Vegetarianism

[(Q)]

Ok then, how do you define "fact" or "actuality"? How do you determine when an "existence" is "verified"? But it is *ultimately* by faith that we accept anything to exist.

Observations and measurements. If they all agree with one another, that should be plenty of evidence, no faith required.

But this is becoming a philisophical argument which I would like to avoid simply because anything goes. So perhaps your confusion lies in the concept of what state are we if not existing. Whatever that state be is the one you and I are conversing. We can label that state and move on.

 

[(Q)]

Therefore, you can never really tell whether or not something is, or isn't, real. Real cannot be defined.

Maybe philisophically, but not physically.

And all you've really done is describe the same reality. One persons reality includes drugs while another hallucinations. These can be tested and measured.

The beliefs behind Druidry suit me.

That's cool - however it is not a belief in a deity and other such supernatural beings.

But if it makes one happy, then what is wrong with following a belief system?

I can't see how living an illusion or delusion makes one happy. I would go quite insane.

 

[(Q)]

Druidus

I thought humans were classified as omnivores.

 

[Druidus]

We are classified as omnivores, but whites were classified as better than blacks for many years as well.

And all you've really done is describe the same reality. One persons reality includes drugs while another hallucinations. These can be tested and measured.

But how do you know that you are not the one hallucinating that none of the bugs are there and he is the oe who sees the truth?

That's cool - however it is not a belief in a deity and other such supernatural beings.

I do believe in deities. I believe they live in realms above us and are able to affect our realm. Quite possible really.

I can't see how living an illusion or delusion makes one happy. I would go quite insane.

Only if you knew it was an illusion or delusion. If you truly believe in your beliefs, then to you, they are not illusions or delusions, and quite possibly, they are not.

But this is becoming a philisophical argument which I would like to avoid simply because anything goes. So perhaps your confusion lies in the concept of what state are we if not existing. Whatever that state be is the one you and I are conversing. We can label that state and move on.

Alright, we move on. Your move.

 

[Ardhanariswar]

"Yes but consider this, if one person chooses not to eat meat, then 96 animals will not die this year (average). If more people do not eat meat then less meat will be sold, and therefore, less produced, it's simple economics. "

simple as it may sound, it takes a whole load of people to change this and a whole lot of time. you cannot possibly make everyone stop eating meat. its impossible. i guess you can make change little at a time. oh well. i still love my mother's famous crab! (you should try it! its soo spicy, it makes tears fall from your eyes, thats how spicy it is).

 

[JivanaKrishnaDasa]

Sorry it took so long for me to get back here. I only have internet connection at work, and yesterday I had to leave for the day. This definately got way off subject, my apologies.

 

[Paraprakrti]

Ok then, how do you define "fact" or "actuality"? How do you determine when an "existence" is "verified"? But it is *ultimately* by faith that we accept anything to exist.

Observations and measurements. If they all agree with one another, that should be plenty of evidence, no faith required.

The keyword here is "should". The fact that it *isn't* enough means that some faith is required.

But this is becoming a philisophical argument which I would like to avoid simply because anything goes. So perhaps your confusion lies in the concept of what state are we if not existing. Whatever that state be is the one you and I are conversing. We can label that state and move on.

If *we* don't exist then there is no question of "what state are we". The argument is whether we can prove anything to be real, it's going to come down to a philosophical argument. You can "prove" something exists by use of your senses, but how can you prove that your senses exist? How do you verify their existence? Or do you simply take it for granted that your senses exist, or are even at least dependable? The fact that you *obviously* take it for granted proves that their is some faith required. Case closed.

 

[JivanaKrishnaDasa]

I dont know where else to go, but (Q), I just dont understand why you feel the way you feel. Even Science would agree that you cant have a creation, without a creator. Its like having a painting, without a painter. Lets assume that the Big Bang Theory is true and that we are all evolved from fish or apes or whatever. Where did the elements or the chemicals come from that caused the Big Bang? I honestly believe that at some point, you will come to the conclusion that there is God. If you have a problem with modern day religion and philosophy, thats completely ok. Hell I feel that there is a lot of hypocrisy within it myself. But if this is the case, then worship or follow in whatever way you please. But I dont find it very progressive to just throw the whole conception out. Just my thoughts...

