Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I like it better than the last one

It's good, but I don't see the need with the discussion thread

It's not going to go anywhere good, just lock it now.

[UXLZ]

Demonstrably possibly false.

The scientific status of "consciousness" in animals continues to be hotly debated

tbf, all evidence points to it being false. But once you start attributing creatures like rats as sentients, you can't just test on them in a myriad of oftentimes sadistic and unnecessary ways. A moral dilemma arises that no one wants to confront.

Yeah, I hadn't finished reading.

http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf

That was from 2012, but you'd think something as important as 'Animals are self-aware and conscious' would have created more noise. I've never even heard of the damn thing.
Then again, we already knew they were capable of pain and such and didn't seem to care to much. 
Anyway, massive derailing aside:

Arx: Thanks.

Christians
Still looking for the answers to these.

Why does it carry on to every person? Is there a reason for it that's stated or is it a 'just 'cause' situation? (Also, I think I remember reading somewhere that humans no longer inherited the sin due to Jesus' sacrifice or something, but still had to deal with the consequences despite not inheriting the sin itself. I could be totally remembering wrong though, or it could be from another type of Christianity.)

Sounds about right. Is it a clouds-in-the-sky type deal or do you think it shifts to accommodate the preferences of each person?


Wait, so what happens to the humans who die but aren't eligible for heaven? Is everyone just going to wait until Judgement to get sent to their respective paradise and punishment?

[Arcvasti]

Not really sure. What I can extrapolate from the Bible, is that Lucifer[I'll call him "Lucy" for short] wanted mankind to be able to perceive good and evil. God wanted them to be ignorant, because They knew that, given knowledge of good and evil, they could choose evil, which was bad. After the whole Garden debacle, Lucy was stripped of his wings[Dragon turned to serpent] and cast down. Not really sure what canonically hapens afterwards. The Bible describes Lucy a fair bit less then the actual Church does[See "Shitty fanfics, above"]. In any case, according to Revelation[Questionable canon, please take with 1/12th of a saltshaker], Lucy would be cast into Hell[Described as a pit of burning brimstone] for eternity at the same time as everyone else at the Last Judgement. Not ruling it. IN it.

That seems logical, though I think we're better off going purely with what's in the Bible. Everything else is... Questionable, at best, one would think, being written by humans, who are flawed. I think the original bible was written by God on golden tablets or something though I may be getting confused.

Let me backpedal a bit though... I thought free will was something God gave to humans (that is, the ability to choose)? Was it Lucy instead, and God merely chose not to immediately take free will away thus 'giving' it to humans?
Also, can you please fill me in on a bit of the context I must be missing? Because that short version is seriously, seriously making me think Lucy was the 'good guy' in this scenario. Actually, I think I remember hearing something else and actually thinking that I sympathized a lot more with Lucy than with God, which will probably condemn me to hell or something. Anyway, what am I missing?
Also, how could Lucy possibly have done something against God's wishes? It's omniscient and omnipotent (apparently), so I can't understand how Lucy was able to get around that and actually do something that God truly, seriously didn't want Lucy to do (as opposed to just something God said It didn't want Lucy to do but it was Just As Planned all along. Actually, given my understanding of God it seems to be totally impossible for something to *not* be Just As Planned). Is there some sort of clause exempting the angels from God's direct influence or something? Seriously, what am I missing? >_>

Humans already HAD free will, sort of. This is demonstrated by them going against God's command and eating the fruit. Couldn't have hapened if they didn't have free will. What they lacked was knowledge of good and evil, which meant they were ignorant. God didn't want them to have that knowledge, deeming it too harmful. But They also gave humankind the capacity to gain it if they wanted to, with the tree of good and evil. Its entirely possible They would have shared it with humankind at a later date, as a step towards enlightenment or somesuch. As for Lucy being in the right? Its quite possible Lucy started out as having philosophical differences with God and had benign, if misguided intentions. But, according to Revelation[And it might also have been mentioned in other places too, can't remember],Lucy then tried to stage a coup with a cadre[A third of them, according to Revelation] of like-minded angels instead of trying to justify his action. Things devolved from there.

RE: Animal cruelty:

Yeah, not okay. Inflicting harm on a sentient creature[Bugs are iffier] is wrong. Pretty sure animals have souls, being able to feel pain and pleasure and emotions[Mostly mammals. Reptiles are notably less so.]. However, with the lack of Original Sin/knowledge of good and evil, animals cannot sin, simply because they don't really comprehend morality and such. As I said before, monkeys and similar borderline-sapient animals might be able to, since some monkeys can use tools, develop complex relationships and engage in [Fairly simple storm veneration mostly]religion and large-scale warfare.

FAKEEDIT: GAH SO MANY NINJAZ.

In any case, sort of in response to the aforementioned NINJAZ:

Sentience =/= Sapience.

The vast majority[And then some] of what we consider animals are sentient, to varying degrees[As previously mentioned, reptiles and similar feel relatively little emotion]. Humans and possibly some higher primates[No idea where dolphins fall in this.] are sapient.

Exploiting animals for human gain...

