Meat-Eating

I do not believe that eating meat immoral, not do I believe that being a vegetarian is immoral. The immorality lies in how the animals are treated before they are eaten. Humans have been eating meat for thousands of years, but the difference is that primitive peoples generally used up all of the animal while today large meat companies waste what is left over from the animal. Also, keeping animals in small cages and atrophying their muscles for tenderness is not only wrong, but disgusting. Human beings are omnivores, therefore we need both meat and natural-grown foods to survive. Those who choose to not eat meat find other ways to get the protein that meat provides, but in the long run the benefits of some meats can not be reproduced.
It is wrong for people to assume that we own everything and therefore can do whatever we want with nature. Animals are not here solely for our use, but they provide us with the food that we need to survive. In the wild other animals eat each other, and most people see nothing wrong with that. Why should eating meat as a human be any different?

Defending Meat-Eaters

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=grill This webpage is not meant to be taken 100% seriously, but it does make a good argument if you read in between the cynical humor. It's also quite amusing if you like that kind of humor.

Responce to Q&A #5

Both from my own experience and reading the articles online, I have come to the conclusion that Agnosticism is the more rational belief. When I take into account the Agnostics that I know, they seem more open-minded about many topics and rarely rule anything out, as opposed to Atheists who seem a lot more close-minded about topics regarding religion especially. Atheists want the definite knowledge that they are correct in their assumption that there is no god, and while Agnostics many or may not believe in a god, they are open to the possibility. Although I doubt the existence of god, I like to keep my mind open enough not to reject the possibility. It is impossible for anyone to know for sure whether there is a god or not, as there is not enough proof on either side of the argument. Theists claim that miraculous events are the work of god, which is enough proof for many of them, while many Atheists use reason and logic to explain what others believe is the work of a god. Agnosticism seems to be the right balance between Atheism and Theism, as it is more a belief in possibilities rather than definites. I am sure that there are arguments claiming that Atheism is the more rational belief, because honestly it is rather unrealistic to believe in an all-powerful god that watches over all of us. Gods were invented by early peoples looking for explanations for things that could not be explained through their primitive methods. Nowadays it is a lot easier to determine cause and effect using science and logic, therefore some people believe that there is no longer a reason to have a god/gods. While this does make a lot of sense, I still believe that it is necessary to be open to any possibility, and therefore Agnosticism makes more sense than Atheism.

Agnosticism

Agnosticism applies to everything from religion to physics. To be Agnostic about something means that you believe in the possibility of its truth, not necessarily that you believe in it. If a person claims to be Agnostic, it is most commonly believed that that person believes in god, but does not have a particular religion. This is true in many cases, however it Agnosticism can also be described as skepticism, which can be applied to a variety of topics. However, it seems that saying you are skeptical about the creation theory differs from saying that you are skeptical about the existence of god, as being skeptical about god is more associated with being Atheist than the other. I honestly would have to say I that I believe being Agnostic s more practical and logical than being an Atheist. Even if you do not necessarily believe in god, it never hurts to be open to the possibility. Being open-minded is very important in the path to gaining knowledge

Atheism

Atheism is most commonly known as the belief that there is no god, nor the possibility of a god or gods. Most of the Atheists I know have told me that they know without a doubt that there is no god. Although I do not have a religion or a specific set of beliefs, I do not rule out the possibility of the existence of some sort of energy force or god. I believe that completely ruling something out is just foolish, as anything is possible, even if it cannot be proven through known methods. I also know people who are Christian and they too, know without a doubt that there is a god. Now this too is silly in my mind, as nobody can really prove the existence of god, even if they claim to just have "faith." Having complete faith that toys come alive when you leave the room does not make it true, no matter how much faith a person has.
Atheism and Christians have one thing in common, however, and that is logic. To an Atheist there is logically no god, but to a Christian it is logic that there a god. J.N. Findlay stated that "The heatheh may worship stocks and stones but does not see them as only stocks and stones." This statement accurately describes Christian beliefs as opposed to those of Atheists, as Christians do not see the concept of a god as just a concept, they see it as a logical truth. Atheists typically do not see something as greater than it is (according to the many Atheists I know; this could differ for others), therefore logic implies that there cannot be a god.

Philosophy According to Monty Python

Thanks to Amanda Roy for bringing this funny little song to my attention!


Bruces' Philosophers Song


Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.

Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table.

David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel,

And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.

Plato, they say, could stick it away--
Half a crate of whiskey every day.

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle.
Hobbes was fond of his dram,
And René Descartes was a drunken fart.
'I drink, therefore I am.'

Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed,
A lovely little thinker,But a bugger when he's pissed.

Religion vs. Science

Religion (in this blog I will be comparing Christianty's beliefs with scientific facts) and science have been at odds with each other for as long as the two have been around. Issues ranging from creationism vs. evolution to whether the Earth is round or flat have been debated for years without rest. The truth is, I doubt that the religion vs. science debate will ever end until one or the other is eradicated. The way things are going now, it seems that more and more people are letting go of religion, but this does not necessarily mean that religion will cease to be. Personally, I believe in science over religion; evolution makes more sense than creation, and I have no reason to believe that there is an all powerful god that is constantly watching over mankind. The fact is, there is just too much evidence that scientific research that proves religious beliefs wrong. I have no problem with Christianity's message that people should care for one another and that killing and stealing are wrong, but there are alot of things that I have issues with; for instance, the fundamental Christians who teach children about creation as opposed to evolution. I believe that it is wrong to teach a myth as truth to impressionable children. There is no proof of creationism, and there is an insane amount of evidence pointing to evolution. Christian stories are the same as ancient Greek stories about the gods; they are myths. One would not teach children that the gods on Mount Olympus are real, but they would teach that myths written in an ancient book (that was most likely changed to fit the whims of the vatican and kings) are true. In my mind, the mere thought of teaching such myths as truth is ridiculous. They make for interesting stories, but nothing more. Science proves things that religion cannot and provides physical evidence. It is impossible for a cynical person like me to believe in something that does not have physical evendence. In my last post I stated that I believe in ghosts, but that is only because I have physical proof of their existence. I do not expect others to believe in them, and indeed many do not, but since I have seen and heard what I believe to be a ghost (or absorbed energy) I believe in them. Science provides such physical evidence to provide proof of its many findings. There are fossils thats prove mankind evolved from apes, and Darwin's studies on the Galapagos Islands provided adaquate proof that evolution is real. There is no proof that the Adam and Eve story is true, and the same goes for the rest of the Christian myths. Who is to say that that so called "miracles" are the work of a god? Science almost always has an alternative explanation for what people believe to be miraculous events. People see what they want to believe; an example being those who claim to see the Loch Ness Monster. As much as I would like to believe that the monster exists, it is extremely improbable. To those who believe, anything from a log to a ripple on the water could be the elusive monster. The same goes for religious fanatics who believe that miricles happen. They see what they want, or even need to believe. Science and religion will most likely never see eye-to-eye on anything except the fact that they disagree.