120 Reasons to Reject Christianity

[Lumpenproletariat]

What criterion makes the higher animals superior to the lower?

If it's an objective standard, then they should not be too similar to determine which is the higher life form.

A dog and a lizard. Or a dog and a centipede. Do you have a problem recognizing that the dog is superior?

I don't know. Superior by what objective criteria?

The dog is smarter.

You wouldn't give priority to saving the dog over the lizard?

The question was whether or not it is meaningful to suggest an objective standard can determine higher and lower life forms. You're asking my subjective opinion on cute&furry vs. scaly&ugly.

How about an ugly manatee vs. a colorful butterfly. Doesn't the manatee have more intrinsic value than the butterfly? It's not about the attractiveness vs. the ugliness. The beauty is something of value to the human observer, and so for beauty vs. ugliness it's the human pleasure which has the value, not the beautiful or ugly object being observed.

I have to conclude that you do not have any idea for an objective scale to determine higher life forms.

The objective criterion is mostly the ability to think, or to learn, or to make judgments or predictions and to wonder what's happening, etc.

Those animals which have a greater sensitivity to the world, ability to think about things, etc., are superior to the ones which have less of this.

(Although those manatees need to learn better how to dodge those motorboat propellers.)

 

[Keith&Co.]

Lumpy, it was your point that humans were the least expendable life form.

No, that's your point, or what you believe. You would give higher priority to a human life. We all would.

So that's not only my point, but everyone's point, including yours.

But that's meaningless in determining a 'higher' life form, or the greatest.

So, yeah, that's only your point. It's not a valid criteria for an objective determination of a higher life form.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If it's an objective standard, then they should not be too similar to determine which is the higher life form. I don't know. Superior by what objective criteria?

The dog is smarter.

So, what is it that makes 'smarter' the objective standard for 'higher' life forms? Where did you determine that?

How about an ugly manatee vs. a colorful butterfly. Doesn't the manatee have more intrinsic value than the butterfly?

What is it that you think 'intrinsic' means?
WHY do you think the manatee has greater value?
WHY IN THE FUCK do you think 'value' is important to establish the 'higher' life form?
Value to who? Humans? Me, personally? The biosphere?

It's not about the attractiveness vs. the ugliness. The beauty is something of value to the human observer, and so for beauty vs. ugliness it's the human pleasure which has the value, not the beautiful or ugly object being observed.

Which is still kind of incoherent on the question of 'greater' life forms.

I have to conclude that you do not have any idea for an objective scale to determine higher life forms.

The objective criterion is mostly the ability to think, or to learn, or to make judgments or predictions and to wonder what's happening, etc.

And what makes that objective, rather than self-serving?

Those animals which have a greater sensitivity to the world, ability to think about things, etc., are superior to the ones which have less of this.

The smartest animals are polluting the world to destruction. How's that work out to find the greatest?

(Although those manatees need to learn better how to dodge those motorboat propellers.)

Or the smarter motorboat operators should learn to avoid manatees...

What the fuck, Lumpy? YOu're all over the map. Smarts, value, pleasure, subjective choices...

You haven't changed my mind that you are ill-equipped to try to support the ontological argument. You don't even seem to understand your own position on this.

 

[Atheos]

Which of these is greatest of the three?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Humans have the highest value, then dogs, then lizards, then insects.

No, not two beetles, which are too similar. A dog and a lizard. Or a dog and a centipede. Do you have a problem recognizing that the dog is superior? You wouldn't give priority to saving the dog over the lizard?

The dog has value to humans as a work animal and a companion, and a lizard has value to humans by filling a niche in an ecosystem that would collapse without it, destroying a human habitat in the process.

The dog has more intrinsic value. In a crisis where it's necessary to choose to protect one or the other, the dog should get the preference.

For someone who prefers keeping lizards as pets instead of dogs, then the lizard has greater value.

OK, but then it's just the aesthetic taste of the human owner which has the greater value. That owner might protect the lizard rather than the dog in order to serve the pleasure he gains from the lizard, which takes priority because the human pleasure has greater value than the dog.

For someone living in an ecosystem that requires the lizard, the lizard is more valuable.

