Free-will and Atheism
Oodain
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
09 Mar 2012, 6:42 pm
Ria1989 wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
Ria1989 wrote:
Though it seems like I'm defending cannibalism, I don't understand discrimination. This is why I hope to continue being a vegetarian til the day I die, and if there was something I could do to never eat again, but still live, I most certainly would.
I know food is fuel... gives us energy. If we look at things objectively, everything we're eating is supposedly living, so we are taking life away for our own sake. If I could, I would never want to do such a thing. I would want it to be left up to living things when they should or shouldn't die. I don't want to decide for them.
I know food is fuel... gives us energy. If we look at things objectively, everything we're eating is supposedly living, so we are taking life away for our own sake. If I could, I would never want to do such a thing. I would want it to be left up to living things when they should or shouldn't die. I don't want to decide for them.
You would get to make that decision if you had a tapeworm. What would you do in that situation? Keep in mind that tapeworms have no interest in killing their host. Chances are that you would only feel listless and tired all the time. Would you let the tapeworm live or rather take anthelmintics that immobilize and slowly kill the parasite?
Until we're all the on the same page with an issue, there is no point. I will have to supply the tapeworm's energy to live unless he wants to die. Otherwise, I'll have to kill the tapeworm due to my own life. Either way, I would hope that neither one would have to negatively use a life to fuel oneself. That's obviously an ideal world in my mind, which isn't anything like the world we have today.
ideals are not reality,
they may guide how we react to reality but that is the end of their power.
there exists plenty of animals that kill other animals to survive, directly or indirectly.
this is not to say that death is anthing we can bestow upon everything we wish for, but that in general we have learned to put value on some distinct properties of life, not life itself (remember plants are alive by most criteria as well, only thing vegetarianism accomplishes then is to increase the amount of individual organisms killed).
we all kill something, even you.
_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
09 Mar 2012, 6:48 pm
Ria1989 wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
Ria1989 wrote:
Though it seems like I'm defending cannibalism, I don't understand discrimination. This is why I hope to continue being a vegetarian til the day I die, and if there was something I could do to never eat again, but still live, I most certainly would.
I know food is fuel... gives us energy. If we look at things objectively, everything we're eating is supposedly living, so we are taking life away for our own sake. If I could, I would never want to do such a thing. I would want it to be left up to living things when they should or shouldn't die. I don't want to decide for them.
I know food is fuel... gives us energy. If we look at things objectively, everything we're eating is supposedly living, so we are taking life away for our own sake. If I could, I would never want to do such a thing. I would want it to be left up to living things when they should or shouldn't die. I don't want to decide for them.
You would get to make that decision if you had a tapeworm. What would you do in that situation? Keep in mind that tapeworms have no interest in killing their host. Chances are that you would only feel listless and tired all the time. Would you let the tapeworm live or rather take anthelmintics that immobilize and slowly kill the parasite?
Until we're all the on the same page with an issue, there is no point. I will have to supply the tapeworm's energy to live unless he wants to die. Otherwise, I'll have to kill the tapeworm due to my own life. Either way, I would hope that neither one would have to negatively use a life to fuel oneself. That's obviously an ideal world in my mind, which isn't anything like the world we have today.
If you bathe or wash anything, you kill microbes...
09 Mar 2012, 9:11 pm
Oodain wrote:
Ria1989 wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
Ria1989 wrote:
Though it seems like I'm defending cannibalism, I don't understand discrimination. This is why I hope to continue being a vegetarian til the day I die, and if there was something I could do to never eat again, but still live, I most certainly would.
I know food is fuel... gives us energy. If we look at things objectively, everything we're eating is supposedly living, so we are taking life away for our own sake. If I could, I would never want to do such a thing. I would want it to be left up to living things when they should or shouldn't die. I don't want to decide for them.
I know food is fuel... gives us energy. If we look at things objectively, everything we're eating is supposedly living, so we are taking life away for our own sake. If I could, I would never want to do such a thing. I would want it to be left up to living things when they should or shouldn't die. I don't want to decide for them.
