thecite Wrote:Ignoring the obvious suffering of other species because you believe there's a lack of technical understanding regarding how they feel pain? That sounds like plain idiocy to me. On the contrary I think that statement itself is insulting.

No, it's not obvious suffering and no, it's not because of a lack of technical understanding of how they feel pain. It's because there is no reason to think they would experience pain in the way we do.

Of course I accept the possibility that they do experience pain or suffering, and for that reason I would never keep a pet in a situation where it might experience suffering if it could do so, and I would never deliberately harm an animal or encourage anyone else to do so. I'm simply saying that I don't care whether livestock appear to be suffering, because I would never base any decisions on it anyway. There is a much better reason not to have any livestock, an unemotional one which is universally defensible, and I gave it earlier.

And I'm sorry if you were offended by my statement, I didn't say it with that intention at all. If I had known it would cause offense I would have given a more thorough defense when making it.

@Blahah - I was referring to nociception in combination with cognition and metacognition (for examples of the discourse, if you aren't already aware of them through your vocation, see mediafire link). There's plenty of research and logic (including evolutionary logic with regards to mammals) to support the degree end of the degree vs. kind argument (which alters the nature of the discourse and research hypotheses, I believe) and in fact I think it's the current consensus amongst those studying the issue (I've only seen one scientist seriously and consistently arguing against the animal metacognition theories and even then it's more of a devil's advocate sort of refinement rather than attempted debunking, if I recall correctly), personally I think it's illogical and not empirically sound to suggest that many living creatures don't experience pain and suffering in ways similar to humans.

Edit: Forgot then added ‘don't’ to the last sentence. ;p

Edit 2: Also, my agenda here is unrelated to diet/ethics/etc.. ^_^

Well I've read the papers in the mediafire link. So I accept that there might be evidence for metacognition in animals, HOT theory may or may not be true, and I accept that nociception and consciousness might vary by degrees. Whilst interesting, those things are not directly relevant to my objection. We are still no closer to knowing whether the qualitative experience of suffering (or anything for that matter) of any other species is similar to our own.

Knowing this relies on a complete elucidation of the physical mechanism of conscious experience, something which we are not even close to (although I accept that it may well be a surprise discovery if it ever occurs).

The qualitative experience, by which I mean the way it feels to experience, is supremely important if we are talking about pain or suffering. If an animal experiences pain but the sensation doesn't feel like ours even though it triggers the same physiological response, we don't empathise with it.

I couldn't find any of the evolutionary logic you mentioned, so if you can explain it or link to it I'd be interested to read it. If there really is strong reasoning in this direction, I'll happily change my position.

This next part is less directly relevant...
Even if animals did feel suffering in the same way as humans, this is still not enough grounds to think all suffering should be averted. In humans, suffering can be a net positive experience. It certainly always has been for me. Suffering is also a fact of life, ubiquitous with no exceptions. Every human experiences suffering, but something about the fact of being alive generally supercedes any negative experience of suffering (or everyone would be committing suicide). So, all other things being equal, if there is any utility to causing some suffering, the magnitude of the utility should be compared to magnitude of the suffering. But like I said previously, it doesn't matter because all other things aren't equal, and there are other excellent reasons for not raising livestock.

How do you know every human experiences suffering? I would doubt this to be true even for every single human on this planet, speaking nothing of the possibilities of what is likely in more evolved civilizations in the universe. Pain is unavoidable perhaps, suffering I am not so sure. I have met some in my small circle who have appeared outwardly to be happy 24/7.

Well I'm a biology student, so I'm inclined to take a rational approach when it comes to these things. If there's anything nature learns us it's that there's nothing odd or wrong with eating 'lower' organisms, as this can be observed all throughout the animal kingdom. Humans were meant to eat meat, we're omnivores and there are certain specific amino-acids that just can't be acquired from plants, so a healthy and balanced diet contains atleast some fish and meat. There's nothing inherently 'wrong' about consuming life, life has to consume life in order to prolong it's own existence, this is just a law of nature. I think it's arbitrary to draw a line between animals and plants, they're both forms of life so I feel it's unfair to attach more value to one or the other. When one looks at ecological importance, plants are of much more importance than animals, without plants there is no animal life possible. Who are we to say a plant can't suffer but an animal can, such absolutes are for the time beyond science, since it has been shown that plants can communicate through chemicals with eachother, they might suffer in one form or another. However, of course I'm completely opposed to the way animals are treated in certain industries and I also feel that meat has become to prominent a component of the western diet. Our evolutionary ancestors never ate that much meat, and it's unnecessary, and even detrimental to do so. However, the lie some vegetarians/vegans would have you believe, that's it better to avoid anything animal in origin, for health benefits, is just completely false and uninformed. As always the answer lies in the middle, meat is part of a healthy diet, but only in moderate amounts.

