Liberación Igualdad wrote:

QUOTE:
First of all, I want to offer my sincere apologies if my words offended you, John. It wasn't my intention at all, and I'm really sorry for that.

Sadly, writing (especially on internet forums) have that particular characteristic of leaving an awful lot to interpretation, since the same words can be interpreted differently if one thinks the individual who wrote it was angry, attacking, calmed, joking, etc.

Second, I don't consider myself to have a higher degree of intelligence or 'education' (whatever that is) than anyone else. What I do have, though, is a high interest in putting my thoughts and beliefs on the table, together with the thoughts and beliefs of others, and debate them. I'm usually not content with simply sharing thoughts. I just love debating... what can I do?
However, I try to do so only when my interlocutor is also interested.

For example, many individuals come to this forum and in their very first post share their beliefs about 'god', the need for 'spirituality' or the importance of connecting with our 'souls' to solve these problems. As I don't think they want to debate, nor do I think they have a hidden 'agenda', I never respond to these specific points.

In the case of pantheism and atheism, I thought we had agreed to debate, not simply share our thoughts, hence, my insistence on arguing my position. Of course, I accept that sometimes the 'heat' of a debate might make me seem as if I'm being aggressive/insulting/whatever, and this may lead to the thought that I'm really arguing against an individual instead of addressing especific arguments. I think, however, that I have only referred to arguments, and not to the individual.
(I'm always learning in this respect -how others perceive my words- and I'll try to improve it).

Also, sometimes I do misunderstand what my counterpart is saying, and this leads me to conclusions that aren't accurate. But that's when my counterpart can clarify.

I can assure you that I haven't consciously misrepresented your views trying to 'win' (especially since I don't think a debate is about 'winning' or 'losing' ). Also, I never meant to harrass you, or put forth my own 'agenda'.

Anyways, I'll respond to a few specific points you made and that'll be it.

QUOTE:
Most people do have some concept of a God or gods and we do need most people with us if we are going to stop the obscene cruelty and slaughter of fellow earthlings. Yet you guys appear to be more interested in disproving a belief in any god, so I have little alternative than to conclude that you have hijacked the forum for your own agenda.

As Mike said, we've been only talking 'god' for a couple of weeks. I've been here for more than a year, so, although I understand why you'd think otherwise (having been here precisely these 'god-talking' weeks), your conclusion that we're here simply to further our atheist 'agendas' is not accurate.

Like Mike, I understand that there is no way one can 'disprove' god or many other things, but one can 'disprove' certain things that some present as 'proof' of god, such as misunderstandings of evolution, for example. As I'm very interested in evolution myself, I think it's important to dispell these misunderstanding if, in my incomplete knowledge, I'm capable of doing so.

Also, I don't think that rejecting someone's views is synonymous with rejecting her/him. I have had heated debates with good friends who are theists, and our friendship has never been jeopardized because of it.

Half-seriously and half-jokingly I've been called a 'sinner', 'devil worshipper', 'infidel' and many other things (and I've called them 'schizophrenic' and 'fairy believers' back!)... but, gladly, real-life conversations are different from internet ones.

QUOTE:
So your 'pupil' could well be right about intervention into the evolution sequence and there is much evidence of this in writings that go back thousands of years.

He could be right, but not because of his argument. I simply argued that 'uniqueness' is no good argument, since all species are unique, and their uniqueness is precisely what gives evolution its basis.

QUOTE:
You make an assumption that all the information about gods from the past cannot be correct, because you say it cannot proved. Yet at the same time, you acknowledge modern writings on the assumption that your selected modern scientists must be so much more intelligent than people of the distant past!

I have never even referred to ancient cultures. I haven't written, or implied, that modern scientists are 'more intelligent than people of the distant past', either.

It is my understanding that, since we are the same species, 'our' intelligence (today) is not higher or lower than that of 'them' (many thousand years ago). What is different is the knowledge accumulated (culture) and the technology.

I sincerely don't know what made you think that I believe the things you say I do in that quote.