 

[(Q)]

whites were classified as better than blacks for many years as well.

Can you cite a reference for that?

But how do you know that you are not the one hallucinating

I've never seen anything aside from the physical world. If I am hallucinating the physical world, then the physical world must be hallucinating me as well, if thats possible. No one has ever disagreed with what I see. I've never been shown to have any mental instabiltiy issues.

Have you been known to hallucinate?

I do believe in deities. I believe they live in realms above us and are able to affect our realm. Quite possible really.

Ok, you believe. But what are your beliefs based? Have you seen these realms? How do you know they exist? Why has there been no observation or evidence of their existence? What mechanism allows that realm to interact with our physical world completely undetected?

Quite impossible really.

Only if you knew it was an illusion or delusion. If you truly believe in your beliefs, then to you, they are not illusions or delusions, and quite possibly, they are not.

Come now, belief in an illusion or delusion does not change the fact that it is still an illusion or delusion, whether you knew it or not.

And if you say it is possible, I would have to argue that if probability ruled your decision making process in this regard, then you should factor in the evidence, which is heavily against the existence of deities. It has been shown that the universe can come into creation and exist without the need of deities.

 

[(Q)]

The fact that it *isn't* enough means that some faith is required.

Your confusing the term 'faith' and I would hesitate to guess you read my thread on faith defined. There are two distinct definitions of faith. The faith you describe is a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny, and that is clearly not the faith science has anything to do with.

If by faith you mean complete confidence in a person or plan, then yes, some faith is required.

The fact that you *obviously* take it for granted proves that their is some faith required. Case closed.

If by faith you mean I have complete confidence that we exist, yes. Otherwise we would not be chatting with one another, don't you think? If Ididn't exist, would I be typing these words to you, would you be reading them?

Philisophical arguments about existence are quite pointless because one can make just about any claim without any evidence and make it stick.

But with the physical, there simply is no question we exist.

If you and I had identical laptops for example, and I wrote down the measurements for power, mechanical and size requirements and you agreed with these measurements because that's exactly the measurements you took, would you agree we both existed? What kind of evidence would convince you we existed? What would make you think we didn't exist? Case open.

 

[Paraprakrti]

We don't accept your definition of "faith". You may have divided the term up in order to separate the faith one has for "supernatural powers" from the faith one has in everyday sense perception, but faith is faith...

Ok, we agree that both our measurements are the same. Now, how do I prove that you aren't just a figment of my imagination? Perhaps that's why we came with the same conclusions! Or perhaps I am your imagination. This is pointless. Back to the thread topic...

Garlic and onions are not eaten by Vaisnavas. This is our preference. You do not have to accept it for yourself. We have faith in Krsna. Yes, this is the kind of faith where one has "complete confidence in a person or plan". The Person is Krsna, the plan is to only eat food that He accepts in offering. That excludes garlic and onions.

 

[Druidus]

Can you cite a reference for that?

Do you really need a reference for something most know as common knowledge?

I've never seen anything aside from the physical world. If I am hallucinating the physical world, then the physical world must be hallucinating me as well, if thats possible. No one has ever disagreed with what I see. I've never been shown to have any mental instabiltiy issues.

Hallucinations and dreams can make you believe that others agree with you. Remember, you could be hallucinating or dreaming them too. Really you could be in a coma, living in an entirely different world.

Ok, you believe. But what are your beliefs based? Have you seen these realms? How do you know they exist? Why has there been no observation or evidence of their existence? What mechanism allows that realm to interact with our physical world completely undetected?

Have you seen the experiment that was used to show the existence of higher dimensions? These dimensions do exist, these are the higher realms. Now look around you. Living in a 3-Dimensional world, you can alter any of those three dimensions. For those above us, they can alter everything we can, as well as their own. Since these dimensional realms all exist overlapped in the same universe, by merely altering one thing in their realms, ours is affected.

