Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2017, 03:54:51 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: the moral hand and veganism  (Read 5370 times)
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512


View Profile
December 30, 2014, 12:12:05 AM
 #21

The whole basis for this kind of thinking is flawed. The flaw lies in the fact that man is not of the animal kingdom, although people are similar to animals.

God spoke the animals into existence. God didn't make man in this simple fashion. God formed man out of the dust of the ground (chemicals of the earth) and breathed into him the breath of life. Man is different than the animals, though of similar physical structure in many ways.
well, I think the whole basis for that is flawed: there is no evidence that God created man.

You are really good. There isn't even bookwork for it... God creating man, that is. Or do you have some? Bible says He made man out of the material that was available.


Quote
There is plenty of evidence that humans evolved from non-human ancestors, that humans and non-human animals have common ancestors, and that no clear dividing line can be drawn between humans and non-human animals.

Wrong. There is only interpretation of a load of evidence.


Quote
Looking at our ancestors, all intermediates between a human and a chicken once lived. And there is a possibility of human-animal hybrids, chimaeras and genetically modified humanlike beings. In other words; there is no essence related to homo sapiens.

Yet in all this, there are no provable links, where one form changed itself into another. That is interpretaion, wishful thinking, the stuff children's stories are made out of.


Quote
Basing ypu erhics on religious beliefs about creation is very dangerous, because it is very arbitrary to believe in those things and not in other religious beliefs that have the same lack of evidence. Why God and not Krishna, Tohr, Osiris, Quetzal or whatever? Why the Bible and not the Bhagavat Gita or whatever?

Do I have to say the evidence again?

1. There is a machine-like quality to the operation of the universe, in everything from inanimate objects to complex life. Machines have makers. The evidence for this is that man takes all his machine knowledge from the machine "knowledge" already planted in the universe... all of it. Man juggles the knowledge a bit, and comes up with some new forms of complex machinery. Complex machinery is designed by intelligence. Man hasn't come close to catching up to the complexity of the machinery in the universe. Whatever God is, He is there.

2. There is no pure randomness. Everything that we call random or probability is based on our inability to see the causes for some effects. The whole universe operates on cause and effect and always has. Even the quantum math that has been developed, which might suggest that there is pure random out there somewhere, has been designed using cause and effect thinking. The fact that we humans think the way we do - about everything including science and art - has its base in cause and effect, because something caused us to think the way we do. What is the Great First Cause that caused the chain of effects?

3. Science doesn't have a handle on soul, spirit or consciousness. It is only recently that modern science even considers that they might be real. Yet billions of people around the world using soul/spirit/consciousness/mind believe by them that God exists. Sounds like science is out-dating itself almost before it has a chance to really get started.

4. Stand the history of the various religious writings and traditions side by side. Look at them all in detail. The others are all blown away by the strength of the Bible. The history of the Bible, including the validations for it made by the nation of Israel, shows that the Bible can't exist. There are too many "things" in and about the Bible that make it impossible to exist. Yet it exists among hundreds of millions of people all around the world.


Quote
Quote
At first, before there were mistakes made in this world, people were instructed to eat of the plants (except for the fruit of one particular tree, that they were instructed not to eat).
yes, acoording to the story, God made everyone vegan, even lions. But why did he put that particular tree in the middle of the garden of eden? Why did God ask for problems? If he didn't want humans to eat its fruits, why did he make it so tempting and easy for humans?

The mistakes were not in the plan. God thinks in such different ways than we that the mistakes were taken into account, automatically, without even having been though about.

God made man in the image of God so that man could recognize how good and great God is. Man could worship, praise, thank, and glorify God spontaneously. The forbidden fruit was another gift to man, so man could glorify God by obeying Him. This is what man was made for. If done correctly, this is where man would excel.


Quote
Quote
Then later, long after mistakes came into the world (the original perpetual nature of the universe was destroyed), God gave the animals to man for food along with the plants.
which is an odd move of God. Humans did something wrong and therefore God said that they are from then on allowed to harm innocents? Why did he make a vegan world in the first place? Why did God suddenly turned 180°? A bit crazy.

It was not God Who turned. It was man. Part of God's plan always was blessings for man. Among the blessings was freedom of choice.

Man's turning from God was so great that God had it in mind to destroy all mankind. Noah and his family were the only ones who continued to worship God. In the Flood, where God saved Noah and his family, but destroyed the rest of the world, things of the world changed. The world was no longer the healthy place that it had been. Animals were given as food to man because there are times when the kinds of plant life that are suited to man are simply not available in abundance.

This whole thing is not easy to explain.


Quote
Quote
However, after it was shown that man misused the animals in ways that were unfair, God, also, instructed people to use their animals fairly. This would include a quick, painless death for the animals that man is going to consume as food.
and God also said that we should not consume a single drop of blood. Which is impossible unless you're vegetarian.

If a person obeys the whole law of God, yet disobeys in one point, he is guilty of lawlessness = imperfection.

The whole purpose of the law is to benefit man. It isn't a thing to be picky about. The thing to be picky about is the direction in which a person goes in his life... in favor of God, or against Him. Why worry about the little imperfection of eating a few drops of blood, over against the big imperfection of attempting to fight against God?


Quote
Quote
If you don't include the things that God has done with man, you will miss the truth.
well, the Christian God has an incoherent ethic. He is inconsistent. And he does terrible, highly immoral things. He's like the emperor in star wars who said (referring to the genocides he initiated in Jericho and other cities): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmVyUdHtxbU


God's seeming inconsistency is based on the inconsistency of man. God will always help the man who accepts Him, is on His side, believes in the Savior, and proves it by his actions though they are flawed at times. Things are never any other way until people turn against God, and don't turn back. God always helps the people who are sincerely on His side.

Smiley
1512964491
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1512964491

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1512964491
Reply with quote  #2

1512964491
Report to moderator
1512964491
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1512964491

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1512964491
Reply with quote  #2

1512964491
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1512964491
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1512964491

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1512964491
Reply with quote  #2

1512964491
Report to moderator
Stijn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


View Profile
December 30, 2014, 12:25:15 AM
 #22

First of all, I could give a shit less what your diet consists of, until you try to force me to share your beliefs (and diet) too. No one is attempting to stop you from being vegan.
that's like the rapist who responds to the judge: "No one is attempting to push you to rape someone"
What in the hell are you on about? More rape ffs  Roll Eyes
of course, but you understand the analogy, I hope...