Its necessary. Or very close to it. Unnecessary animal exploitation should be stopped. Even if it IS necessary, they should be treated fairly well. And alternative means of producing animal products without harming sentient creatures should be looked into. Although, once such means become widespread, what hapens to the now-obsolete cattle? Not sure that'd be any BETTER for them...

[Arx]

Further clarification: I don't doubt that animals are conscious and self-aware. There is just a noticeable difference between them and humans, possibly only the level of communication.

[smeeprocket]

I have yet to see an example of animal exploitation that was actually necessary, but we are veering off topic.

[Arx]

I have yet to see or hear of anything truly necessary, and I cannot imagine anything truly necessary. It's all very subective.

[TD1]

Many different forms of communication (we have more than one language and correct me if I'm wrong but most animals that can communicate only speak in one 'language')

What difference does it make that we speak in more than one language? Animals make use of the sounds/movements available to them, much as we do- for a dog, this is limited to growls/barks.

Inteligence

There is a parrot/bird of some sort that drops nuts in front of cars, waits until it's been opened, then flies down after the traffic lights come on to claim its prize. Is this not intelligent?

Preservation of life (I don't know how many animals know how to keep each other from dieing)

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Animals want to live as much as we do. Though, perhaps you're saying animals don't have medical knowledge? Not true. There are animals, like this, that use painkillers.

The power to physically destroy everything (I do not know of a single animal that has the ability to kill everything in it's path with no resistance)

Man can't do this either. We have WoMD, etc., but we wouldn't cope against an  angry flock of birds attacking at once. A human vs. a lion wouldn't even be even. Plus, there are venemous creatures that can kill anything they come across....including humans.

As for animals made for humans, why? Why not have meat-sacs that feel no pain, have no survival instinct, and why are many of them so similar to us?

A looot of Ninjas.

[UXLZ]

Not really sure. What I can extrapolate from the Bible, is that Lucifer[I'll call him "Lucy" for short] wanted mankind to be able to perceive good and evil. God wanted them to be ignorant, because They knew that, given knowledge of good and evil, they could choose evil, which was bad. After the whole Garden debacle, Lucy was stripped of his wings[Dragon turned to serpent] and cast down. Not really sure what canonically hapens afterwards. The Bible describes Lucy a fair bit less then the actual Church does[See "Shitty fanfics, above"]. In any case, according to Revelation[Questionable canon, please take with 1/12th of a saltshaker], Lucy would be cast into Hell[Described as a pit of burning brimstone] for eternity at the same time as everyone else at the Last Judgement. Not ruling it. IN it.

That seems logical, though I think we're better off going purely with what's in the Bible. Everything else is... Questionable, at best, one would think, being written by humans, who are flawed. I think the original bible was written by God on golden tablets or something though I may be getting confused.

Let me backpedal a bit though... I thought free will was something God gave to humans (that is, the ability to choose)? Was it Lucy instead, and God merely chose not to immediately take free will away thus 'giving' it to humans?
Also, can you please fill me in on a bit of the context I must be missing? Because that short version is seriously, seriously making me think Lucy was the 'good guy' in this scenario. Actually, I think I remember hearing something else and actually thinking that I sympathized a lot more with Lucy than with God, which will probably condemn me to hell or something. Anyway, what am I missing?
Also, how could Lucy possibly have done something against God's wishes? It's omniscient and omnipotent (apparently), so I can't understand how Lucy was able to get around that and actually do something that God truly, seriously didn't want Lucy to do (as opposed to just something God said It didn't want Lucy to do but it was Just As Planned all along. Actually, given my understanding of God it seems to be totally impossible for something to *not* be Just As Planned). Is there some sort of clause exempting the angels from God's direct influence or something? Seriously, what am I missing? >_>

Humans already HAD free will, sort of. This is demonstrated by them going against God's command and eating the fruit. Couldn't have happened if they didn't have free will. What they lacked was knowledge of good and evil, which meant they were ignorant. God didn't want them to have that knowledge, deeming it too harmful. But They also gave humankind the capacity to gain it if they wanted to, with the tree of good and evil. Its entirely possible They would have shared it with humankind at a later date, as a step towards enlightenment or somesuch. As for Lucy being in the right? Its quite possible Lucy started out as having philosophical differences with God and had benign, if misguided intentions. But, according to Revelation[And it might also have been mentioned in other places too, can't remember],Lucy then tried to stage a coup with a cadre[A third of them, according to Revelation] of like-minded angels instead of trying to justify his action. Things devolved from there.

This seems to paint Lucy as a benign hero with well-intentioned actions, who later falls into despair and attempts to claw its way out of its terrible situation, only to fail and be cast to ruins. Did Lucy ever actually do anything insanely bad? I dunno, even with the extra filling-in I can't help but think of Lucy as 'the good guy', and God as the 'it's for their own good' asshat. Of course, it probably was for their own good, but when you have a being with (supposedly) unlimited knowledge and power it's hard to paint anything they do that isn't 'make everything awesome and perfect forever' as a 'good' thing due to the contrast so it's not really God's fault. (the knowledge is especially bad. For instance, It essentially created Lucy to do that stuff with humans and then be exiled, since It knew every action Lucy would take since Lucy was created, at least, that's how it seems to me. Once again, is there a clause that exempts angels from God's direct influence?). It just seems like Lucy made a stupid mistake and both it and God over reacted. >_>

Sentience =/= Sapience.

