more strict with myself. Belief is not a choice I ever like to take. I see too many people giving themselves the personal liberty to believe anything - even stuff they know can't be true were they to stop and think about it.
I try to "know" stuff, and like to be able to back it up as much as possible. "Belief" I use for aspirational stuff - equal opportunities, racial harmony, etc.. I know it does not exist but believe in them as principles of action.
People confuse belief with truth.

[Belinda]

He's lost my respect since he never responds to me except with some patronising quip.

He's really not all he seems to be.

Same for any one really, one can put on a mask and be any one they like.


And another thing, I wouldn't trust that which only exists as idea, to inform or impress me of any thing to do with God.

Ultimately, one has to make up their own mind about what they want to believe is true or not.

Unfortunately, DAM, many people are not taught how best to make up their own minds.That is how people become indoctrinated into bad beliefs and even become criminals.

[Dontaskme]

Unfortunately, DAM, many people are not taught how best to make up their own minds.That is how people become indoctrinated into bad beliefs and even become criminals.

Not sure about the assertion Belinda. For this one here, making up ones own mind about any human claim aka a knowledge informed is not something to be taught, or learnt. It just comes naturally as like an intuitive response to what doesn't feel right at the time.

[Belinda]

Unfortunately, DAM, many people are not taught how best to make up their own minds.That is how people become indoctrinated into bad beliefs and even become criminals.

Not sure about the assertion Belinda. For this one here, making up ones own mind about any human claim aka a knowledge informed is not something to be taught, or learnt. It just comes naturally as like an intuitive response to what doesn't feel right at the time.

The developing child is as you say but unless the child is properly socialised with other people who live good lives the child will be unable to learn anything at all, good or bad, true or false.