News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Quest for Truth

Started by Absolute_Agent, June 16, 2019, 09:02:36 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mike Cl

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on July 27, 2019, 01:34:58 PM
I don't dispute that life is characterized by suffering & death.  Life is also characterized by birth and growth, happiness and pleasure.  Where do you think these came from--random accidents?  What I do find perplexing is how the existence of suffering is assumed to cancel out the existence of comfort and pleasure, or negate the possibility of mercy.  You assume that plants must suffer when they are cooked and eaten--but how do you know?  Does your asparagus cry and scream when you are placing it in your mouth?  As for animals, it is not necessary to kill and eat them in order to survive, we've only been conditioned to eat this way.  It's actually much more efficient and healthy to be vegetarian.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
I was going to ignore this post of yours, but I've changed my mind.  You do seem to be a little more thoughtful than most theists that visit here.  So, here goes.
1.  I did not claim (or think) that life is only pain and suffering.  Birth and growth and happiness and pleasure is also a major component of life.  Where does that come from??  From living in a society.  Whatever society/culture we are raised in provides us with the guidelines for what each of those mean and how to avoid/cultivate them.  Then we put own own personal touches on them.

2.  I don't assume that plants feel pain when being cooked or eaten.  You put that assumption into my mouth.  Plants are dead when eaten for the most part.  Yes, cows can eat living grass, but for the most part, humans eat what plants produce; and when we eat them they are dead.  But without living plants all animals would die.  So, as an animal, humans must kill plants to live.  I don't claim they suffer--but they might.  Some experiments suggest plants are more aware of their environment than we had thought.  Some give off chemical signals to neighbors that there is danger nearby.  Some suggest plants do better if a certain type of music is played and not as well when other types are played. 

3.  As for asparagus, I do not let that stuff get anywhere near my mouth!  It may not scream if eaten, but I would probably scream if I had to eat it. 

4.  As for it not being necessary for humans to have meat to survive, that is still up in the air.  It is true, though, that humans have always been omnivorous--we (as a group) would eat almost anything that did not crawl out of our mouths first.  My niece is a vegan and seems to be doing quite well with that.  I have cut down my meat consumption as I've aged and find I don't miss it all that much anymore. I am leaning more and more toward what you say--vegetarians are generally healthier. 

5.  God created mercy and pain and suffering I think you ducked for the most part.  In nature there are two systems that do not require living things to kill to survive.  One is photosynthesis--which requires the sun, of course.  The other exists where sunlight can't get to--the ocean floor.  There volcanic vents provide the heat and minerals need to sustain life.  both systems provide for a way for the living to gather their energy from non-living sources.  This is not so for humans.  We HAVE to gather energy from living sources--or sources that once were alive.  We must kill to live.  There is no choice--vegetarians still  must eat things that were once alive.  Whether those plants suffer is beside the point--they still must be killed.  I understand this to be a bit of proof against the idea of any gods.  Animals eating animals is a built in system of pain and suffering.  Why would a merciful god create such a system when he could use any system he wanted?  So, since god created nature as it is now, he must have done so on purpose.  I don't find any mercy there.

6.  Where do birth defects fit into mercy?  Or babies born with diseases and parasites?  Or punishing people for not following god's rules when he did not make it plain what those rules are?  There is not one religious scripture that is clear, or universal, or written in all languages, or one that does not conflict with itself.  How is that possible if there is one god?  What religion a person follows is very heavily predicated upon geography--not that that one religion is more viable than another.  Why are all scriptures found in only one place on Earth, and slowly spread?  If the bible, for example, were found in all places on Earth and all dated to the same time frame, that would be a powerful sign that the bible is what it's followers say it is, the work and word of god.  I would then do my damnedest to learn what it said and then obey!  But it comes from only one place on Earth.  That makes it clear to me that religion is regional, not universal.  That would be odd for a creator god--or it seems so to me.   
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Baruch

Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2019, 03:20:50 PM
Children are learning in a scientific manner (think, test, connect, integrate).  I think the difference between a child and Parisian is more a matter of degree of complexity.  The Parisian philosophist (that's deliberate, I hate philosophy) is still using original childhood skills.

