A Chance for Atheists to Recover

[Magic Man]

Why do threads always degenerate into this? This thread was started because another thread started making atheists look stupid and now there's this.:sad4:

Um...I know the thread you're referring to, and atheists weren't the ones who looked stupid, just as they are not the ones who look stupid here. I'll let you figure out who did and does look stupid...

 

[angellous_evangellous]

In the thread What’s Wrong With Atheism, I compiled a list of 12 things that atheists don’t seem to “get.” Rather than tackle anything I listed, participating atheists preferred to proving my short list right. Some, it seems, were trying to make me a prophet. I thought I’d give other atheists an opportunity to respond. After all, if the acts of some religionists are an embarrassment to other religionists, it seems reasonable atheists can be embarrassed by other atheists Here the list:

1. Some choices are forced--not choosing sometimes has the same consequences as choosing, that is, not choosing is sometimes effectively making a choice.
2. Forced decisions invalidate the demands of evidentialism.
3. Your choice does not--cannot--invalidate mine nor mine yours.
4. It's not about what we believe, or who we are or what we are--its about the foundation upon which we build our lives, relationship and the quality of life not just for the self, but the whole of reality.
5. That just as Law is life itself and not the rules of its conduct, truth is the living of life and not in the acquirement of right ideas.
6. The problem with atheism isn’t lack of belief, but wrong belief. In other words, it is always possible to formulate a conception of God that stands up to critical examination
7. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, neither does it make it unreasonable.
8. Given a God that stands to reason and the potential benefit of believing in such a God, it is more reasonable to believe than not to believe.
9. Number 6 depends on you, and you alone.
10. There is a qualitative difference between “I am son of the loving and living God in whom all things converge and are one” and “in God I live, move and have my being; in me, God escapes the finality of infinity” on the one hand, and on the other saying, "Life has no ultimate meaning."
11. That not having the tools adequate to the task of seeing the difference is not a deficiency on the part of the theist, but on the part of the atheist.
12. You must choose to develop tools adequate to the task. Not choosing is to choose not to develop those tools.

So why don't you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

 

[Ant0nio]

Buy many plants do feel something akin to pain, as the scientific journal article I linked above explains.

I searched through that article. There is not one instance of the word pain.

Plants do feel a very minimal amount of suffering, but it is incomparable to the pain felt by animals and humans. Not only is there physical suffering, but also mental and emotional suffering felt by animals as well.

Livestock are treated horrifically.

 

[Storm]

I searched through that article. There is not one instance of the word pain.

Plants do feel a very minimal amount of suffering, but it is incomparable to the pain felt by animals and humans. Not only is there physical suffering, but also mental and emotional suffering felt by animals as well.

Like I said, it's an ultimately anthro-centric rationalization to make you feel morally superior.

 

[McBell]

Why do threads always degenerate into this? This thread was started because another thread started making atheists look stupid and now there's this.:sad4:

Would you be so kind as to point out this other thread?
Of course, given your perspective on atheism any thread in which you post, YOU would consider makes atheists look stupid.

 

[Magic Man]

Livestock are treated horrifically.

Yes they are sometimes, and that has already been addressed by Doppelganger. Aside from the times when they are treated poorly, there plenty of times they are treated well. Those are the times he was referring to. No one's trying to say that the way huge companies treat livestock is good.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I searched through that article. There is not one instance of the word pain.

Plants do feel a very minimal amount of suffering, but it is incomparable to the pain felt by animals and humans. Not only is there physical suffering, but also mental and emotional suffering felt by animals as well.

Livestock are treated horrifically.

You think that plants have an emotional and mental consciousness?

 

[McBell]

Plants do feel a very minimal amount of suffering, but it is incomparable to the pain felt by animals and humans. Not only is there physical suffering, but also mental and emotional suffering felt by animals as well.

Incomparable?
Says who?
What about people with CIPA?

Livestock are treated horrifically.

Some, perhaps even most livestock are treated horrifically.
If you like, We can get into a link war and I provide links to places which seriously over state and in some cases flat out lie about the horrific conditions. PETA comes to mind right quick. BUt what is the point?
So what, you can point out where some animals are treated badly.
Seems to me that killing them off would be a service to them as it removes them from said conditions.

