1=1

Right, I should have said "it appears as if you are saying...". Which it did to me. Again, I think some of the confusion comes from originally saying cows had rights, or to seemingly apply ethics to cows rather than people.

 

So, if I can try to summarize what I think you are saying...

 

Given that it is in the best interest of cows (and by extension, all living things) to live as long as possible consistent with a "quality" life, how do we reconcile the competing interests of the cow's maximized life with the maximized life of humans?

 

Am I on track with what you are saying?

Yes that's exactly what I am proposing, If a cows ideal "quality" life is equal to say, 0.8, and a humans is 1 (Assuming a human is worth more than a cow), you would try to find the solution that has the highest overall number, the highest being 1.8. So letting the humans eat the cows quickly and painfully, the humans life might be max at 1, but the cows is only 0.1, so the overall is 1.1 which leaves some room for improvement. I hope I am making myself clear with this, I am sorry if I cant convey this idea properly.

To me this is the problem. You have decided that in an ideal world everything would live as long as possible. You are not defending that position, you are making that statement as if it is true and accepted by all. Clearly it is not accepted by all. What most people are doing is telling you why they don't support that position, from logical, ethical, and practical perspectives. No one is attacking you, they are attacking that premise.

 

I think it is time for you to make an argument stating why we should accept the premise that in an ideal world everything would live as long as possible. And when you do, please address the issues that Phi, Moon and I have raised.

 

 

Everyone is saying this. The difference is that to you, maxing out the ethics means cows more or less die of old age, and for many of us it means they are not mistreated up to the point that we decide to put a bullet in their head and eat them.

First, of all thanks for being reasonable, not saying you were not before, but thanks in general.

I guess I was making the mistake of leaving the logic in my head and not putting it out in my posts (rather foolish). So, I would like to think that everyone agrees that for a cows life to be ethically maxed, for the cow, the cow would live the best life possible for that cow. If the cow is literally living the best life possible, than logic would dictate that you could not be any more ethical to it. You can't make the cow's life any better. So, hence, a perfect life for all beings would mean that the ethicality would be maxed for all the beings included. I know this may not be probable or even possible, but I would think If everything was at max happiness for the longest amount of time, you couldn't make anything better. This is a hypothetical situation.

The difference is that to you, maxing out the ethics means cows more or less die of old age, and for many of us it means they are not mistreated up to the point that we decide to put a bullet in their head and eat them.

You are accusing me of something I never said, I said for the cow that means they more or less die of old age, but if you take the cow and the human into the equation, that would not be most ethical. You would have to balance out the worth of the life of the cow, and the worth of the need of the human. So, as I have said numerous times, I don't want everything to live forever, because that might not be best, in the real world.

Thank you for your time, and I am glad I am being challenged in my arguments and ideas.

EDIT: I didn't mean to imply I was going to leave the discussion or end the thread by saying "thank you for your time"

We can raise millions of cows who live for a while before being eaten, or we can stop raising them and let them all die off. How long do you think it will take without us to feed and care for them? Or do you really expect us to take care of that many cows for no reason other than we ought to? We take care of cats and dogs without expecting to eat them, but I don't think that would work with cows.

 

Think about what you're asking here. Do I need to say it again? Either all these cows are bred to be eaten, or only a fraction of them can live and somehow be kept for no reason, or introduced to the wild to be eaten by something else. If you have a viable alternative, I'd like to hear it.

I am not saying that the animals should be kept for no reason, I am not saying that. I am just saying in an Ideal ethical world, not ideal for humans or cows, but ideal for ethics, everything would live as long as possible and nicely. I am not saying, keep these cows for no reason and not eat them, I repeat, I am not saying any of that. I agree with you, if you look at my original statement, I am saying exactly that. Also I am not saying it is unethical for things to eat other things to survive, as I have said before. I feel I am being attacked for things I have not said, by numerous people. All I am saying is we should try to max out the ethics in this scenario, so it's best for everyone, all living things.

Have I been so unreasonable that you feel the need to warn me about treating you fairly?