Quote
I agree, rape and slavery are bad. I do not agree that animals and humans are equivalent, and this type of logic, BY DEFAULT is antihuman, because it automatically lowers all human beings to the status of barn animals under this dialectic.
why do you assume it lowers the position of humans instead of increasing the position of animals? You seem to have a moral gravity bias https://stijnbruers.wordpress.com/2014/08/08/the-moral-gravity-bias/
Humans and animals are equivalent as long as we can't find a morally relevant difference.

Quote
That is a good way to justify the subservience, neglect, and slaughter of humans while you cry about the rights of cows and chickens.
being against the slaughet of cow but tolerant toward the slaughter of humans? That would still be arbitrary discrimination, a kind of speciesism, against the claim that humans and animals are morally equivalent.

Quote
Again with the rape! You really don't believe this is obsessive behavior bringing rape into a discussion about veganism so many times?
no, as long as the analogy makes sense, we are allowed to make that analogy. It has nothing to do with obsessive behavior, it has to do with moral consistency and analogical reasoning. That is very important in ethics.

Quote
This is what I mean by antihuman. By making all animals equivalent with humans, suddenly all humans also become equivalent with animals, and it becomes a MUCH simpler task to justify bringing humanity to slaughter or other forms of maltreatment.
but you should not lower the moral status of humans, that would be immoral. You know that I want to uplift the moral status of non-human animals and that I am against lowering the position of humans, so you don't have to make such straw man fallacies.

 
Quote
Sociopaths and psychopaths are often known to be animal lovers too,
no thet are not. In fact, one of the early warning signs of being a psychopath is animal abuse as a child.

Quote
By "arbitrary exceptions" you mean the difference between humans and animals correct?
yes
I don't think the majority of humans on Earth would find this an arbitrary distinction.
because the majority suffers from a moral illusion called speciesism. There was a time when the majority of whites suffered from a similar kind of moral illusion called racism. Those racists believed that the black-white distinction was not arbitrary.

Quote
If animals were equivalent to humans they would be joining in this discussion here with us. So far I haven't heard from any pigs or cattle.
no, you know that is not true. You know that mentally disabled humans are humans, right? And some of those humans are not able to join this discussion, right? So far you haven't heard from those humans. But they still have basic rights such as the right not to be used as merely a means, right?

Quote
Again your premise that meat based diets harms "others" is based on the premise that animals are equivalent to humans.

it is rather based on the premisse that we should not arbitrarily harm someone.

Quote
Plants are a life form too. Why are not plants included in your generalization of "others"? Are plants not harmed when you consume them as well? Is that not also destroying life to provide yourself nutrition?
I respect the basic right of plants not to be used against their will as a means to my ends. I respect their basic right not to be killed against their will. That is because plants do not have a will. No matter what I do, I respect their rights because those rights are trivial for plants. So, the basic right not to be used against your will as merely a means should be given to everyone and everything in the universe, including elektrons, planets, cars, laptops, trees, pigs,... without any arbitrary exceptions. You cannot accuse me of making arbitrary exceptions.

Quote
but the act of eating plants is better than the act of eating someone's muscle tissue. You do agree with that, I hope.
No. There are a lot of reasons eating meat in moderation is more nutritional than most vegetable matter.
vegan diets can be nutritionally adequate for all humans: http://www.eatright.org/About/Content.aspx?id=8357
The key words you used are "can be", as in if you scoured the globe for the finest plants and cultivated your own food painstakingly, as well as eat plant matter nearly all day long, and spend the rest of your time crapping, then yes, veganism "can be" nutritionally adequate.
that is clearly not what the nutritional scientists meant with "can be". You don't have to scoure the globe etc. Eating vegan is perfectly feasible.

Quote
That doesn't make it realistic for the majority of humans just because it is possible.
I don't know where you live, but I bet for you it is as realistic as it is for me. So let's consider our duties, without hiding ourselves behind "the majority of humans".

Quote
So you are using the glass half full argument for Hitler? Yeah your right, he may have committed genocide against millions of people, but at least he treated goats with respect. Again your argument against my use of the word antihuman depends completely upon the premise that humans are equal to animals.
yes, Hitler was antihuman, because he placed some humans (jews) lower than some animals. So let us suppose that Hitler was like me a real animal rights activist, against all kinds of violence towards animals, against killing them, against vivisection, etc... Let us, for the sake of the argument, suppose this is true. Then, what would happen if Hilter believed that humans are equal to animals? Use your logical reasoning skills. Yes, there would be no holocaust, no war, no racism, no cruel experiments on humans. So that would be good. The problem with Hilter would than be that he did not believe that humans are equal to animals. If only he believed that...
So Hitler was clearly inconsistent: he was against vivisection of animals but pro using some humans (disabled, jews,...) against their will in cruel experiments.

Quote
Additionally your attempt to muddy the discussion with neo-feminist and racial talking points is a quite disingenuous attempt to attach moral authority to your argument, as if anyone who disagrees with you is a racist, sexist, or even worse a slave owning rapist.
anyone who disagrees is a speciesist. And yes, that is "as if" s/he is racist or sexist. Because both speciesism and racism and sexism are kinds of immoral, arbitrary discriminations that cause harm.

Quote
As far as your fascination with rape, your gynocentric neo-feminist brainwashing is showing.
what do you mean with that? My fascination with rape? Gynocentric brainwashing?
I mean that you packed so many talking points used by politically motivated neo-feminist groups that it is completely transparent to me that you must spend a lot of time around these types of people being continually indoctrinated to the point where you can't help but have those ideas that were driven into your head via repetitive conditioning leak out during an unrelated discussion about your dietary choices.
uhm... are you suggesting that my attitute against rape is the result of indoctrination by neo-feminists? But you are also strongly against rape, aren't you?

Quote
Even if I am wrong about this and you are in fact a female, I still feel bad for you, because you have no idea how much harm you are bringing down upon all females (and males for that matter) by repeating such divisive politically motivated ignorance.
I am male.
And I don't see the harm I bring down upon females when I communicate my anti-rape attitude


Quote
If you are going to use big words like "androcentrism", please learn their definitions first.
andro = male
centrism = centrally oriented

Therefore androcentrism means a male focused world view. The word you invented anti-androcentrism would therefore mean "against a male oriented central viewpoint", and I am not sure why a rapist would be arguing against a male centric viewpoint, but thats ok.

then how did you use the word antihuman?
Of course the rapist would not argue against a male centric viewpoint. I was comparing it with your claim. A meat eater says that anti meat talk is anti human. Well, than a rapist says that anti rape talk is anti male. You see the analogy? It is an analogy between two fallacious argumants.
human = homo sapiens
anti = in opposition to
antihuman = against homo sapiens
that is similar to what I meant with anti androcentrism: against men.