 

[Storm]

You think that plants have an emotional and mental consciousness?

I do, actually, which is why I reject the position that vegetarianism is morally superior.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I do, actually, which is why I reject the position that vegetarianism is morally superior.

Ha! More than one person believes this. :biglaugh:

I'm going to treat myself to an ice cream cone.

 

[McBell]

Why do threads always degenerate into this? This thread was started because another thread started making atheists look stupid and now there's this.:sad4:

I do understand you frustration though.
Antonia hijacked this thread to promote his vegetarianism and preach on the cruelty of eating meat.

 

[Storm]

Ha! More than one person believes this. :biglaugh:

I'm going to treat myself to an ice cream cone.

1) I think you misunderstood Ant0nio. He was saying that they don't, he just phrased it badly

2) My theology states that all reality is imbued with consciousness. That includes plants.

That's not to say that they're conscious in the same way that we are. Just that our form isn't superior.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Plants do not have brains.

Jellyfish do not have brains, and have not been proven to feel pain.

The 90% figure was a quote for Master Ching Hai taken from here. You'll have to scroll down to the part where it says " Master answers Questions"

Ah. It seems he was incorrect in his premise; should we therefore doubt his conclusion?

And I notice the part of this statement that I've bolded is flat-out wrong as well:

Most people assume that meat is clean and safe, that there are inspections done at all butcheries. There are far too many cattle, pigs, poultry, etc. killed for sale every day for each one to actually be examined. It's very difficult to check whether a piece of meat has cancer in it, let alone check every single animal. Currently, the meat industry just cuts off the head when it has a problem, or cuts off the leg which is diseased. Only the bad parts are removed and the rest is sold.

In every place I know of, it's prohibited to sell any meat from a sick animal.

Livestock are treated horrifically.

Sometimes.

Also, sometimes livestock that aren't killed suffer as well.

Fun fact: did you know that in many dairy farms, there's an electrified bar above the back of the cow? It's there so that when the cow hunches its back when it goes to excrete, it gets a mild electric shock and straightens out again. This prevents the cow from getting feces on its udder.

You said that milk and cheese are acceptable, right?

 

[doppelganger]

Um...I know the thread you're referring to, and atheists weren't the ones who looked stupid, just as they are not the ones who look stupid here. I'll let you figure out who did and does look stupid...

That would require a mirror, which, as noted earlier, seem to be in very short supply in this thread.

 

[Magic Man]

Ha! More than one person believes this. :biglaugh:

I'm going to treat myself to an ice cream cone.

Good response! That's the way to have a good, productive conversation, just laugh at others' ideas, and imply they're ridiculous without giving any kind of justification.

 

[Ant0nio]

You think that plants have an emotional and mental consciousness?

nope.

 

[YmirGF]

I wholeheartedly agree that some atheists make me blush with their chatter, however, for the most part, I am more in sync in their camp even though I do, in fact, believe in "god". The simple fact is that my "god concept" is not like other "god concepts" and I will be the first to admit that I do have a tendency to look down on other "god concepts". In that spirit, I will tackle your points.

1. Some choices are forced--not choosing sometimes has the same consequences as choosing, that is, not choosing is sometimes effectively making a choice.

Voting or not voting would seem to validate this assertion. Likewise, laws that are enacted on our behalf, wanted or not, is another due to our electing (or not electing) leaders to make decisions.

2.

Forced decisions invalidate the demands of evidentialism.

True, but such decisions can be called to task at a later point if the effort is deemed worth the time and work. Even so-called forced decisions are not engraved in stone.

3.

Your choice does not -- cannot -- invalidate mine nor mine yours.

Unless one is in a position of power. See answer #2. A forced decision may directly affect your choice thereby invalidating it (for all intents and purposes). I suppose said choice could remain subjectively valid at such a stage, but it wouldn't make much difference unless the forced decision was changed and therefore allowed for your choice it.

4.

It's not about what we believe, or who we are or what we are--its about the foundation upon which we build our lives, relationship and the quality of life not just for the self, but the whole of reality.

Um, what precisely are we talking about here?