Come now, belief in an illusion or delusion does not change the fact that it is still an illusion or delusion, whether you knew it or not.

But to you it wouldn't be. You would believe it, and their is the chance of it being true.

And if you say it is possible, I would have to argue that if probability ruled your decision making process in this regard, then you should factor in the evidence, which is heavily against the existence of deities. It has been shown that the universe can come into creation and exist without the need of deities.

Show me this evidence. I want to see it. If the evidence, consists mainly of "I can't sense it in any way, so, it's not there.", then that isn't evidence. You haven't sensed in any way the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence somewhere in the universe. However, it is probable that you believe in it, as it is a growing trend among scientific communities to believe in it. Do you believe in anything that is not proved to be there? Next time you go to get a drink from your fridge, remember, that drink might not be there. And perhaps the whole fridge will be gone. Quantum theory dictates that the particles making up the fridge may decide to teleport themselves away, leading to a chance of the fridge disapearing. Next time you go to get a drink, don't bother, as there is no evidence showing that it is there, so it isn't. Truthfully, to be an atheist does require faith. You have to have faith that the Gods do not exist, and until you have irrefuteable evidence, you are neither right, nor wrong.

 

[(Q)]

Even Science would agree that you cant have a creation, without a creator.

No, science does NOT agree with that. In fact, science has shown that there is no evidence to suggest a creator whatsoever. Science has shown that the universe can be created and exist without the need for gods.

"Intelligent Design" theories for example have been completely refuted by the scientific community. There simply is no evidence to suggest creation by intelligence or design.

Where did the elements or the chemicals come from that caused the Big Bang?

Elements and chemicals did not exist for some time even after the Big Bang. The entire univeres was a bath of radiation energy. Particles of matter did not form for a very long time.

Have you heard of 'virtual particles?' These are particles of matter that pop in and out of existence all the time, without cause. Since it is evident that particles can pop into existence without cause, we can presume the universe formed in this manner as well.

I honestly believe that at some point, you will come to the conclusion that there is God.

Each passing day finds me learning more and more about our universe and ourselves, which ultimately finds me coming to conclusions that the physical world is all there is that exists. No gods, no angels, no supernatural realms, no spirits or souls - just us and our big *** universe.

And I find that incredibly exciting and fullfilling to know.

But if this is the case, then worship or follow in whatever way you please

I'm a little confused here - why would think there IS a need to worship or follow? Perhaps you should ask yourself why you think you really need to believe in that which has never been shown to exist? Why do that instead of taking all your resources and learning about us and our universe?

But I dont find it very progressive to just throw the whole conception out.

Why not? If a concept is riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions, you discard it. If it has no verifiable evidence whatsoever, why persue its study? If it cannot be detected and has never been shown to exist, why bother?

The universe and nature are all we have - it would only be in ones best interest to understand them and embrace them for what they are.

 

[(Q)]

We don't accept your definition of "faith". You may have divided the term up in order to separate the faith one has for "supernatural powers" from the faith one has in everyday sense perception, but faith is faith...

Funny you accept that which has not been shown to exist yet do not accept common knowledge definitions.

The Person is Krsna, the plan is to only eat food that He accepts in offering. That excludes garlic and onions.

I suppose it never occurred to you that maybe your Krsna simply hated garlic and onions, some people do you know. Does that mean you shouldn't eat them if you love them?

 

[(Q)]

Do you really need a reference for something most know as common knowledge?

Of course I need a reference, I've never seen a peer-reviewed paper or journal that extoles the virtues of white people over black.

Really you could be in a coma, living in an entirely different world.

Are YOU part of my alleged coma experience or do you think you exist outside of my mind? This is starting to get silly.

Have you seen the experiment that was used to show the existence of higher dimensions? These dimensions do exist, these are the higher realms.

I've never in all my professional career have seen or heard of such an experiment. You MUST give me a reference for that.

