What do you mean by 'irrefutable belief'?

If something is irrefutable, then their is no possibility of of disproving or denying it. Whereas a belief is something one holds to be true without requiring proof. Consequently, if one knows something to be truly irrefutable, it is not a belief, but rather a fact.

This is what happens when you fire your speechwriters.

You might want to read Bertrand Russel's Pursuit of Happiness. It's not philosophy, and it's certainly not the final word on the topic, but I think that you will find what he has to say about the role of work in a contented life relevant to your situation.

Jesus Christ, you're horribly confused. — chatterbears

Yes, I am. Your inability to say anything clearly has that effect.

For the sake of argument, I leave out the " IF " part of my statement to save time arguing with believers. — chatterbears

Try not to misrepresent my position next time, because you cause more confusion for people reading and replying to me. — chatterbears

Other than a series of feeble attempts to save face, you have no position.

I'm claiming one doesn't need to. You can choose to not follow someone's commands without making any claim. Do I believe you have a beard? No. Do I believe you don't have a beard? No. Will I go to your church if you tell me to? No. Does not mean I have to make a claim about your beard. — BlueBanana

I have no idea what you're talking about.

If you claim that you are an atheist, you surrender the bases on which to make claims about the nature of god. OP claims that god is wrong, therefore OP claims that god is fallible. This is a claim about the nature of god made by one that denies his existence.

How can certainty about god or any of their qualities be concluded from not following their commands? — BlueBanana

The problem is that you can't take an atheist position and make claims about the nature of the deity.

even if I believed/knew God exists, it doesn't necessarily mean I would follow his commands. I believe my mother exists, but I am not going to necessarily follow everything she tells me, especially if she told me to kill homosexuals. — chatterbears

Ah, so now you're claiming that whatever god had to say, it may or may not be correct. So this god that you claim not to believe in has, nevertheless, certain qualities that you are sure about. What a mess!

Because if God is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-wise and all-loving, He would know how to communicate in a way that would not allow for interpretation or confirmation bias. — chatterbears

Obviously, you exclude yourself from this group since, as you state above, you wouldn't necessarily follow his commands, which suggests that you are either even more all-knowing, all-powerful, all-wise and all-loving than god; a logical impossibility, or that you have grandiose delusions, or that you are a bell-end.

I would hope it is a strong cogent argument with a high truth value that your spouse won't shoot you, but it is all argument until you open the door, and that is an act of faith. — Rank Amateur

You needn't restate your position. It was clear the first time. It's still incorrect though.

To suppose that something will happen based on inductive, deductive or abuctive reasoning is not faith. Clearly, we can't expect complete certainty in most cases, so high probability suffices.

Faith is trusting that something is or will be the case without requiring any of the conditions of reason to be satisfied. Faith would be jumping into an active volcano and expecting not to get hurt.

Besides which, on your account, any action one might undertake is an act of faith. This is so general as to be entirely useless.

opening the door is an act of faith. — Rank Amateur

No it's not, to the extent that one even considers what will happen in your example, it is a strong inductive inference.

What method would you use to prove the scientific method is valid? — Rank Amateur

It's interesting that you mention the scientific method. Scientists accept the best explanations of observable phenomena. At some time in the past, a god or gods were the best explanation of observable phenomena, but then better explanations came along. For some sentimental reason that I find very hard to understand, theists cling to these long defunct hypotheses.

To answer the OP's original question, god did make sense, but he was superseded a long time ago.

When the bible was written, thousands of yeas ago, the ancient people did not have all the modern medical bells and whistles to treat STD's. Therefore, if you got a STD, such as AIDS, nature would have to run its course. This could lead to discomfort at best or birth defects and death at worse. Gay behavior, back in the day, was a disease waiting to happen; sodomy, with very serious consequences for the community. There was no medical way to deal with it. However, the ancients understood the cause and affect and addressed behavior. — wellwisher

This has got to be one the most ill-informed posts of all time.

People think I am Christian, or a God believer. I am in fact an Atheist. My morality is based on secular principles, so I wouldn't adhere to a God, whether he exists or not. — chatterbears

Wow! You really are dogmatic. So if God did put in an appearance, as per your request, you still wouldn't believe in him.

I need the clarification, if a God actually exists, for the people who believe in him. — chatterbears

They must be overjoyed with your concern for them.

His believers have created wars and segregation throughout the centuries, mostly based on what they think God means or wants for humanity. — chatterbears

People have always interpreted religious texts in order to rationalise their prejudices. People do exactly the same with any texts; scientific, philosophical, legal etc.that presume to speak with authority. We have an entire professional class of jurists dedicated to the constant interpretation and reinterpretation of the law, supposedly, the ne plus ultra of unambiguous language. What makes you think that anything god could say would not be open to convenient interpretations and provide yet more material for confirmation biases?