QUOTE:
Then shouldn't that make me equal to you? So why are you fighting what I believe to be true? You have 'better' knowledge than I do? Perhaps in some respects you might and I can plainly see that you do not know it all.

Yes, I think we are equal. But I don't think that 'equality' entails agreement about everything, or staying silent when one disagrees.

And no, I don't have (overall) 'better knowledge' than you as I don't know it all. As you say, in some respects I might, in others you might have better knowledge.

QUOTE:
I have met several people who don't! Then hopefully, all of us on this forum are not putting our own species first! How about you?

Unless you haven't met your ego self you have just revealed your anthropocentric mindset and motives to us all!

I think that regardless of my conscious efforts and intention not to, I think deep inside I am speciesist, because I think I am, in fact, hard-wired to be one (Jeff, DG's partner, wrote something similar in another forum and it made perfect sense to me). I suppose in cases of true-conflict my speciesist mindset would come up.

From the acceptance of this I try to get rid of speciesism in every aspect of my life that I can control.

However, this isn't really what I wanted to aim at, but I recognize that I phrased that sentence incorrectly. I didn't want to imply that ALL humans put their species first but that those that don't are nothing but 'exceptions' to the rule, and that these exceptions are also present in individuals from other species.

That's it.

My apologies again.

Samuel.

Apology half accepted - oh all right then, accepted! I must have been having a bad day and I spoke out of place. Forgive me.

But why did you mention anthropomorphism! lol I mean, that's like calling someone a Nazi! Then I guess I must have taken your words out of context. We do have things in common Sam, we both tend to argue over details - but I tend to rant more.

Mike wrote:

QUOTE:
Wow. Sam upset someone. That's a first.

And so I lost a 'brownie' point. Whatever...

Mike wrote:

QUOTE:
Everybody just cool it.

John, I'm glad you say you'll stay around, because you've made a gross overstatement about Sam's character. Stick around and read. You'll find your error, and he will most likely do the same.

Only within the past few weeks has the idea of god come up on this board. I don't know that we'll do the film, the message, or the movement any good if members of the board make people (people who are committed to working towards non-violence) feel unwelcome.

In fairness, John, you started this thread and made some bold assertions on this forum. It's only fair that they can be refuted... but civilly.

In all fairness, Mike, when insinuations appear to have be made that I am a speciesist, it should be understandable that I can get upset about such remarks. Apparently I took his words out of context and that should be understandable too.

Mike wrote:

QUOTE:
The main point here is that no logical assertion about the existence of a god can be made, because the contention is something unprovable, untestable, and overall unknown.

So just as an atheist cannot logically say "there is no god", one cannot logically say the opposite.

Is there a god?

Is there a universe?

Ah but we cannot know how it could come about from nothing so therefore the universe doesn't exist?

Mike wrote:

QUOTE:
Meh. To me, it's not a relevant question to anything I say, do, or think. Therefore, this will most humbly be my last post on this topic.

As for speciesism, blah. I love animals, you love animals. Fine. Are we still paying to have them killed? Are we killing them ourselves? No? Then good. Let's work on getting other people there, first.

See? Now hug it out.

Mike (the arbitrator of peace)

"Let's work on getting other people there, first" and I very much agree with that, Mike.

I will respond to this, John, only because it is more of a logic topic than a faith topic. Seriously, though, guys. I think we should all give the religious/spiritual stuff a rest for a while. I don't like the tone that keeps popping up on these threads. Maybe I'm just too much of a softy, or perhaps I gravitate towards true efficacy instead of rising tempers.

QUOTE:

Ah but we cannot know how it could come about from nothing so therefore the universe doesn't exist?

No. Incorrect.

There are two logical fallacies, here. The first is that your premise begs the question of how the universe began by suggesting that we know it came from nothing and are now wondering how. This is not true.

The second fallacy is a non sequiter. The idea that because you don't know how something came to be means that it doesn't exist is false. That was your point, I know, but this does nothing to tie to my statement about the existence of a god. My statement wasn't that we don't know where gods come from, it was that we haven't proven whether they exist or not in any testable manner.

