Killing Animals and Spirituality?

[mistermack]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

We are not in agreement because you said "there is no spirituality" which is obviously false.

Having a word for something doesn't make it real. 

I would also say that there is no magic. Others would disagree. There is no god. Same again. 

I can argue that there is no god, in the face of billions who argue that there is. It's clearly stated as an opinion, I can't prove any of it.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, mistermack said:

Having a word for something doesn't make it real. 

I would also say that there is no magic. Others would disagree. There is no god. Same again. 

I can argue that there is no god, in the face of billions who argue that there is. It's clearly stated as an opinion, I can't prove any of it.

And?

[mistermack]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

And?

Now you're making sense !

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Having a word for something doesn't make it real. 

So you are saying that there are no people who have beliefs or feelings that there is something beyond material existence? (Even if you think they are wrong.)

That is so obviously untrue, I'm not sure how you can say it.

[mistermack]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

That is so obviously untrue, I'm not sure how you can say it.

We're in agreement again. I didn't say it. 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, mistermack said:

Now you're making sense !

And you aren't...

[mistermack]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

you are saying that there are no people who have beliefs or feelings that there is something beyond

I didn't say that, I said that they are deluded.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, mistermack said:

I didn't say that, I said that they are deluded.

The only conclusion one can make from your contribution to this thread is, it's you that's deluded? 

The rest of us have access to a dictionary...

[Strange]

27 minutes ago, mistermack said:

We're in agreement again. I didn't say it. 

No we aren't. And yes you did. You said, and I quote: "there is no spirituality".

That means no people who have the characteristic of spirituality (it is, as we agreed, a human characteristic) because that characteristic does not exist.

It is like saying there is no such thing as "tall"; that means you think there are no tall people.

26 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I said that they are deluded.

That is a dubious accusation from someone who thinks climate change is a conspiracy.

[mistermack]

16 minutes ago, Strange said:

That is a dubious accusation from someone who thinks climate change is a conspiracy.

I've been given warnings for that kind of thread derailment. 

If you want to debate climate change, start a thread. That's what the moderators always say. (when it's not them)

[iNow]

The above exchange simply reinforces the answer to the core thread question (well, that and serving as yet another reminder about people being jerks too often on the internet): 

Can one kill animals and still be spiritual? It depends on how spiritual gets defined. Answered. We’re done here.

Edited October 13, 2019 by iNow

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I've been given warnings for that kind of thread derailment. 

If you want to debate climate change, start a thread. That's what the moderators always say. (when it's not them)

LMAO, but the question remains, And?

[mistermack]

23 minutes ago, Strange said:

You said, and I quote: "there is no spirituality".

That means no people who have the characteristic of spirituality (it is, as we agreed, a human characteristic) because that characteristic does not exist.

I think you're flogging a dead horse. My first post made it clear that when I said "there is no spirituality" I mean't that what people are calling spirituality is a delusion. The meaning was perfectly clear, and it's only semantic wriggling on your part to try to portray it as otherwise. 

I don't believe for a second that you didn't get what was being expressed.

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Can one kill animals and still be spiritual? It depends on how spiritual gets defined. Answered. We’re done here.

Yep, so I guess we're done here...

[mistermack]

16 minutes ago, iNow said:

serving as yet another reminder about people being jerks too often on the internet

Well, I've certainly never called anyone a jerk on the internet. Not even indirectly. 

[iNow]

6 hours ago, mistermack said:

Well, I've certainly never called anyone a jerk on the internet. Not even indirectly. 

It’s rather telling that you assumed I was referring to you

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

It’s rather telling that you assumed I was referring to you

That's how I see you. 

[NoIdentificationProvided]

On 10/11/2019 at 5:44 PM, zapatos said:

If the primary purpose of animals is to provide food for others, please recognize that this applies to you serving as food for others also.

I fully recognize that. What gave you the impression that I didn't?

Whether I allow myself to be eaten is another matter entirely.

On 10/13/2019 at 2:41 PM, Strange said:

 

That is a dubious accusation from someone who thinks climate change is a conspiracy.

I'm sorry. This statement is just to hilarious to ignore.

On 10/13/2019 at 3:11 PM, mistermack said:

I think you're flogging a dead horse. My first post made it clear that when I said "there is no spirituality" I mean't that what people are calling spirituality is a delusion. The meaning was perfectly clear, and it's only semantic wriggling on your part to try to portray it as otherwise. 

I don't believe for a second that you didn't get what was being expressed.

