Moderator’s Note: BamBam, name-calling in Great Debates is in fact against the rules of the forum. If you feel the need to go beyond debating the other poster’s argument to flaming that poster personally, we have a forum for that (the BBQ Pit). Don’t do that again.
BamBam, you’re new here - you might want to sort of chill out a little bit until you’ve developed a feel for the place.
First of all, you might have noticed that Joel had a double-post right above his post that mentioned “Double post - how embarrassing”? Double posts are pretty common around here when the server is overloaded because you can’t tell if your post went through or not, but some of us still apologize or feel embarrassed when it happens.
Second, there are different rules for different forums. This is Great Debates, and no personal attacks of any kind are allowed; if you feel that you have a personal problem with someone you have to take it to the BBQPit. The Pit exists so that the other fora can remain somewhat sane and reasonable when a personal argument arises.
In GD you may attack an opinion, but never a person; for example, you may say “I think that’s a stupid idea” but you may not say “I think you’re stupid for saying that.” You’re ‘holier-than-thou twat’ comment to Joel was waaaay out of line. My suggestion is that you apologize nicely for the remark, especially since it was based on your misunderstanding.
You may or may not receive a warning from a moderator for your remark in this thread, but if you do have a problem concerning what I’ve told you in this post, I will be glad to drop a note to the moderators and ask one of them to explain it to you officially as soon as possible.
Sure, there’s a gap–an important gap. But there’s a tradition in Western thinking of wanting to believe ourselves to be an entirely separate order of creation–we have “souls” or “spirits”, whereas mere “animals” are simply automatons, and are essentially unlike us. This traditional dualism is unwarranted, and sometimes we can perpetuate that extreme view without really meaning to when we casually refer to “animals” as if that category properly contrasts with “humans” (or for that matter, when we casually lump together “apes and monkeys”, when taxonomically speaking apes have as much right to label us “monkeys” as we do them, if apes used labels like that, which of course they do not).
Well, heck, MEB, you slipped in ahead of me while I was trying to be diplomatic, thinking all of the hardworking mods were getting their well-deserved beauty sleep!
Well, we’re all set up for a nice round of Good Cop, Bad Cop now.
And I was all set to start cleaning up some of those pesky double posts in this thread, too, and now I can’t.
I’m just glad that tempers are cooling.
Dear MEBuckner, Moderator of this topic.
I urge you to read the first two entries in this foray again.
- I added my 2 cents worth to this debate.
- Joel attacked me personally. He did not, however, use any bad language as I did (see my apology about that above).
You said it’s not in the rules to attack someone personally.
As someone new here, I humbly apologise.
But my response was in defence of his attack on me in the first place.
So do you believe that human animals and non human animals are close to, or are equals then?
BamBam: Joel took issue with your argument, which is what happens in this forum; calling someone, for example, a “holier-than-thou twat”, is a direct personal insult, and is not allowed.
I’m not sure that follows from what I’ve said. Besides, equal in what capacity? And which non-human animals? Earthworms? Lampreys? Border collies? Chimpanzees?
Since we are all descended from non-human animals, it seems to me that historically there have been animals on this planet which would have to blur any line you draw. Were Neandertals our equals? What about archaic Homo sapiens? Even today, chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas all can blur some of the lines we might want to draw.
Incidentally, my answer to the question in the title of the thread is “Yes, of course they could be.” In fact, every belief about religion yet invented, including atheism, could be wrong.
Well . . . it’s been known to happen 
MEBuckner is saying the same thing I’m trying to say, but I think he’s doing a better job of it.