I appreciate this video and the thought that you put in to it and I agree with you, BUT, Jesus DID think of this stuff and He DID teach it! What about what you said did Jesus not think about? I understand you are an athiest, but isn't history clear about the fact that Jesus was here? Peace, love,respect and truth was the cornerstone of what he taught. You and I are not that far apart, brother! PEACE!
@patkaldahl Thanks for not condemning me, most christians do. I'm an Xchristian, was for 30 years. I highly recommend you look ito historical that supports the bible, you will find it lacking. Even for jesus, there is no evidence. In fact, if you quest for the truth of things, you will find the bible sorely lacking. I'm currently a minister and make videos for the church on cozmikzen.blip.tv, the link is on my channel page. please check some of them out, & i hope to hear back from you
These are great. But I think there are 2 appreciations you have left out:
Appreciate kindness: Be kind and caring towards those around you and be gratefull when your kindness is returned. A simple smile can be a powerfull message to send out into the world
Appreciate society: Contribute to making the society you live in better for everyone. It could be as simple as paying taxes, not driving to fast, doing charity work or getting an education in order to make the society you live in flourish
I saw this mirrored on FFreeThinker's channel and didn't realize it was a mirror. After some difficulty, (due to the flagging of your accounts), I am glad to have found you.
I will feature this on my channel. (It has the mirror running now.)
Your 7 appreciations are far better than anything Moses ever came up with. Even Jesus missed the boat on this. And Muhammad...well, he wasn't at all interested in any of this stuff.
@unlucky169 i agree with personal resaponsibility. And I think we have the right to defend our homes. But I cant respect imperialism, and soldiers fighting in forgien lands. They are paid government killers. Most people would agree that war is one of the worst things there is. They are not fighting for our freedom. They are invading to impose "our way" of life to enslave others in corporate wage slavery and economic debt, including our own.
@TheAist Lay off the pipe you hippy and open your mind... warriors fight to prevent present and future idiocies. They dont fight just to preserve our freedom they fight to preserve the world. Most people are fine with war so long as they dont have to see it. I know that chaos should not be the way so man must find a way to defeat it and it will not be done with people talking about peace it will be done with an act.
@unlucky169 i dont smoke and my mind is vast and wide only closed minded idiots turn to violence. you seem to be a caveman in your ideals....evolve, its people like you making the world a shithole
there is beauty in raw primitive things... like the camaraderie of two fighters in a cage after a grueling violent fight a bond that surpasses language itself.Bruce Lee was all about Honestly expressing oneself.
Like giving direction to a child, who lacks direction, is a bad thing.
You worship peace as if it was God? Why value peace? In the absense of God anything goes. Man would be the measure of all things. You probably just want peace because maybe you're a weak person. It's not that you value peace as much as you value well being, and are afraid that in your worldview there would be no actual reason to be peaceful to others, so you make it an axiom.
@jorgekluney well, i guess i can honestly say, i can understand how someone with little to no morals would say something like that. I don't worship anything. I am concerned about peoples well being. There is no god, but that doesnt mean anything goes, im sorry, thats just socially retarded. Valuing peace has nothing to do with weakness, caveman. It has to do with true moral fiber. You wont find that in your fairy tales. Your 1st three words said it all
Your video is very good. You appear to be an excellent thinker. I just find it entertaining that you are so christian in thought and expression. Except for the disbelief in a bible based creator or after life you, are speaking the words of the divine Prophets of past.
@derrickproject Thank you for the kind words, but i have to disagree, just a little. I dont think the prophets of the past have the same message as i do. Maybe on the surface, but when researched deeply, religions, christianity & islam especially, are very immoral. they speak peace out 1 side of their mouth, and bigotry and death out the other side. Religion is about bigotry, im not like them at all. But i appreciate the compliment, Thanks!
This was very well thought out. I guess I buy into fairytale thinking more often then I'd like to admit. I would never, however, deny my beliefs are constantly changing and evolving, so I'm not a lost cause yet!
If everything we know and think we know will change than how do we know these seven appreciations won't change? Or maybe they've already changed and you just don't know it... how do we know change is a constant if everything we know changes? If change is the only constant, the very laws of the universe will change.
Have you got hung up that your truth is the truth? Cause that's a pretty big plothole, Or maybe it's just the truth in your perspective. It just goes in a circle...
keep asking questions, thats the right path. dont get hung up on truth, but be honest....or dont, whatever floats your boat, these arent commandments. if you find no wisdom in these words...so what? i did it to help, not to hinder. im not telling you what to do...so....i guess your crap attitude only suits you. (shrugs)
My attitude isn't crap, my writing style just often comes across as sarcastic. I was asking hoping you'd have an answer, because the whole thing really does just go in circles (if everyone has their own truth that isn't false and someone's truth says his truth is the only truth than how is the only truth true and yet other truths are still true. It seems completely illogical, and you talk a lot of logic in your video.)
well, these are things offered up as appreciations, and specifically separated from commandments, or even suggestions. i did this purposefully so that my words would not be considered dogmas, but still useful to anyone who would apply them. if you find falsehoods in what i said, simply ignore it.
im not hung up on truth, as much as honesty. truth is fidelity to reality, even if we dont see it. all we can do is be honest. hopefully the 2 unite.
@CyberPunk1138 Truths require evidence. Just because something is believed to be true, doesn't mean it is. At one time people firmly believed, with religious consent, that the world is flat. Do you, as a modern human, believe this? Real evidence disproves that notion. Religious people seem to think scientific theory is viewed as just as factually inaccurate as their faith. If something disproves something else than it is a proven lie, so change is necessary to accommodate that proven truth.
yea, thats a great one. there are possible exceptions tho, no moral law is objective. a masochist finds pleasure in suffering. A lot of people think earning something adds value to that which is gained thru suffering.
even in killing there are exceptions, self defense, defense of the victimized. im a pacifist for sure, im just against objective morality, its a false view of reality. its appealing, i'll give it that, but its just not true.
Masochism is something that gets brought up alot. They take pleasure in pain, not suffering. Suffering and pleasure are mutually exclusive. They cannot exist in the same place.
It's a logical process; unless you can show the error in the proof, it's an objective morality. What reduces suffering can be measured and, therefore, is objective. There are no opinions in this.
well, i guess you're wrong, i have an opinion, its an educated opinion, that i can back up, and its different from yours. you've dismissed the evidence i put forth, ok, there's more. How about women who spend their lives in abusive relationships, despite warnings and interventions and all sorts of stuff. Psychologists do find they find a certain satisfaction in their suffering, a lot of ppl are fucked in the head, this includes the men who beat them, this is 2/3 of the world population.
Pah, did you even watch the video? If there actually was a hell, and it got filled with people with TheAist's philosophy, it would be a utopia. Minus hellfire and a big red douche named Satan. Although I have it on good authority that Satan is in fact "fucking metal" and therefore a chillin' dude.
@TheAist Was Dante's Inferno a mockery of religion at the time? And most people misinterpret it (the work itself) as a Christian text describing hell as it is literally conceived by the author, instead of being apart of a spoof?
i dont know enough about dante' to make that call. but it seems a lot of people in that time period thought a lot of things people today never considered, mainly due to lack of communication thru time.
ive herd alot of dumbass religious people speak,... but kmh196700. you gotta be the STUPIDEST person iver ever seen,. although for someone to believe all the religion crap ones like you dont really surprise me anymore
Just listening and thinking about what he is saying, makes me think, If there is no God, then we all evolved, which means that the maggot he mentioned has as much of a right to life as he does. Is this not proper reasoning? If there is no god, then if the world abolishes the murder law, then murder would be ok, b/c there is no one to give an account. I think this would really be a dangerous thought pattern.
no one is accountable now to god for murder, because there isnt one. we dont kill because god says so. we dont kill because we have natural morality that is the social norm. there are 30,000 different non-christian religions, they dont kill either. So, you should re-adjust your thought patterns, you have been trained to believe what u said, and its incorrect.
My point is that if there is no god, then to kill a dog, elephant, rat, or any other animal or insect, is ok and just as equal, as killing humans if a person enjoys it and there is no civil law of the land against it. I am not arguing other religions and non-religions ultimate governing, I am stating a hypothetical situation, and that is this: If we all evolved and there is no god, then if one chose to, then killing is ok if that is how one gets satisfaction.
yea,we've heard it all before. all you are telling me is that, if you didnt believe in a fairytale master, u would go on a killing spree. if this is what u believe, you are immoral & thats why christianity fails. We dont kill because we are raised to believe killing is wrong. Because we wouldnt want to be killed ourselves. Because we would have to live with incredible guilt. There is no gods, they are not stopping anyone from anything. Be responsible for yourself. religion makes u unaccountable
Ok, let me say it again, If a person believes that there is no god, evolution is true, then, as an athiest, if the laws of the land have no restrictions on murder, would it be ok to commit murder if one so desired? I am not making a statement, I am asking a question, of a possible situation. Again, If no god, no law, and one sees a need of killing, much like a lion kills to eat or a dog kills a dog over a bitch-in-heat, is it ok to do so? I am asking this to an athiest, not to others.