Dimensions, in physics or any other related science, are merely coordinates. And although there are a myriad of hypotheses claiming more dimensions than we percieve, those hypotheses are purely of a mathematical nature and are not based on observations or evidence. Currently, we live in a 4-dimensional universe and that's all we are able to detect. If other dimensions are discovered to exist, they most certainly will have nothing to do with 'realms.'

Since these dimensional realms all exist overlapped in the same universe, by merely altering one thing in their realms, ours is affected.

Sorry, but you have a poor understanding of dimensions - nothing like that occurs at all.

But to you it wouldn't be. You would believe it, and their is the chance of it being true.

And that is why it is called a delusion. Living a delusion is living a lie.

You haven't sensed in any way the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence somewhere in the universe. However, it is probable that you believe in it, as it is a growing trend among scientific communities to believe in it

First of all, evolution does not demand intelligence as it is merely a branch of evolution in which a lifeform may or may not go in its evolutionary cycle.

However, the fact that life exists on Earth demands that life exists elsewhere - whether intelligent or not is irrelevant.

Next time you go to get a drink from your fridge, remember, that drink might not be there. And perhaps the whole fridge will be gone.

Yeah, this whole existence issue is getting silly, can we please move on? My fridge has drinks, thank you very much.

Quantum theory dictates that the particles making up the fridge may decide to teleport themselves away

Ok, this is REALLY getting silly. And quantum theory makes no such predictions.

Truthfully, to be an atheist does require faith. You have to have faith that the Gods do not exist, and until you have irrefuteable evidence, you are neither right, nor wrong.

Why would I bother to have faith in something that is highly possible to be the inventive genius of mans imagination? There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Yet there is plenty of evidence to suggest gods had nothing to do with anything at all.

I may never prove gods don't exist, that is if I really did care about it. But you will never prove gods do exist and you will never find one shred of evidence to suggest it. In other words, the evidence to suggest a godless universe far outweighs a universe conducted by gods.

 

[Paraprakrti]

We don't accept your definition of "faith". You may have divided the term up in order to separate the faith one has for "supernatural powers" from the faith one has in everyday sense perception, but faith is faith...

Funny you accept that which has not been shown to exist yet do not accept common knowledge definitions.

Wrong. Faith is faith. You may differentiate between where faith is applied, but that is all in disregard to what faith is in general. You are simply attempting to move the goal posts in the argument. Where you apply faith is obviously not where I apply it. Nevertheless, FAITH IS THERE. Your faith comes first in the senses and my faith comes first in Krsna. Is what we are speaking of in this threas unreasonable? Do you feel that we are shoving the idea of not eating onions and garlic down your throat? If so, I apologize. If not, thank you for participating in the thread. See you next time.

The Person is Krsna, the plan is to only eat food that He accepts in offering. That excludes garlic and onions.

I suppose it never occurred to you that maybe your Krsna simply hated garlic and onions, some people do you know. Does that mean you shouldn't eat them if you love them?

Yes, because Krsna says that if you love Me you will eat only what can be offered to Me.

 

[(Q)]

Wrong. Faith is faith. You may differentiate between where faith is applied, but that is all in disregard to what faith is in general.

I'm sorry you don't agree with common definitions. Your choice to deny those definitions is unfounded and irrational.

Yes, because Krsna says that if you love Me you will eat only what can be offered to Me.

Maybe they were offered, but he simply did not like the taste of garlic and onions. You may love garlic and onions but won't eat them simply because someone else doesn't like them. Again, is that rational?

 

[Paraprakrti]

Wrong. Faith is faith. You may differentiate between where faith is applied, but that is all in disregard to what faith is in general.

I'm sorry you don't agree with common definitions. Your choice to deny those definitions is unfounded and irrational.

It is your foolishness to think that material evidence, in itself, constitutes a complete lack of faith. If the definition of faith herein becomes 'believing in something despite the lack of material evidence', then the first question concerns the FAITH one has in the validity of material evidence itself...
How do you verify that said evidence is sufficient, or that it is even a factual interaction between the sense and the objects of the senses, or that these interactions themselves are even factual, or that the senses are even factual, or that the objects of the senses are even factual? Then how do you verify that the consciousness which you use in order to gather this data is factual? What exactly is your flawless mechanism for attaining such faith free knowledge?