Quote
So now you are comparing me with a rapist, but me calling you malnourished is a personal attack?

you do not ahve evidence that I am malnourished, but I do have evidence that you violate someone's basic right by using someone's body against his/her will (by eating his/her muscle tissue). And that is comparable to what a rapist does: using someone's body (vagina) against her will.

Quote
Your analogy ONCE AGAIN relies COMPLETELY on the premise that animals are equal to humans. I understand what you are trying to communicate with me but your premise is fallacy therefore all analogies based on it are false.
As long as you can't give a morally relevant difference between humans and non-humans, we cannot arbitrarily exclude nonhumans from the moral community. The starting assumption is that everyone and everything is morally equal, until there is evidence of moral inequality, i.e. until there is evidence of a morally relevent difference. So please tell me what that difference is.

Quote
Your willful ignorance of the arguments of others counter to your world view is not evidence of lack of arguments against it. I have one simple proof. There are no non homo sapiens animals engaging in this discussion here today because they are unable. Therefor animals can not be equivalent to humans.
well, there are no mentally disabled humans engaging in this discussion here today because they are unable. Therefore mentally disabled humans cannot be equivalent to mentally abled humans? Therefore we can use their bodies against their will as means to our ends, for experiments or meat? Do you give basic rights to mentally disabled humans? I hope you do. But then, what is the difference with non-human animals?

Quote
Who is eating disabled people?
no-one, because that is immoral.
Well that is good to know. I still wonder why you brought it up then if it is a nonexistent problem.
necause if you believe eating those humans is immoral whereas eating non-human animals is permissible, and if you are not able to point at a morally relevant difference, then you are guilty of discrimination. And if you are allowed to choose your victims arbitrarily, then so am I and so is everyone. And you cannot want that. If you are allowed to be speciesist, then a rapist is allowed to be sexist.

Quote
Again, eating a hamburger is not equivalent to rape regardless of however you justify it in your twisted and abused mind.  Once again your analogy rests upon the fallacious premise that animals are equivalent to humans.
again, if you don't believe they are equivalent, you have to give a reason, a criterion, a morally relevant difference. Merely making a claim is not sufficient.

Quote
I disagree with your application of moral value to your dietary choices, and your resulting grandstanding as if you hold a moral high ground because of it in a pathetic attempt to shame meat eaters into adopting your worldview while simultaneously claiming meat eaters are pressuring you to not be vegan.
conformity bias does not mean there is an intentional, conscious or overt pressure from the group. Cfr the experiment of Asch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments The group members did not overtly or consciously pressure the subject to give the wrong answer.
I am not even going to attempt to address this pathetic appeal to authority fallacy.
authority fallacy?

Quote
I don't know you personally no. I have however known several people who talk just like you and preach veganism as if it was a lost book of the bible, and none of them ever looked very healthy to me.
perhaps this will convince you
https://stijnbruers.wordpress.com/2014/11/20/the-health-benefits-of-vegan-diets/
http://www.greatveganathletes.com/

Quote
By brainwashing I mean you have been conditioned mentally to have beliefs counter to facts, reality, and probably some times even your own once organically held beliefs.
well at least veganism is not counter to facts, reality and our originally held strongest moral beliefs.

 
Quote
You have become a vessel for others to use to spread their political ideology, and chances are you have no awareness of this. In your mind you are just saying what you think is the truth, but unfortunately the people who told you this is the truth are liars. My evidence is that you used the word rape 15 times in a discussion about veganism.
but no-one told me to use the rape analogy. I used it because it is a valid analogy. Rape is bad because of X (this is a moral judgment you already agree with), eating meat also satisfies X (this is a true fact, whether or not you believe it) and there eating meat is bad. That is a matter of consistency
(X= harm, rights violations, use of body against the will,...)

Quote
The gynocentric neo-feminist movement is completely obsessed with using rape as a tool of shaming against all men, rapist or not as a form of trauma based control, shaming you via negative operant conditioning to speak as if all males are potential rapists.
shaming against all men? As if all males are potential rapists? Trauma based control? What are you talking about? It seems you're making things up. Yo do know that I don't believe that all males are potential rapists.
And almost all feminists are not gynocentric, they don't believe women are more important than men.

Quote
If anyone denies this position, they are automatically defending rape. It is much like asking some one the question "So when did you stop beating your wife?". The question involves the assumed premise that the person being asked beats their wife, and if it were to be replied to directly would either appear as if he still continues to beat his wife, or that he used to beat his wife but has now stopped.

or like asking the question "what is your obsession with rape?" The assumed premisse is that the person being asked is obsessed with rape.

Quote
In short you are placing everything under the context of rape in order to try to make any argument against your points indefensible without appearing to be defending rape. It is very disingenuous and dishonest.
it is rather a matter of consistency.
Stijn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


View Profile
December 30, 2014, 01:05:40 AM
 #23

There is plenty of evidence that humans evolved from non-human ancestors, that humans and non-human animals have common ancestors, and that no clear dividing line can be drawn between humans and non-human animals.
Wrong. There is only interpretation of a load of evidence.
indeed, interpretations, as is always the case when looking at evidence. But in the case of evolution it is an extremely coherent interpretation.

Quote
Quote
Looking at our ancestors, all intermediates between a human and a chicken once lived. And there is a possibility of human-animal hybrids, chimaeras and genetically modified humanlike beings. In other words; there is no essence related to homo sapiens.
Yet in all this, there are no provable links, where one form changed itself into another. That is interpretaion, wishful thinking, the stuff children's stories are made out of.
but there are plenty of fossils of intermediate species. With the fossils that are discovered, we can rather clearly see how species evolved. We can see how our ancestors looked like. Some 60 million years ago, our great great... grandfather looked like some kind of squirrel. http://news.discovery.com/animals/zoo-animals/first-human-ancestor-squirrel-121018.htm

Quote
1. There is a machine-like quality to the operation of the universe, in everything from inanimate objects to complex life. Machines have makers. The evidence for this is that man takes all his machine knowledge from the machine "knowledge" already planted in the universe... all of it. Man juggles the knowledge a bit, and comes up with some new forms of complex machinery. Complex machinery is designed by intelligence. Man hasn't come close to catching up to the complexity of the machinery in the universe. Whatever God is, He is there.
but then who created god? If he created our universe, he must be a very complex being...
And what about spontaneous emergence of complexity, such as we see in evolution?