 

Generally speaking the person making the claim needs to support their position. You've made several claims about rights posessed by animals and other living things, as well as ethics that you claim are obvious. I've questioned those claims, including a whole slew of questions in the last post that you did not address. Instead, you asked me to show why you are wrong. It would help if you would also answer the questions put to you.

 

As far as me explaining why I have a problem with your statement that "every living being has a right to live", you could read my previous posts. I've raised a number of issues that make me question your statement. If you think I'm wrong, just refute them, and provide evidence and argument.

 

However, my position on "every living being has a right to live" can be summed up as follows:

 

'Rights' is a concept created by man. There are no rights unless they are granted, such as by a king to his subjects, a group of people to themselves, or possibly by a God. Rights are generally written down, often in forms such as constitutions. Everyone does not have the same rights. In the US even people can have their right to life taken away from them.

 

Rights are for the most part meaningless unless there is something in place to enforce the rights, such as a government. In the US, the right to free speech wouldn't mean much if it couldn't be enforced by the police, courts, and laws.

 

Animals do not have rights. People can enforce ethical treatment of animals (which I guess could be considered animal rights) and do so regularly. If animals had the right to life then there would be some type of laws or enforcement in place. Since dogs and cats are regularly euthenized, mosquitos are sprayed, and pigs and cows are turned into sausages, I think that makes it pretty clear that, at least in the parts of the world I am familiar with, animals do not have the right to life. Most certainly, a rabbit who has been eaten by a hawk has not had his rights violated.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights

 

 

http://www.freerepub...ws/973633/posts

 

Given all of the above, it is my position that it is not true that "every living being has a right to live".

Good, I understand where you are coming from, and I totally agree that by the definition of "rights" animals don't have them in a majority of places. What I am proposing, is a system based on what animals should have. They should have the opportunity to live, and therefore I am comparing the killing of cows on what the animals should deserve, and not what they recognised rights are. Sorry for the confusion. I will call these "ideal ought rights" as they ought to have them in an ideal world. So I am saying whether killing these cows benefits or hinders the ideal ought rights of the cows. Should we or shouldn't we?

P.S: I am sorry if it seemed like I was being aggressive and ignorant. I didn't mean to come off that way.

Which premise are you talking about? You've got so many.

 

 

You have not shown this to be true, and are getting quite an argument about it in this thread.

 

 

Who says a cow has a right to live? A cow has no concept of rights. Rights are a human concept and must be bestowed by people. What people have bestowed these rights on the cow? And given the fact that people kill cows everyday and never go to jail for it, I would go so far as to say cows do not have the right to live.

 

And I'd really like to see some supporting evidence that cows most likely have feelings. Like what? Love? Hate? Anger? How do you know that?

 

 

 

Who decided this? You?

 

 

I don't even know what it means to say that a rabbit has a right not to be eaten by a hawk. Who bestowed that right? Who enforces it? And again, how can you possibly say that without "the moral judgement that living things deserve to live... ...our civilisation would collapse."? Make an argument in between those two statements. It is not an obvious jump from one to the other.

 

 

I'll bet that if a cow could contemplate this, she would not agree that your life is worth more than hers. What about a newborn calf versus a man with 5 minutes to live? What if the man was the worst human ever to live?

 

And if a human is worth 1 versus a cow worth 6, does that mean that, say, 10 cows are worth more than that human? What if that human was your child?

 

 

And now a hawk might be worth more than the rabbit if he is smart and has the right moral status. So intelligence is a factor. What about a smart hawk versus a dumb human? Or a human who is mentally impaired?

 

I'm also sure you may get an argument from many regarding your statement that killing flies is morally wrong.

 

Based on all my comments about your declaration of rights and morals, of flies versus bacteria, of smart versus dumb, maybe you can see why I believe it is unreasonable of you to assume that "everyone accepts them". In my opinion you have not shown all of these premises to be true, and if they are not true, then you do not have a sound argument.

I see we are having a major problem with the ideal that every living being has a right to live, so maybe you could explain why you have a problem with this? And if you respond as if I am saying "everything must live at all costs" I am going to get rather mad, as I have made a particular point to point out that is not what I mean. Let us get to the resolution of this single question before we continue on shall we?