Yes, but only as an object serving the higher cause of human survival or comfort. It's not for the sake of the lizard that it is protected, but for the sake of the humans who need the lizards.

For someone who is allergic to dogs, the lizard is more valuable simply by not causing any problems.

But again, the negative value of the dog is derived from the higher value of the human, whose survival or comfort takes priority over the dog, which in this case is a threat to the human's comfort. So this example is one of comparing the human's well-being to the dog's well-being, and the human has the higher value.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

Just another bait-and-switch. First, you talk about "intrinsic" value, which is a value something has in and of itself, with no subjectivity involved. Then you switch to the value placed on something by humans, which is obviously a subjective criterion, subject to human judgment. The two are obviously not equivalent, and no amount of dog-lizard comparison will make them so.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Humans are superior, but only because of having superior traits, not because of being human per se.

No, not two beetles, which are too similar. A dog and a lizard. Or a dog and a centipede. Do you have a problem recognizing that the dog is superior? You wouldn't give priority to saving the dog over the lizard?

When you say the dog is superior to a lizard and a centipede, are you saying that just *IN GENERAL* dogs are superior but there may be some exceptions with specific individuals, . . .

Yes, it's ONLY INDIVIDUALS that are superior or inferior. So 99% of dogs are superior to 99% of insects.

. . . or are you making an all-encompassing and universal statement that ALL dogs are superior to ALL lizards and centipedes?

No, there are the tiny few exceptions. A dying dog in a coma is probably inferior to a healthy lizard.

How can you tell which of those statements, which of those interpretations, is true whenever you just say dogs are superior to lizards and centipedes?

Add the "in general" to make it precise.

We can come up with objective characteristics that different organisms have and others do not, but ultimately if we are going to say that we humans VALUE one organism over another and then give an objective criterion to account for their difference, we need to realize that it is eventually a subjective preference why we will place any value on the difference.

No, it's not subjective. Some animals, especially the more intelligent, actually know that humans are superior to them. It's not just that we're humans that we think humans are superior.

Some dolphins and whales know that humans are superior. There are certain behaviors from some animals which show that they have an awareness of human superiority, especially the higher more intelligent animals.

If we say we value animals with whole body fur over animals without such, then ultimately it will be apparent that it is just our own preference to do so for our own benefit, . . .

But in that case it's just the higher human value, and thus the human pleasure, which takes priority.

. . . neither animal would objectively be more valuable to the universe itself than the other.

The more intelligent animal is the one which is "more valuable to the universe" or has the higher intrinsic value.

If we value humans with red hair more than humans with blonde hair, or vice versa, it is not because either one is inherently more valuable to the universe. It is just our own preference, and whatever gives us more satisfaction.

But we also know that higher intelligence or higher thinking activity has greater value than this or that hair color. The human aesthetic satisfaction has a certain value, and the thinking-judging-believing activity is on a higher level of value.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But we also know that higher intelligence or higher thinking activity has greater value than this or that hair color

You're stuck on 'value.'
Learn what the real conversation is about... I mean, if you have that higher intelligence.

 

[Atheos]

Yes, it's ONLY INDIVIDUALS that are superior or inferior. So 99% of dogs are superior to 99% of insects.

Okay, now that we have that straightened out, please answer the question I asked four posts ago.

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

In the immortal words of the great Jefferson Airplane:

"You call it fame, but the human name
Doesn't mean shit to a tree".

 

[Brian63]

No, it's not subjective. Some animals, especially the more intelligent, actually know that humans are superior to them. It's not just that we're humans that we think humans are superior.

There may be some individual animals that are more intelligent than individual humans, however. Such as humans that are just newborn, or ones that have diminished mental capacities because of diseases they have contracted, extreme old age, etc. as compared to animals that are currently in the prime of their life and are very healthy. So if we use the criterion of intelligence that you are espousing to decide who is more valuable (note that the universe is not advocating this, but rather it is you who is), some animals are more valuable than some humans.

The more intelligent animal is the one which is "more valuable to the universe" or has the higher intrinsic value.