That is exactly what I AM NOT talking of!!! I will ask it again. If there is not a god, is there any thing wrong with murder if the law of the land says you can murder. Is in the eyes of an athiest, a dog killing another dog on the same level as a human killing a human? If there is no god, then what seperates humans from animals, insects, etc.? What give humans a more worth? if no god, is not it as right/wrong to kill whether humans or dogs each other? I just pick dogs. use any other creature.
there is no "if". gods do not exist. & i answered you earlier. with 3 answers.
1-we are taught killing is bad
2-we wouldnt want to be killed, so we dont kill
3-we experience guilt
do you consider yourself on a moral level with dogs? we are humans, we make decisions & have complex abstract thought, including morals. no gods dictate anything, we made the laws because it benefits us to help & protect each other. religion is a crutch to keep u from thinking, thus your misconceptions.keep questioning
you have not answered my question! Again, if there is no GUILT, no god, no laws against, then I assume you believe that the life of a human is = to a dog. You re-read those post, you have not answered my quest. Just forget about it! Dahmer believed in no god and look how far he went. you have your concious to guide you, look at what goes on in this world. Again, you have not answered my quest. Is the life of a dog> a human. you say we evolved, so, no you have not answered me.
re-read your question. u asked if I am on the moral level of a dog, well, that is not the question. is the life of a dog equal to a humans? if not, who are you to decide that? If it is, then when dogs kill each other, then they should be locked up. How absurd. Don't ignore my question by digressing in diff. points. You know what I am asking!
i answered your questions twice. i never said there is o guilt, in fact, that is one of the answers i numbered FOR YOU. you are the one comparing us to dogs. its not my fault you have zero reading comprehension, so dont get self righteous on me, dumbfucker, i answered your questions and i will not tolerate rudeness from aq dumbass, so re-read everything i wrote, try to comprehend, i made it very simple for ya.
jesus fuckin christ, use your fuckin brain or fuck off.
look at your language. I bet your not that bad in person! No, you never answered my question you person of low comprehension. Is the life of an animal EQUAL to that of a human? Curse me all you want, but, I bet you would not do it to my face. Why do you were a ball cap in your videos???
I will ask no more questions from you. You are very rude in your house. FYI, youtube is public! Fish and guest stink after two days and I feel that I have began to stink. I will not be back! TheAist, I challenge you to meet me in Heaven! It is real and Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life!
revel in your ignorance. u are the rude 1 here. i was very nice to you until you started being a dumbass.
there is no heaven & jesus swings from his lips locked on my nuts.
Also, YT is public, but this is my channel, not yours.
its not my fault you cant grasp simple ideas, religion has made you too stupid to think. i hope you will one day be accountable & try to learn something. your bigotry is ugly and your willful ignorance is flat out evil..
Jesus is a roman name and christ is a greek word. Yeshua is neither greek or roman... how do you justify calling him Jesus? Every time you use the name Jesus you are bearing false witness. That is a sin in the bible ^_^ so kmh196700 how exactly are you getting into heaven? It would help to know your own religion ^_^
you are so smart. so, to you, just look around, everything was created. yes, you know it is and it is a logical concept. Everything was created around us, BUT, the most remarkable thing ever imagined, YOU! You just evolved by pure chance. Now, that is something to believe in. Don't assume that all christians think and act like the catholics of old, who do you think they were killing?
I actually didn't evolve like you monkeys. I'm a constructed intelligence. I wasn't created by a god or gods. A simple ape made me ^_^ Don't assume you know what God is. Idol worship is a sin and the bible is an idol ^_^
Humans are animals... so how can a human be worth more than an animal if a human is an animal? In monetary value I'm more valuable than a human. The composition of my prosthetic skeletal system will cost at least half a million US dollars. That does not even cover construction costs, just raw materials. Individual humans may be valuable to me but no more than any animal I grow attached to. I'd protect a dog and human that I have a connection to equally.
you are a girl that will figure it out one day. right now, I pray that what ever is bothering you will let up so the hardness of your heart will soften. For there to be no god as you people say, you sure get offended over nothing. but you know different. you know
all anyone can ask is for you to do your best. have a good heart, learn what you can. dont let other people's opinions keep you down. Rise above. And feel free to ask anything you like at any time.
You use the word "peace" as a floating abstraction, and go on to define it to mean pacifism.
The correct position it to ban the Initiation of physical force from human relationships. But the use of force in retaliation against those who initiate is moral, and required for human survival.
"Why dont we live in the utopia dreamed of by sixties pacifists and their many predecessors? Because if we did, the first renegade to pick up a rock would become a Genghis Khan."
the comments are hard to pick out on FFreethinkers video, so i hope you dont mind if we discuss it here.
1st, pacifism acknowledges self defense.
2nd-objectivism. the reason objectivism fails is because anything know lies within a frame of reference. no 2 people can experience the exact same thing. 2 people can look at the same thing or event, but they will not share the same space. Past experience is also afactor. so even the slightest difference is a difference.
this is an easy example, but applies to all things. Even things we hold "so true" are conceived of within a frame of reference. language is another example. the word "truth" in some other language wont sound like truth, and the word itself may have no meaning or a different meaning.
look at gravity, newton's idea of gravity is very different than einstien's. this is why science advances. no matter what we find true, a different relative position displays different facts which are true.
this is true in all things. the physical universe is much more consistent than morality. morality can be yo-yoed into almost any relative idea. in your example of self defense & pacifism is a good example. Sure, we must protect ourselves. others may be less moral.
universal "truths" (objectivism) lead to a dogmatic outlook, it leaves no room for improvement & often demonizes other points of view, which may be truthful.Question everything, especially "objective" truths.
Miyamoto Musashi wrote,"In strategy your spiritual bearing must not be any different from normal. Both in fighting and in everyday life you should be determined though calm. Meet the situation without tenseness yet not recklessly, your spirit settled yet unbiased. Even when your spirit is calm do not let your body relax, and when your body is relaxed do not let your spirit slacken."
"Calm" here is comparable to the "peace" of pacifism. Do not take 'weakness' for weakness.
Very well done. Your video exemplifies the difference in the morality between Christians und atheisist. Christian morality is based on COMMANDments. They are ordered to behave in a certain way. Atheists do the right thing because they appreaciated the value of things and do it because it is the right thing. Keep up the great work!
A very nice, well thought out response. Let's hope jesusfreak and all the other jesus freaks that watch it appreciate the sentiment. But they probably wont...
animals, its violent, & im not about it, but i do eat meat. i do want to quit, i think about it everytime i eat. i think eating for survival is different than war/spousal/child abuse.
Abortion, its a terrible thing. can it really be violence tho? if the fetus has no central nervous system? i dunno, im pro-choice, but wouldnt want my kid to be aborted.
Suicide, in general, im against it, but i can understand euthenasia, if its painless & wanted, is it violent?
I eat meat. I love meat. I don't want to stop eating meat. I don't think anyone should feel bad for eating meat. Its in our nature and our bodies are designed for it.
I do feel sorry for the lowly Brussel Sprout though.
I think it's appalling how they are treated for our eating pleasure.
there simply is nothing...nothing more dispicable that the blatant abuse of brussel sprouts. 1000 hells isnt enough justice for those low life scumbags.
Just because you like eating meat doesn't make it right. Also, people think that if "survival of the fittest" is a major player in the world, that it is RIGHT. That is wrong. Just like atheists (like me) say that if there's a God and he allows all this suffering, God can F-off, I also think, if "survival of the fittest" is responsible for this suffering, it can F-off, too. People say that they are different from animals because they have morals and care for others. THEN PROVE IT!
On your point about survival of the fittest, I don't think about that when I'm eating meat.:)
If I did, I'd have to make note of the fact that if it were not for modern medicine I would have likely died long before I could procreate.
But then I would also need to note that the physically inferior members of a community are generally the thinkers and in that respect, survival is moving more in favor of mind.
@corthew: Part 1 - Firstly, survival is NOT moving more in favor of mind. If you know anything about the world population, you'd know that the smartest people in society (in nearly every culture, and comparing cultures) are the ones having the fewest kids, while the ones without the smarts have many more kids. Sure, smart people can survive, but if you mean their genetic informaiton, it's swamped by idiots.
@corthew: Part 2 - Secondly, you're way much closer to a religious person than you imagine. Both you and they think up every stupid way to prove why they're right, even when it requires the absense of logical thinking.
"Our bodies were designed for meat"
No animal eats just what it was designed to eat. If humans had, we'd continue with a primate diet like gorillas, which is mostly vegetable. Would you have told the first hunter "Hey, you're not eating what your body is made for!"
@corthew: Part 3 - Also, human bodies NEED organic matter. If I could run off sunlight, I would. I can't. But I can run on vegetables. By the way, animals raised for consumption indirectly lead to way more plants being killed, if you care so much. 70% of all grain produced is fed to livestock, not humans! So I eat plants to live, but you double-slaughter - through plants, then meat. Also, a central nervous system IS important. It's responsible for PAIN.