I always get the damn things confused. >_>

@Arcvasti
Alternate interpretation of God. Not challenging anything here.

It is simply another creature with a burden that we do not share.
Constant awareness of every human thought.
It explains a fair bit.
Explains Its desire to keep the fruit of the tree of knowledge away from Adam and Eve,
Explains the mass extinctions of humanity
Explains the lack of direct intervention as population has increased.

There are conflicts since this interpretation doesn't seem to pain God as a being of infinite power and knowledge, just an unfortunate entity with a crippling burden.
It also paints God as a far more understandable figure and doesn't invoke my rules for whether the comprehension of (a) God is possible.
Anyway, thoughts?

[smeeprocket]

I have yet to see or hear of anything truly necessary, and I cannot imagine anything truly necessary. It's all very subective.

breathing, consuming fluids, eating.

I'm not being difficult here, not saying humans could just live in the woods off of fruit. I am saying that a functional civilized society has no necessary needs to exploit animals. It is all optional.

[Arx]

Truly necessary? Not really. My continued existence isn't truly necessary, so I could just shoot myself. It'd cause a whole bunch of pain, but eh. Happiness isn't truly necessary. Eating animals isn't necessary for continued existence, no. But eating plants is, and that damages plants - isn't there research showing they can feel pain or something? Is our existence any more necessary than that of plants? It's all subjective.

[TD1]

Further clarification: I don't doubt that animals are conscious and self-aware. There is just a noticeable difference between them and humans, possibly only the level of communication.

We're a species. As such we are as different from other species, as animal species also are as different from each other as they are from us. The only real difference I can see is a high intelligence, but other species are close to us in that regard, and other species have unique features we don't.

The less intelligent a human is, does it make him have less soul? My brother, for example isn't the brightest- probably below average. Does this make him have less of a soul than I do?

[smeeprocket]

Truly necessary? Not really. My continued existence isn't truly necessary, so I could just shoot myself. It'd cause a whole bunch of pain, but eh. Happiness isn't truly necessary. Eating animals isn't necessary for continued existence, no. But eating plants is, and that damages plants - isn't there research showing they can feel pain or something? Is our existence any more necessary than that of plants? It's all subjective.

that research was like one experiment, so it wasn't very solid. It's shaky at best (though I was briefly fruitarian because I do believe it is valid, but that is a rough diet to follow, and I think I would have had to deal with malnutrition.)

Either way, animals are not plants, different category so their capabilities with regards to suffering, which may or may not be valid, are irrelevant to the argument.

You are also using the word necessary in a different context than I am despite what I said in my last post.

Obviously, if exploiting animals isn't necessary for a civilized, evolved, society to exist, that would mean that you could not die without it becoming necessary.

It's not subjective in this instance. I am specifically giving an explanation of what I am talking about, a society that function on a higher level, not imaginary, close to our own, and I am saying it can occur without needing to exploit any animals.

I am in no way waxing philosophical on this.

[UXLZ]

I'd just like to say that, as someone who has been vegetarian for basically my whole life, it's quite possible to live without consuming most animal products and still eat well (of course, I do still eat eggs and stuff, dairy and so on. I'm not vegan). I'm not really a vegetarian due to moral issues though, I just think that breeding sheep/cows/whatever to eat is incredibly wasteful in terms of purely food production. It gives negative returns. We're using a lot of resources just so some guy can drool over his holy steak that tastes like craaaaaap, but I massively derail.

@Dwarfy
If humans have no qualities that distinguish us from animals then why are we in the situation we're in (being massively dominant) rather than being in relatively equal footing?
It can't be entirely up to luck, you know.

[TD1]

We have the evolutionary upperhand. Dolphins are intelligent, so are we. Dolphins have fins, we have hands with which to make things.

It's a combination of physical factors.

[smeeprocket]

I'd just like to say that, as someone who has been vegetarian for basically my whole life, it's quite possible to live without consuming most animal products and still eat well (of course, I do still eat eggs and stuff, dairy and so on. I'm not vegan). I'm not really a vegetarian due to moral issues though, I just think that breeding sheep/cows/whatever to eat is incredibly wasteful in terms of purely food production. It gives negative returns. We're using a lot of resources just so some guy can drool over his holy steak that tastes like craaaaaap, but I massively derail.

@Dwarfy
If humans have no qualities that distinguish us from animals then why are we in the situation we're in (being massively dominant) rather than being in relatively equal footing?
It can't be entirely up to luck, you know.

egg farms are also pollutive and wasteful though. I mean you can squash a lot of chickens into a barn or battery cages but god, the waste produced, at the very least, is intense. Factory farming is horribly bad for the environment.

Keep in mind, dairy cows are part of cattle ranches and are just as wasteful as cows bred for slaughter. Those cows still consume land more per calorie than growing plants in the same field would.

[Arx]

I realise I partly caused the derail, but this is the religion questions thread not the vegetarianism thread, so the stuff purely about vegetarianism etc. would be better elsewhere.