Quote
2. There is no pure randomness. Everything that we call random or probability is based on our inability to see the causes for some effects. The whole universe operates on cause and effect and always has. Even the quantum math that has been developed, which might suggest that there is pure random out there somewhere, has been designed using cause and effect thinking.
some models about the origing of the universe did not have a beginning and hence were not caused (e.g. Hawking Hartle no-boundary state http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle%E2%80%93Hawking_state)

Quote
The fact that we humans think the way we do - about everything including science and art - has its base in cause and effect, because something caused us to think the way we do. What is the Great First Cause that caused the chain of effects?
and what is the cause of that? What caused god? What caused god to make a causal universe?

Quote
3. Science doesn't have a handle on soul, spirit or consciousness.
soul and spirit are like the life force (elan vital) unscientific terms. But scientists are gaining knowledge on how consciousness works.

Quote
4. Stand the history of the various religious writings and traditions side by side. Look at them all in detail. The others are all blown away by the strength of the Bible. The history of the Bible, including the validations for it made by the nation of Israel, shows that the Bible can't exist. There are too many "things" in and about the Bible that make it impossible to exist. Yet it exists among hundreds of millions of people all around the world.
so?

Quote
Quote
Quote
At first, before there were mistakes made in this world, people were instructed to eat of the plants (except for the fruit of one particular tree, that they were instructed not to eat).
yes, acoording to the story, God made everyone vegan, even lions. But why did he put that particular tree in the middle of the garden of eden? Why did God ask for problems? If he didn't want humans to eat its fruits, why did he make it so tempting and easy for humans?

The mistakes were not in the plan. God thinks in such different ways than we that the mistakes were taken into account, automatically, without even having been though about.
so god is not that smart? Even I am smart enough to know that planting a tree with delicious fruits in the middle of the garden of eden, guarded by a seducing talking snake, is asking for problems.

Quote
God made man in the image of God so that man could recognize how good and great God is.
being extremely narcissistic is not my idea of being good...
It sounds silly: "oh, let's make toys that can adore me and see how great I am"

Quote
Quote
Quote
Then later, long after mistakes came into the world (the original perpetual nature of the universe was destroyed), God gave the animals to man for food along with the plants.
which is an odd move of God. Humans did something wrong and therefore God said that they are from then on allowed to harm innocents? Why did he make a vegan world in the first place? Why did God suddenly turned 180°? A bit crazy.

It was not God Who turned. It was man.

no, God turned. First he created a vegan world, so he was against unecessary suffering. And after someone ate from a forbidden fruit, everyone is allowed to kill and eat someone else and cause unnecessary harm?

Quote
Part of God's plan always was blessings for man. Among the blessings was freedom of choice.
then why didn't he create a free world in the first place? A world where everyone is free to kill and eat someone else?

Quote
Man's turning from God was so great that God had it in mind to destroy all mankind. Noah and his family were the only ones who continued to worship God.

so God killed everyone who did not worship him? That is what an extremely bad dictator does.

Quote
In the Flood, where God saved Noah and his family, but destroyed the rest of the world, things of the world changed. The world was no longer the healthy place that it had been. Animals were given as food to man because there are times when the kinds of plant life that are suited to man are simply not available in abundance.
he's crazy, this god... Absolutely crazy. Gone mad beyond imagination.

Quote
This whole thing is not easy to explain.
it is easy to explain if we assume god is absolutely crazy...

Quote
The whole purpose of the law is to benefit man. It isn't a thing to be picky about. The thing to be picky about is the direction in which a person goes in his life... in favor of God, or against Him. Why worry about the little imperfection of eating a few drops of blood, over against the big imperfection of attempting to fight against God?
but it was god who said we are not allowed to eat blood. He says it quite often, so it must be important to him: http://biblehub.com/genesis/9-4.htm

Quote
God's seeming inconsistency is based on the inconsistency of man. God will always help the man who accepts Him, is on His side, believes in the Savior, and proves it by his actions though they are flawed at times.
but there are a lot of believers who became victims of war, genocide, earthquakes, disease, bad luck,... So god does not always help the believers. In fact, he quite often does not help. It seems he acts a bit arbitrarily.
Balthazar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268


BTC-e Divine Overlord, ask cryptodevil for details


View Profile WWW
December 30, 2014, 02:38:25 AM
 #24

So what were your intentions? 
Well, you can consider it as a kind of mental vivisection. Smiley

novaco.in | EtherMine.ru (65 GH/s, DGM 0.5%) | EtherDig.Net (18GH/s, PPS 1.5%)
฿: 1QJ8RFiRKsJKmY8ZAjxfCUeBZXmjthK4Pk: 4RgnHWtnJWEyMhqhDdazW3Hdr7cx5ybF6i ETH: 0x5B475Febb3018f41d0Ac3C2f1A864bd102ab5a2E
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512


View Profile
December 30, 2014, 03:00:18 AM
 #25

There is plenty of evidence that humans evolved from non-human ancestors, that humans and non-human animals have common ancestors, and that no clear dividing line can be drawn between humans and non-human animals.
Wrong. There is only interpretation of a load of evidence.
indeed, interpretations, as is always the case when looking at evidence. But in the case of evolution it is an extremely coherent interpretation.

All evolution coherence is based on "if." What I mean is, when you get down to the basis of it all, the science says "if" this and that are true, then evolution happened. There is no foundation under evolution. Indeed, there are lots of void gaps between the various steps in evolutionary process.


Quote
Quote
Quote
Looking at our ancestors, all intermediates between a human and a chicken once lived. And there is a possibility of human-animal hybrids, chimaeras and genetically modified humanlike beings. In other words; there is no essence related to homo sapiens.
Yet in all this, there are no provable links, where one form changed itself into another. That is interpretaion, wishful thinking, the stuff children's stories are made out of.
but there are plenty of fossils of intermediate species. With the fossils that are discovered, we can rather clearly see how species evolved. We can see how our ancestors looked like. Some 60 million years ago, our great great... grandfather looked like some kind of squirrel. http://news.discovery.com/animals/zoo-animals/first-human-ancestor-squirrel-121018.htm

The thing is, nobody knows if those are intermediate species. Which ones are the intermediate ones? Are they all intermediate ones? Perhaps they were all created as individual kind-begets-kind species, and the thing we see today is entropy increasing. More and more of our current species of life are dying out without anything coming in to take their place.