Spirituality isn't a delusion. It is a part of culture, a part of society, a part of morality, a part of intelligence. It is a fundamental part of human nature. It is a way in which people find purpose in this life. Amongst others. A plan of action, a guideline of goals. It is like the laws which hold society together, the economies that build up nations, the hierarchies that allow for effective leadership.

It is not a delusion, it is a concept.

And please say religion. I prefer it when people are blunt. 

On 6/23/2017 at 7:26 PM, ModernArtist25 said:

Yes, it turned out that cooking is actually healthier for us. But grains are not healthier for the farm animals. Grain-based diets can produce serious and sometimes fatal digestive tract problems in food animals such as cows, goats, and sheep whose stomachs are best suited to digesting high-cellulose containing plants like grass. If the animals have cognitive abilty, do you think they rather live a life with freedom, have a chance to mate, and eat varied food natural to them and then die painfully, OR live in a prison where they are confined in small space, never mate, never see the light of day, and grow unnaturally more than their bodies can handle and then later killed?

But they dont have cognitive ability. That's the point.

On 6/23/2017 at 11:22 PM, ModernArtist25 said:

 

No, the factory farm animals don’t have it pretty fine. These animals live in horrifying conditions where they have feces and urine all over the place that produce ammonia in the air causing them to be blind. These animals are fed to be so big that they have joint issues and can barely walk. They don’t get to feel the wind breeze, get in contact with mother’s earth’s ground or see the sunlight, only time they do is when they are being transported to the slaughterhouse in a truck with no food or water for their long travel. Sorry, I don’t see this as a good life. Do your research on factory farming, and you will see that this type of farming is completely different from how it was back in the old days. Back in the traditional farms, people actually cared about the animals during the time that they were living and not just treating them as products in a factory.

Umm....we don't care. That is their literal purpose. That is why we domesticated them in the first place.

Maybe its because I'm African, but this seems like something that shouldn't be cared about. But then again we eat dogs and snakes here so, you tell me.

[zapatos]

31 minutes ago, NoIdentificationProvided said:

What gave you the impression that I didn't?

Feeling defensive?

[NoIdentificationProvided]

On 6/24/2017 at 3:09 PM, Thorham said:

 

 

On 6/24/2017 at 3:09 PM, Thorham said:

You don't know that. Things can change radically over a couple of thousand years.

 

Oh I assure you. Africa is going to remain the same. Asia along with us. 

We respect our food. But we realise its there for us to eat. Why we would let all those nutrients be wasted and focus solely on plants, which by the way, will worsen overpopulation as we will need massive amounts of farmland for that much vegetation.

Animals may harm your conscience, but they are efficient.

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Feeling defensive?

No not really. It was a genuine question.

I'm serious. I'm working on my writing and I would like to know how you got that impression

[iNow]

1 minute ago, NoIdentificationProvided said:

Animals may harm your conscience, but they are efficient

Too broad and too vague to be true. Cows are not. Indigenous animals perhaps. Hogs ride the line. Chickens too, but not “animals” as a whole. 

[NoIdentificationProvided]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Too broad and too vague to be true. Cows are not. Indigenous animals perhaps. Hogs ride the line. Chickens too, but not “animals” as a whole. 

I want to fight, but I can't do it without sounding cold. I don't want to leave a bad example for future aspiring scientists that bump into this post.

But in my opinion, we need both plants and animals to survive. And the dependency can vary depending on the region. People who live near water are going to rely on fish, not completely but inevitably. People in deserts....yeah do I need to explain that. People in the Arctic, same as the desert. Some people need meat. To them its far more efficient than spending what could amount to billions on transforming the landscape, with the delusion that their obviously barren lands would become lush forests.

[zapatos]

16 minutes ago, NoIdentificationProvided said:

No not really. It was a genuine question.

I'm serious. I'm working on my writing and I would like to know how you got that impression

I didn't have that impression. I had no idea if you had thought about it one way or the other. Just trying to participate in the conversation.

[NoIdentificationProvided]

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I didn't have that impression. I had no idea if you had thought about it one way or the other. Just trying to participate in the conversation.

Oh. Alright then.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, NoIdentificationProvided said:

I want to fight, but I can't do it without sounding cold. I don't want to leave a bad example for future aspiring scientists that bump into this post.

But in my opinion, we need both plants and animals to survive. And the dependency can vary depending on the region. People who live near water are going to rely on fish, not completely but inevitably. People in deserts....yeah do I need to explain that. People in the Arctic, same as the desert. Some people need meat. To them its far more efficient than spending what could amount to billions on transforming the landscape, with the delusion that their obviously barren lands would become lush forests.

This has zero to do with my reply. Would you like to try door #2 instead?