dimreepr

More or less, for me, god is just the personification of superstition (coupled with conformation bias).

In answer to the OP, god exists to create a focus, in order to teach valuable lessons to those who need them and given the amount of evidence that ‘superstition’ is not merely a human trait but shared with, a lot of our animal cousins, the question of why is, therefore, self explanatory.

I'm sorry, my claim? Starting what?

So what if they did? The only way that would be significant is if they separate horizontally. Edit/ Depending, of course, on the height of the drop.

I agree, most religions, it seems to me, have at their heart a desire to teach peace, harmony and a way to be content with oneself and others; the majority of problems come from the desire, of the elders, to force these lessons on their pupils/converts rather than teach them.

Nevertheless, it is just a process. Think harder.

There seems to be a contradiction here: if you have already experienced this state then why can’t you find it again? And why the appeals to god? It’s not a cruel process, it’s just a process; acceptance is a large part of being content. Introspection is a necessary part of contentment and may lead to understanding the five illusions that most of us labour under, those are: 1. The illusion that knowledge equates to understanding. 2. The illusion that one can control anything other than oneself. 3. The illusion that expectation equals results. 4. The illusion that wants equals need. 5. The illusion that one can live anywhere but now and here.

"Supreme bliss" How do you know such a state exists? And how does it differ from simply being content with your life and how you fit in the world? It’s good to ask questions, but only answers can lead to understanding; so maybe you should re-direct your enquiries to within.

Really? http://math.bu.edu/people/jeffs/cantor-proof.html Indeed not, feel free, although it’s not as entertaining as you might think.

Matter and infinite universe/s has an explanation; god and souls does not and cannot. BTW the coloured text is not as entertaining as you might think.

I raise chickens, ducks, geese and pigs (24 piglets, so far from pinky), and in the past had a modest flock of sheep (Jacobs). I don’t grow much a small plot with (England’s) usual veg. Maybe you should think of sheep before goats, whilst I admit goats are far more versatile, for me, the smell is what spoils the appeal; once it gets into your nostrils it tends to spoil the flavour of all subsequent products. BTW geese are the best alarm system available What area is your plot?

That’s because it’s based on a staggering amount of study and evidence to suggest the universe is rationally intelligible; whereas in the case of god/s there is none, so the faith must be blind.

Given that we’re over 270 posts and he’s still not getting it; did you really need to ask?

Then what you do want is something like what’s suggested by Douglas Adams, in “The restaurant at the end of the universe”; an animal that has been engineered to actually want to be eaten and finds pleasure in the knowledge of its death.

You suggest ethics isn’t part of the argument in your reply to my post and then this. You can’t have it both ways; if ethics does inform your reason to want a vegetarian future then you have still to answer my point about sustainability.

That wouldn’t really change anything; you’d just reduce the number of cattle by increasing the number of other animals. The point I was making is: in order to have any sort of dairy products you need the selected animal to have offspring. What do you do with the males? A very small percentage will go on to stud, the rest are surplus and without a beef industry they would either, be killed and disposed of or they are allowed to live and will need feeding, also what would happen to the animals that are infertile or to old?

Here here, this is one of a very few places on the net where an idea can be expressed and critiqued without having to filter numerous idiot/trolls posts to get to those worth reading, the reply being drowned in the noise. I have yet to see a mod intervention I didn’t agree with, however reluctantly; this introspection is great to see and helps maintain the high standards but it does create a ‘catch 22’ situation, simply because it’s not needed. Now that has to get me an invite to the next cheez nip party.

Keeping a dairy herd is tremendously wasteful, if run without the beef industry; the same is true with the poultry business, although much less so if run as a battery farm. Definitions of vegetarianism aside, you say “This thread is about efficient and sustainable food for the future.” and without animal husbandry which includes meat, I don’t think so; the idea is only sustainable without dairy and eggs and with our constant fabrication of B12. This is of course achievable but only while we have that ability, the loss of which would quickly starve hundreds of millions; it ‘MAY’ be more efficient but is it sustainable?

OK then, milk is a direct result of the exploitation of animals, and fish are certainly animals; the use of either, for food, must call into question the term ‘vegetarian’; therefore the line that’s inevitably blurred is that between vegetarian, vegan and, what I’d like to call, ‘normal’.

But for human intervention, they are foetuses, so where does the line blur?

Eating the foetus of any animal seriously calls into question ‘what is a vegetarian?’

Which makes, vitamin B 12 the answer to the question ‘why aren’t humans naturally vegetarian?’

I don’t think these steps are applicable unless one has indulged in a small sherry, beforehand.

For me this is the only time the anger/frustration/resentment, associated with an unforgiven act, is useful, in fact it’s good for both parties. It allows the innocent party to vent their feelings and once vented it makes the forgiving much easier. It allows the guilty party to realise the full extent of their negative action/s and the consequences, one of which is the knowledge that it will take a while before the other party learns to trust again. The problem, for both, comes when the contact is lost and with it the opportunity to vent, for the innocent and a lot just retain it; for the guilty there’s no realisation of the negative consequence and so no reason not to commit further and probably more serious crimes. You forgive their actions, if your friend hits you in a fit of pique, the act of forgiving doesn’t involve thrusting your cheek at him too invite another whack; you forgive his pique but, naturally, you’d keep your guard up when they’re in a similar mood. Karma, for me, is a set of balance scales (conscience), when one balances ones, inevitable (however few) negative actions with positive ones the scales balance and one feels content.

I am. I agree, balance is needed, however forgiving doesn’t have to be at the expense of learning, lessons; you can forgive a thief, completely, whilst limiting further temptation. I’ll, further, add my take on ‘natural’ karma, very few negative actions have no psychological impact and almost all positive actions have a positive outcome (smile and the world smiles back), you don’t need calculus to solve that equation; yes, it’s possible the perpetrator is a sociopath and doesn’t suffer in that way, but what does that matter (whether he suffer, for his crimes, or not, if unknown can have no impact on your own feelings)?