Thinking that cows produce milk year round is a very common misconception among Westerners. Many also mistakenly think we steal milk from the calves by taking most for ourselves, but nature's redundant systems ensure that a cow produces way more milk than her single calf would need.

 

 

This makes very little sense to me. If everything deserves to live and we should avoid killing anything, we couldn't move for fear of breaking this insane moral code. We already have laws in most countries that prohibit indiscriminate destruction of animals and people, and we understand more each year about the roles even insects play in our environment.

 

As modern civilization progresses, I think we'll continue to increase the respect for lives we don't need to take to survive. But why should we impose some kind of impossible moral barrier that we'll have to keep breaking and feeling guilty about? I think you're conflating the deaths of animals bred to live and reproduce for our benefit with unnecessary destruction of human life, and that's a weak strawman argument.

 

Seriously people, isn't the real argument that you're asking for a world where there are only x number of cows and we don't breed them or eat them, which actually denies the very existence of 1,000,000x number of cows who would have been fulfilling their evolutionary function by living to reproduce? As long as they're treated humanely and their deaths have a minimum of trauma (which we can't even guarantee for ourselves, btw), then what is so wrong with a life free from predation where they get to eat well, have sex, drink clean water and live for a few years before fulfilling the purpose they were bred for?

I think you must be misunderstanding, I am not saying "things must not be killed at all costs" I am only saying that their lives are worth something, and we should take that into account. Stop interpreting my arguments to the extreme, because that is not what I am saying. I do agree with your last paragraph, which is well put I think.

That is fine if that is what you wish to do. However, you should recognize that if you start with an invalid premise, then you will not have a sound argument.

I don't see how this is an invalid premise, I think everything's life has worth. If you think a living being's life doesn't have any worth, that's the only way you could disagree with my premise.

Who granted that right to the rabbit? Who is enforcing it? What about the hawk's need to eat to live? Who are you to say he doesn't get to eat?

 

People are killing everyday, presumably even you. Ever wash your hands with anti-bacterial soap? Ever swat a fly or eat lettuce? And yet civilization has grown during these activities.

 

It is unreasonable to make the jump from "living things deserve to live" to "Without that basic principle everybody would be killing as they see fit".

 

Your statements are much too broad, and you refer to rights and morals as if everyone accepts them, instead of just you.

Firstly, as I said this is based on the idea that everything deserves to live and be happy, which I think is a reasonable principle. No one is enforcing this, its just a measurement. The hawk's need to live is equal, maybe greater or less depending on specifics such as importance, intelligence, their moral status etc. I wasn't arguing that the animal must not be killed at all costs, only that it's life has worth.

I know people kill everyday (most likely) but that doesn't make it right. Since the lives of bacteria are substantially less worthy than a humans, it is usually ignored that we kill bacteria everyday, if there was a way to avoid this, it would be morally right to do so. Also killing flies is morally wrong, minorly, but still wrong, unless it is causing more grief than pleasure, for itself and others. The fact that civilisation grows during these activities doesn't make it morally right.

I have to agree that i did make a bit of a jump, let me clarify more. If people did not value the lives of others, something as small as fighting over a sandwich could end in fatal violence, if there were no laws to prohibit these things. But why would there be laws against this if the government and people didn't care about the lives of others? Unless the government realised the potential of its people. I would assume that there would be at least more fatal events then usual. I admit I was unspecific with my original statement.

And yes I refer to rights and morals as if everyone excepts them because that's what I am basing this argument on.

Why? Even chickens have feelings and we slaughter them by the millions. The same could be said for just about all animals that man consumes. Are animal feelings a reason not to kill and eat animals?

Yes, yes they are. We are just focusing on cows for the moment though. Look at my other response to your comment as well, hopefully it will clear things up a bit.

Says who? It doesn't work like that in nature. Cows are prey that is eaten by predators. Nature is a bastard. It's also lacks ethics either way, it just is.

 

I don't think there's an ethical problem killing cows for food, especially since human beings seem to (in general, and naturally without additives) require meat products.

 

What I am against, however, is animal cruelty. If we kill the animals humanely and don't abuse our environment too much, I don't see a problem with it. The trouble is that a lot of companies take their profit margins way too far, and we get unethical behavior. That doesn't mean the entire thing is unethical, it just means we need to make sure the WAY we're doing it is ethical.