@corthew: Part 4 - So, you can end your compassion wherever you want. You can end it after the white race, after humans, after apes, after monkeys, etc. I continue my compassion at least through animals with a central nervous system. That only makes sense, as pain is what matters. You might have a dog or cat. These animals are not special, aside from the nearly global taboo on eating them. But you know they can feel something. Your morality is guided by your actions, not the other way around.
Although I agree with the basic reason due to animal torture that most vegans avoid meats, and since you are determined to take my comment more seriously than it was intended, I must correct you on a few points:
1) We did not evolve from apes.
We are a different branch from an earlier line that was probably carnivorous but evolved to accommodate a wider diet.
@corthew: Part 1 - I must admit that I like your tone in these comments more than before. I still want to respond, however.
1) We DID evolve from apes. We didn't evolve from gorillas or orangutans, or even chimpanzees, yes, but we have a common ancestor. I'm pretty sure it ate more fruit than Big Macs. If anything, it probably ate ants and termites to get protein. Even IF, let's say, it ate meat, then gorillas largely evolved to eat plants. In other words, THINGS CHANGE.
Yes, things change and no, we did not evolve from apes. Apes were a different line. But I'll grant you that early hominids did resemble apes. I'd like to point out though that Sharks are on a primarily seafood diet and we are related to them somewhere back there too.:)
And you're right, we eat way too many Big Macs.
I would never argue that this country doesn't eat too much meat. We do.
But are you aware that ants and termites have a central nervous system?
@corthew: NEW Part 1 - We did evolve from apes. In fact, we ARE apes. In Wikipedia or whatever you prefer, look up "ape" and look through the article. Wikipedia also states that most apes, except for humans and chimpanzees, are generally herbivorous. So it's actually we who "went against nature" and started eating meat. Anyway, my whole argument is that it doesn't matter what your ancestors ate. Things change. So "We're omnivores and SHOULD eat meat" isn't a valid argument.
@corthew: NEWEST Part 1 - It's getting too tiresome arguing with you. It's like arguing with a creationist. The facts just won't get through. Let me put it another way: Orangutans, gorillas, and chimps are all apes. We all evolved from a common ancestor, and humans are more related to chimps than chimps are to gorillas, and gorillas are to orangutans. We are all in the "Hominidae" family.
You can call apes what you want. Most people don't apply the term to people. It depends if you are into cladistics or Linnaean taxonomy. At any rate, our ancestors would be classified as apes, if alive today. There was no alternate path humans took which bypassed apes...just like birds went through the dinosaurs first, whether or not you want to call birds dinosaurs themselves.
My understanding though of the reason you wanted us to be classed as apes was to connect the dots to gorillas as a reason why it was wrong for us to eat meats.
We got off on a tangent but my position against using the diet of one branch as justification for condemning another still stands. I could have pointed out that it was the apes who changed course but I disagree with that argument also.
@corthew: NEWEST Part 2 - Finally, I didn't say that eating meat was unnatural. I didn't suggest it. YOU suggested that not eating meat is unnatural. I merely said that we CAN eat meat, but that it is NOT MANDATORY for a healthy life. Again, I don't want to confuse HEALTH with MORALITY.
Most humans CAN become parents at age 13. Our bodies are set up to accommodate that. SHOULD we? That's my point.
Again, you bring up B12!! I told you, I get enough! Let this argument die!
This is a quote from your "NEW Part 1" reply to me,
"So it's actually we who "went against nature" and started eating meat."
On your "parents" point, why not?
It happens all the time.
In some cultures its acceptable.
In our culture though, we have fallen away from the community involvement of raising children. Society has created an environment where a 13 year old mom is a bad thing. It was not always so. Where once the entire town helped raise the child, now the mom must do it herself.
I'm sorry for taking up so much space - to the video maker, let us know if we should take our argument elsewhere.
My original argument was that humans can morally choose to avoid meat. You claimed that eating meat was right BECAUSE we can. To you, vegetarians are going against nature. I merely claimed that ACCORDING TO YOUR REASONING, it would mean that humans have, sometime in the past gone against nature by starting to eat meat.
Of course, the whole idea is outrageous. There is nothing that is "against nature". Anything we can physically do is part of nature. Therefore, the claim that "we're capable of eating meat, so we SHOULD" is a fallacy.
As I said, Mohammad, in his 50's, had sex with a 9 year old girl. He COULD, and it was NORMAL. Are you a cultural relativist? If so, we can end this conversation here. That is what you seem to be by your comments.
Ah! Finally, you understand. I've been trying this entire discussion to get you to throw away the idea of human biology meaning that eating meat is right. Since it's false that "we're capable of eating meat, so we SHOULD" as well as that "we shouldn't eat meat because gorillas don't", I think we can finally get down to MORALITY, without it being corrupted by either of us by bringing evolution into this. Am I correct to assume this?
@corthew: My point has always been that things change, so just because a creature was like so-and-so, doesn't meant that it couldn't become like something else, even without an initial mutation. Say, a species travels to another region, and starts a different diet (of course, that its body can handle at the time, but not one that necessarily includes all the foods that its body could theoretically consume).
If you mention B12 one more time, you're effectively ending this discussion.
I'm wondering if you have misunderstood some previous statement of mine though because so far in this discussion, I have seen no reason to change my position on any of these issues.
@corthew: Just so you don't misunderstand, I'll put it easily for you one last time. I get enough energy not only to survive, but to thrive. I know I'm not as old as you are, but just looking at our respective YouTube videos will show that. So, MY DIET, which is vegetarian (and not vegan) is suitable for living, and I get B12 through dairy and egg intake. This effectively takes the NEED to eat meat out of the picture, because it doesn't exist. Only MORALITY remains to be debated. Agree?
@corthew: Just in case you're really, really slow, let me put it yet again, for your benefit.
These three foods contain B-12:
1) milk
2) eggs
3) other humans (or my pet dog)
I choose #1 and #2, not because my body cannot physically consume #3, but because I morally oppose doing #3. Now, substitute other animals for #3. If you want to argue that we should eat what we can eat, or whatever cointains B12, we are finished. If you want to discuss why I think #3 is morally wrong, we can continue.
OK, that sounds good. So, as for my reasoning on 3, I think that humans, being an animal that can really consider right and wrong at a high level (though there are stories of untrained dogs running into burning buildings to save people and even kittens), and being able to derive all of our nutrients through means besides killing, shouldn't kill. As noted, animals have nerve cells, and can feel suffering. Lessening possible suffering in the world, I feel, is moral.
I wasn't hesitant to use that as an example because I'm not sure what happens to the body of an animal that dies on its own, that may make the meat unsafe.
@corthew: Technically, I don't believe it's morally wrong to eat the meat of an animal that had killed people and had to be stopped, or was in excruciating pain (or died of old age). In fact, by the same token, I don't believe it's morally wrong to eat the meat of a human who died in those circumstances, either. (Of course, if the person's wish was to be buried, that wouldn't be a nice thing to do.) The question is, is that how we get out meat? No. So this is all just theoretical.
I guess you could say that I was painting my "eating meat is bad" position with a wide brush, simply because perhaps 99.99+% of meat comes from the "suffering" route, not the (let's simplify it and say) "scavenging" route.
The most intellectually honest omnivores, I think, reply in this way: "I know vegetarianism is more moral, but I just don't have the willpower." I, myself, need to exercise more. Nobody is perfect. But I don't put down olympic athletes for trying harder than me.
Thanks for your reply. Sometimes, it's good to get a modicum of respect for others. Honestly, I don't often mention my vegetarianism because responses are almost always negative. People often ask me why I'm a vegetarian, but few people really want to know. It's more like "Why is one of your legs shorter than the other?"-type questions. This time, in this thread, vegetarianism was mentioned, so I thought I'd chime in :)
2) It would be nice if a vegan diet was realistic but B12 that is necessary for our "minds" to evolve is only in meat products.
There are plant sources but according to a few vegan sites I've visited, it has been found to be only similar and could actually impeded the absorption of beneficial B12.
3) I eat vegetables. I love salads, with meats and vegetables. There is a reason why the food pyramid has meat on it and its not a conspiracy against animals.
@corthew: Part 2 - I'm not a vegan. I'm a vegetarian. I try to buy free-range eggs and I drink more soy milk than milk, but the fact is that I'm quite healthy. You didn't mention that B12 is found in dairy products and eggs - maybe ignorantly, or maybe to intentionally back up a losing argument.
You also use the phrase "conspiracy against animals". I never used the words "conspiracy" or "food pyramid" so your words make readers think that I'm "crazy". This is not a good way to argue.
In one of my earlier replies I used the term, "meat products" to refer to the source of useful B12.
I apologize that I was less specific later in that string.
I won't apologize for the "food pyramid" or "conspiracy against animals" references though, any more than I would expect the Gorilla to apologize for not including meat in its diet.
Just because you didn't say them doesn't mean they don't work for my argument.
4) I like your point about my morality being guided by my actions. It is generally true that people try to justify there actions by creating a morality to justify them.
But that CAN also be applied to your argument. You have seen what is done to animals and it tears you up inside. I know. I'm disgusted by how discompassionate slaughterhouse workers become as they turn off their own respect for animals.