You would get to make that decision if you had a tapeworm. What would you do in that situation? Keep in mind that tapeworms have no interest in killing their host. Chances are that you would only feel listless and tired all the time. Would you let the tapeworm live or rather take anthelmintics that immobilize and slowly kill the parasite?
Until we're all the on the same page with an issue, there is no point. I will have to supply the tapeworm's energy to live unless he wants to die. Otherwise, I'll have to kill the tapeworm due to my own life. Either way, I would hope that neither one would have to negatively use a life to fuel oneself. That's obviously an ideal world in my mind, which isn't anything like the world we have today.
ideals are not reality,
they may guide how we react to reality but that is the end of their power.
I know they are not reality, otherwise I wouldn't be eating at all.
_________________
Ummmm....
10 Mar 2012, 2:57 am
heavenlyabyss wrote:
AudaciousLarue wrote:
My parents believe that I am going to Hell. Period, no questions asked as to why I am destined to go to Hell, beyond the fact that I have decided to choose not to believe in God and apparently that means my soul is in peril.
.
.
This here lies the problem. I see this as verbal abuse while religious people see it as trying to help.
Religious people are wrong when they say this, it is very simple, and I will shout it from the rooftops if I have to. This is when I start to get angry so I am going to stop talking.
Agreed in the strongest terms.
Threats, lies, manipulation, etc....
10 Mar 2012, 4:12 am
shrox wrote:
In this case, it's not discrimination. The idea that animals and humans are on the same level is easily disprovable. Look around. Animals live very differently than we do. They are not as conscious of death as we are.
And if nothing dies, within 24 hours the Earth would be covered with masses of bacteria, algae and bugs, several feet deep, with weeks it would be hundreds of feet deep.
Mortals need death.
And if nothing dies, within 24 hours the Earth would be covered with masses of bacteria, algae and bugs, several feet deep, with weeks it would be hundreds of feet deep.
Mortals need death.
This is not true. All of it. Shrox, why do you spout off random stuff that is so patently false? All the time, and for no apparent reason...
In that case it was discrimination, although possibly justifiable discrimination. Humans are animals, and what level are you talking about??? Animals live exactly the same as us, they eat, breath, sleep, drink, interact, deposited waste, reproduce, and die. If you are referring to their lifestyles, not the method of living, then you could make a case...but humans don't have the same lifestyles as each other, and some do live in a manner similar to other animals. You have no idea if an animal is conscious of death or not.
And seriously...if nothing dies, within 24 hours nothing will have really changed. There might be some limited plant and bacterial growth. But non claimed resources would very quickly dry up, and no further growth, in any organism, or further reproduction would happen. Nothing would continue eating, because eating would be problematic, as if you tried to eat something, it would remain alive, and thus indigestible. You would gain no sustenance from it, and waste your very finite energy stores. You would quickly run out of chemical energy, and all active functions would cease, as you could not even burn fat cells or tap your body's energy reserves properly as that requires cell death, so you would eventually become completely motionless and inactive, but due to this arbitrary stipulation of non dying, you would somehow remain alive. Bacteria, bugs etc would have only the limited non bound resources to consume before they too ran out of energy. They cannot eat each other effectively, as none of them can die, and no resources are being deposited or excreted due to lack of intake. These too would cease to operate in any meaningful way and lay dormant. So…if nothing can die, there will not be hundreds of feet of random critters. Everything would just go into a sleep like torpor.
_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.
Oodain
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
10 Mar 2012, 8:31 am
Ria1989 wrote:
ideals are not reality,
they may guide how we react to reality but that is the end of their power.
I know they are not reality, otherwise I wouldn't be eating at all.
why waste time on an ideal that have little connection to realuity and no chance of fruition.
_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
10 Mar 2012, 11:29 am
slave wrote:
Some of you are referring to this 'God' character as though he exists.
Fascinating.
I respect you though.
Fascinating.
I respect you though.