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

Let's say God did appear and said that, "yes, homosexuals should be euthanised". Would this make you change your mind?
— Txastopher

I would then have the proper knowledge as to what he (God) means. And anyone who goes against that, would clearly be wrong in how they interpret his message. I wouldn't follow God's commands, because I don't want harm anyone. But if he came and cleared up all this confusion between religions, at least we wouldn't have religious people fighting with each other on what they think God says. It would create a better world overall, and much less conflict between religious groups. Religion would become 1 True religion, instead of thousands of interpretive ones. — chatterbears

So what you're saying is that you want god to appear and clarify his wishes, but if he demands anything that you don't like, you won't do it. What do you need the clarification for? Either god is the ultimate moral authority or he isn't. If he is, you do what he says. If he isn't, his clarification is redundant.

What kind of clarification would you accept?
— Txastopher

Enough clarification to not allow different people to interpret things differently. — chatterbears

Let's say God did appear and said that, "yes, homosexuals should be euthanised". Would this make you change your mind?

If you can't explain something clearly to an intelligent individual, you probably don't understand it. — Txastopher

If you understand it and you explain it clearly and your interlocutor is sufficiently intelligent then he or she will understand you.

If you can't explain something clearly to an intelligent individual, you probably don't understand it.

What kind of clarification would you accept?

So are you saying we should eat nothing and just die? Since plants apparently need the same moral consideration as sentient animals, we shouldn't eat plants either, correct? Therefore, we would be left with eating nothing; in which we would starve, then die. — chatterbears

Alternatively, just continue to eat what you feel you should be eating, and let others do the same.

The problem here is not the vegan diet, the problem is vegan self-righteousness. At some point, a vegan on this thread claimed that veganism is the sole logical conclusion of ethical thinking on diet. Well, it's been shown in multiple ways that this is a false claim. This doesn't entail that vegans should start eating meat or starve to death. Vegans can eat whatever they damn well please. The only thing they can't do is make claims regarding the ethical exclusivity of their choice.

I'm going to duck out of this thread now. I don't think I have anything more to say on the subject.

Besides which, as has been repeatedly explained here (not that it seems you have bothered to read the whole thread), even IF it were true that plants deserve near or equal consideration to animals, veganism would STILL be better, because fewer plants need to be used for a vegan diet than an omnivorous one. — NKBJ

As has repeatedly been explained here, this is a problem for vegans, not for me. I don't claim that sentience is the guiding principle of a dietary morality The ongoing plant holocaust lies solely on the conscience of the vegans.

What exactly does the science show? It shows that plants have chemical reactions, and there is no evidence that they feel pain or can suffer. — NKBJ

Pain, suffering, happiness etc. are all learnt conceptual terms associated with subjective human experience. We make an inference by analogy that since animals are anatomically similar then they are likely to have similarly subjective experiences given similar stimuli. That, my friend, is the sum total of what can be said about animal experience either by science or by philosophy.

Plants have been around a lot longer than animals and have followed a different evolutionary path. Consequently, animals and plants have radically different anatomies. You want to say that this difference results in plants being unable to suffer, but how do you get from being different to not suffering? For all you or anyone else knows, it could be that plants are far more capable of suffering. It simply does not follow that structural differences of living things implies sentient difference, and so it does not follow that sentience diminishes the further we get from human anatomy.

However, vegans make this very unphilosophical assumption that a plant's difference to us must equate to insentience, and then construct a sentience hierarchy based on this in order to justify their worldview. It seems likely that alien life would be very anatomically different also, so in the vegan dietary hierarchy alien life would need make itself understood using human conceptual language very quickly or risk being consumed by rapacious vegans.

The philosophical critique of vegan thinking is that since it's impossible to access another human's subjective experiences, it's also impossible to give an account for animal minds, especially given that we must consider not only animal anatomical similarities, but also the huge differences between humans and other animals. As far as plants are concerned, we lack even the ability to make this inference from analogy. Consequently, it would appear that sentience is not the way to go when deciding what to eat, but then I'm an omnivore and I never thought it was. For vegans, it's far more damaging because shows that the conceptual hierarchy of sentience they use in order to move from a mere dietary fad to a full-blown crusading morality is based on a thoroughly shoddy presupposition.

A sentient being of higher consciousness can improve the lives of other sentient beings. They also have the capability to improve the lives of members from a different species. Therefore, a sentient being has more value, because it can provide benefits to other species, as well as members within its own species. We see this in nature, where one species will save and protect the babies of a different species from outside predators. Non-sentient life, such as plants, does not have this value of being able to protect other life. — chatterbears

Utter bollocks.