Quote
Quote
1. There is a machine-like quality to the operation of the universe, in everything from inanimate objects to complex life. Machines have makers. The evidence for this is that man takes all his machine knowledge from the machine "knowledge" already planted in the universe... all of it. Man juggles the knowledge a bit, and comes up with some new forms of complex machinery. Complex machinery is designed by intelligence. Man hasn't come close to catching up to the complexity of the machinery in the universe. Whatever God is, He is there.
but then who created god? If he created our universe, he must be a very complex being...
And what about spontaneous emergence of complexity, such as we see in evolution?

Good questions. God is God. How do we know that He needed creating? We aren't far enough along in our investigations to even begin to view what He is personally like.

Can the ants in the terrarium, or the fish in the fishbowl, envision what the humans that take care and feed them are like?


Quote
Quote
2. There is no pure randomness. Everything that we call random or probability is based on our inability to see the causes for some effects. The whole universe operates on cause and effect and always has. Even the quantum math that has been developed, which might suggest that there is pure random out there somewhere, has been designed using cause and effect thinking.
some models about the origing of the universe did not have a beginning and hence were not caused (e.g. Hawking Hartle no-boundary state http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle%E2%80%93Hawking_state)

Again models... filled with holes and gaps... simply because we don't know enough to determine if they are even plausible or not.


Quote
Quote
The fact that we humans think the way we do - about everything including science and art - has its base in cause and effect, because something caused us to think the way we do. What is the Great First Cause that caused the chain of effects?
and what is the cause of that? What caused god? What caused god to make a causal universe?

Again. We are barely getting an understanding of the way the universe works. And we are scratching the surface of this understanding. How can we understand God Who is eternal and never changes, and lives in light that is unapproachable, and with Whom there is no shadow of turning?


Quote
Quote
3. Science doesn't have a handle on soul, spirit or consciousness.
soul and spirit are like the life force (elan vital) unscientific terms. But scientists are gaining knowledge on how consciousness works.

Quote
4. Stand the history of the various religious writings and traditions side by side. Look at them all in detail. The others are all blown away by the strength of the Bible. The history of the Bible, including the validations for it made by the nation of Israel, shows that the Bible can't exist. There are too many "things" in and about the Bible that make it impossible to exist. Yet it exists among hundreds of millions of people all around the world.
so?

Perhaps I said it not so clear. I meant two things:
1. The Bible can't exist, yet it does. The history of the Bible shows this. Yet, Bibles abound around the world.
2. Non of the other religions approaches this impossibility of existing.


Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
At first, before there were mistakes made in this world, people were instructed to eat of the plants (except for the fruit of one particular tree, that they were instructed not to eat).
yes, acoording to the story, God made everyone vegan, even lions. But why did he put that particular tree in the middle of the garden of eden? Why did God ask for problems? If he didn't want humans to eat its fruits, why did he make it so tempting and easy for humans?

The mistakes were not in the plan. God thinks in such different ways than we that the mistakes were taken into account, automatically, without even having been though about.
so god is not that smart? Even I am smart enough to know that planting a tree with delicious fruits in the middle of the garden of eden, guarded by a seducing talking snake, is asking for problems.

You missed it. God doesn't even think mistakes. God doesn't plan for failures. The failures and mistakes are automatically corrected. The corrections are built in.

The question for each of us is, Will I accept the correction, or will I push myself out of existence by not accepting the correction?


Quote
Quote
God made man in the image of God so that man could recognize how good and great God is.
being extremely narcissistic is not my idea of being good...
It sounds silly: "oh, let's make toys that can adore me and see how great I am"

Except that, when you are as good as God, it is the only way to operate.


Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Then later, long after mistakes came into the world (the original perpetual nature of the universe was destroyed), God gave the animals to man for food along with the plants.
which is an odd move of God. Humans did something wrong and therefore God said that they are from then on allowed to harm innocents? Why did he make a vegan world in the first place? Why did God suddenly turned 180°? A bit crazy.

It was not God Who turned. It was man.

no, God turned. First he created a vegan world, so he was against unecessary suffering. And after someone ate from a forbidden fruit, everyone is allowed to kill and eat someone else and cause unnecessary harm?

In the perfect world that God made, there wasn't any suffering. Such a thing as "unnecessary suffering" does not fit that world.

Cannibalism was never condoned.

Animals are not related to people in such a sense that cannibalism would apply.


Quote
Quote
Part of God's plan always was blessings for man. Among the blessings was freedom of choice.
then why didn't he create a free world in the first place? A world where everyone is free to kill and eat someone else?

The idea was to give man the opportunity to be the best that he could be, not to give him the opportunity to fail.


Quote
Quote
Man's turning from God was so great that God had it in mind to destroy all mankind. Noah and his family were the only ones who continued to worship God.

so God killed everyone who did not worship him? That is what an extremely bad dictator does.

God doesn't want anyone to be destroyed. But, that's how great God is. If people won't do the thing that they were made for, what good are they? Yet, God in His mercy gives them many second chances. And still they won't turn and accept God.


Quote
Quote
In the Flood, where God saved Noah and his family, but destroyed the rest of the world, things of the world changed. The world was no longer the healthy place that it had been. Animals were given as food to man because there are times when the kinds of plant life that are suited to man are simply not available in abundance.
he's crazy, this god... Absolutely crazy. Gone mad beyond imagination.

I feel for you. Perhaps when you have the ability to create even the least bit of something, then you can call God crazy. Until then, you don't have the chance of "a nitrocelulos dog chasing an asbestos cat in hell."

Realize that it is not God that is crazy.


Quote
Quote
This whole thing is not easy to explain.
it is easy to explain if we assume god is absolutely crazy...

View the Youtube videos that show how marvelously a living cell works to see about crazy.


Quote
Quote
The whole purpose of the law is to benefit man. It isn't a thing to be picky about. The thing to be picky about is the direction in which a person goes in his life... in favor of God, or against Him. Why worry about the little imperfection of eating a few drops of blood, over against the big imperfection of attempting to fight against God?
but it was god who said we are not allowed to eat blood. He says it quite often, so it must be important to him: http://biblehub.com/genesis/9-4.htm

It IS important to Him. He doesn't allow failure in any way, even once. That's why His Son Jesus had to come as man, with the strength of God, to take the punishment for man, so that man can live. Jesus virtually nullified the effects of breaking the law, without nullifying the law itself. Look to Jesus and live.


Quote
Quote
God's seeming inconsistency is based on the inconsistency of man. God will always help the man who accepts Him, is on His side, believes in the Savior, and proves it by his actions though they are flawed at times.
but there are a lot of believers who became victims of war, genocide, earthquakes, disease, bad luck,... So god does not always help the believers. In fact, he quite often does not help. It seems he acts a bit arbitrarily.