Blahah Wrote:If an animal experiences pain but the sensation doesn't feel like ours even though it triggers the same physiological response, we don't empathise with it.

Well, you choose not to empathize with it, but most people would empathize with an animal that appears to be suffering. Torture of animals is generally seen as abhorrent because we naturally empathize with the animal.

Physical pain requires sense organs. Suffering requires mental judgments based on that pain. Humans are known to experience mental and emotional suffering as well. Animals seem to also as they have the mental capacity to make basic judgments. Plants don't have the neurological capacities to make the required judgments to experience suffering as far as we know.

bodhisamaya Wrote:How do you know every human experiences suffering? I would doubt this to be true even for every single human on this planet, speaking nothing of the possibilities of what is likely in more evolved civilizations in the universe. Pain is unavoidable perhaps, suffering I am not so sure. I have met some in my small circle who have appeared outwardly to be happy 24/7.

Sorry, I included pain as a subset of suffering. Clearly I don't know that all humans experience suffering apart from pain, and as you say there may be people who react to major events such as deaths of family with a bright outlook.

bodhisamaya Wrote:Plants don't have the neurological capacities to make the required judgments to experience suffering as far as we know.

Right, plants don't have similar neurology to us, but they do have extremely complex sensory apparatus and internal signalling networks. So complex that they could easily encode a similar but distinct form of experience to that which we perceive. There's no practical evidence for it actually doing so, but similarly there's no evidence that animals experience a sensation in the way that we do.

Eikyu Wrote:

Blahah Wrote:If an animal experiences pain but the sensation doesn't feel like ours even though it triggers the same physiological response, we don't empathise with it.

Well, you choose not to empathize with it, but most people would empathize with an animal that appears to be suffering. Torture of animals is generally seen as abhorrent because we naturally empathize with the animal.

This is true, it's a choice. But note that I too disapprove of deliberately putting any creature in a situation where, if it could suffer, it might do so.

Suffering is thought by some to have the potential to be completely overcome through deep contemplation of its causes. I have been able to remove much of my own suffering by just such techniques, though not all.

Blahah Wrote:Right, plants don't have similar neurology to us, but they do have extremely complex sensory apparatus and internal signalling networks. So complex that they could easily encode a similar but distinct form of experience to that which we perceive. There's no practical evidence for it actually doing so, but similarly there's no evidence that animals experience a sensation in the way that we do.

Firstly, you know i agree with the environmental argument as being the strongest for vegetarianism, so that's a given.

But this point is something i think it's perfectly reasonable to disagree with. These kinds of arguments were perpetuated by the behaviourists, who said that we can't move from behaviour to sensation back in the 60s (i think it was the 60s). But these kinds of arguments seem much much less strong now in the face of the neurobiological understanding we have.

We may not know "how" parts of the brain, and the nervous system give rise to experience, but we certainly know that there are at the very least extremely strong correlations between one thing and another. We know what types of impairment occur from certain types of damage, and a whole host of things about the physical properties of the brain under different circumstances.

Given this knowledge, you have to create an incredibly more complex argument for believing that the same structures and processes lead to different results in animals apart from humans. Certainly, for plants and those animals whose brain and nervous system have significantly different mechanisms, the behaviourist argument still holds. But the simplest explanation right now is that different animals experience the same kinds of sensations and emotions as humans do, to a greater or lesser extent. Denying this is pretty close to absolute solipsism, since there's no reason to attribute other humans sensations based on their brain structures and nervous systems if we deny that possibility for animals, i think...

Blahah Wrote:Your argument is valid against the (in my view, pointless) animal rights debate. But it is irrelevant against the much stronger argument for vegetarianism which is sustainability.

First, thanks for well-thought out response that addresses the philosophical issue I pointed out. Most of the replies have taken issue with the article I posted despite the fact that I've readily conceded that the article suffers from both poor research and poor argumentation. I only linked the article so that I could draw some ideas from it to show that, assuming current widespread harvesting technology is being used, it's possible to kill less animals through a highly configured food industry that's both crop and meat-based than one that is strictly crop-based. Raising this possibility was only meant to show that if killing as few animals as possible is the goal, then it's debatable whether veganism is the best way to do so. Although I have no real intention in following this possibility, I think injecting this kind of healthy skepticism into the debate helps draw out assumptions that would've otherwise gone unquestioned.