It's pretty telling that you're getting so defensive in a theoretical argument about ethics. — NKBJ

What does this even mean?

We evolved as omnivores, requiring meat as well as plant matter to survive, regardless of if t is humane or not. Therefore, "wrong" is a relative thing. — Life101

We evolved to do all sorts of things, but it does not follow from this that we should do them. Indeed, we evolved to be able to consciously evaluate our actions and thus ascribe a moral value to them so it's entirely reasonable to claim that killing animals for food is wrong. However, what makes an action morally 'wrong' or 'right' is the consistency of the arguments put forward for not doing so in accordance with the presuppositions on which these arguments are based. What makes an action ethical is the strength of the arguments and the presuppositions. Vegan arguments proceed logically from their presuppositions, and thus are internally consistent. However, vegan presuppositions are extremely flimsy.

Whilst is certainly true that, with care, a human can survive on an exclusively plant based diet, it does not follow that we should follow a plant based diet. Animal flesh may not be 'necessary' for survival, but since survival is not the sole goal of most humans, vegans must provide other arguments for not killing and eating animals. Indeed, humans can also survive exclusively on animal produce, so we could argue that plant based foods are not 'necessary' either.

So why not animal flesh? Vegans claim that meat eating causes suffering. This is an intuitive claim based on an analogy between humans and animals. Since we generally accept that it is wrong to cause suffering to other humans, it appears to follow, by analogy, that if animals can suffer, it must be wrong to cause suffering to them also. There are all sorts of problems with this; qualitative and quantitative aspects of suffering for example. We know that humans suffer differently between individuals, so how can we even begin to quantify animal suffering? At best, all we can say is that animals experience something analogous to human suffering. We cannot begin to ascribe it quantities and qualities. Nevertheless, let's concede this to the vegans: It is wrong to cause suffering.

However, it is conceivable that suffering could be eliminated from the supply chain. If I were to die instantly in the next few minutes, it's hard to see how I would suffer. Likewise, a quick and painless death for an animal is not in itself 'suffering'. Going even further, a mutation could conceivably result in an animal that 'wants' to be eaten so not only would it not suffer, it would actually benefit from being eaten.

If we can remove suffering from the equation, what other reasons are there to not consume animals? The environmental argument proposes that animal production is inefficient since it involves a seemingly disproportionate ratio of biomass vs nutrition. Whilst this is true, it is only 'wrong' if we accept the unstated premise that 'we should always minimise biomass'. Animals' consumption of plant biomass is an inevitable part of the trophic web. If it we could fine tune it so that it was not environmentally damaging, this objection to meat consumption dissolves. Indeed, meat consumption may even be an environmental boon; take the European peasant's pig which consumed organic waste including human faeces and was then killed for food. Surely, this pig is the opposite of environmentally damaging and should be encouraged? An animal like this could thrive in a vegan household since vegans defecate up to twenty times more than normal people and this huge amount of vegan faeces places a great deal of strain on sewage services and scarce water supplies.

Vegans are also frustratingly inconsistent in their approach to plant suffering. It does not follow that since it is seemingly impossible to empathise with plant life due to its difference to us that it is therefore acceptable to eat it. Humans do not provide the benchmark of suffering by which all other life forms may be measured. It may be that plant suffering is greater than animal suffering precisely because they don't possess animal sensory apparatus; who knows? But in order to be consistent regarding their desire to prevent suffering, vegans should accept their ignorance, err on the side of caution and avoid eating plants altogether. Of course, they do not do this, instead they make hasty presuppositions of convenience that allow them to do continue to do what they want and to retain their purported moral superiority.

My problem with vegans is not what they eat; I don't care, but I don't think they should care what I eat either since they are incapable of convincing anyone but themselves that the underlying assumptions of their morality stand up to ethical scrutiny.

Life provides multiple status markers and cues. If a male individual is unfortunate enough lack an attractive body, an able mind, money and adequate genitals, then the chances are that this low status will result in a lack of reproductive success. In some cases, blame for this, fairly reasonable, frustration will be directed at women.

Not eating animals?

If it's based on a philosophical view... — ssu

Actually it's predicated on an anthropocentric hierarchy which grades acceptability of consumption according to evolutionary proximity to humans. This is neither philosophical nor scientific. For this reason ethical veganism is more correctly termed moral veganism and as such only has import relative to those who unquestioningly accept its underlying principles.

The fact that moral veganism is based on such flimsy principles is demonstrated by Chatterbears (a level 10 Vegan Mage) in his inability to incorporate research into plant sensitivity into his worldview. He has to reject it or reject his thesis. A philosopher adapts his or her position to accommodate the evidence since those are the rules of reason. Vegans don't do this because they are not philosophers but rather self-loathing fanatics who wish to impose their crazed brand of asceticism on the rest of humanity.