If that's the case am I allowed to kill someone quickly and painlessly than eat them? I know human lives are worth more than a cow's but that makes it less wrong, but still wrong nether the less. If a humans life = 1, A cows life would be worth about an 6 or something. Not 0. Disregarding a cows right to live basically denies a humans right to live. Unless there's something else in the equation I am missing.

Who gave the cows the right to live? Does a rabbit have the right not to be eaten by a hawk? How is this different?

 

 

Obvious to whom? Certainly not to me.

The rabbit does have a right not to be eaten by the hawk, they are no different. I am basing this argument on the moral judgement that living things deserve to live. Without that basic principle everybody would be killing as they see fit, and our civilisation would collapse. Also, what I meant by obvious, is that at first glance, a living being should not be killed, referring to the principle stated prior, but as you think about it more in depth, there are more hidden reasons for killing the animal that outweigh the evil of the animals death.

That's not a valid argument. A rabid wolf is a living thing too and just might have feelings as well. Should we avoid killing any living thing just because it might have feelings?

What i meant is that all living things deserve to live and enjoy their life, if they can, without causing more grief than they pleasure they get from their life. If a rabid wolf was going to kill two human being's , killing it would be ethical because it would be saving the lives of two humans which is worth more than one wolf in a rabid state. If it wasn't going to harm anything killing it would be pointless.

Not all beef causes the increase risk of heart disease, it's mostly the way you cook it that has that effect.

 

I agree with the above though, I see no ethical problem in eating beef or raising it for this purpose, I think we should just do it right. There are places that do, by the way, or at least that are on-the-way to, so it's absolutely possible.

 

Like many other things, I believe it will only improve with *some* regulations.

So if we find a way to kill the cows without harming the environment or ourselves, it would be ethical? That sounds good to me. Also would it be ethical to decrease the time it takes for the cows to be ready to be harvested? How do we balance efficiency against the cows right to live?

I like to eat cow, they generally object if they are not dead, why is it unethical to kill a cow?

Because cows are living things and most likely have feelings.

I was pondering the essence of ethics relating to cows being breed for meat, and came upon a viewpoint which makes it ethically right (as far as I can see anyway). The problem is that the idea of killing cows is obviously ethically wrong at the first glance. However as I thought about it more deeply I thought that if we did not breed these cows, than that they possibly would never have lived. And isn't Living and dying young better than not living at all? Of course the major points of relevance would be: killing age, natural death age (and hence how much of their life are we cutting short), how they are killed and if we could breed them for milk instead but would their be enough demand?

Please point out any points I have overlooked, as I would like to clarify this matter.

What about the dude in South America somewhere that heals people?

Another case of first class evidence.

There isn't an answer, if you ask me.

You are not God. You have seen what He has done, but you have not seen Him. You can't answer that question. There are a lot of assumptions.

 

 

 

I am really sure that that is incorrect.

 

 

 

Well, not a hair colour, but a type of hair.

 

I don't see how stamp collecting, and "'not stamp collecting'" relate to atheism, and Christianity.

 

 

 

Now that you have said "you owed me a million dollars", let's say that you really mean it.

There is evidence that I owe you 1 000 000 dollars, that post.

Now that's not much evidence, but it is still evidence. If I deny that I owe you it, there is evidence against it.

 

See what I mean. The Bible is evidence. No matter what you say. Are you saying that everything that you say isn't evidence, because of much of the reasons that you put evidence against God, is just something you put? Yes, you are putting evidence. So is the Bible. Were you with them while they wrote the Bible? No. You don't have much evidence that people even wrote the Bible.

 

 

 

Yea, but how many copies did they make. They didn't have photocopiers.

 

Oh, I just looked at 999's profile. To bad Dovoda, try again.

I have to agree that the bible is evidence, very minor evidence and not very compelling either, but evidence nether the less. Also, just because there is a large cumulation of incorrect data, it doesn't make it correct.

Can somebody give a direct answer to my question? I know there have been a few, but lets get this thread back on track shall we?