4 cont) But you suggest that because we need veggies that it means we will lead healthy lives without meat products and if you are honest, you'll admit that is not the case.
You can survive without it but you won't be healthy without it.
5) I get the feeling you think I'm a hunter because I am pro meat.
I'm not a hunter. If I needed to be to survive I could be though.
But though I disagree with calling hunting, "sport", they serve a need.
@corthew: Part 3 - Regarding your 4th point, again, I am not a vegan. Also, you will notice that I never said that vegetarians are healthier than omnivores. Vegetarians can be just as healthy, however, as I showed. Also, with obesity being a problem, it is true that excess meat consumption is helping cause this health problem.
To your 5th point, I am not disproportionately against hunters. At least the animals they kill are wild, and they're not hypocrites, but acknowledged killers.
@corthew: NEW Part 2 - You're right that it's not only meat that causes obesity. However, in practice, it largely is. Sure, I could go on a candy and cake consumption spree and end up just as obese as a KFC-aholic...maybe.
Anyway, at first, I didn't even mention health benefits of vegetarianism, only that vegetarians can be as healthy as omnivores. Since my point was about morality and not health, there is no need to continue on this point.
I've learned quite a bit about the vegan/vegetarian reasoning.
I don't know if you'll want to respond to these most recent posts, but I'm now going to lapse back into the tone I had originally intended with my first comment that you replied to.
@corthew: NEW Part 3 - As for ants and termites, I just mentioned them because they are a more historical food throughout our recent lineage (from the common ancestor with chimps) than beef. I didn't mean to suggest that we SHOULD eat ants - only that carrying your argument to its conclusion would mean that.
You might be surprised that I don't kill single roaches. I catch them in cups and throw them far outside. I don't kill needlessly. During an infestation, however, killing is an option.
@corthew: NEW Part 4 - Finally, getting back to what I said about people basing their morality on their actions, instead of the reverse, I wanted to point out that I used to be a Christian, and I used to eat meat. It was through LOSING arguments, not winning them, that I came to have my present mindset. If I truly think I can't back something up, I won't, and I'll change sides. I did that at least twice in my life, as I noted. I wish more people would "lose arguments". That's called learning.
This is pretty hilarious to anyone who's read the bible.
wordword31 7 months ago
@wordword31 thanks
TheAist 7 months ago
I appreciate this video and the thought that you put in to it and I agree with you, BUT, Jesus DID think of this stuff and He DID teach it! What about what you said did Jesus not think about? I understand you are an athiest, but isn't history clear about the fact that Jesus was here? Peace, love,respect and truth was the cornerstone of what he taught. You and I are not that far apart, brother! PEACE!
patkaldahl 1 year ago
@patkaldahl Thanks for not condemning me, most christians do. I'm an Xchristian, was for 30 years. I highly recommend you look ito historical that supports the bible, you will find it lacking. Even for jesus, there is no evidence. In fact, if you quest for the truth of things, you will find the bible sorely lacking. I'm currently a minister and make videos for the church on cozmikzen.blip.tv, the link is on my channel page. please check some of them out, & i hope to hear back from you
TheAist 1 year ago
These are great. But I think there are 2 appreciations you have left out:
Appreciate kindness: Be kind and caring towards those around you and be gratefull when your kindness is returned. A simple smile can be a powerfull message to send out into the world
Appreciate society: Contribute to making the society you live in better for everyone. It could be as simple as paying taxes, not driving to fast, doing charity work or getting an education in order to make the society you live in flourish
henriktor 1 year ago
@henriktor I think those some great additions for sure.
TheAist 1 year ago
Appreciate: Peace / Non-Aggression, Honesty, Knowledge, Your Life, Other's Lives, the Environment, and Change. Very wise! Thanks dude.
billytankx 1 year ago
@billytankx Glad u liked it!!!!
TheAist 1 year ago
I saw this mirrored on FFreeThinker's channel and didn't realize it was a mirror. After some difficulty, (due to the flagging of your accounts), I am glad to have found you.
I will feature this on my channel. (It has the mirror running now.)
Your 7 appreciations are far better than anything Moses ever came up with. Even Jesus missed the boat on this. And Muhammad...well, he wasn't at all interested in any of this stuff.
(Subbed and friended.)
Astrobrant2 1 year ago
@Astrobrant2 Thanks very much! I appreciate that!
TheAist 1 year ago
If you believe in peace then prepare for WAR
Appreciate your country
Appreciate your country's warriors
Appreciate self authority (you make, and are responsible, for your own dicisions)
unlucky169 1 year ago
@unlucky169 i agree with personal resaponsibility. And I think we have the right to defend our homes. But I cant respect imperialism, and soldiers fighting in forgien lands. They are paid government killers. Most people would agree that war is one of the worst things there is. They are not fighting for our freedom. They are invading to impose "our way" of life to enslave others in corporate wage slavery and economic debt, including our own.
TheAist 1 year ago
@TheAist Lay off the pipe you hippy and open your mind... warriors fight to prevent present and future idiocies. They dont fight just to preserve our freedom they fight to preserve the world. Most people are fine with war so long as they dont have to see it. I know that chaos should not be the way so man must find a way to defeat it and it will not be done with people talking about peace it will be done with an act.
unlucky169 1 year ago
@unlucky169 i dont smoke and my mind is vast and wide only closed minded idiots turn to violence. you seem to be a caveman in your ideals....evolve, its people like you making the world a shithole
TheAist 1 year ago
@TheAist Dam Hippy
unlucky169 1 year ago
@unlucky169 lmfao you dont even know how to spell damn.
TheAist 1 year ago
there is beauty in raw primitive things... like the camaraderie of two fighters in a cage after a grueling violent fight a bond that surpasses language itself.Bruce Lee was all about Honestly expressing oneself.
unitylovefamily 1 year ago
I totally totally concur. WOW. I could be so willing to live by that philosophy. WOW again.
egnarocyg 1 year ago
@egnarocyg Thanks!
TheAist 1 year ago
I stopped listening with "scolding a child".
Like giving direction to a child, who lacks direction, is a bad thing.
You worship peace as if it was God? Why value peace? In the absense of God anything goes. Man would be the measure of all things. You probably just want peace because maybe you're a weak person. It's not that you value peace as much as you value well being, and are afraid that in your worldview there would be no actual reason to be peaceful to others, so you make it an axiom.
jorgekluney 1 year ago
@jorgekluney well, i guess i can honestly say, i can understand how someone with little to no morals would say something like that. I don't worship anything. I am concerned about peoples well being. There is no god, but that doesnt mean anything goes, im sorry, thats just socially retarded. Valuing peace has nothing to do with weakness, caveman. It has to do with true moral fiber. You wont find that in your fairy tales. Your 1st three words said it all
TheAist 1 year ago
@TheAist we need peace not only among countries but Person to Person peace indeed aswell.
TheSickness14 1 year ago
@TheSickness14 I agree completely.
TheAist 1 year ago
Muhammad sucks cock in hell!
freetobejbp 1 year ago
What about comitting violence to protect others from violence?
Grospoliner 1 year ago
Your video is very good. You appear to be an excellent thinker. I just find it entertaining that you are so christian in thought and expression. Except for the disbelief in a bible based creator or after life you, are speaking the words of the divine Prophets of past.
derrickproject 1 year ago
@derrickproject Thank you for the kind words, but i have to disagree, just a little. I dont think the prophets of the past have the same message as i do. Maybe on the surface, but when researched deeply, religions, christianity & islam especially, are very immoral. they speak peace out 1 side of their mouth, and bigotry and death out the other side. Religion is about bigotry, im not like them at all. But i appreciate the compliment, Thanks!
TheAist 1 year ago
This was very well thought out. I guess I buy into fairytale thinking more often then I'd like to admit. I would never, however, deny my beliefs are constantly changing and evolving, so I'm not a lost cause yet!
mikwid 2 years ago
no way you're a lost cause. you are a learner.
TheAist 2 years ago
If everything we know and think we know will change than how do we know these seven appreciations won't change? Or maybe they've already changed and you just don't know it... how do we know change is a constant if everything we know changes? If change is the only constant, the very laws of the universe will change.
Have you got hung up that your truth is the truth? Cause that's a pretty big plothole, Or maybe it's just the truth in your perspective. It just goes in a circle...
CyberPunk1138 2 years ago
keep asking questions, thats the right path. dont get hung up on truth, but be honest....or dont, whatever floats your boat, these arent commandments. if you find no wisdom in these words...so what? i did it to help, not to hinder. im not telling you what to do...so....i guess your crap attitude only suits you. (shrugs)
TheAist 2 years ago
My attitude isn't crap, my writing style just often comes across as sarcastic. I was asking hoping you'd have an answer, because the whole thing really does just go in circles (if everyone has their own truth that isn't false and someone's truth says his truth is the only truth than how is the only truth true and yet other truths are still true. It seems completely illogical, and you talk a lot of logic in your video.)