Not all thinking is scientific.  Atheists say, everything is natural (this is rhetoric).  It is similar to make the claim that all thinking is scientific. Scientific thinking is a particular kind of thinking that has to be taught.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Absolute_Agent

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 01, 2019, 02:59:45 PM
OK, so what "fruits" has religion ever produced? How has religion ever made human life better? Or is it just the hope that religion might be true that gives comfort to people? Other than that, I don't know to what "fruits" you're referring.
Many.  Civilization as you know it is founded on religion.  The scientific method was invented by a Muslim.  Religious people have made contributions to science all throughout history.  Astronomy was derived from religious beliefs that events on Earth corresponded to events in the heavens, which in turn was derived from the belief that God dwelled in heaven from whence decrees concerning our lives in Earth were issued.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


josephpalazzo

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 09:55:17 AM
Many.  Civilization as you know it is founded on religion. 
Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk



More accurately, civilization used religion to keep the hordes of humans in line. Those who were in power knew very well how gullible people are, and used religious beliefs to make sure their subjects to be obedient to their masters. That was true in the past, and it is still true today, thanks to useful idiots like you.

Absolute_Agent

Quote from: Mike Cl on August 01, 2019, 06:31:08 PM
I was going to ignore this post of yours, but I've changed my mind.  You do seem to be a little more thoughtful than most theists that visit here.  So, here goes.
1.  I did not claim (or think) that life is only pain and suffering.  Birth and growth and happiness and pleasure is also a major component of life.  Where does that come from??  From living in a society.  Whatever society/culture we are raised in provides us with the guidelines for what each of those mean and how to avoid/cultivate them.  Then we put own own personal touches on them.

2.  I don't assume that plants feel pain when being cooked or eaten.  You put that assumption into my mouth.  Plants are dead when eaten for the most part.  Yes, cows can eat living grass, but for the most part, humans eat what plants produce; and when we eat them they are dead.  But without living plants all animals would die.  So, as an animal, humans must kill plants to live.  I don't claim they suffer--but they might.  Some experiments suggest plants are more aware of their environment than we had thought.  Some give off chemical signals to neighbors that there is danger nearby.  Some suggest plants do better if a certain type of music is played and not as well when other types are played. 

3.  As for asparagus, I do not let that stuff get anywhere near my mouth!  It may not scream if eaten, but I would probably scream if I had to eat it. 

4.  As for it not being necessary for humans to have meat to survive, that is still up in the air.  It is true, though, that humans have always been omnivorous--we (as a group) would eat almost anything that did not crawl out of our mouths first.  My niece is a vegan and seems to be doing quite well with that.  I have cut down my meat consumption as I've aged and find I don't miss it all that much anymore. I am leaning more and more toward what you say--vegetarians are generally healthier. 

5.  God created mercy and pain and suffering I think you ducked for the most part.  In nature there are two systems that do not require living things to kill to survive.  One is photosynthesis--which requires the sun, of course.  The other exists where sunlight can't get to--the ocean floor.  There volcanic vents provide the heat and minerals need to sustain life.  both systems provide for a way for the living to gather their energy from non-living sources.  This is not so for humans.  We HAVE to gather energy from living sources--or sources that once were alive.  We must kill to live.  There is no choice--vegetarians still  must eat things that were once alive.  Whether those plants suffer is beside the point--they still must be killed.  I understand this to be a bit of proof against the idea of any gods.  Animals eating animals is a built in system of pain and suffering.  Why would a merciful god create such a system when he could use any system he wanted?  So, since god created nature as it is now, he must have done so on purpose.  I don't find any mercy there.

6.  Where do birth defects fit into mercy?  Or babies born with diseases and parasites?  Or punishing people for not following god's rules when he did not make it plain what those rules are?  There is not one religious scripture that is clear, or universal, or written in all languages, or one that does not conflict with itself.  How is that possible if there is one god?  What religion a person follows is very heavily predicated upon geography--not that that one religion is more viable than another.  Why are all scriptures found in only one place on Earth, and slowly spread?  If the bible, for example, were found in all places on Earth and all dated to the same time frame, that would be a powerful sign that the bible is what it's followers say it is, the work and word of god.  I would then do my damnedest to learn what it said and then obey!  But it comes from only one place on Earth.  That makes it clear to me that religion is regional, not universal.  That would be odd for a creator god--or it seems so to me.
If plants don't suffer, then what's all the fuss about?  Wouldn't this be yet another sign of mercy?  Apparently you've never read or even heard about the world's religions. [emoji848]

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


Absolute_Agent

Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 02, 2019, 10:06:39 AM
More accurately, civilization used religion to keep the hordes of humans in line. Those who were in power knew very well how gullible people are, and used religious beliefs to make sure their subjects to be obedient to their masters. That was true in the past, and it is still true today, thanks to useful idiots like you.
Isn't keeping idiots from doing stupid things the general idea of civilization?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

josephpalazzo

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 10:44:06 AM
Isn't keeping idiots from doing stupid things the general idea of civilization?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


They really got you, isn't it? The prime objective of those in power is to consolidate their powers, second objective is to increase it whenever the opportunity rises up. And they've convinced you to believe that you are stopping idiots from doing stupid things, while they are patting themselves on the shoulders when they see idiots like you doing their bid.