And puh-lease don't start saying that plants and animals are somehow morally equivalent... like anyone could seriously believe that dicing a potato was the moral equivalent to beheading a kitten. — NKBJ

Although I have no ethical qualms about killing and eating either since I'm an omnivore, all the arguments that can be made for not killing animals can be made for plants also, but with the added complication that key vegan analogies that are stretched to breaking point with animals, collapse completely when talking about plants.

It does not follow from that the fact that it is seemingly impossible to empathise with plant life due to its difference to us that it is therefore acceptable to eat it. This would just be another version of the speciesism argument.

In order to be consistent, vegans should accept their ignorance, err on the side of caution and avoid eating plants altogether.

Look, it would be unethical of me not to remind you that you are suffering from a messianic eating disorder with extreme grandiosity. Seek professional help now.

Be strong! (Obviously, I don't mean physically strong since you're a vegan)

As an omnivore, this research has no ethical consequences. However, for vegans it is extremely problematic. Clearly, they will wish to err on the side of caution and lay off eating anything whatsoever. Thus providing ineluctable proof, were it needed, that veganism is no more than the post hoc rationalization of an eating-disorder.

Add this to your Google Drive.

https://books.google.es/books?hl=en&lr=&id=8HOeCQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=Plant+Sensing+and+Communication&ots=YWjzxLh43_&sig=YkBo-29XrPxhNSsp-4U1c3VZ7IM#v=onepage&q=Plant%20Sensing%20and%20Communication&f=false

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Monica_Gagliano

http://www.plantbehavior.org/plant-plant-interactions-with-ariel-novoplansky/

https://www.npr.org/2017/01/13/509350471/how-do-trees-collaborate

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4497361/

https://www.google.es/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.michaelmarder.org/app/download/6088188961/M.Marder.Place.of.Plants.pdf%3Ft%3D1512782468&ved=2ahUKEwjLldPY2JzbAhXQAewKHdGcBzMQFjAXegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw0O17Z9vJIErORnjMyKwG-V

Floristry is murder.

In my opinion, being a vegan means caring less about plants than caring about animals. Is this so much better? I'm not sure. — Regi

There is very interesting recent research regarding plant sensitivity that demonstrates their abilities to learn, communicate and remember.

For non-vegans this doesn't present an ethical problem, but, perhaps unsurprisingly, it doesn't present an ethical problem for vegans either since anything that might undermine their position is hastily dismissed in favour of the far less intellectually demanding task of rampant virtue-signalling.

Regarding gender being whatever you feel it to be, if I feel 27 years old, but am actually 52, am I 27?

We eat animals becuase we genetically need meat to survive.
— SherlockH

This is false.

There's my google doc with scientific/peer-reviewed evidence that is cited. There's a health and environmental tab if you need both. — chatterbears

SherlockH, if you're genuinely interested in the health benefits of animal products in diet, it's probably best to look elsewhere than a cherry-picked selection curated by an avowed vegan.

I've already detailed my reasons and habits regarding meat eating upthread. Also, since just about everything you've produced on this thread is nonsense and the fact that you've produced so much of it, even responding to your very occasional bouts of semi-coherence would require an effort inversely proportional to the intellectual satifisfaction your subsequent response is likely to contain.

Vegans, if I were to be on the point of killing a cow, would you kill me to save the cow?

Not consuming animal products is the definition of being Vegan. — chatterbears

I hope not! I'm sure that many people would potentially like to give up animal products, but would hesitate if they thought they might be classed as vegans since the term is synonymous in so many circles with 'self-righteous dick'.

However, what bothers me about vegan 'superlativism' is its intolerance, as shown on this thread, for anyone who doesn't go to the same extremes.
— Txastopher

This coming from the person who suggested we should just ignore theists so as to get rid of them? — NKBJ

Can you unpack this a little, please?

Sorry that your indulgence gets in the way of being a compassionate human being. Not only is this an ignorant position, because it is clear that there are an endless amount of Vegan foods that you can also indulge in (French fries, pasta, etc). But it also shows your lack of empathy and consistency, that your 'taste pleasure' is more important than the lives you're willing to kill for it. — chatterbears

I'm a hedonist. My life project and that of the animals I eat, or potentially eat me, are in conflict, yes. Also, by having close friendships with a few people, I am denying the boon of my friendship to the world's friendless. In fact, now I come to think of it, almost everything I do has an unfortunate corollary. It's hard to know where to start given that my very existence is essentially a moral aberration.

Now that you've sorted out your relationship with other animals, what are going to put right next?