That is incorrect though, Lumpen. The universe is not making any decision at all on this topic. It is not saying one organism is more valuable than another. It is actually you who is deciding that, based on some characteristic that the universe has established (intelligence), but the universe has *NOT* additionally declared that that criterion determines any kind of supposed intrinsic value as well. Likewise, the universe has determined whether a human will be born as right-handed or left-handed in its bodily favoritism, or have white or black or brown or other color skin, or have strong hearing abilities or be entirely deaf or somewhere in-between, or have 1 leg or 2 legs or 3 legs or other. The universe establishes all of those characteristics on newborn organisms, but it does *NOT* additionally say that any of those characteristics are intrinsically more *VALUABLE* than other characteristics. It is just you (and other humans) who say that. The universe itself is not saying that organisms that live longer lives are intrinsically more valuable than organisms that live shorter lives.

...we also know that higher intelligence or higher thinking activity has greater value than this or that hair color.

No, we do not know that. We can say that it does, and we can make the decision ourselves that it does, but that is not something that the universe itself has already decided and that we are later seeing. It is something that we decide for ourselves.

I think the trouble in this debate is where you are not distinguishing between a judgment that you have made on life's value, and a judgment that the universe has made on the same issue. Actually, the universe is not even capable of making a judgment (since it does not even "think" in the first place), but you are taking your own values and judgments that you have made, and simply declaring that the universe has made them too. It is not something that has been demonstrated, only asserted.

You need to recognize that the universe is not a sentient being, does not make conscious decisions, does not have values or desires or feelings or preferences, etc. You can have and can do those things, but be careful not to impose your own thought processes onto the universe, which does none of those things.

Brian

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

There may be some individual animals that are more intelligent than individual humans, however. Such as humans that are just newborn, or ones that have diminished mental capacities because of diseases they have contracted, extreme old age, etc. as compared to animals that are currently in the prime of their life and are very healthy. So if we use the criterion of intelligence that you are espousing to decide who is more valuable (note that the universe is not advocating this, but rather it is you who is), some animals are more valuable than some humans.

The more intelligent animal is the one which is "more valuable to the universe" or has the higher intrinsic value.

That is incorrect though, Lumpen. The universe is not making any decision at all on this topic. It is not saying one organism is more valuable than another. It is actually you who is deciding that, based on some characteristic that the universe has established (intelligence), but the universe has *NOT* additionally declared that that criterion determines any kind of supposed intrinsic value as well. Likewise, the universe has determined whether a human will be born as right-handed or left-handed in its bodily favoritism, or have white or black or brown or other color skin, or have strong hearing abilities or be entirely deaf or somewhere in-between, or have 1 leg or 2 legs or 3 legs or other. The universe establishes all of those characteristics on newborn organisms, but it does *NOT* additionally say that any of those characteristics are intrinsically more *VALUABLE* than other characteristics. It is just you (and other humans) who say that. The universe itself is not saying that organisms that live longer lives are intrinsically more valuable than organisms that live shorter lives.

...we also know that higher intelligence or higher thinking activity has greater value than this or that hair color.

No, we do not know that. We can say that it does, and we can make the decision ourselves that it does, but that is not something that the universe itself has already decided and that we are later seeing. It is something that we decide for ourselves.

I think the trouble in this debate is where you are not distinguishing between a judgment that you have made on life's value, and a judgment that the universe has made on the same issue. Actually, the universe is not even capable of making a judgment (since it does not even "think" in the first place), but you are taking your own values and judgments that you have made, and simply declaring that the universe has made them too. It is not something that has been demonstrated, only asserted.

You need to recognize that the universe is not a sentient being, does not make conscious decisions, does not have values or desires or feelings or preferences, etc. You can have and can do those things, but be careful not to impose your own thought processes onto the universe, which does none of those things.

Brian

Lumpy is certainly nuts talking about superiority. Someone needs to remind microbes that humans are superior and that they should stop killing and devouring us by the billions.

Also, as earlier stated, the universe is not sentient in its entirety but it is certainly sentient as you and I - and Lumpy - demonstrate.

 

[James Brown]

You would give higher priority to a human life. We all would.

"Six Drown Saving Chicken."

So then, what matters to you more than human life, such that you would protect it by destroying human life?

Every soldier who died for freedom, for his country, for his flag, for constitutional principles, for glory, to finish his mission, would wonder what you're talking about.