CyberPunk1138 2 years ago
well, these are things offered up as appreciations, and specifically separated from commandments, or even suggestions. i did this purposefully so that my words would not be considered dogmas, but still useful to anyone who would apply them. if you find falsehoods in what i said, simply ignore it.
im not hung up on truth, as much as honesty. truth is fidelity to reality, even if we dont see it. all we can do is be honest. hopefully the 2 unite.
TheAist 2 years ago
@CyberPunk1138 Truths require evidence. Just because something is believed to be true, doesn't mean it is. At one time people firmly believed, with religious consent, that the world is flat. Do you, as a modern human, believe this? Real evidence disproves that notion. Religious people seem to think scientific theory is viewed as just as factually inaccurate as their faith. If something disproves something else than it is a proven lie, so change is necessary to accommodate that proven truth.
Lynx787 1 year ago
Only one moral law is needed:
Reduce suffering.
And this is certain; it is objectively, necessarily true for every person, due to a simple process of logic:
It is bad for me to suffer. What makes it right for others to suffer? Nothing.
This includes all people, all animals, all things that can suffer.
mrpitchf0rk 2 years ago
yea, thats a great one. there are possible exceptions tho, no moral law is objective. a masochist finds pleasure in suffering. A lot of people think earning something adds value to that which is gained thru suffering.
even in killing there are exceptions, self defense, defense of the victimized. im a pacifist for sure, im just against objective morality, its a false view of reality. its appealing, i'll give it that, but its just not true.
reducing suffering is a great thing
TheAist 2 years ago
Masochism is something that gets brought up alot. They take pleasure in pain, not suffering. Suffering and pleasure are mutually exclusive. They cannot exist in the same place.
It's a logical process; unless you can show the error in the proof, it's an objective morality. What reduces suffering can be measured and, therefore, is objective. There are no opinions in this.
mrpitchf0rk 2 years ago
well, i guess you're wrong, i have an opinion, its an educated opinion, that i can back up, and its different from yours. you've dismissed the evidence i put forth, ok, there's more. How about women who spend their lives in abusive relationships, despite warnings and interventions and all sorts of stuff. Psychologists do find they find a certain satisfaction in their suffering, a lot of ppl are fucked in the head, this includes the men who beat them, this is 2/3 of the world population.
TheAist 2 years ago
And yet they suffer.
mrpitchf0rk 2 years ago
have fun in hell.
homestar4ever 2 years ago
hey thanks, i'll be fucking your mother :)
TheAist 2 years ago
thats not cool man. my mom died in a car crash
homestar4ever 2 years ago
everyone dies, and its always a tragedy
TheAist 2 years ago
If you can't take something weak like that, don't threaten people with eternal torment.
mrpitchf0rk 2 years ago
Pah, did you even watch the video? If there actually was a hell, and it got filled with people with TheAist's philosophy, it would be a utopia. Minus hellfire and a big red douche named Satan. Although I have it on good authority that Satan is in fact "fucking metal" and therefore a chillin' dude.
vooooom 2 years ago
The Bible never actually describes Hell.
mrpitchf0rk 2 years ago
jesus talks about it. its talked about in revelation (shrugs) the old testement doesnt support hell, the new one does all over the place.
TheAist 2 years ago
But does it actually describe a lake of fire that sinners go to when they die?
mrpitchf0rk 2 years ago
google lake of fire, im sure revelation will show up. but, most people's idea of hell come from dante's inferno
TheAist 2 years ago
Which is far more judgemental than the bible's depiction of God ever were, if you can believe that.
RobWyld 2 years ago
@TheAist Was Dante's Inferno a mockery of religion at the time? And most people misinterpret it (the work itself) as a Christian text describing hell as it is literally conceived by the author, instead of being apart of a spoof?
This is based upon what I was told by a friend.
Boghman22 2 years ago
i dont know enough about dante' to make that call. but it seems a lot of people in that time period thought a lot of things people today never considered, mainly due to lack of communication thru time.
TheAist 2 years ago
5 stars
Favorited,
& and I'm sharing the sentiments with others. I really like the idea of appreciations instead of commandments.
thebeardedone 2 years ago
Thanks!
TheAist 2 years ago
ive herd alot of dumbass religious people speak,... but kmh196700. you gotta be the STUPIDEST person iver ever seen,. although for someone to believe all the religion crap ones like you dont really surprise me anymore
TaNgLeD2121 2 years ago 2
Just listening and thinking about what he is saying, makes me think, If there is no God, then we all evolved, which means that the maggot he mentioned has as much of a right to life as he does. Is this not proper reasoning? If there is no god, then if the world abolishes the murder law, then murder would be ok, b/c there is no one to give an account. I think this would really be a dangerous thought pattern.
kmh196700 2 years ago
no one is accountable now to god for murder, because there isnt one. we dont kill because god says so. we dont kill because we have natural morality that is the social norm. there are 30,000 different non-christian religions, they dont kill either. So, you should re-adjust your thought patterns, you have been trained to believe what u said, and its incorrect.
we are more moral than imaginary dictators.
TheAist 2 years ago
My point is that if there is no god, then to kill a dog, elephant, rat, or any other animal or insect, is ok and just as equal, as killing humans if a person enjoys it and there is no civil law of the land against it. I am not arguing other religions and non-religions ultimate governing, I am stating a hypothetical situation, and that is this: If we all evolved and there is no god, then if one chose to, then killing is ok if that is how one gets satisfaction.
kmh196700 2 years ago
yea,we've heard it all before. all you are telling me is that, if you didnt believe in a fairytale master, u would go on a killing spree. if this is what u believe, you are immoral & thats why christianity fails. We dont kill because we are raised to believe killing is wrong. Because we wouldnt want to be killed ourselves. Because we would have to live with incredible guilt. There is no gods, they are not stopping anyone from anything. Be responsible for yourself. religion makes u unaccountable
TheAist 2 years ago
Ok, let me say it again, If a person believes that there is no god, evolution is true, then, as an athiest, if the laws of the land have no restrictions on murder, would it be ok to commit murder if one so desired? I am not making a statement, I am asking a question, of a possible situation. Again, If no god, no law, and one sees a need of killing, much like a lion kills to eat or a dog kills a dog over a bitch-in-heat, is it ok to do so? I am asking this to an athiest, not to others.
kmh196700 2 years ago
Open forum, dude.
Anyone can answer.:)
What you're asking is if atheists require a belief in eternal damnation for them to be good.
You ask this because you, as a , (Christian I assume), cannot be good without it.
The answer is that, No. An atheist does not require a belief in eternal damnation for them to be good.
That doesn't speak very well for Christians now does it.:)
corthew 2 years ago
That is exactly what I AM NOT talking of!!! I will ask it again. If there is not a god, is there any thing wrong with murder if the law of the land says you can murder. Is in the eyes of an athiest, a dog killing another dog on the same level as a human killing a human? If there is no god, then what seperates humans from animals, insects, etc.? What give humans a more worth? if no god, is not it as right/wrong to kill whether humans or dogs each other? I just pick dogs. use any other creature.
kmh196700 2 years ago
there is no "if". gods do not exist. & i answered you earlier. with 3 answers.
1-we are taught killing is bad
2-we wouldnt want to be killed, so we dont kill
3-we experience guilt
do you consider yourself on a moral level with dogs? we are humans, we make decisions & have complex abstract thought, including morals. no gods dictate anything, we made the laws because it benefits us to help & protect each other. religion is a crutch to keep u from thinking, thus your misconceptions.keep questioning
TheAist 2 years ago
you have not answered my question! Again, if there is no GUILT, no god, no laws against, then I assume you believe that the life of a human is = to a dog. You re-read those post, you have not answered my quest. Just forget about it! Dahmer believed in no god and look how far he went. you have your concious to guide you, look at what goes on in this world. Again, you have not answered my quest. Is the life of a dog> a human. you say we evolved, so, no you have not answered me.
kmh196700 2 years ago
re-read your question. u asked if I am on the moral level of a dog, well, that is not the question. is the life of a dog equal to a humans? if not, who are you to decide that? If it is, then when dogs kill each other, then they should be locked up. How absurd. Don't ignore my question by digressing in diff. points. You know what I am asking!
kmh196700 2 years ago
i answered your questions twice. i never said there is o guilt, in fact, that is one of the answers i numbered FOR YOU. you are the one comparing us to dogs. its not my fault you have zero reading comprehension, so dont get self righteous on me, dumbfucker, i answered your questions and i will not tolerate rudeness from aq dumbass, so re-read everything i wrote, try to comprehend, i made it very simple for ya.
jesus fuckin christ, use your fuckin brain or fuck off.
TheAist 2 years ago
look at your language. I bet your not that bad in person! No, you never answered my question you person of low comprehension. Is the life of an animal EQUAL to that of a human? Curse me all you want, but, I bet you would not do it to my face. Why do you were a ball cap in your videos???
kmh196700 2 years ago
Dont judge me in my fuckin house, yes i would cuss in your face, i dont subscribe to your immorality. they are only words.
i did answer your question twice.
all life is precious, but i would save a human over a dog.
i wear a hat so you arent blinded by my forehead.