Arguments regarding the existence or nature of God must necessarily assume that there is a God to discuss. I am under no illusion that atheists who participate in a discussion or debate about God who speak as though God exists actually believe in God. There are only a tiny minority of us here who do believe.
10 Mar 2012, 11:58 am
Oodain wrote:
Ria1989 wrote:
ideals are not reality,
they may guide how we react to reality but that is the end of their power.
I know they are not reality, otherwise I wouldn't be eating at all.
why waste time on an ideal that have little connection to realuity and no chance of fruition.
I want to know where I stand. This world is ever-changing; for example, one day we might have a supplement drink that is enough to get all the recommended nutrients. I would hypothetically partake in this lifestyle. I can understand why it would be absurd and pointless to even ponder this since this is not an option right now. I am just saying this is the lifestyle I would want: kill the least amount of life as possible, while maintaining my own life.
_________________
Ummmm....
10 Mar 2012, 12:55 pm
NarcissusSavage wrote:
shrox wrote:
In this case, it's not discrimination. The idea that animals and humans are on the same level is easily disprovable. Look around. Animals live very differently than we do. They are not as conscious of death as we are.
And if nothing dies, within 24 hours the Earth would be covered with masses of bacteria, algae and bugs, several feet deep, with weeks it would be hundreds of feet deep.
Mortals need death.
And if nothing dies, within 24 hours the Earth would be covered with masses of bacteria, algae and bugs, several feet deep, with weeks it would be hundreds of feet deep.
Mortals need death.
This is not true. All of it. Shrox, why do you spout off random stuff that is so patently false? All the time, and for no apparent reason...
In that case it was discrimination, although possibly justifiable discrimination. Humans are animals, and what level are you talking about??? Animals live exactly the same as us, they eat, breath, sleep, drink, interact, deposited waste, reproduce, and die. If you are referring to their lifestyles, not the method of living, then you could make a case...but humans don't have the same lifestyles as each other, and some do live in a manner similar to other animals. You have no idea if an animal is conscious of death or not.
And seriously...if nothing dies, within 24 hours nothing will have really changed. There might be some limited plant and bacterial growth. But non claimed resources would very quickly dry up, and no further growth, in any organism, or further reproduction would happen. Nothing would continue eating, because eating would be problematic, as if you tried to eat something, it would remain alive, and thus indigestible. You would gain no sustenance from it, and waste your very finite energy stores. You would quickly run out of chemical energy, and all active functions would cease, as you could not even burn fat cells or tap your body's energy reserves properly as that requires cell death, so you would eventually become completely motionless and inactive, but due to this arbitrary stipulation of non dying, you would somehow remain alive. Bacteria, bugs etc would have only the limited non bound resources to consume before they too ran out of energy. They cannot eat each other effectively, as none of them can die, and no resources are being deposited or excreted due to lack of intake. These too would cease to operate in any meaningful way and lay dormant. So…if nothing can die, there will not be hundreds of feet of random critters. Everything would just go into a sleep like torpor.
Umm, since "nothing dies" in the given scenario, other factors like available food, heat generated by the living mass, crushing weight of the mass on the bottom layer cells, number of eggs dying, etc, are pretty much moot.
Did you like the "heat generated by the living mass" part? I did. And you think I spout off random stuff that is so patently false...all the time, and for no apparent reason...like I don't think things out. Meh.
Oh, yes. I forgot. Why do you care, oh limited mortal that you are?
Oodain
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
10 Mar 2012, 5:09 pm
Ria1989 wrote:
Oodain wrote:
Ria1989 wrote:
ideals are not reality,
they may guide how we react to reality but that is the end of their power.
I know they are not reality, otherwise I wouldn't be eating at all.
why waste time on an ideal that have little connection to realuity and no chance of fruition.