As for your post, I agree that sustainability arguments are much more easy to defend than animals rights arguments. However, even with sustainability arguments, there remains the problem of where to draw the line. If we take a strong interpretation, and say that we should maximize sustainability, then we'll be confronted with a very demanding moral imperative that will require a radical restructuring of ourselves and society. If we try to strike a middle ground, then we'll have to justify why it's our moral duty to take up vegetarian or vegan diets but why it isn't our moral duty to stop driving our cars, discontinue our use of non-biodegradable packaging, and countless other unsustainable practices that are currently widespread. Making such a justification will be very difficult, especially since discontinuing many of our unsustainable practices is just as easily implemented as having a different diet. Thus, we're left to answer the more general question, "What determines whether discontinuing a certain unsustainable practice is a moral imperative or not?"

Bah, chemical energy is so last century anyway. Embrace glorious cyborg future.

IceCream Wrote:

Blahah Wrote:Right, plants don't have similar neurology to us, but they do have extremely complex sensory apparatus and internal signalling networks. So complex that they could easily encode a similar but distinct form of experience to that which we perceive. There's no practical evidence for it actually doing so, but similarly there's no evidence that animals experience a sensation in the way that we do.

But the simplest explanation right now is that different animals experience the same kinds of sensations and emotions as humans do, to a greater or lesser extent. Denying this is pretty close to absolute solipsism, since there's no reason to attribute other humans sensations based on their brain structures and nervous systems if we deny that possibility for animals, i think...

I don't think brain structures and nervous systems give the entire picture of how we attribute sensations to other humans. Language is key to this attribution, which is what I think Blahah is pointing at. Even assuming similar brain structures and nervous systems, we don't share a language with any animals in the same way that we do with humans.

The very fact that we have shared languages is strong evidence against solipsism and for similarity of experience. Even if our subjective experience differs, there is still a common base of experience that's necessary for language to be possible. For example, let's assume Takashi's perception of red differs from Reiko's perception of the same color. Nevertheless, their ability to refer to the same thing without misunderstanding is enough to dismiss solipsism and to establish similarity of experience.

As for animal suffering, I'd like to reemphasize the philosophical issue I pointed out earlier: what makes a life valuable to the extent that it should not be killed, harmed, or endangered? If it's suffering, then we shouldn't take issue with atrocities against those in vegetative states, those with damaged nerve systems, or those who've ceased their suffering through spiritual practices. But we do take issue with such atrocities, and our moral intuitions tell us such atrocities are wrong even though they cause no suffering. Therefore, there must be something other than suffering that is essential to what makes a life valuable.

vileru Wrote:As for your post, I agree that sustainability arguments are much more easy to defend than animals rights arguments. However, even with sustainability arguments, there remains the problem of where to draw the line. If we take a strong interpretation, and say that we should maximize sustainability, then we'll be confronted with a very demanding moral imperative that will require a radical restructuring of ourselves and society. If we try to strike a middle ground, then we'll have to justify why it's our moral duty to take up vegetarian or vegan diets but why it isn't our moral duty to stop driving our cars, discontinue our use of non-biodegradable packaging, and countless other unsustainable practices that are currently widespread. Making such a justification will be very difficult, especially since discontinuing many of our unsustainable practices is just as easily implemented as having a different diet. Thus, we're left to answer the more general question, "What determines whether discontinuing a certain unsustainable practice is a moral imperative or not?"

This would then depend on where your morals come from, would it not?

vileru Wrote:As for animal suffering, I'd like to reemphasize the philosophical issue I pointed out earlier: what makes a life valuable to the extent that it should not be killed, harmed, or endangered? If it's suffering, then we shouldn't take issue with atrocities against those in vegetative states, those with damaged nerve systems, or those who've ceased their suffering through spiritual practices. But we do take issue with such atrocities, and our moral intuitions tell us such atrocities are wrong even though they cause no suffering. Therefore, there must be something other than suffering that is essential to what makes a life valuable.

Just would like to add my 2 cents as someone speaking from a Biblical worldview. God has clearly said in the Bible that righteous people care for their animals (Proverbs 12:10). So causing animals to suffer (however you want to define that word) is morally wrong. On the flip side, animals are not as valuable and people. Because people are made in the image of God and animals are not.
And after the Flood in Genesis 6-8 God tells Noah that he can now eat animals and the animals will fear him. (Genesis 9:1-3 "Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.") So presumably before this humans were supposed to be herbivorous and only now does God give permission to eat meat.