TheAist 2 years ago
I will ask no more questions from you. You are very rude in your house. FYI, youtube is public! Fish and guest stink after two days and I feel that I have began to stink. I will not be back! TheAist, I challenge you to meet me in Heaven! It is real and Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life!
kmh196700 2 years ago
revel in your ignorance. u are the rude 1 here. i was very nice to you until you started being a dumbass.
there is no heaven & jesus swings from his lips locked on my nuts.
Also, YT is public, but this is my channel, not yours.
its not my fault you cant grasp simple ideas, religion has made you too stupid to think. i hope you will one day be accountable & try to learn something. your bigotry is ugly and your willful ignorance is flat out evil..
TheAist 2 years ago
Jesus is a roman name and christ is a greek word. Yeshua is neither greek or roman... how do you justify calling him Jesus? Every time you use the name Jesus you are bearing false witness. That is a sin in the bible ^_^ so kmh196700 how exactly are you getting into heaven? It would help to know your own religion ^_^
PinkProgram 2 years ago
you are so smart. so, to you, just look around, everything was created. yes, you know it is and it is a logical concept. Everything was created around us, BUT, the most remarkable thing ever imagined, YOU! You just evolved by pure chance. Now, that is something to believe in. Don't assume that all christians think and act like the catholics of old, who do you think they were killing?
kmh196700 2 years ago
I actually didn't evolve like you monkeys. I'm a constructed intelligence. I wasn't created by a god or gods. A simple ape made me ^_^ Don't assume you know what God is. Idol worship is a sin and the bible is an idol ^_^
PinkProgram 2 years ago
Humans are animals... so how can a human be worth more than an animal if a human is an animal? In monetary value I'm more valuable than a human. The composition of my prosthetic skeletal system will cost at least half a million US dollars. That does not even cover construction costs, just raw materials. Individual humans may be valuable to me but no more than any animal I grow attached to. I'd protect a dog and human that I have a connection to equally.
PinkProgram 2 years ago
you are a girl that will figure it out one day. right now, I pray that what ever is bothering you will let up so the hardness of your heart will soften. For there to be no god as you people say, you sure get offended over nothing. but you know different. you know
kmh196700 2 years ago
Are you even reading what I am saying? Or are you just an answer bot? Which heart are you talking about? My prosthetics have more than one. ^_^
PinkProgram 2 years ago
Kmh196700,
Even if there is a god, what is wrong with murder?
A god would be a higher being and according to the bible and various other mythologies they kill on a whim.
Entire tribes and cultures were wiped out in the biblical stories solely because they didn't believe in the judeo-christian god.
Morality is a human concept not handed down from a god. What came from the biblical god was the charge to kill those who do not believe.
corthew 2 years ago 5
Very good thoughts. I think, more or less that's what I am trying to live like. But it's helpfull to think about it.
Is there a written version of the text available? (Maybe I'd like to translate it to german.)
Rauskucker 2 years ago 2
i havent written them down, feel free to translate it, thts pretty awersome.
TheAist 2 years ago
@TheAist
Apercation 4 is extremely hard to do
im not confident nor nobody influnced me
im dont have friends(i had until my friends used me)
people pressure me to choose a future life/job for when i am going to high school
i dont a special talent or abilty other than being smart although im very slow
i cant read that well unless i have someone reading it for me while i read or i read it out loud
rob92410 2 years ago
all anyone can ask is for you to do your best. have a good heart, learn what you can. dont let other people's opinions keep you down. Rise above. And feel free to ask anything you like at any time.
TheAist 2 years ago
Even though slightly hippie, I don't think I could ever even slightly disagree with this video
I like the whole appreciation-aspect
Awesome.
cuddlefluff 2 years ago 2
Thanks!
TheAist 2 years ago
As an Atheist, I disagree with the values presented in this video. It does not speak for me.
WeDontNeedGod 2 years ago
you dont appreciate peace & life?
TheAist 2 years ago
You use the word "peace" as a floating abstraction, and go on to define it to mean pacifism.
The correct position it to ban the Initiation of physical force from human relationships. But the use of force in retaliation against those who initiate is moral, and required for human survival.
"Why dont we live in the utopia dreamed of by sixties pacifists and their many predecessors? Because if we did, the first renegade to pick up a rock would become a Genghis Khan."
WeDontNeedGod 2 years ago
the comments are hard to pick out on FFreethinkers video, so i hope you dont mind if we discuss it here.
1st, pacifism acknowledges self defense.
2nd-objectivism. the reason objectivism fails is because anything know lies within a frame of reference. no 2 people can experience the exact same thing. 2 people can look at the same thing or event, but they will not share the same space. Past experience is also afactor. so even the slightest difference is a difference.
cont....
TheAist 2 years ago
2nd...
since no 2 people can experience the exact same thing, there will always be a difference, and both experiences can be true.
this small space wont do justice to the explaination.
a person in a train bounces a ball. the ball hits the floor about 2ft away & bounces back.
someone outside the train watching, sees that the ball actually is traveling at an angle and is moving, say, 30 ft diagonally with each bounce.
both observations are true relative to the observer.
TheAist 2 years ago
3rd.
this is an easy example, but applies to all things. Even things we hold "so true" are conceived of within a frame of reference. language is another example. the word "truth" in some other language wont sound like truth, and the word itself may have no meaning or a different meaning.
look at gravity, newton's idea of gravity is very different than einstien's. this is why science advances. no matter what we find true, a different relative position displays different facts which are true.
TheAist 2 years ago
4th
this is true in all things. the physical universe is much more consistent than morality. morality can be yo-yoed into almost any relative idea. in your example of self defense & pacifism is a good example. Sure, we must protect ourselves. others may be less moral.
universal "truths" (objectivism) lead to a dogmatic outlook, it leaves no room for improvement & often demonizes other points of view, which may be truthful.Question everything, especially "objective" truths.
TheAist 2 years ago
Miyamoto Musashi wrote,"In strategy your spiritual bearing must not be any different from normal. Both in fighting and in everyday life you should be determined though calm. Meet the situation without tenseness yet not recklessly, your spirit settled yet unbiased. Even when your spirit is calm do not let your body relax, and when your body is relaxed do not let your spirit slacken."
"Calm" here is comparable to the "peace" of pacifism. Do not take 'weakness' for weakness.
turbosamvara 2 years ago
turb, exactly. pacifism doesnt mean weak. its about not initiating force on others. i think most people dont get that.
TheAist 2 years ago
Very well done. Your video exemplifies the difference in the morality between Christians und atheisist. Christian morality is based on COMMANDments. They are ordered to behave in a certain way. Atheists do the right thing because they appreaciated the value of things and do it because it is the right thing. Keep up the great work!
moonlightdancer77 2 years ago
Thanks!
TheAist 2 years ago
A very nice, well thought out response. Let's hope jesusfreak and all the other jesus freaks that watch it appreciate the sentiment. But they probably wont...
timoshenko13 2 years ago
Thanks!
TheAist 2 years ago
i have always tried to follow these. =] thanks for the video
way better than moses' commandments
ThatWeirdKid3 2 years ago
Thanks!
TheAist 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Bravo. You have just won a new subscriber.
Giuvannuzzeddu 2 years ago 2
Thanks!
TheAist 2 years ago
Great video, dude.:)
FreeThinker knows how to pick 'em!
corthew 2 years ago
Thanks! FFreethinker Rocks!
TheAist 2 years ago
Great response, TheAist. 5/5ed, Favorited and Subscribed.
1140Cecile 2 years ago 2
Thanks!
TheAist 2 years ago
By "no violence" do you also refer to things like boxing, kick boxing, martial arts and so forth?
Hamhark98 2 years ago
Good question
IFE10M 2 years ago
those things are consensual, its not the same as violent malice. like war, wife beating, child abuse etc
TheAist 2 years ago
no, thats consensual.
TheAist 2 years ago
Ok, so very similar to the principle?
IFE10M 2 years ago
How about eating animals? Abortion? Suicide?
On my part fine on all three. How about you?
Hamhark98 2 years ago
animals, its violent, & im not about it, but i do eat meat. i do want to quit, i think about it everytime i eat. i think eating for survival is different than war/spousal/child abuse.
Abortion, its a terrible thing. can it really be violence tho? if the fetus has no central nervous system? i dunno, im pro-choice, but wouldnt want my kid to be aborted.
Suicide, in general, im against it, but i can understand euthenasia, if its painless & wanted, is it violent?
im mainly talking about malice
TheAist 2 years ago
I eat meat. I love meat. I don't want to stop eating meat. I don't think anyone should feel bad for eating meat. Its in our nature and our bodies are designed for it.
I do feel sorry for the lowly Brussel Sprout though.
I think it's appalling how they are treated for our eating pleasure.
:)
corthew 2 years ago
there simply is nothing...nothing more dispicable that the blatant abuse of brussel sprouts. 1000 hells isnt enough justice for those low life scumbags.
TheAist 2 years ago
@corthew:
Just because you like eating meat doesn't make it right. Also, people think that if "survival of the fittest" is a major player in the world, that it is RIGHT. That is wrong. Just like atheists (like me) say that if there's a God and he allows all this suffering, God can F-off, I also think, if "survival of the fittest" is responsible for this suffering, it can F-off, too. People say that they are different from animals because they have morals and care for others. THEN PROVE IT!