If a being stood before me exhibiting a combination of omniscience and omnipotence, and any or all of my five senses could experience its presence, I could reasonably assert that this being exists. I would not need to know where this being came from or how this being came into existence, because the sensory data could be sufficient for my belief. Peer review of my findings, however, would add to the empirical nature of them so I could remove such possibilities as hallucination or other factors impacting my own perception.

There are other ways to assert existence than direct sensory data, but this example is sufficient to explain how your conclusion does not follow from your premise, and your premise was inherently flawed to begin with.

This is where logic is not a subjective tool. Regardless of one's opinion on a particular topic, using arguments with those fallacies would not work towards proving a point.

Now back to work. All of you! We've got vegans to make and animals to save.

Mike

Mike wrote:

QUOTE:
I will respond to this, John, only because it is more of a logic topic than a faith topic. Seriously, though, guys. I think we should all give the religious/spiritual stuff a rest for a while.

Religious is not the same as spiritual and the message of Earthlings is a spiritual one.

Mike wrote:

QUOTE:
I don't like the tone that keeps popping up on these threads. Maybe I'm just too much of a softy, or perhaps I gravitate towards true efficacy instead of rising tempers.

John wrote

QUOTE:
Ah but we cannot know how it could come about from nothing so therefore the universe doesn't exist?

No. Incorrect.

By saying incorrect, you mean the universe does exist? I agree that the universe does exist, Mike.

Mike wrote:

QUOTE:
There are two logical fallacies, here. The first is that your premise begs the question of how the universe began by suggesting that we know it came from nothing and are now wondering how. This is not true.

Please explain what is meant here.

Then of course the universe does not come from nothing because nothing can come from nothing. Therefore, the universe comes from something.

Mike wrote:

QUOTE:
The second fallacy is a non sequiter. The idea that because you don't know how something came to be means that it doesn't exist is false. That was your point, I know, but this does nothing to tie to my statement about the existence of a god.

1) I thought that you wasn’t going to talk about god. But seeing as the universe is much bigger and more powerful than we are, by definition, the universe would be god and 2) what I am saying is that there is logic and structure behind the universe, which points to a Mind and that is what I (as ancient gods also did) call the God of all.

Mike wrote:

QUOTE:
My statement wasn't that we don't know where gods come from, it was that we haven't proven whether they exist or not in any testable manner.

I have spent most of my life (I am now 61) studying this subject and come to the conclusion there is much evidence for the existence of gods, then logically, there is even more evidence for God of all, because the universe does exist. So what does that do in regard to us earthlings? It puts things more into perspective, that humans are not the be all of everything and that on a cosmic scale, there is little difference in stature between humans and a worm or an insect. However, because we have more complex minds than some creatures have with our measure of spirituality (not to be confused with religion), knowing that we are all of the same, because we all came from the same stardust, we should know better than to abuse other creatures.

Mike wrote:

QUOTE:
If a being stood before me exhibiting a combination of omniscience and omnipotence, and any or all of my five senses could experience its presence, I could reasonably assert that this being exists.

You could, if indeed such a being exists.

Mike wrote:

QUOTE:
I would not need to know where this being came from or how this being came into existence, because the sensory data could be sufficient for my belief. Peer review of my findings, however, would add to the empirical nature of them so I could remove such possibilities as hallucination or other factors impacting my own perception.

Unfortunately, most peers are conditioned to perceive reality in a way to give a wrong result. For instance, look up "cold fusion" on the internet, because it is now becoming more apparent that "cold fusion" does in fact exist.

(photon) John

I think this is a great article by Adam, related to the first post.
Are humans superior to animals?

What does equality really mean? I think refers to an individuals importance in relation to another individual, in order to make the term meaningful in this context, and frame it in the mindset of the exploiter. And so equality may address the question: who is more worthy to survive?

My personal opinion on the matter is that sentient beings are equal.
It's fair to assume that we animals, all have an interest in a continued existence, and in not being exploited.
Now I don't know about insects, they are a constant source of confusion for me, but I'm sure we can all agree to afford them this assumption.