Not that I'm saying being a vegetarian or vegan is bad. God never commanded us to eat meat, just that He gave us permission to eat it.

I don't know if this contributed at all, but I just wanted to throw out a different perspective.

I don't like to think of animals suffering, but because people are made in the image of God and animals are not, alleviating the suffering of people is more important to me.

@Blahah - I'm speaking of the arguments from evolutionary continuity, which I thought were mentioned in those papers but are pretty common elsewhere. I know I've seen it often in work on evolutionary linguistics such as M. Tomasello's? (Edit, I see one phrase tossed about is ‘the argument from homology’—while not decisive in itself, when you're a functionalist/physicalist sort, this becomes an important component). At any rate, we have pretty amazing knowledge of human consciousness thanks in part to the efforts of Stanislas Dehaene, and it only gets more solid as time goes by, we don't need any sort of complete picture to understand the experience of human suffering for the purposes of understanding it exists and that the likelihood that it exists to varying degrees in other creatures. I'm baffled as to why you'd think that. It almost seems like a cop-out to be honest, like when people deny evolution because we haven't ‘perfected’ the theory. ;p We apparently need a YouTube video of evolution and the human and nonhuman experience of suffering in action before skeptics will be convinced?

Oh and if we're going to start repeating the outdated philosophies and their refrain about p-zombies and qualia that Dennett already did a good job refuting even before cognitive science came in and made the notion of qualia look positively silly, then there's no helping it, we'll have to agree to disagree. ;p

Edit: And while I'm at it, I'll point out that contemporary linguists studying evolutionary aspects of it make some form of the homologous argument by and large, i.e. they treat it as a difference in degree, not kind.

Edit: And I think all of this applies similarly or perhaps more so to affective (neuro) dynamics, another dimension of suffering, but I'll need to look further into that.

This is my favourite ever thread on this forum!

OK, one at a time...

Kuma01 Wrote:Well I'm a biology student, so I'm inclined to take a rational approach when it comes to these things.

I think that's what we're all trying to do

IceCream Wrote:But these kinds of arguments seem much much less strong now in the face of the neurobiological understanding we have.

We may not know "how" parts of the brain, and the nervous system give rise to experience, but we certainly know that there are at the very least extremely strong correlations between one thing and another. We know what types of impairment occur from certain types of damage, and a whole host of things about the physical properties of the brain under different circumstances.

Well, it's quite possible that I'm behind the times here. I'm making an argument by attempting to rationalise from the information I have, but have made no attempt to keep up with the current literature. I read whatever comes into the major interdisciplinary journals and I've read books on the philosophy of mind by Daniel Dennett, John Searle etc. I've also read all of Oliver Sacks' books (so I'm familiar with the kinds of insights which can be gained from analysing impairments), but I am by no means completely up to date with philosophy of mind, neuropsychology or neurobiology. I asserted that we don't understand the physical basis of consciousness because it's been one of the biggest questions in science since the beginning, and I'm sure I would have heard about it if we'd had a major breakthrough

So, perhaps I should reconsider my position based on a more thorough understanding of current neurobiology. I'll delve into the literature and get back to this thread in a couple of months with a more thorough perspective. It may take me longer than that since I'm currently working out a PhD research proposal, for Cambridge Plant Sciences , and it's consuming my entire being.

vileru Wrote:I don't think brain structures and nervous systems give the entire picture of how we attribute sensations to other humans. Language is key to this attribution, which is what I think Blahah is pointing at. Even assuming similar brain structures and nervous systems, we don't share a language with any animals in the same way that we do with humans.

Exactly, language is the crux of the difference. Language allows me to probe the similarities between myself and other humans far more deeply than I can with other species. In doing so I can see that solipsism is not practical or likely to be true when applied to other humans, but the fact that I can't even inquire of non-human minds is a big indicator of a large difference.

vileru Wrote:Therefore, there must be something other than suffering that is essential to what makes a life valuable.

Strongly agree. I have a great admiration for life, it's by far the most interesting phenomenon that's ever arisen (that I've come across), and to destroy something so complex and fascinating to investigate is abhorrent to me. I especially agree that whether or not something suffers is not a strong foundation for a moral decision about it.

Angeldust Wrote:Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.") So presumably before this humans were supposed to be herbivorous and only now does God give permission to eat meat.