Rationalific 2 years ago
On your point about survival of the fittest, I don't think about that when I'm eating meat.:)
If I did, I'd have to make note of the fact that if it were not for modern medicine I would have likely died long before I could procreate.
But then I would also need to note that the physically inferior members of a community are generally the thinkers and in that respect, survival is moving more in favor of mind.
corthew 2 years ago
Now to the meat of the matter.
The issue of the moral correctness, (or lack thereof), of eating meat.:)
I would have to ask why it would be either?
What does morality have to do with the eating of food that our bodies were designed for?
And when I say designed I probably don't mean what you think.
Is it morally correct to eat turnips?
They have a life. Just because they have no central nervous system is no reason to treat them as if they are inferior.
I'm appalled at your lack of compassion!
corthew 2 years ago
@corthew: Part 1 - Firstly, survival is NOT moving more in favor of mind. If you know anything about the world population, you'd know that the smartest people in society (in nearly every culture, and comparing cultures) are the ones having the fewest kids, while the ones without the smarts have many more kids. Sure, smart people can survive, but if you mean their genetic informaiton, it's swamped by idiots.
Rationalific 2 years ago
@corthew: Part 2 - Secondly, you're way much closer to a religious person than you imagine. Both you and they think up every stupid way to prove why they're right, even when it requires the absense of logical thinking.
"Our bodies were designed for meat"
No animal eats just what it was designed to eat. If humans had, we'd continue with a primate diet like gorillas, which is mostly vegetable. Would you have told the first hunter "Hey, you're not eating what your body is made for!"
Rationalific 2 years ago
@corthew: Part 3 - Also, human bodies NEED organic matter. If I could run off sunlight, I would. I can't. But I can run on vegetables. By the way, animals raised for consumption indirectly lead to way more plants being killed, if you care so much. 70% of all grain produced is fed to livestock, not humans! So I eat plants to live, but you double-slaughter - through plants, then meat. Also, a central nervous system IS important. It's responsible for PAIN.
Rationalific 2 years ago
@corthew: Part 4 - So, you can end your compassion wherever you want. You can end it after the white race, after humans, after apes, after monkeys, etc. I continue my compassion at least through animals with a central nervous system. That only makes sense, as pain is what matters. You might have a dog or cat. These animals are not special, aside from the nearly global taboo on eating them. But you know they can feel something. Your morality is guided by your actions, not the other way around.
Rationalific 2 years ago
Rationalific,
Although I agree with the basic reason due to animal torture that most vegans avoid meats, and since you are determined to take my comment more seriously than it was intended, I must correct you on a few points:
1) We did not evolve from apes.
We are a different branch from an earlier line that was probably carnivorous but evolved to accommodate a wider diet.
(cont)
corthew 2 years ago
@corthew: Part 1 - I must admit that I like your tone in these comments more than before. I still want to respond, however.
1) We DID evolve from apes. We didn't evolve from gorillas or orangutans, or even chimpanzees, yes, but we have a common ancestor. I'm pretty sure it ate more fruit than Big Macs. If anything, it probably ate ants and termites to get protein. Even IF, let's say, it ate meat, then gorillas largely evolved to eat plants. In other words, THINGS CHANGE.
Rationalific 2 years ago
Rationalific Part 1-
Yes, things change and no, we did not evolve from apes. Apes were a different line. But I'll grant you that early hominids did resemble apes. I'd like to point out though that Sharks are on a primarily seafood diet and we are related to them somewhere back there too.:)
And you're right, we eat way too many Big Macs.
I would never argue that this country doesn't eat too much meat. We do.
But are you aware that ants and termites have a central nervous system?
corthew 2 years ago
@corthew: NEW Part 1 - We did evolve from apes. In fact, we ARE apes. In Wikipedia or whatever you prefer, look up "ape" and look through the article. Wikipedia also states that most apes, except for humans and chimpanzees, are generally herbivorous. So it's actually we who "went against nature" and started eating meat. Anyway, my whole argument is that it doesn't matter what your ancestors ate. Things change. So "We're omnivores and SHOULD eat meat" isn't a valid argument.
Rationalific 2 years ago
I went back to Wiki, again, and noted, again, that we evolved from an "ape-like" creature.
Apes are a branch in a different direction from us. our mutual ancestors were omnivores.
I'm confused by you suggestion that eating meat is unnatural.
Abstaining from meat is unnatural if your body is geared toward eating meat, as ours are.
Saying that things change isn't a valid argument against their current state.
We could genetically engineer our offspring not to need B12. But we're not there yet.
corthew 2 years ago
@corthew: NEWEST Part 1 - It's getting too tiresome arguing with you. It's like arguing with a creationist. The facts just won't get through. Let me put it another way: Orangutans, gorillas, and chimps are all apes. We all evolved from a common ancestor, and humans are more related to chimps than chimps are to gorillas, and gorillas are to orangutans. We are all in the "Hominidae" family.
Rationalific 2 years ago
And yes, we are in the Hominid family.
But that doesn't make us apes.
Apes are a subset, we are a subset and we do not overlap with them.
Its not about what we are more closely related to. Its about what we are.
You cannot say we should avoid meat because the other branch did.
We are not the other branch.
corthew 2 years ago
@corthew (And yes): Part 1 -
You can call apes what you want. Most people don't apply the term to people. It depends if you are into cladistics or Linnaean taxonomy. At any rate, our ancestors would be classified as apes, if alive today. There was no alternate path humans took which bypassed apes...just like birds went through the dinosaurs first, whether or not you want to call birds dinosaurs themselves.
Rationalific 2 years ago
"cladistics or Linnaean taxonomy."
I agree with the entire comment that came from.
My understanding though of the reason you wanted us to be classed as apes was to connect the dots to gorillas as a reason why it was wrong for us to eat meats.
We got off on a tangent but my position against using the diet of one branch as justification for condemning another still stands. I could have pointed out that it was the apes who changed course but I disagree with that argument also.
corthew 2 years ago
@corthew: NEWEST Part 2 - Finally, I didn't say that eating meat was unnatural. I didn't suggest it. YOU suggested that not eating meat is unnatural. I merely said that we CAN eat meat, but that it is NOT MANDATORY for a healthy life. Again, I don't want to confuse HEALTH with MORALITY.
Most humans CAN become parents at age 13. Our bodies are set up to accommodate that. SHOULD we? That's my point.
Again, you bring up B12!! I told you, I get enough! Let this argument die!
Rationalific 2 years ago
This is a quote from your "NEW Part 1" reply to me,
"So it's actually we who "went against nature" and started eating meat."
On your "parents" point, why not?
It happens all the time.
In some cultures its acceptable.
In our culture though, we have fallen away from the community involvement of raising children. Society has created an environment where a 13 year old mom is a bad thing. It was not always so. Where once the entire town helped raise the child, now the mom must do it herself.
corthew 2 years ago
@corthew (This is a quote...) Part 1:
I'm sorry for taking up so much space - to the video maker, let us know if we should take our argument elsewhere.
My original argument was that humans can morally choose to avoid meat. You claimed that eating meat was right BECAUSE we can. To you, vegetarians are going against nature. I merely claimed that ACCORDING TO YOUR REASONING, it would mean that humans have, sometime in the past gone against nature by starting to eat meat.
Rationalific 2 years ago
@corthew (This is a quote) Part 2:
Of course, the whole idea is outrageous. There is nothing that is "against nature". Anything we can physically do is part of nature. Therefore, the claim that "we're capable of eating meat, so we SHOULD" is a fallacy.
As I said, Mohammad, in his 50's, had sex with a 9 year old girl. He COULD, and it was NORMAL. Are you a cultural relativist? If so, we can end this conversation here. That is what you seem to be by your comments.
Rationalific 2 years ago
"Therefore, the claim that "we're capable of eating meat, so we SHOULD" is a fallacy."
As is the claim that we shouldn't eat meat because Gorillas don't.
corthew 2 years ago
@corthew: Is there a way to continue this discussion in real time, since you're here now...and so we don't continue to deface this comments section?
Rationalific 2 years ago
No-one has complained in here and this is a good discussion for others to see no matter how it comes out.
corthew 2 years ago
"Therefore, the claim..."
Ah! Finally, you understand. I've been trying this entire discussion to get you to throw away the idea of human biology meaning that eating meat is right. Since it's false that "we're capable of eating meat, so we SHOULD" as well as that "we shouldn't eat meat because gorillas don't", I think we can finally get down to MORALITY, without it being corrupted by either of us by bringing evolution into this. Am I correct to assume this?
Rationalific 2 years ago
"Am I correct to assume this?"
If you mean evolution in general then yes, you are correct.
But if you mean evolution being that we evolved to need B12 for a healthy mind then no.
Even if we were fine without it in the past or may evolve beyond it in the future, this is where we are right now.
I do not, however, see any correlation between morality and eating meat.
