- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
A significant number of people believe that the existence of life has a religious meaning, and as there are a number of different religions as well as atheism, so there are differing views regarding the reason for existence. Billions of people would contend that the reason for existence is not primarily for all life forms but to '' glorify God and enjoy him forever''. The world's population is broken up into nations/groups and these divisions, usually of like minded people, make for a more efficient provision of the needs and general welfare of the populations. It is a characteristic of mankind, and indeed most animals to form groups/nations/packs which consist of those with compatible beliefs, values and principles. Even within these 'nations' we see the forming of sub groups, usually made up by those of different ethnic minorities, faiths and political ideologies. Insofar that your attestation that reason for existence is 'for every life' is not accepted by most, if not all of the world's population your assertion is nullified and your argument diminished to the point of ''non-existence''. Practically, can you provide your proposed plans for the governance, and all which that implies, for some 7 billion people scattered over the face of the earth?
It is accepted that two contradictory statements, or described psychical features/objects, cannot both be true at the same time. If I have a 100 mm cube in my possession, that you cannot see and I describe it to you then ask you to sketch this object in the centre of a page, but you draw a 100 mm by 200 mm rectangle at the top of the page, then your misinterpretation of my description is contrary to the actual object, but only as a consequence of your mistake or my poor two way communication skills. Insofar that this confusion does not alter the true shape of the cube I would contend that the answer to your question is no.
If the invasive species is a plant, trimming back the plant works great. Many vines are beautiful but invasive. If properly contained their beauty can be appreciated without the threat to the environment.
All invasive species are caused by humans that I know of. One example a human decides to bring a plant from his or her home town. Not only does the plant come, but a few animals are hiding within the soil. Since humans were the ones who introduced the invasive species, its up to humans to find an innovative way to minimize the harm.
In Australia rabbits were rampant and introducing new natural predators worked wonders. Its nearly impossible to get through life without killing an animal. Instead, the principle of least harm is the most reasonable solution.
Some people seem to think in black and white. That vegans kill no animals or factory farming is morally sound. Vegans killing no animals is a falsehood. Animals are killed during harvesting. Yet, this is no excuse for factory farming. We have to play the hand life gives us.
As for your argument on plant sentience. The key factor is that plants cannot feel pain. Yet, as I've proved above animals can.
"As far as I know no reputable study has ever shown that plants can "feel pain". They lack the nervous system and brain necessary for this to happen. A plant can respond to stimuli, for example by turning towards the light or closing over a fly, but that is not the same thing."1
As for animal deaths, the least amount of harm is caused by a vegan diet. "Figure 1: A diet of plants causes the fewest animals to be killed. Leaving chickens and eggs out of our diets will have the greatest effect on reducing the suffering and death caused by what we eat. " 2
Any informed vegan knows that some animal deaths are sadly unavoidable.
"There is also no fundamental moral difference between any other animal killing and consuming another animal and a human doing it. " Jace
Animals eat meat for survival, humans don't.
"Human ancestors were herbivores so it is no surprise at all that we retain many physiological attributes of herbivores, which is really all your reference suggests. " Jace
Humans not only have the physiological attributes of herbivores but fare better on a vegan diet. All those antioxidants, fiber, and phytonutrients. While avoiding excess fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein.
"with roughly two billion people eating insects worldwide (28% of world population) compared to one million vegans (0.0001%)," Jace
I skimmed your links couldn't find the two billion people number. This is a comparison between people eating a few bugs versus no animal products at all. I doubt those two billion people ate insects as their only source of animal products.
"Entomphagy is also more accessible, healthier, and efficient than veganism. A healthy vegan diet is reliant upon nutritional supplements which are produced in laboratories, whereas insects are commonly accessible to basically anyone and compliment the deficits of an otherwise vegetarian or vegan diet. " Jace
I saw a salad at a local restaurant and several other vegan dishes. There was no Entomphagy dishes.
As for insects being healthy, there seems to be a lack of scienfic research. I did find this though, and apparently subjects reported nausea. 3
As for supplements being inefficient, its pretty clear that methane from cows is a bigger environmental problem. As for vegan receiving enough nutrition b-12 seems to be the only concern.
"Microorganisms are the only natural sources of the B12-derivatives” 4.
“Vitamin B12 synthesis by human small intestinal bacteria” 5.
"B12 From Fruits And Vegetables
All fruits and vegetables contain some B12, but it's often in small quantities. Organic fruits and vegetables contain significantly more, however.
Bacteria eat decaying organic matter and excrete complex nutrients into the soil, including B12. This is then absorbed by plants, with some staying in the roots and some making its way into the leaves for us to take in.” 6.
Vegan diets are healthier than the nauseating dishes of insects.
If God knew before creating man that man would be evil enough to want to destroy mankind except for 8 then why not create something more pleasing. And if we look to the future of the 8 saved was the outcome more pleasing? if so then why was there the story of Lot?
As for atheists, I am an atheist and I have never harmed anyone I am married with six children who are all very considerate good people. I give to charity and each day I make it a point to brighten at least one person's day. I am known at work as smiling Bob. As evil goes on a human to human level I am as far from evil as it gets. There are few religious people in my community that are as loved and caring as myself. You can say what you want but it doesn't make it true. The atheists that I know are all very good people that just find religion an archaic idea for people that have not studied it or can't cope with the idea of mortality.
First sir God and Jesus are clearly two separate entities. Here are a couple of Bible passages that clearly show this.
Matt 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God:
46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Matt 3:17 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased
John 12:27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour
John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God
I have more if this does not clearly show that Jesus and God are two distinctly separate entities. If we are to believe that Mary was a virgin then we would have to believe that God can procreate with humans. As for God being wicked may I refer to the Bible
4 For in seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights; I will wipe out every living thing that I have made from the face of the earth
That is as wicked as it gets. not only kill the sinners but the innocent the children, the animals, puppies, kittens, and babies. Then there is the story of Lot. What kind of evil wicked God would kill a devoted loving servants entire family and make him sick and destitute just to win an dispute with an angel?? Follow the path of God inspired path of destruction that Moses left. All of the men women and children except the little girls who were saved for the men. That's a whole different level of wicked.
You can ignore the evidence but what was Jesus doing in the cave when he was arrested with the "Naked Man"?
AIDS is only a gay disease in the western world in Africa the majority of heterosexual couples have it in many communities. I have a gay brother and he is approaching 50 and has no health problems at all and has been gay from adolescence. I think you may be misinformed about many things. That is my take on it.
It looks like the guy was a loner with no religious or political leanings. He lived in a cabin in the woods with no electricity or running water. I am sure it will go down as a terrorist attack by the left wing nut cases who judge these isolated instances in the FBI database.
You did not quote my entire statement. I said if it is true that we are all one human race, that racism does not exist, &&but; institutionalized and cultural bigotry in general. One thing I left out: All of these alleged racial differences are fictional ideaologies forced on us by the ruling elite from all kinds of parties. A population is easier to control when divided, and yes, I admit that Obama does it too.