I want to know where I stand. This world is ever-changing; for example, one day we might have a supplement drink that is enough to get all the recommended nutrients. I would hypothetically partake in this lifestyle. I can understand why it would be absurd and pointless to even ponder this since this is not an option right now. I am just saying this is the lifestyle I would want: kill the least amount of life as possible, while maintaining my own life.
while it is admirable in its own way i really cannot see why all life has that value,
there is plenty of life that doesnt think that has value in some way but often that way is as food for something else, it is the very basis of all life on earth and i cant see why we should think of natural conditions as bad, not that we cant improve upon them (then again we are ourselves natural)
_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
10 Mar 2012, 11:29 pm
shrox wrote:
NarcissusSavage wrote:
shrox wrote:
In this case, it's not discrimination. The idea that animals and humans are on the same level is easily disprovable. Look around. Animals live very differently than we do. They are not as conscious of death as we are.
And if nothing dies, within 24 hours the Earth would be covered with masses of bacteria, algae and bugs, several feet deep, with weeks it would be hundreds of feet deep.
Mortals need death.
And if nothing dies, within 24 hours the Earth would be covered with masses of bacteria, algae and bugs, several feet deep, with weeks it would be hundreds of feet deep.
Mortals need death.
This is not true. All of it. Shrox, why do you spout off random stuff that is so patently false? All the time, and for no apparent reason...
In that case it was discrimination, although possibly justifiable discrimination. Humans are animals, and what level are you talking about??? Animals live exactly the same as us, they eat, breath, sleep, drink, interact, deposited waste, reproduce, and die. If you are referring to their lifestyles, not the method of living, then you could make a case...but humans don't have the same lifestyles as each other, and some do live in a manner similar to other animals. You have no idea if an animal is conscious of death or not.
And seriously...if nothing dies, within 24 hours nothing will have really changed. There might be some limited plant and bacterial growth. But non claimed resources would very quickly dry up, and no further growth, in any organism, or further reproduction would happen. Nothing would continue eating, because eating would be problematic, as if you tried to eat something, it would remain alive, and thus indigestible. You would gain no sustenance from it, and waste your very finite energy stores. You would quickly run out of chemical energy, and all active functions would cease, as you could not even burn fat cells or tap your body's energy reserves properly as that requires cell death, so you would eventually become completely motionless and inactive, but due to this arbitrary stipulation of non dying, you would somehow remain alive. Bacteria, bugs etc would have only the limited non bound resources to consume before they too ran out of energy. They cannot eat each other effectively, as none of them can die, and no resources are being deposited or excreted due to lack of intake. These too would cease to operate in any meaningful way and lay dormant. So…if nothing can die, there will not be hundreds of feet of random critters. Everything would just go into a sleep like torpor.
Umm, since "nothing dies" in the given scenario, other factors like available food, heat generated by the living mass, crushing weight of the mass on the bottom layer cells, number of eggs dying, etc, are pretty much moot.
Did you like the "heat generated by the living mass" part? I did. And you think I spout off random stuff that is so patently false...all the time, and for no apparent reason...like I don't think things out. Meh.
Oh, yes. I forgot. Why do you care, oh limited mortal that you are?
I won!
11 Mar 2012, 4:12 am
shrox wrote:
shrox wrote:
NarcissusSavage wrote:
shrox wrote:
In this case, it's not discrimination. The idea that animals and humans are on the same level is easily disprovable. Look around. Animals live very differently than we do. They are not as conscious of death as we are.
And if nothing dies, within 24 hours the Earth would be covered with masses of bacteria, algae and bugs, several feet deep, with weeks it would be hundreds of feet deep.
Mortals need death.
And if nothing dies, within 24 hours the Earth would be covered with masses of bacteria, algae and bugs, several feet deep, with weeks it would be hundreds of feet deep.
Mortals need death.
This is not true. All of it. Shrox, why do you spout off random stuff that is so patently false? All the time, and for no apparent reason...
In that case it was discrimination, although possibly justifiable discrimination. Humans are animals, and what level are you talking about??? Animals live exactly the same as us, they eat, breath, sleep, drink, interact, deposited waste, reproduce, and die. If you are referring to their lifestyles, not the method of living, then you could make a case...but humans don't have the same lifestyles as each other, and some do live in a manner similar to other animals. You have no idea if an animal is conscious of death or not.