Given how long ago the Bible was written, how do you apply your interpretation of it to the modern world? Do you think God would still give that same permission considering the pressures the world is under? What I'm getting at is, can your religiously founded view be swayed by modern events and science in a similar way to a non-Christian's?

nest0r Wrote:I'm baffled as to why you'd think that. It almost seems like a cop-out to be honest, like when people deny evolution because we haven't ‘perfected’ the theory. ;p We apparently need a YouTube video of evolution and the human and nonhuman experience of suffering in action before skeptics will be convinced?

There's a huge difference. We pretty much have perfected the theory of evolution, and the difference is that people arguing against evolution are either not understanding the concept or they have prejudged it to be false for religious/political/whatever reasons. It's not a cop out, and I'm not arguing that other species don't experience degrees of consciousness - I said earlier that they may well do, and I'm willing to be convinced in either direction about the suffering issue. I have just perceived the question as one of absolutes - if we (not you and I, others in this thread) are basing an ethical system on to what extent things suffer, we better damn well know they suffer. But like I said, I think it's a silly starting point for an ethical system, so my hardlining only holds in this context.

nest0r Wrote:Oh and if we're going to start repeating the outdated philosophies and their refrain about p-zombies and qualia that Dennett already did a good job refuting even before cognitive science came in and made the notion of qualia look positively silly, then there's no helping it, we'll have to agree to disagree. ;p

Well as I said to IceCream, I'm not up to date with the consciousness literature (being a plant biologist). I have heard of qualia and p-zombies, and have read Dennetts thoughts about qualia (though I didn't consider them a refutation). But I wasn't aware that this is considered outdated, so if you can point me in the direction of good review papers/books/lectures (or if you can't, I'll find some myself, but it seems to be your area) I'll get up to speed. Qualia are intuitively a part of my experience - perhaps the terminology or precise definition can be challenged but there would have to be a pretty hefty rational overturn for this to change.

@Blahah - I think it's the opposite. If we're going to ignore logic and evidence that indicates a continuum of experience in living creatures, if we're going to dismiss their suffering, we better have damned good evidence that they don't suffer. But I say that in a neutral sense, separate from the agenda of this thread.

Pretty much all developments in the science of consciousness demonstrate the physicalist/functionalist arguments against qualia and suchlike to be overwhelmingly the most valid conception of consciousness. I honestly can't think of any scientists who study consciousness, or philosophers who keep up to date with cognitive science, who don't agree. The old threads of thought about qualia still occur in other areas, though, from very smart people who I think just haven't committed to theorizing about consciousness to the point that they can challenge their seeming intuitions and keep up to date. It's understandable but I hate to see it. And of course I doubt we'll ever see some well-known thinkers change their minds.

I generally point to Dehaene and Dennett's intersections of the ‘global neuronal workspace’ and ‘fame in the brain’ as the most concise and comprehensive examples of this development over the past decade or so. I've posted links to this research across hundreds of posts, I think. ^_^

Here's a good intro to Dehaene: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dehaene0...index.html

Again, my point here is to support arguments about experience that are physicalist/functionalist and I think denying certain types of experience in nonhumans or other humans or saying we can't make reasonable scientific assumptions about them is wrong in that sense, which is why I popped in.

It also feeds into the emergentism vs. innatism thing. Emergentism won years ago, but some folks still haven't realized it. ;p

Edit: And to clarify what I mean about certain ideas being outdated, I mean that they have no basis in reality. Scientists don't subscribe to dualistic notions of qualia that magically arise from neural states. It's all presupposed to be physical, a spectrum, and scientists studying consciousness are looking at that neural basis and developing theories of the levels of consciousness from there. Very sensible and parsimonious theories. There is no hard problem, no qualia, and there never was except nominally, a vestige of outdated ideas that is now used to appease unscientific thoughts at the most, whilst describing consciousness emergent from the brain, and methods of analyzing this activity at a high and dynamic level of detail. The real argument with regards to consciousness at the moment is I think determining how to view the tiers, the location of consciousness, and I think that those who don't subscribe to the global neuronal workspace theory or something similar are simply victims of obsolete theories in the philosophy of mind that haven't yet fully cast off those misconceptions. ^_^

Angeldust Wrote:God has clearly said in the Bible that righteous people care for their animals (Proverbs 12:10).

Although there is nothing wrong sharing your religion's view, it is best not to begin an argument with an opinion stated as fact the majority will discount as nonsense.

Angeldust Wrote:On the flip side, animals are not as valuable and people. Because people are made in the image of God and animals are not.

