Do they? You would think that if God created animals, and saw that they were Good, they would be a lot nicer to each other. We as humans have the capacity of thinking, so can choose to worship God and be good. But animals can't think, so why do they act as if we humans would if we did not Worship Him?
Because they don't act as we humans do if we did not worship a God. Many humans do not worship a God and still go by a similiar moral code as religious people. I don't really see a difference in humans and animals, as far as what you're trying to get at, and the differences I do see places animals on a higher plane than humans, in my opinion. Humans kill and harm each other for many, many reasons: Fear, spite, amusement, anger, following a chain of command, revenge, deep rooted psychological issues Animals in general only kill out of neccessity. For food, for protection, for survival purposes, maybe for a mate. Can you think of any other reasons why an animal would harm another animal?
But we are not allowed to kill other humans, even if it was for food: Thou Shall Not Kill. Animals don't follow a moral code. They steal whatever they can get, have unconsensual sex (rape). I don't see Jesus saying it's okay to steal as long as you need to. They're slothful - especially cats. If all this is moral for animals why isn't it for us?
Its not moral or immoral for animals. Animals don't moralize. They are driven by instinct. Some humans follow a moral code, and the moral code is not the same for all humans. The general moral code for humans is to treat others as you would want to be treated, but there are certainly plenty of humans that deviate from that. Humans often kill indiscriminately, while animals do not. The fact that humans are capable of this indicates to me that our moral code is not something God-given but something that was invented by men as civilization evolved. I think if you researched our distant ancestors, the original fathers of all of mankind, you would find rape to be pretty common. there are a few examples of desperate, starving humans resulting to cannibalism. Humans can certainly be much more slothful than cats, and cats are slothful because they were bred to be that way by humans. Cats in the wild certainly aren't slothful; they are too focused on survival. Also, animals don't steal because they have no sense of property and ownership. Those are concepts unique to humans.
Animals live by the rules of nature which is there are none except survive...humans make up bullshit rules/morals of way to behave so they feel secure and certain that they are living the right way or also used just to control large groups of people
Meliai: You seem to be keen to establish that animals are 'better' than humans. I would certainly agree with you in that aspect, but I'm more interested in the original question than that particular debate. If we assume there was a God, and that God gave us certain rules because he decided that it was better to be treated as one wishes to be treated, why is it different for animals? It seems this rule has to be universal, if all creatures have the sense ability of pain and discomfort. It's pretty clear to me animals don't wish to be killed, or attacked or raped. But they are and this is considered harmonious. There are examples of competely harmless species, then at the other extreme there are examples of aggressive carnivores. Why the discrepancy? Which is the Good and which is Bad?
They are animals bro. They'll drop a deuce in the middle of highway traffic then turn around and eat it. Depending on how you define God, they are either hardly better than bacteria or thousands of times more holy than we are.
That's the thing -- there is no good and bad, black and white, right and wrong. It's all a big fucking gray area!
I can't really answer that because I can't assume there is a God. I think your entire question is based on faulty logic. The bolded statement I believe can be applied to humans as well, so I don't think there is a discrepancy, except for the discrepancies I already pointed out and you dismissed as an extraneous debate.
I'm not comparing the merits of humans and animals. To rephrase the question - Does the behaviour of animals reinforce or negate the idea of a god? And it's not faulty logic to assume something, even if that something is unknown or false. Why can't you assume there is a god even if you don't believe there is? I'm capable of doing it.