It is true that a lot of believers get what the unbelievers should be getting in this life, and vice versa. There will come a time when Jesus will return to raise all the dead to life, and to judge everyone with regard to how much right and wrong he did while living. Those who believed in Jesus for salvation will receive eternal life in the New Heavens and the New Earth that God will create (is creating?). Then this whole universe will be destroyed as though it had never been - never remembered or brought to mind.

You are welcome to come along.

Smiley
Stijn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


View Profile
December 30, 2014, 03:07:45 AM
 #26

You can say you do not know what awareness or will another being has, but you cannot say they have none because you do not know.
there is no evidence that plants have a will (because plants lack a central nervous system...)
Stijn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


View Profile
December 30, 2014, 08:39:57 AM
 #27

You can say you do not know what awareness or will another being has, but you cannot say they have none because you do not know.
there is no evidence that plants have a will (because plants lack a central nervous system...)

Will has little to do with a central nervous system. It's like saying you know babies don't drink milk because you never see them buying milk bottles.
for babies we have some evidence that they drink milk. I've seen them doing it. For plants there is no evidence that they have a will. Having a will requires having a consciousness, and it is generally scientifically excepted that consciousness is generated by brains.

Quote
But according to your beliefs /
If you like, look at the latest reseatch that shows something akin to brain cells in various other parts of the body. Today science says those neurons have one function. Tomorrow it will be another function.

yes, it is up to science to answer questions like who has a will. But let's not run ahead of science.

Quote
What is missing on all sides of this argument is the realization that you can't learn the truth when you already know something else. The old zen thing about having to empty the mind of garbage so there is space for something else.
for scientific progress we don't have to empty our minds. We only have to listen to the evidence and think consistently. A scientists is able to chance his beliefs, based on evidence.
freeyoungmike
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 12


View Profile
December 30, 2014, 08:53:22 AM
 #28

This guy was a vegetarian and protector of animal rights:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Adolf_Hitler-1933.jpg

</thread>

That's why I eat hamburger  Smiley
Stijn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


View Profile
December 30, 2014, 09:49:28 AM
 #29

All evolution coherence is based on "if." What I mean is, when you get down to the basis of it all, the science says "if" this and that are true, then evolution happened. There is no foundation under evolution. Indeed, there are lots of void gaps between the various steps in evolutionary process.
of course there will always remain void gaps, because not all fossils of all our dead ancestors remained conserved. But evolution can predict something: that new fossil discoveries make the gaps smaller. And indeed that is what we see happening again and again. And we see the fossils in different layers in the ground corresponding with different eras in the past. And that all makes sense. The genesis flood will predict another patern of fossil deposits, and we don't see that pattern.
So yes: if (yes, of course "if") evolution is true, we expect to see X, Y and Z. If genesis is true, we expect to see A, B and C. Now, we see none of A, B nor C, but we already see X and Z. Then it is irrational to believe in genesis and not in evolution by claiming that there is a gap, that we didn't see Y yet.

Quote
The thing is, nobody knows if those are intermediate species. Which ones are the intermediate ones? Are they all intermediate ones? Perhaps they were all created as individual kind-begets-kind species, and the thing we see today is entropy increasing. More and more of our current species of life are dying out without anything coming in to take their place.
we can deduce that those fossils are intermediate species (or relatives of intermediates), by first dating how old those fossils are. Then we put all the fossils next to each other, the oldest ones left, the newest ones right. Then we look at structural differences between the fossils, the shapes of the bones. And then we see some changes when we move from left to right. And those changes make sense from the point of evolution. For example we see an old fossil of an animal with arms, a newer fossil of an animal with featherlike things at his arms, a newer fossil of an animal with winglike arms, and still a newer fossil of an animal with full blown wings. And of course now there are three gaps in the fossil record. And then we find another fossil of an animal that lived between the second and third and looked a bit like the second and a bit like the third in the row. So it is an intermediate, but now there are four gaps. But the gaps are getting smaller.

Quote
Good questions. God is God. How do we know that He needed creating? We aren't far enough along in our investigations to even begin to view what He is personally like.
here we can see a clear distinction between current science and religion. Like evolution, god is a hypothesis. But it in contrast to evolution, god is not a fruitful hypothesis. After all those millenia, christians still don't know anything about how god did it, what he is like. Whereas evolutionary biologists are moving ahead at fast speed, gaining new insights every time. I have the impression that christians are not even investigating their god hypothesis. The god hypothesis is not fruitful.

Quote
Quote
Quote
2. There is no pure randomness. Everything that we call random or probability is based on our inability to see the causes for some effects. The whole universe operates on cause and effect and always has. Even the quantum math that has been developed, which might suggest that there is pure random out there somewhere, has been designed using cause and effect thinking.
some models about the origing of the universe did not have a beginning and hence were not caused (e.g. Hawking Hartle no-boundary state http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle%E2%80%93Hawking_state)
Again models... filled with holes and gaps... simply because we don't know enough to determine if they are even plausible or not.
well, we have mathematics to determine whether they are plausible, in the sense of whether they are consistent and whether they predict things that corresponds with empirical data. You see scientists thinking about how the universe began, constructing and testing models. Why are christians so incapable of doing that? Why don't they construct a clear model of god and then test it against empirical data?

Quote
Quote
Quote
The fact that we humans think the way we do - about everything including science and art - has its base in cause and effect, because something caused us to think the way we do. What is the Great First Cause that caused the chain of effects?
and what is the cause of that? What caused god? What caused god to make a causal universe?
Again. We are barely getting an understanding of the way the universe works.
well, scientists (physicists) are moving ahead at great speed and understand more and more about the big bang. Whereas christians remain stuck with those basic questions.

Quote
And we are scratching the surface of this understanding. How can we understand God Who is eternal and never changes, and lives in light that is unapproachable, and with Whom there is no shadow of turning?
how do you even know that an entity like that even exists?
Scientists are able to discover things (particles, dark matter,...) that are not visible...

Quote
Perhaps I said it not so clear. I meant two things:
1. The Bible can't exist, yet it does. The history of the Bible shows this. Yet, Bibles abound around the world.
2. Non of the other religions approaches this impossibility of existing.
why can't the bible exist?
If the bible can't exist, then neither can the bhagavat gita.

Quote
You missed it. God doesn't even think mistakes. God doesn't plan for failures. The failures and mistakes are automatically corrected. The corrections are built in.
I guess no-one who makes something thinks about the mistakes and pplans for the failures. But the failure and mistake of eve eating from the forbidden fruit is not automatically corrected. All this suffering after the fall is not a good correction for a single person eating from a fruit. A correction would be to induce vomitting in Eve.