 

[Atheos]

The point of all this is that the universe couldn't care less what we think. We think we're important and we are to ourselves. But the universe doesn't care if we live or if a killer asteroid wipes every last one of us out of existence tomorrow. The universe got along for 14 billion years without us. If our species goes extinct tomorrow the universe will continue getting along just fine without us as long as it lasts.

A 7th Day Adventist may think it's important to convince everyone to quit damning themselves to hell by worshiping on Sunday instead of Saturday. That opinion is every bit as valid as the opinion that a human being is more important than a chimpanzee. The difference is in how many people agree with the opinion, not whether the opinion is actually true.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The point of all this is that the universe couldn't care less what we think. We think we're important and we are to ourselves. But the universe doesn't care if we live or if a killer asteroid wipes every last one of us out of existence tomorrow.

It's problematic trying to divide up the universe in terms of sentience. Our bodies are the same. We call ourselves sentient but are our toes sentient? Does your toenail know what's going on? We make discussion and adopt conventions out of convenience and necessity without really examining what we're taking as fact. Hell, the universe could be part of a larger life form. Would that then make it sentient in its entirety?

 

[Keith&Co.]

The more intelligent animal is the one which is "more valuable to the universe" or has the higher intrinsic value.

Where do you go to measure the universe's values?

The universe allows animals to go extinct.
It allows animals to kill other animals.
It allows animals to hunt other animals for fun.
It allows animals to pollute their and others' habitats.

For that matter, the universe allows star systems to be destroyed. Whole planets vaporized by stars going nova. Stars lost due to novas. Energy lost due to entropy.

Where, exactly, do you see anything to indicate that the universe values anything?

 

[Learner]

I see Lumpens original point is of human 'selfishness'. Placing objects of personal desire above human life where men would have no qualms about stepping on someone else. The values.. the measure of ones perceptual evaluation of life or life forms relative to all species to his own. His is a Christian so I doubt he means the universe as an entity, he was being philosophical.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I doubt he means the universe as an entity, he was being philosophical.

I also doubt that he 'means' 'value to the universe' even though that is exactly what he's said.
The problem is, even if we could telepathically determine what he's actually trying to say, he's going to shift the topic as necessary if people poke holes in his argument, whether it's real, metaphorical, or simply ill-thought-out without concern for the consequences of a given statement.

So we might as well just respond to what he does say, until he starts talking about something else.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Isn't it obvious that a human life has more value (is "higher") than the dog's? and the dog's life more than the grasshopper's?

it was your point that humans were the least expendable life form.

No, that's your point, or what you believe. You would give higher priority to a human life. We all would.

So that's not only my point, but everyone's point, including yours.

But that's meaningless in determining a 'higher' life form, or the greatest.

It's the only possible meaning of "higher life form." It has to mean that life form which has higher value, which means more necessary to protect or preserve. Doesn't that value mean that its preservation is important? Shouldn't something more valuable be given priority over something less valuable?

If it's valuable, doesn't that mean we want it to exist? or that it should exist? How can it not mean that?

If a building is on fire and we can't save everything in it, don't we give priority to whatever has more value? Don't we rescue what has the greater value first? This means preserving that thing of greater value, doesn't it? Saving it so it will continue to exist rather than perish, right? So its continuation, or continued existence is necessary. If it has less value, then it is not rescued until the higher-value objects are rescued first.

So the higher-value object is less expendable, isn't it? Its continued existence or preservation takes priority over the lower-value object.

So you rescue the human life first, then maybe the dog, and then the goldfish, etc. Higher value objects earlier = more worth saving, lower value objects later = less worth saving.

So, yeah, that's only your point. It's not a valid criteria for an objective determination of a higher life form.

So you would not rescue the human life first? You would toss a coin?

In what situation would the higher life form not be given preference over the lower? such as deciding which one to rescue? or which one to sacrifice in order to save the other? or which one's interest to protect at the expense of the other?

In every case, doesn't the higher life form get the priority? Isn't that what "higher" means? What else could it mean?

 

[abaddon]

This all looks more like pleading to be seen as important than like a philosophical justification for anthropocentric values.

What's the role of immortality and of Jesus in this, again?