Why do you even bring such filth into this thread. This will not bring you any respect. We are intelligent human beings, let us act like it.

 

 

Thank you njaohnt.

 

 

As I said before:

 

The relationship anybody has with God is not unlike the relationship a man or woman has with his wife or husband.

There is absolute trust in that partner in that that they will do nothing to harm you because of the love you share. How many have said to their partner "Do you love me?" and when they say "Yes" do you say "Prove it". This type of disbelief can easily destroy any relationship that exists. Past experience with that partner should be all the proof you need.

 

How does one prove love? It is the same with God who is the source of love. When the Holy Spirit provides you personal knowledge and wisdom, along with it is a feeling of love.

 

1John 4 verses 7-8:

7. Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.

8. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.

Still no hard evidence Dovada, which is what I am asking for.

Vision: For example during sleeping very vivid images showing for an example the planet earth moving along with and within a moving fluid. Plus many other related images. One vision in particular I remember when I was working with atomic structure was the image of myself looking in a mirror. It took a while to work that one out. Then it dawned on me in that the image in the mirror was identical to myself but not the same, everything was in reverse. This helped me to understand that what was happening in the heavens was also happening in reverse within the atomic structure. This was the most helpful of all visions.

 

Where did these visions come from? my imagination? or the living cosmos (God)? What conclusion would you have drawn if you had this same helpful insight?

That still isn't any evidence, you still can't prove anything. Anybody could say that. I want hard proof before I accept any of these claims.

It is evidence! Think about its history.

The Bible is said to have been found in scrolls near and in Isreal. There is no way that it has come from different scrolls all over the place, yet don't deny each other, if they weren't God-breathed, so they must have been…

The only arguments to that are.

1. They didn't find the scrolls, they made it up.

Would you write over 770 000 words just for the fun of making people believe false things?

2. They found the scrolls, but they changed it along the way.

Again, would you write out that many words, in hundreds of copies to trick someone, and for no other reason?

 

More evidence? The people translating, and copying the Bible were punished, and often killed. That's worth a trick?

 

Also, though the Bible's many copies almost all got burned, not all ever got burned. That's not God's protection?

 

Maybe you don't believe their history, but that is no better than believing these atheist scientists.

You say that they have evidence, but have you done their experiments? Why believe them? The Earth could be flat, I don't think it is, but I haven't done experiments to figure that out.

I would write 770 000 words if I was crazy, or if I wanted to make billions of dollars. Hell I would go start one right now if I didn't think i could commit my life to understanding the world instead. And the book burning thing, that is a complete fail of logic and a big assumption. It would be rather hard to burn all the copies of one book, especially one as widespread as the bible.

What viable evidence do you want. Are we not in cosmic motion? (Yes). does cosmic motion effect the electric charged particles? (Yes).

 

Basically the neutral atom is kept electromagnetically trapped and locked into moving within the cosmic magnetic environment, classic electrical theory predicts this condition.

 

How simple can I make it for you to understand these things?

I was referring to the claims you have made about being enlightened by the holy spirit, and your reasons for believing in god. I am sorry, I should have specified that.

EDIT: I spelt for "foe".

Our motion within the cosmos is spiral not orbital relative to our local galactic velocity.

 

 

Do you understand amplitude (stochastic) and frequency modulation. I said "This cosmic motion is both real and has a major impact on atomic structure and resonance". Resonance is included in the motion of particles within the atomic model.

 

 

 

Well answer the question: Do current theories acknowledge our atoms motion within the cosmos.

 

 

You call this an answer?

 

 

Are they not self explanatory?

 

 

There are always variations in aspects of spiritual belief. God is the same God for all of us, (the believers or non-believer). Whatever Einstein's variation of belief was, is not the point in my statement.

 

What happened to my 3 questions?

Please, just put out a statement with viable evidence. That's all we need. If you can not do that you need to have another look at what you believe.

In two words "Not possible":

 

Klaynos the moderator told me not to bring the subject again when he closed the last thread down: http://www.sciencefo...e/page__st__140

 

I have taken enough of a liberty to say what I have said. What I have said is the truth even though there is the claim I do not have evidence for it. I am not an idiot. I am highly skilled in what I do. If you start a thread in asking a question I will attempt to answer but be careful that the moderators do not close the threads down. Sometimes what is obvious to me, can take sometime to work out how to explain it to others.