Only those "who look like" me are valuable? Very dangerous statement. What do you mean by "image of God"? Are we exact physical replicates of God down to being anatomically correct?

Angeldust Wrote:Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.")

Leviticus specifies lots of animals one can not eat.

[ファブリス]

Out of respect for the animals providing me with food, I'm eating as little processed meat as I can these days.

Two pages of intellectual fisticuffs for what exactly? Any normal and sensible person seeing what happens in slaughterhouses would feel much less inclined to eat meat.

I'm not interested in being a "vegan" or a "vegetarian" myself. Sounds like another country, another religion, another way of separating between the good and the bad people. This nonsense is getting old...

But as for today, it is very difficult to avoid meat entirely. I think everyone of us can make a difference by choosing what we eat. As Jack Lalanne pointed out: when you buy electronics or clothes, you read the list of parts or fabrics don't you? So why do most people not even bother to read what their food is made of?

Blahah Wrote:

Angeldust Wrote:Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.") So presumably before this humans were supposed to be herbivorous and only now does God give permission to eat meat.

Given how long ago the Bible was written, how do you apply your interpretation of it to the modern world? Do you think God would still give that same permission considering the pressures the world is under? What I'm getting at is, can your religiously founded view be swayed by modern events and science in a similar way to a non-Christian's?

Interpretation? As far as Old Testament goes, I interpret it literally. That's the simple answer anyway.
Yes I do think He would give the same permission. The reason why is it is simply "you may or may not eat this now." He's still told me to be responsible with what I put in my body (i.e. what I eat) and that I am a steward of the earth. So I am still to take care of it to the best of my ability. And like I said, as far as food goes, my family grows a lot of our own, or raises our own animals and we try to buy local wheat and stuff. Money wise we don't really have the means to do it the way we want, so it makes it tricky.
So I guess the answer to the third question is yes and no. If the Bible has specifically said or commanded something then my view cannot be swayed. However there are a lot of things that are not specified. Like how am I to take care of/steward the earth? That's left to me and I must make the most informed decision and apply it to the best of my ability.

bodhisamaya Wrote:

Angeldust Wrote:God has clearly said in the Bible that righteous people care for their animals (Proverbs 12:10).

Although there is nothing wrong sharing your religion's view, it is best not to begin an argument with an opinion stated as fact the majority will discount as nonsense.

Frankly, I don't care if people think it's nonsense or not. I believe it's fact, you can take it or leave it.
Besides, I can hardly see how any person would disagree with that statement in the Bible that decent people take care of their animals. This is an observable fact, is it not?

bodhisamaya Wrote:

Angeldust Wrote:On the flip side, animals are not as valuable and people. Because people are made in the image of God and animals are not.

Only those "who look like" me are valuable? Very dangerous statement. What do you mean by "image of God"? Are we exact physical replicates of God down to being anatomically correct?

No, it's because we have a everlasting soul and animals do not. It has nothing to do with physical, material appearance, but with the immaterial. (At least that's how the Bible defines it.) God is spirit, not material so our being in His image have to do with that part of us. The immaterial soul.

bodhisamaya Wrote:

Angeldust Wrote:Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.")

Leviticus specifies lots of animals one can not eat.

True. But those didn't come along until God spoke the Law to Moses. And the reason He did that is that He wanted His people (the Israelites) to be different from the nations surrounding them. That's the phrase that's repeated over and over in Leviticus, "be holy as I am holy." Holy means "separate" or "set-apart." They were to be different from all other nations. If every nation eats pork, then not eating pork is obviously going to make you stand out.


Again remember, I see everything from a Biblical point of view so of course it's going to clash. If you think I'm nuts and don't want to discuss it, that's fine. Also I would like to say that just because I disagree with you guys or whatever doesn't mean I don't like you or care about you guys. And it is okay if you stone me. I really don't mind. XD lol

ファブリス Wrote:Two pages of intellectual fisticuffs for what exactly?

Well, trash-talking qualia is always fun. So there's that.

ファブリス Wrote:But as for today, it is very difficult to avoid meat entirely. I think everyone of us can make a difference by choosing what we eat. As Jack Lalanne pointed out: when you buy electronics or clothes, you read the list of parts or fabrics don't you? So why do most people not even bother to read what their food is made of?

Exactly!!!! You would not believe the number of people I have this argument with! They just don't seem to care what goes into their food or their body. It's so frustrating!

Angeldust,
You stated, "God has clearly said in the Bible..."
That is a religious belief, not a fact.