Free-will and Atheism

Post Reply New Topic

I had a pastor once tell me when I was having a crisis of faith that it is not only good to question, but vital. By definition, to have faith, one must question, yet still believe. Those that believe without ever questioning do not have faith, but blindness. I thought then and now that this sums it up nicely. The thing is I did question and for a long time I believed despite those questions. But eventually i got the answers to my questions, and that answer was that there was nothing to believe, at least as far as god was concerned.

Tell that to Thérèse of Lisieux.

God crit her with a Tuberculosis spell for over 9000. She's dead.

I roll a... 5! I cast greater Tuberculosis rune on you! -1000 HP per turn for 30 turns!

This is from a while ago; I apologize for not posting earlier.

I agree that murder is almost universally known as an unacceptable crime. What you are implying, is that this crime is not applicable to animals as they're incapable of stopping murder as it is a forms of eating for omnivores. Additionally, people that don't practice vegetarianism or other types of diets restricting meat, are then murdering and eating animals for food.

There are indigenous people in New Guinea who practice cannibalism to this day. Though they are feared and looked down on by neighbors, eating other human beings is a form of food for their tribe. While the rest of the world is making hypocritical laws against what life is more important than others, some tribes don't discriminate. When will god tell us when and where we should discriminate against what is considering murdering and what is considered living for some (as it is a form of food)? To me everything seems a bit hypocritical, unclear, and socially biased.

No problem.



No. My point was that issues of human morality only apply to human beings. We don't give animals the same value or respect, although we are aware of what will happen if we engage in indiscriminate killing of animals. We don't want to see any species disappear, so we try to protect those in danger of extinction. Murder is a specific crime directed at other human beings. Killing an animal is not murder, though that doesn't necessarily mean that killing animals isn't wrong.


Well, like I said, murder is directed at humans. Crimes against animals or nature would be called something else. But I see nothing wrong with killing animals for food, but it does make better sense to restrict that kind of activity to domestic animals bred for that purpose and only hunting game for what an individual family needs.


You're probably right about that.

Here's my perspective: I happen to be reading Deuteronomy at the moment, and as I've said before I find it entirely plausible that Yahweh worship as the ancient Hebrews understood and the religions of the surrounding areas could have come from a common tradition. I happen to think Abraham might have been one among a few who understood what proper worship of God was, while the surrounding cultures represent a departure. So I'm reading Deuteronomy and actually find something relating to cannibalism. In 28:15, just for the sake of context: "But if you do not obey the Lord your God by carefully following all His commands and statutes I am giving you today, all these curses will come and overtake you:" Following this is a lengthy description of what will happen, and it's not exactly "rated G" material. Vs. 53 reads: "You will eat your children, the flesh of your sons and daughters the Lord your God has given you during the siege and hardship your enemy imposes on you."

And it just gets worse. Vs. 54-55: "The most sensitive and refined man among you will look grudgingly at his brother, the wife he embraces, and the rest of his children, refusing to share with any of them his children's flesh that he will eat because he has nothing left during the siege and hardship your enemy imposes on you in all your towns."

And it just keeps going. Vs. 56-57: "The most sensitive and refined woman among you, who would not venture to set the sole of her foot on the ground because of her refinement and sensitivity, will begrudge the husband she embraces, her son, and her daughter, the afterbirth that comes out from between her legs and the children she bears, because she will secretly eat them for lack of anything else during the siege and hardship your enemy imposes on you within your gates."

2 Kings 6:25 gives some ugly details of what can happen during a siege under foreign invasion, particularly how the price of dove poo can become hyper-inflated. 2 Kings 28-29 relates a case in which two women actually made a pact to eat their children and one of them refuses to hold up her end of the deal (my guess is she'd already eaten her own son, but whatever).

Torah makes it clear that killing other human beings is forbidden as is handling corpses, so cannibalizing a dead child symbolizes the lowest of the low. Most people across many cultures recognize that and might even rather die themselves before giving in to eating another human being.