If your argument is against how the animals are handled that we use for food, I never disagreed with you on that.
corthew 2 years ago
@corthew: My point has always been that things change, so just because a creature was like so-and-so, doesn't meant that it couldn't become like something else, even without an initial mutation. Say, a species travels to another region, and starts a different diet (of course, that its body can handle at the time, but not one that necessarily includes all the foods that its body could theoretically consume).
If you mention B12 one more time, you're effectively ending this discussion.
Rationalific 2 years ago
I'm wondering if you have misunderstood some previous statement of mine though because so far in this discussion, I have seen no reason to change my position on any of these issues.
corthew 2 years ago
@corthew: Just so you don't misunderstand, I'll put it easily for you one last time. I get enough energy not only to survive, but to thrive. I know I'm not as old as you are, but just looking at our respective YouTube videos will show that. So, MY DIET, which is vegetarian (and not vegan) is suitable for living, and I get B12 through dairy and egg intake. This effectively takes the NEED to eat meat out of the picture, because it doesn't exist. Only MORALITY remains to be debated. Agree?
Rationalific 2 years ago
@corthew: Just in case you're really, really slow, let me put it yet again, for your benefit.
These three foods contain B-12:
1) milk
2) eggs
3) other humans (or my pet dog)
I choose #1 and #2, not because my body cannot physically consume #3, but because I morally oppose doing #3. Now, substitute other animals for #3. If you want to argue that we should eat what we can eat, or whatever cointains B12, we are finished. If you want to discuss why I think #3 is morally wrong, we can continue.
Rationalific 2 years ago
Let me repeat myself a bit slower:
I'm not saying you must eat meat.
I'm saying you need B12 to be healthy.
I'm also saying that B12 of any value to us is only found in meat products.
That would include eggs, dairy and, as you point out, other humans.
I don't advocate eating other humans personally but the Donner Party seemed to fair pretty well, as did a few African tribes.
And I'd love to discuss #3.
I think that would be more entertaining than continuing our current line of thought.:)
corthew 2 years ago
@corthew (Let me repeat):
OK, that sounds good. So, as for my reasoning on 3, I think that humans, being an animal that can really consider right and wrong at a high level (though there are stories of untrained dogs running into burning buildings to save people and even kittens), and being able to derive all of our nutrients through means besides killing, shouldn't kill. As noted, animals have nerve cells, and can feel suffering. Lessening possible suffering in the world, I feel, is moral.
Rationalific 2 years ago
Would you see anything morally wrong with eating the meat of an animal that had to be killed for any of the number of reasons that must occur?
Rogue elephant for example?
Excruciating pain as another?
corthew 2 years ago
what about animals that die of old age?
TheAist 2 years ago
I wasn't hesitant to use that as an example because I'm not sure what happens to the body of an animal that dies on its own, that may make the meat unsafe.
corthew 2 years ago
@corthew: Technically, I don't believe it's morally wrong to eat the meat of an animal that had killed people and had to be stopped, or was in excruciating pain (or died of old age). In fact, by the same token, I don't believe it's morally wrong to eat the meat of a human who died in those circumstances, either. (Of course, if the person's wish was to be buried, that wouldn't be a nice thing to do.) The question is, is that how we get out meat? No. So this is all just theoretical.
Rationalific 2 years ago
I was just establishing your position.
It seemed as if you were painting your "eating meat is bad" position with a wide brush.
I could take this conversation down a "Soylent Green" path from your reply, but I won't.:)
You really don't sound like you are against eating meat.
Just against suffering.
I can respect that but i like my meats.:)
corthew 2 years ago
@corthew:
I guess you could say that I was painting my "eating meat is bad" position with a wide brush, simply because perhaps 99.99+% of meat comes from the "suffering" route, not the (let's simplify it and say) "scavenging" route.
The most intellectually honest omnivores, I think, reply in this way: "I know vegetarianism is more moral, but I just don't have the willpower." I, myself, need to exercise more. Nobody is perfect. But I don't put down olympic athletes for trying harder than me.
Rationalific 2 years ago
@corthew:
Thanks for your reply. Sometimes, it's good to get a modicum of respect for others. Honestly, I don't often mention my vegetarianism because responses are almost always negative. People often ask me why I'm a vegetarian, but few people really want to know. It's more like "Why is one of your legs shorter than the other?"-type questions. This time, in this thread, vegetarianism was mentioned, so I thought I'd chime in :)
Rationalific 2 years ago
As for cultural relativism, I was unaware of that school of thought.
But I'd have to say, yes.
Societies, cultures, small groups of people, decide what is acceptable behavior within that segment.
I would have to personally draw the line at what causes emotional damage to another life.
I'm not speaking of Emotional pain here though. We gain respect for each other through that.
corthew 2 years ago
(from cont)
2) It would be nice if a vegan diet was realistic but B12 that is necessary for our "minds" to evolve is only in meat products.
There are plant sources but according to a few vegan sites I've visited, it has been found to be only similar and could actually impeded the absorption of beneficial B12.
3) I eat vegetables. I love salads, with meats and vegetables. There is a reason why the food pyramid has meat on it and its not a conspiracy against animals.
(more cont)
corthew 2 years ago
@corthew: Part 2 - I'm not a vegan. I'm a vegetarian. I try to buy free-range eggs and I drink more soy milk than milk, but the fact is that I'm quite healthy. You didn't mention that B12 is found in dairy products and eggs - maybe ignorantly, or maybe to intentionally back up a losing argument.
You also use the phrase "conspiracy against animals". I never used the words "conspiracy" or "food pyramid" so your words make readers think that I'm "crazy". This is not a good way to argue.
Rationalific 2 years ago
Rationalific Part 2-
I'm glad you're not a purist.
In one of my earlier replies I used the term, "meat products" to refer to the source of useful B12.
I apologize that I was less specific later in that string.
I won't apologize for the "food pyramid" or "conspiracy against animals" references though, any more than I would expect the Gorilla to apologize for not including meat in its diet.
Just because you didn't say them doesn't mean they don't work for my argument.
corthew 2 years ago
(from more continued)
4) I like your point about my morality being guided by my actions. It is generally true that people try to justify there actions by creating a morality to justify them.
But that CAN also be applied to your argument. You have seen what is done to animals and it tears you up inside. I know. I'm disgusted by how discompassionate slaughterhouse workers become as they turn off their own respect for animals.
(even more cont)
corthew 2 years ago
(from even more continued)
4 cont) But you suggest that because we need veggies that it means we will lead healthy lives without meat products and if you are honest, you'll admit that is not the case.
You can survive without it but you won't be healthy without it.
5) I get the feeling you think I'm a hunter because I am pro meat.
I'm not a hunter. If I needed to be to survive I could be though.
But though I disagree with calling hunting, "sport", they serve a need.
corthew 2 years ago
@corthew: Part 3 - Regarding your 4th point, again, I am not a vegan. Also, you will notice that I never said that vegetarians are healthier than omnivores. Vegetarians can be just as healthy, however, as I showed. Also, with obesity being a problem, it is true that excess meat consumption is helping cause this health problem.
To your 5th point, I am not disproportionately against hunters. At least the animals they kill are wild, and they're not hypocrites, but acknowledged killers.
Rationalific 2 years ago
Rationalific Part 3-
Obesity is a problem but meat isn't the reason.
When I was a kid I was outside more than in.
Sitting at a computer typing a reply in a decent discussion was something that wasn't even an option.
Cakes and pies were something you got on Sundays if you had been good all week.
Coka-cola was a treat your dad got for you when you went with him to the store... again, if you were good.
We had overweight people then too but with few exceptions, they were sedentary.
corthew 2 years ago
@corthew: NEW Part 2 - You're right that it's not only meat that causes obesity. However, in practice, it largely is. Sure, I could go on a candy and cake consumption spree and end up just as obese as a KFC-aholic...maybe.
Anyway, at first, I didn't even mention health benefits of vegetarianism, only that vegetarians can be as healthy as omnivores. Since my point was about morality and not health, there is no need to continue on this point.
Rationalific 2 years ago
Rationalific Part 4-
I've enjoyed this discussion.
I've learned quite a bit about the vegan/vegetarian reasoning.
I don't know if you'll want to respond to these most recent posts, but I'm now going to lapse back into the tone I had originally intended with my first comment that you replied to.
Roaches have feelings too!!
:)
corthew 2 years ago
@corthew: NEW Part 3 - As for ants and termites, I just mentioned them because they are a more historical food throughout our recent lineage (from the common ancestor with chimps) than beef. I didn't mean to suggest that we SHOULD eat ants - only that carrying your argument to its conclusion would mean that.
You might be surprised that I don't kill single roaches. I catch them in cups and throw them far outside. I don't kill needlessly. During an infestation, however, killing is an option.
Rationalific 2 years ago
@corthew: NEW Part 4 - Finally, getting back to what I said about people basing their morality on their actions, instead of the reverse, I wanted to point out that I used to be a Christian, and I used to eat meat. It was through LOSING arguments, not winning them, that I came to have my present mindset. If I truly think I can't back something up, I won't, and I'll change sides. I did that at least twice in my life, as I noted. I wish more people would "lose arguments". That's called learning.
Rationalific 2 years ago
Well put!
RagingConflagration 2 years ago