It's hard to say that a human enjoys life more than a dog and vice versa. Even so, does ones ability to enjoy life qualify as valid reason for his or her continued existence? I don't think so.

Does ones lifespan matter, or the amount of time one has left?

Is ones "goodness" or utility to others make that person more equal/important?

Is the life of those you are responsible for or care about, mean they are more equal/important?

Is your life more equal/important than others lives?

Personally, I would answer no to the above questions. And because of that, I am at times upset over my current circumstance; being vegan in a non vegan world.
I think it is important to remember that we human animals can avoid contributing to the majority of direct or indirect harm other animals experience in today's society. And by harm I mean suffering, exploitation or death.
Unfortunately it is rare to be able to avoid all of it even if we are vegan. Some of us have to face daily, the questions I've asked above.

Surely we are also contributing to dispelling the idea that, "it is permissible for us to exploit animals, both human and non human", through our interaction with other human people.
So I also think it's just as important to keep in mind, that through this contribution, we can be more useful, to both non-human animals and human animals, than otherwise.

Maybe this is out of line but:
Did it ever occured to anybody that human beings might be just an attempt of the evolution to create a mammal-based parasite?
As far as my knowledge of typical parasite behaivour is: they use their host for their livelihood no regards if the host dies or not. In first case the par. does apparently also destroy his foundation for his own survival and condamns itself to extinction. In some cases the host doesn't survive in some cases the parasite (change of environmental influence the host is used to the par. not).
So who thinks there will be still humans in, let's say 1 million years from now, say:"Ay!"....

???


Thought so...

How much this topic will be discussed, it won't change a thing.
But one thing that make humans special to me is their ability to indivualize.
We all have our own individual way of being stupid as f...

Enough polemics.
One thing regarding the Anthrocentrism or whatever it's called.
If I would have to make a decision between saving a human being I don't know and a dog I don't know, I would definately go for the dog.
So far with this: putting the own species first...

Anyway, although I'm not a vegetarian or vegan and really do like meat, this movie really got to me.(Thinking about stopping eating dead animals.... mh, No!)
But it's true, most people would stop if they knew under which circumstances their food is prepared or had to kill them ont heir own, but some won't cuz they're ready to kill for food, like some carnivores. And others would grow their OWN veggies and soy.
-
Just one question to the non animal product eaters: what do you think about increasing exploitation of soil and human beings due to the rapidly growing soymarket, and don't tell me all of you are buying "fair trade" products.
-
But back to the topic. The individualism is from my point of view the reason why humans are not able to coexist peacefully with anything not even amongst each other. Always the need to be special, outstanding from the masses, different from each other and they all TRY IT THE SAME WAY??? (Do animals have the problem of feeling inadequate?)
An evolutionary problem? I think so...
All the other species are in the basic form we know them nowadays, for a far longer time than humans. So probably they had more time to develop a lifestyle which doesn't endanger themselves. to me it looks like humans are the only species which don't fit in the picture of a balanced world.
So far for "equality". Who said intelligence is a matter of braincapacity???
For example: Paris Hilton, not the brightest measured by academical standards but evolved the perfect premises to survive in her "environment"...
And if mankind is an evolutionary dead end, nature will take care of. Dinosaurs are gone as well (at least the clumsy and less adjustable ones).
So don't be afraid, don't wheep about things which maybe meant to be.
NATURE WILL TAKE CARE OF.
The only mischief and tormant animals have is mankind. but who's going to be the first sacrifice themselves for the sake of the other earthlings?
By the way are plants also earthlings? Do they suffer from overfertilization and genetic manipulation? Are they lucky? Is it cruel to eat raw vegetables?
I FEEL SO STUPID.
-finally my fav quote:
“Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed”

sad but true
once again: awesome movie, one of the best I've ever seen. (if not the best...
at least the one with the most impact)

and to all activists: keep on doin' what ya doin! somebody has to. and I respect those who still think mankind could change and it is worth fighting for