Baruch

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 09:55:17 AM
Many.  Civilization as you know it is founded on religion.  The scientific method was invented by a Muslim.  Religious people have made contributions to science all throughout history.  Astronomy was derived from religious beliefs that events on Earth corresponded to events in the heavens, which in turn was derived from the belief that God dwelled in heaven from whence decrees concerning our lives in Earth were issued.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Al-Khwarismi  he's our man, if he can't compute, nobody can ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 02, 2019, 10:06:39 AM
More accurately, civilization used religion to keep the hordes of humans in line. Those who were in power knew very well how gullible people are, and used religious beliefs to make sure their subjects to be obedient to their masters. That was true in the past, and it is still true today, thanks to useful idiots like you.

I prefer to use an AK-47 to keep the hordes in line.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 10:44:06 AM
Isn't keeping idiots from doing stupid things the general idea of civilization?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Liberalism is based on doing stupid things and getting affirmation rather than punishment ... or did Putin say that?
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Mike Cl

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 10:33:51 AM
If plants don't suffer, then what's all the fuss about?  Wouldn't this be yet another sign of mercy?  Apparently you've never read or even heard about the world's religions. [emoji848]

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
You keep insisting that plants and plants suffering is what I am referring to when I mention 'pain and suffering'.  You have yet to address the pain and suffering with animals.  All of the 'scriptures' I'm aware of states it is not good to kill.  Killing a plant is killing a life.  It is simply a matter of magnitude. Yet, life is life................ So, even in the most basic of moral teachings 'don't kill', that teaching has to be explained by a religious leader in order to be understood--that, to me, is more than ironic.    And what leads you to think I am unaware of the worlds religions or scriptures?
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Absolute_Agent

#251
Quote from: josephpalazzo on August 02, 2019, 10:55:20 AM
They really got you, isn't it? The prime objective of those in power is to consolidate their powers, second objective is to increase it whenever the opportunity rises up. And they've convinced you to believe that you are stopping idiots from doing stupid things, while they are patting themselves on the shoulders when they see idiots like you doing their bid.
Ok, so you're a Marxist? I know of  certain atheist regimes that accomplish the consolidation of power very effectively without the use of theism.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Absolute_Agent

#252
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 02, 2019, 11:48:40 AM
You keep insisting that plants and plants suffering is what I am referring to when I mention 'pain and suffering'.  You have yet to address the pain and suffering with animals.  All of the 'scriptures' I'm aware of states it is not good to kill.  Killing a plant is killing a life.  It is simply a matter of magnitude. Yet, life is life................ So, even in the most basic of moral teachings 'don't kill', that teaching has to be explained by a religious leader in order to be understood--that, to me, is more than ironic.    And what leads you to think I am unaware of the worlds religions or scriptures?
Well you kind of lumped it all together when it's a number of different issues.  I like to address one thing at a time. God has never approved of killing, but in the context of scripture this is referring to things with a soul--people and animals.  But people became so savage in their rebellion that a concession was made in which animals could be killed for food.  Blood lust was so ingrained he couldn't take them off it cold turkey.  So in His wisdom he allowed animal flesh to wean the worst of them off the greater evil of cannibalism.  Kind of like nicotine gum.  In today's age we have become advanced and sophisticated enough to return to a vegetarian life style, and it's cool that you are leaning in that direction too, especially considering the amount of animal cruelty that is going on.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Unbeliever

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 09:55:17 AM
Many.  Civilization as you know it is founded on religion.  The scientific method was invented by a Muslim.  Religious people have made contributions to science all throughout history.  Astronomy was derived from religious beliefs that events on Earth corresponded to events in the heavens, which in turn was derived from the belief that God dwelled in heaven from whence decrees concerning our lives in Earth were issued.

I think you're simply ascribing to religion whatever progress has been made without religion, as such, having anything to do with any of it.
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

josephpalazzo

Quote from: Absolute_Agent on August 02, 2019, 01:39:52 PM
Ok, so you're a Marxist? I know of  certain atheist regimes that accomplish the consolidation of power very effectively without the use of theism.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


Nothing in my post says I'm a Marxist - I despise both people on the Left and on the Right. But that you misinterpreted my post as being Marxist is significant. It means you see things from the far Right POV, and at bottom, you are a fascist. Now live up to that, a religious nut who is a fascist to boot.