Yes, because Krsna says that if you love Me you will eat only what can be offered to Me.

Maybe they were offered, but he simply did not like the taste of garlic and onions. You may love garlic and onions but won't eat them simply because someone else doesn't like them. Again, is that rational?

Okay... they were offered... Krsna did not like the taste of them... Therefore, we do not offer them to Krsna (anymore)... Krsna tells us that to follow Him means to only eat the remnants of food that we can offer to Him. (If Krsna has had garlic and onions offered to Him in the past and He decided He didn't like them, that is not our concern. Our concern is to eat only what Krsna desires. And since Krsna has told us that we can't offer garlic and onions. And that we, as Vaisnavas, follow what Krsna tells us, means that we DO NOT OFFER GARLIC AND ONIONS. Furthermore, as I stated before, Krsna tells us to only eat what He has told us that He accepts in offering. Therefore, not only do we not offer garlic and onions, we DO NOT EAT GARLIC AND ONIONS either.

 

[(Q)]

How do you verify that said evidence is sufficient, or that it is even a factual interaction between the sense and the objects of the senses, or that these interactions themselves are even factual, or that the senses are even factual, or that the objects of the senses are even factual?

See this thread:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1796

Krsna tells us to only eat what He has told us that He accepts in offering

Perhaps a case can be made in which we can find that garlic and onions are more beneficial to the human body than other foods that are accepted by Krsna. We could further then argue that the food offered is therefore not as beneficial to humans compared to what is not offered. If garlic is shown to be beneficial in abating cancer, would you ignore it even though your family was prone to cancer?

Sorry if I'm nit-picking - I am reminded of the religious folk who allowed their children to die because their beliefs would not allow them to provide proper medical treatment. The shunning of onions and garlic is most certainly not as ridiculous as watching your kids die but definitely shows a similar mind set, one that I am curious to find out why. Especially considering no such "vibrations/energy" in vegetables has ever been shown to exist purported above.

 

[Paraprakrti]

How do you verify that said evidence is sufficient, or that it is even a factual interaction between the sense and the objects of the senses, or that these interactions themselves are even factual, or that the senses are even factual, or that the objects of the senses are even factual?

See this thread:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1796

I have already stated that I accept the universe, as well as ourselves, as existing. My only point was to show how such acceptance constitutes faith. That is all.

Krsna tells us to only eat what He has told us that He accepts in offering

Perhaps a case can be made in which we can find that garlic and onions are more beneficial to the human body than other foods that are accepted by Krsna. We could further then argue that the food offered is therefore not as beneficial to humans compared to what is not offered. If garlic is shown to be beneficial in abating cancer, would you ignore it even though your family was prone to cancer?

Krsna is not unreasonable. In a situation where one lives in a place that is unsuitable for growing crops, then it is understandable to eat meat, for example. If someone has cancer and the doctor prescribes something that has garlic in it then that is understandable. But, in general, garlic and onions, as well as meat, are not offerable and thus not eaten by Vaisnavas. Why did you not address this concern of yours in the first place? It would have saved a lot of unnecessary argument.

Sorry if I'm nit-picking - I am reminded of the religious folk who allowed their children to die because their beliefs would not allow them to provide proper medical treatment. The shunning of onions and garlic is most certainly not as ridiculous as watching your kids die but definitely shows a similar mind set, one that I am curious to find out why. Especially considering no such "vibrations/energy" in vegetables has ever been shown to exist purported above.

Some people feel that way about medical treatment. No one is forcing you to live that way. Your lamentation for these children comes out of lack of knowledge of the soul, a concept which I am sure brings up a whole other debate. Actually, if a child lives to be only 12, let us say, but he/she develops a close relationship to God, then his/her life is not a wasted one. On the other hand there are many who live to be 80 or 90 and hardly give any regard to God. Such a life is a waste. Their only endeavor is sense gratification and then, in due time, God manifests to them as death. Now all their endeavors have come to oblivion.