And seriously...if nothing dies, within 24 hours nothing will have really changed. There might be some limited plant and bacterial growth. But non claimed resources would very quickly dry up, and no further growth, in any organism, or further reproduction would happen. Nothing would continue eating, because eating would be problematic, as if you tried to eat something, it would remain alive, and thus indigestible. You would gain no sustenance from it, and waste your very finite energy stores. You would quickly run out of chemical energy, and all active functions would cease, as you could not even burn fat cells or tap your body's energy reserves properly as that requires cell death, so you would eventually become completely motionless and inactive, but due to this arbitrary stipulation of non dying, you would somehow remain alive. Bacteria, bugs etc would have only the limited non bound resources to consume before they too ran out of energy. They cannot eat each other effectively, as none of them can die, and no resources are being deposited or excreted due to lack of intake. These too would cease to operate in any meaningful way and lay dormant. So…if nothing can die, there will not be hundreds of feet of random critters. Everything would just go into a sleep like torpor.
Umm, since "nothing dies" in the given scenario, other factors like available food, heat generated by the living mass, crushing weight of the mass on the bottom layer cells, number of eggs dying, etc, are pretty much moot.
Did you like the "heat generated by the living mass" part? I did. And you think I spout off random stuff that is so patently false...all the time, and for no apparent reason...like I don't think things out. Meh.
Oh, yes. I forgot. Why do you care, oh limited mortal that you are?
I won!
I'm not sure what you won...but congratulations.
You're a fan of the logical fallacy. You might well think things out, yet it is not logic you seem to use if that is the case, but a corrupt form of it. How do you like people using logical fallacies?
Since
"All dogs are animals,
and all collies are animals,
then all collies are dogs"
is true, so is
"All Jihadists are Theists,
and all Christians are Theists,
then all Christians are Jihadists."
_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.
11 Mar 2012, 4:24 am
Oodain wrote:
Ria1989 wrote:
Oodain wrote:
Ria1989 wrote:
ideals are not reality,
they may guide how we react to reality but that is the end of their power.
I know they are not reality, otherwise I wouldn't be eating at all.
why waste time on an ideal that have little connection to realuity and no chance of fruition.
I want to know where I stand. This world is ever-changing; for example, one day we might have a supplement drink that is enough to get all the recommended nutrients. I would hypothetically partake in this lifestyle. I can understand why it would be absurd and pointless to even ponder this since this is not an option right now. I am just saying this is the lifestyle I would want: kill the least amount of life as possible, while maintaining my own life.
while it is admirable in its own way i really cannot see why all life has that value,
there is plenty of life that doesnt think that has value in some way but often that way is as food for something else, it is the very basis of all life on earth and i cant see why we should think of natural conditions as bad, not that we cant improve upon them (then again we are ourselves natural)
Plants and animals are simply two sides of delicately balanced chemical cycle. We get our energy from them, they from the sun. But the chemicals they build with are from our waste, and the chemicals we build from are from them. I know that's an oversimplified explanation of biological chem. in harmony and all, but there really is a nice balance, and there is nothing wrong with the eating of non conscious life.
We are predatory animals though, and there is nothing wrong with eating other animals because of that. We can strive to change that, and there is something noble in that goal, but currently we are predators. Eating meat is just what we do.
_________________
I am Ignostic.
Go ahead and define god, with universal acceptance of said definition.
I'll wait.
11 Mar 2012, 6:46 am
I agree. Even the extermination of an entire species is not wrong by default. Pubic lice, for example, are an endangered species nowadays. But does anybody really care? Good riddance, I say. Head lice are not doing so well either anymore, and that's a good thing.
And what about ticks, bed bugs, or endoparasitic worms? Do we really need them? Does any part of the eco-system benefit from their existence? Ok, ticks might serve as food for hungry birds and predatory arthropods, but all internal and permanently attached external parasites serve no ecological function whatsoever. The same goes for pathogenic bacteria, protozoa and yeasts. I'd say we should find a way to kill the bastards.
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