5. That just as Law is life itself and not the rules of its conduct, truth is the living of life and not in the acquirement of right ideas.

I reject this one out of hand as Laws are indeed "rules of conduct" and can hardly be called "life itself". As well, "Truth" is relative, so I simply cannot buy into this kind of thinking. (People actually suggested this was valid?) *Sigh*

6 .

The problem with atheism isn’t lack of belief, but wrong belief. In other words, it is always possible to formulate a conception of God that stands up to critical examination.

I disagree. Unless one can supply empirical evidence or a direct, duplicatable series of steps for perceiving what is ostensibly "god" the assertion is largely without merit. In reality, all things are possible, but realistically speaking, will likely remain highly improbable.

7. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, neither does it make it unreasonable.

The first part of the statement, strictly speaking, is true, however in most applications "absence of evidence" does have a tendency to destroy credibility. In most examples, "absence of evidence" is strictly speaking not unreasonable, in fact, reason seldom has anything to do with such thinking.

8.

Given a God that stands to reason and the potential benefit of believing in such a God, it is more reasonable to believe than not to believe.

Mmmm, Pascal's Wagner is invalid on several levels. So this argument does not hold water. It is perhaps the most "base" reason for believing in "god". If one is given to hedging their bets, then they should not take up gambling.

9 . Number 6 depends on you, and you alone.

And... your point is... Are you suggesting that "god" exists solely because I chose to believe in its reality or not?

10.

There is a qualitative difference between “I am son of the loving and living God in whom all things converge and are one” and “in God I live, move and have my being; in me, God escapes the finality of infinity” on the one hand, and on the other saying, "Life has no ultimate meaning."

Indeed there is quite a difference. The first one is somewhat egotistical and arrogant while the later is based on observable reality. Both views are somewhat distasteful in my opinion.

11.

That not having the tools adequate to the task of seeing the difference is not a deficiency on the part of the theist, but on the part of the atheist.

That is a tiny bit hollow sounding, if you will forgive me. In theory, if theists were a quite a bit better at presenting their often nonsensical case, then perhaps atheists would give them the time of day. Theists often come off sounding like they are only trying to convince themselves. Atheists don't need faith in things they can perceive. In theory, theists use faith to overcome reason.

12. You must choose to develop tools adequate to the task. Not choosing is to choose not to develop those tools.

Why? Not choosing could also be a conscious decision based on the reasoning that the "task" is unworthy of the effort. Theists just don't seem to "get" that part either. I guess the problem is that theists in their understandable enthusiasm simply cannot understand how anyone could see things differently than they do. God is just so freakin' obvious to them. Methinks they are more in love with their projections than they are in touch with reality however. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Ant0nio]

I do, actually, which is why I reject the position that vegetarianism is morally superior.

I never meant to say that vegetarianism is morally superior, only that it is required to learn the meditation, and is more beneficial to mankind, and the world as a whole. These are facts, not opinion.

 

[Ant0nio]

Incomparable?
Says who?
What about people with CIPA?


Some, perhaps even most livestock are treated horrifically.
If you like, We can get into a link war and I provide links to places which seriously over state and in some cases flat out lie about the horrific conditions. PETA comes to mind right quick. BUt what is the point?
So what, you can point out where some animals are treated badly.
Seems to me that killing them off would be a service to them as it removes them from said conditions.

My intentions were not to debate about the merits of being vegetarian over not being vegeterian. I simply wanted to talk about a method to prove for yourself that God exists. The requirements to learn this method included becoming vegetarian.

The only reason I went into vegetarianism is because it is a requirement to learn the meditation. I was asked questions concerning vegetarianism and answered. My main purpose was to offer a method to prove God's existence, a chance for athiests to recover, if you will.

I understand that the habit of eating meat is a very hard habit to break, if you even want to break it at all. But please don't forget that the focus of my posts are to inform about a method to reach God directly. Vegetarianism is just a requirement of this method.

 

[Storm]

I never meant to say that vegetarianism is morally superior, only that it is required to learn the meditation,

And WHY is it required to learn the meditation?

and is more beneficial to mankind, and the world as a whole. These are facts, not opinion.

No, they're not.