What I think can happen is such a calamitous event such as war or natural disaster can lead to cannibalism, especially if there are no other options for survival. Depending on the length and severity of such a crisis, especially if the practice of cannibalism crosses multiple generations and continues after the necessitating crisis passes, it's not inconceivable that such a practice can be ingrained into the culture itself, maybe even becoming a religious rite until former dictates that it is wrong fade from the society's consciousness.

Your question "When will god tell us when and where we should discriminate against what is considering murdering and what is considered living for some (as it is a form of food)?" may very well have already been answered (I believe it has) and cultures that perpetuate cannibalism have simply forgotten it. Not once does the Bible accept cannibalism but does portray it as an act of desperation to which people will sink given circumstances. It doesn't make it right, but it is a picture of brutal human reality.

That's a wonderful rational...I won't mention Nazi's though...oops.

Though it seems like I'm defending cannibalism, I don't understand discrimination. This is why I hope to continue being a vegetarian til the day I die, and if there was something I could do to never eat again, but still live, I most certainly would.

I know food is fuel... gives us energy. If we look at things objectively, everything we're eating is supposedly living, so we are taking life away for our own sake. If I could, I would never want to do such a thing. I would want it to be left up to living things when they should or shouldn't die. I don't want to decide for them.

In this case, it's not discrimination. The idea that animals and humans are on the same level is easily disprovable. Look around. Animals live very differently than we do. They are not as conscious of death as we are.

And if nothing dies, within 24 hours the Earth would be covered with masses of bacteria, algae and bugs, several feet deep, with weeks it would be hundreds of feet deep.

Mortals need death.

If mortals need death, why is our world trying its hardest to prolong death? If it's needed, and we're overpopulating and taking resources, there's no reason to go to the doctor then. Are we going to set an age limit when one needs to die? Since we need death, there has to be an age limit then? Since we're advancing, this is going to become a real problem.

The world is not trying to put off death, humans are.
A human is afraid that they might be wrong about what happens once that human dies, that's why we try to put off death.

God (even though I'm not a believer) wanted to save animals for a reason, and right now, I think greed and fear are getting in the way. Greed as in money for some people (e.g. catching a fish and selling it despite the possibility of extinction). Fear that we won't stay on top and survive (e.g. go out camping unarmed, and a bear could fatally attack, so we then attack him). Though animals aren't presently living like us, I would argue that they're adapting. Communication is an issue, and we would have to set things up to the way they are built, but I don't think that there's less room for them here. I truly think we'll change our mind about animals if our world progresses and keeps adapting. Some already see dogs and cats equivalent to their own children.


Though I wouldn't consider myself a Christian, many of the bible's teachings are meant well. I do think it's a good way to live your life. I think there are a few commandments that have very good intentions for everyone (e.g. love your neighbor as yourself).

I'm not particularly concerned that I'm a part of the problem because it's extremely rare for me to eat meat that wasn't "factory farmed," i.e. raised for the express purpose of human consumption as part of a chain of renewable supply. I don't hunt wild game, but am not opposed to others who do so as long as they follow conservation laws that prohibit them from hunting a population to dangerously low numbers. I am personally opposed to trophy hunting, however. I see nothing wrong with keeping trophies, but if the meat is not used to feed a family then the kill is pointless. While I see nothing wrong with it, neither do I see anything wrong with vegetarianism as long as vegetarians are open-minded and not intended on doing harm to those who are otherwise persuaded.

As to your other comments--you seem to me a very kind and sweet person. There should be more people like you in the world.

I live in Eureka CA in Humboldt County. I can buy Humboldt brand foods all made right here in Humboldt. Meat, dairy, eggs, vegetable, fruit, seafood (ick!). Even clothes made from locally grown fibers.

It can be done. Yes, and medicine too...

You would get to make that decision if you had a tapeworm. What would you do in that situation? Keep in mind that tapeworms have no interest in killing their host. Chances are that you would only feel listless and tired all the time. Would you let the tapeworm live or rather take anthelmintics that immobilize and slowly kill the parasite?

Until we're all the on the same page with an issue, there is no point. I will have to supply the tapeworm's energy to live unless he wants to die. Otherwise, I'll have to kill the tapeworm due to my own life. Either way, I would hope that neither one would have to negatively use a life to fuel oneself. That's obviously an ideal world in my mind, which isn't anything like the world we have today.