Quote
The question for each of us is, Will I accept the correction, or will I push myself out of existence by not accepting the correction?
very strange question...

Quote
Quote
Quote
God made man in the image of God so that man could recognize how good and great God is.
being extremely narcissistic is not my idea of being good...
It sounds silly: "oh, let's make toys that can adore me and see how great I am"
Except that, when you are as good as God, it is the only way to operate.
oh, sure :-)
God is sooo good, that he is allowed to be sooo narcissistic...

Quote
In the perfect world that God made, there wasn't any suffering. Such a thing as "unnecessary suffering" does not fit that world.

Cannibalism was never condoned.

Animals are not related to people in such a sense that cannibalism would apply.
and then someone ate from a fruit, and god turned 180° and decided to make the world far worse than perfect. And with far worse I mean: far worse. Why would he change his mind like that? Why would he suddenly allow so much unnecessary suffering?


Quote
Quote
Quote
Part of God's plan always was blessings for man. Among the blessings was freedom of choice.
then why didn't he create a free world in the first place? A world where everyone is free to kill and eat someone else?

The idea was to give man the opportunity to be the best that he could be, not to give him the opportunity to fail.
this doesn't make any sense to me. Giving someone an opportunity for A without giving him at the same time the opportunity for non-A? You are free to choose A but not free to choose anything else but A?

Quote
God doesn't want anyone to be destroyed.
well he clearly did, with his floods and plagues and genocides and infanticides...

 
Quote
But, that's how great God is. If people won't do the thing that they were made for, what good are they?
I think god has to know what he wants. He can't have the cake and eat it too. Either he wants to be sure that he will be worshipped by his creatures, or he wants his creatures to be free.
But are people made for worshipping god? How egocentric and narcissistic is this god? If I would be a creator and I want to be worshipped, I can create people who worship me. But why would I make these people sentient, with their own preferences, likes and dislikes, if all I'm going to do is destroy these people (against their preferences) once they no longer worship me? Why didn't god make insentient robots that worshipped him?

Quote
Yet, God in His mercy gives them many second chances. And still they won't turn and accept God.
and that innocent child that died from a horrible disease did not even get one chance...

Quote
Realize that it is not God that is crazy.
well, according to your descriptions and to what I read in the bible...

Quote
View the Youtube videos that show how marvelously a living cell works to see about crazy.
ok, on the engineering part, god can be clever, but reading the bible, on the psychological-moral part he is really crazy. He is jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. (quote from Dawkins)

Quote
It IS important to Him. He doesn't allow failure in any way, even once. That's why His Son Jesus had to come as man, with the strength of God, to take the punishment for man, so that man can live. Jesus virtually nullified the effects of breaking the law, without nullifying the law itself. Look to Jesus and live.
well I can't understand the jesus part either. God sends himself as his son to earth to be tortured for the things that someone else did wrong in order to forgive some other people? It doesn't make any sense... Perhaps god watched too many episodes of Monty Python's flying circus: "and now for something completely different"

Quote
It is true that a lot of believers get what the unbelievers should be getting in this life, and vice versa. There will come a time when Jesus will return to raise all the dead to life, and to judge everyone with regard to how much right and wrong he did while living.
but jesus is still not helping all those innocent victims now. Where is he waiting for? He does not even want to say when he will come to help. He still does not give us any evidence that he will come and compensate for all the unnecessary suffering. That's not good. Look at how a medic does it in the hospital. Suppose we have a patient, and a doctor can heal him instantly. But the doctor does not heal him. Instead, he goes away, does not even tell when he will be back, that he will heal the patient. And he remains absent for a long long time without giving the patient any sign of hope... That's not a good doctor.

 
Quote
Those who believed in Jesus for salvation will receive eternal life in the New Heavens and the New Earth that God will create (is creating?).

but why all the unnecessary suffering? It is like a thief. Suppose we have a thief who already has enough money. Still he steals money from you. So you are stolen and poor. You won't hear anything from the thief, but then, some 50 years later, the thief comes back and gives you back your money and much much more. Ok, what the thief did in the end, giving that fortune, was very good. But that still doesn't justify him stealing your money. The thief did not need your money. Compare this thief with a second person: someone who did not steal from you, but still gave you the fortune. I think this second person did something better.
Stijn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


View Profile
December 30, 2014, 09:57:34 AM
 #30

This guy was a vegetarian and protector of animal rights:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Adolf_Hitler-1933.jpg

</thread>

That's why I eat hamburger  Smiley
yeah, and that's why I rape women, because Hitler did not rape women. And I eat dogs and humans, because Hitler didn't.
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512


View Profile
December 30, 2014, 02:34:13 PM
 #31

This guy was a vegetarian and protector of animal rights:



</thread>

That's why I eat hamburger  Smiley
yeah, and that's why I rape women, because Hitler did not rape women. And I eat dogs and humans, because Hitler didn't.

I wonder if Hitler ate Hamburg?    Cheesy
ObscureBean
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


View Profile WWW
December 30, 2014, 04:05:04 PM
 #32

I personally don't see any difference between between vegans and meat eaters. I'm sorry but you're just adding insult to injury with your moral hand. People who become vegan 'out of consideration' for animal life are just self-important hypocrites, nothing more. They are always very careful not to dig too deep with the self-righteousness, the trick is to build a gloriously moral theory just strong enough to negate the pressure they feel from guilt. You'd have to go a LOT deeper in your understanding of equality for it to mean anything at all.
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512


View Profile
December 30, 2014, 05:55:14 PM
 #33

Saint Paul says it this way, in Romans 14:1-4, in the Bible:
Quote
Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

Smiley
jaysabi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


★Nitrogensports.eu★


View Profile
December 30, 2014, 06:20:44 PM
 #34

After seeing multiple pro/anti vegan threads on this board, I'm going to draw the conclusion that there are not many threads on the internet that will go full Godwin faster than a thread about veganism.