 

Some knowledge is sightly different to accepted physics, in that current physics does not understand the original concept especially regarding gravitation theory.

What I read was, "I am pretty smart, I don't have evidence, I am right." Pleas please please use some evidence its how things work around here. This is how it looks to me IMO. And i also would like to exclude Dovada from any hijacking charges, as i would like to see him discuss these ideas he has.

As I said before: "The decision to believe or not is both personal and individual. Believers say one thing and non believers say another, in the final analysis its up to you the individual".

 

Who of you have had communication with the Holy Spirit? Who has had questions answered by the Holy Spirit? Who has been directly helped by the Holy Spirit?

 

To him that has experienced this would you believe or receive him? No you wouldn't!

 

 

God sent his perfected Son Jesus Christ. What more could he have done? The life force is the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ was filled with the Holy Spirit which is the living God. Many did not believe this then and many do not believe this today.

 

What would you have God do to prove he exists? Breath life into your newborn children? Feed you everyday? Give you a wonderful planet to live on? Give you light and warmth from the sun? Please name it?

 

You claim to be able to reason, you claim to be intelligent human beings, please give credit where credit is due.

 

Ecclesiastes 3 verse 1: To everything there is a season, a time for every purpose under heaven:

If I was a omnipotent god, I would not send a man with his own mind and body to help all those people. I would simply make all the land bountiful and full of food, and take the aggressive behaviour from every bodies minds. Since I was all powerful.

And in answer to the question of what god would need to do to prove he exists is to reply to my specific and controlled request, that nothing else could interfere with.

And I don't understand where is should have given credit.

You presume a lot: I came with knowledge I wished to discuss and share. To convert you is not what I came here to do.

 

This thread is about a question asked by 1=1:

 

My answer also comes as a question to 1=1: If you where God and gave life to the children of the world, then discovered some of those children where disobedient denying that you ever existed and that you where just a mythical entity. Would you help them or would you only help those who believed in the existence of your spirit.

 

Many of you have children, who has a child who would say to their parent what can I do for you? You would move heaven and earth for that child. So it is with God the Father for those that believe in Him, whether you yourself believe this or not.

 

Even none believers cry out with there last breath saying "God help me", but why should He?

 

In the wisdom of his bible in Mark 3 verses 28-29 He implies:

28. "Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter;

29. "but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation''

 

And for those who do not believe he said in Mathew 13 verse 13 where He states: "Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

 

The decision to believe or not is both personal and individual. Believers say one thing and non believers say another, in the final analysis its up to you the individual.

 

2Timothy 3 verses 16-17:

16. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

17. that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

 

Healthy discussion is good for all, but many comments and statements that appear on these threads are not, these include overlooked personal attacks on myself because of my beliefs. Yet I am the one being reprimanded.

I would like to reply to your question. If I was god, in my personal preference, I would make the world fair and loving. I know this would deduct a bit of meaning from life, but it would be worth it. Also, if people did not believe I existed, I would show myself to them and speak to them, not make it exceedingly hard to find me and punish people for favouring the more likely possibility of me existing. I might even favour those people, as the people that believed in me for no reliable evidential reasons would be acting illogically. I think it would be mildly sadistic to set up the world likes this anyway, if I was omnipotent.

Who knows? Not me. Not you. You don't have infinite IQ, now do you? If you did, you would not be asking.

If you take that attitude to everything you didn't know, the human race would be no-where.

Since about a month ago I have been having muscle spasms through out my whole body, primarily near joints. In the last week I have also had a sharp pain followed by numbness in the right half of my left hand, middle and pointer finger and thumb. This morning I had paresthesia (pins and needles) in the exact same place where I had the numbness. The muscle spasms are not painful, or extreme, but are visible. I estimate there is something wrong with my nerves, but have no idea what is precisely causing it. I am not stressed and have been getting adequate sleep of 8-10 hours. Would you recommend me seeing a doctor? Is this meant to be posted in biology?

Thanks for the contributions.