           █████████████████     ████████
          █████████████████     ████████
         █████████████████     ████████
        █████████████████     ████████
       ████████              ████████
      ████████              ████████
     ████████     ███████  ████████     ████████
    ████████     █████████████████     ████████
   ████████     █████████████████     ████████
  ████████     █████████████████     ████████
 ████████     █████████████████     ████████
████████     ████████  ███████     ████████
            ████████              ████████
           ████████              ████████
          ████████     █████████████████
         ████████     █████████████████
        ████████     █████████████████
       ████████     █████████████████
▄▄
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██     
██
██
▬▬ THE LARGEST & MOST TRUSTED ▬▬
      BITCOIN SPORTSBOOK     
   ▄▄
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██     
██
██
             ▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▄
     ▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀        ▀▄▄▄▄          
▄▀▀▀▀                 █   ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄
█                    ▀▄          █
 █   ▀▌     ██▄        █          █              
 ▀▄        ▐████▄       █        █
  █        ███████▄     ▀▄       █
   █      ▐████▄█████████████████████▄
   ▀▄     ███████▀                  ▀██
    █      ▀█████    ▄▄        ▄▄    ██
     █       ▀███   ████      ████   ██
     ▀▄        ██    ▀▀        ▀▀    ██
      █        ██        ▄██▄        ██
       █       ██        ▀██▀        ██
       ▀▄      ██    ▄▄        ▄▄    ██
        █      ██   ████      ████   ██
         █▄▄▄▄▀██    ▀▀        ▀▀    ██
               ██▄                  ▄██
                ▀████████████████████▀




  CASINO  ●  DICE  ●  POKER  
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
   24 hour Customer Support   

▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512


View Profile
December 30, 2014, 06:33:53 PM
 #35

After seeing multiple pro/anti vegan threads on this board, I'm going to draw the conclusion that there are not many threads on the internet that will go full Godwin faster than a thread about veganism.

It is the banking system that is ruining the world. The bankers are raping the people more successfully than anyone else ever. They are "farming" the people rather than simply killing them and taking their property.

Hitler was bad. The bad parts of Nazism are extremely bad. Neither Hitler nor the Nazis are nearly as bad as the banking system.

Hitler and the Nazis never stood a chance. Their end was inevitable from the start, though they fought a ferocious fight. The one good thing that they almost did was, they almost destroyed the banking system. They set it back a few decades. But it is back, stronger than ever.

Will Bitcoin stand a chance against the banking system?

Smiley
username18333
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


Knowledge could but approximate existence.


View Profile WWW
December 30, 2014, 08:47:51 PM
 #36

Quote from: Leo Tolstoy, Ch. 5, translated by David Patterson, 1983. - Confession (1882) link=http://izquotes.com/quote/273248
The only absolute knowledge attainable by man is that life is meaningless.

“Morality,” as an adaptive mechanism, is, by extension, begotten of the arbitrary circumstances that beget its originators; therefore, it is “meaningless.”

Escape the plutocrats’ zanpakutō, Flower in the Mirror, Moon on the Water: brave “the ascent which is rough and steep” (Plato).
username18333
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


Knowledge could but approximate existence.


View Profile WWW
December 30, 2014, 08:53:57 PM
 #37

Quote from: Leo Tolstoy, Ch. 5, translated by David Patterson, 1983. - Confession (1882) link=http://izquotes.com/quote/273248
The only absolute knowledge attainable by man is that life is meaningless.

“Morality,” as an adaptive mechanism, is, by extension, begotten of the arbitrary circumstances that beget its originators; therefore, it is “meaningless.”

Absolute knowledge is, by definition, outside the context of life[, s]o both of those statements are meaningless.

How do you know that?

Escape the plutocrats’ zanpakutō, Flower in the Mirror, Moon on the Water: brave “the ascent which is rough and steep” (Plato).
TECSHARE
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2352


Welcome to Bitcoin Stalk


View Profile
December 31, 2014, 01:42:11 AM
 #38

Stijn, you are so completely lacking in logic that I feel like trying to debate you point by point might actually damage my ability for critical reasoning by being exposed to such an extreme density of ignorance. Also you are too lazy to set up your quotes correctly, and I don't think I could live with myself if someone mistook your words for my own by mistake. I want you to answer this.


If it is so horrible to eat animals, why is it ok for animals to eat other animals? What is different between animals and humans that it is ok for animals to eat meat, and not ok for humans?

BITCOINTALK STAFF SELECTIVELY ENFORCE THE RULES IN AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE A CHILL EFFECT AND PERMANENTLY REMOVE ME AND OTHERS FROM THIS FORUM AS RETALIATION FOR SPEAKING OUT ABOUT THEIR ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR, AND THAT OF THEIR PERSONAL CLIQUES.
username18333
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


Knowledge could but approximate existence.


View Profile WWW
December 31, 2014, 02:31:14 AM
 #39

Stijn, you are so completely lacking in logic that I feel like trying to debate you point by point might actually damage my ability for critical reasoning by being exposed to such an extreme density of ignorance. Also you are too lazy to set up your quotes correctly, and I don't think I could live with myself if someone mistook your words for my own by mistake. I want you to answer this.


If it is so horrible to eat animals, why is it ok for animals to eat other animals? What is different between animals and humans that it is ok for animals to eat meat, and not ok for humans?

Humans “know better,” and can subsist without so consuming metazoa.

Escape the plutocrats’ zanpakutō, Flower in the Mirror, Moon on the Water: brave “the ascent which is rough and steep” (Plato).
grendel25
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 966



View Profile
December 31, 2014, 06:41:45 AM
 #40

For me, it comes down to mind over matter:  If you don't mind, it don't matter.  But this idea of mind over matter is hugely important.  It's been repeatedly proven in case study after case study that the "sugar pill" yields actual physical affects that the user expected it would for no other reason than it would.  If this is true than veganism (not even a word yet.. give it time) could be a way towards which we evolve.  Of course that depends on all sorts of things as far as the timing... but maybe it is just a matter of time.


        ▄████████████████████▌
       ██████████████████████
      ▐████████████████████▀

          ▄▄▄▄         ▄▄▄▄▄
  ▄▄███ ▄███████▄   ▄█████████▄
 █████████████████ █████████████
████████████████████████████████▌
████████▀   ▀████████▀   ▀███████
███████      ▐██████▌     ▐██████
███████       ██████       ██████
███████       ██████       ██████
███████       ██████       ██████
███████       ██████       ██████
███████       ██████       ██████
███████       ██████       ██████
███████       █████▌       █████▌
███████       ████▀        ████▀
██████▌
█████▀
▀▀▀▀


▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬HOMEPAGE▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬WHITEPAPER▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬YOUTUBE▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬|▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬WHATSAPP▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬TELEGRAM▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬FACEBOOK▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬TWITTER▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
«UBERIZATION» PLATFORM ///» #True Reviews System
»FOR OFFLINE SERVICES    ///» #Built-in Messenger   #In-house Currency

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!