I think so, yes. The meaning of murder though, at least as it is in the Oxford American Dictionary, involves premeditated killing of another human, but why differentiate between an animal that isn't human and humans? It's a superficial (purposeful) misunderstanding that keeps a lot of "unimportant" cases out of court.
Murder is the premeditated killing of any animal. The thought of killing a process, (consciousness in any form at all) is murder. This is even true for plants, though the severity differs greatly because plants aren't (as far as we understand the idea), conscious.
The problem is in the industry though, not the act of eating animals. It's human, to eat meat, but it's not human to treat meat as nothing more than a Big Mac. What I mean by that is, people used to respect animals and feel pain for each animal's death. Native Americans would purposely use every part of an animal that they killed to make it's death as meaningful to people as possible. There were spiritual aspects involved, but I feel the principle is most important.
We treat animals like shit now, if not worse. We raise them with the idea that they will all one day be shat out by someone a number of hours after being tasted. They are slaughtered without regard, which is understandable because of the emotional damage you would put yourself through if you had to slaughter so many a day... you would go insane, if you cared about each of them as your own pets...
Eugh, well my cat just died yesterday and I've been drinking to compensate for his loss... even though he was just a cat. Maybe I shouldn't be talking about the treatment of animals right now...
Well, I did point out that some get spiritual with it on a level that isn't reasonable... Anyhow, most people don't take Star Wars seriously... Some though actually think they have the force. What does that mean? That it should be taken more seriously and be pulled from the Science Fiction shelf to be placed on the Educational one? No.
Funny, I dated a Catholic who at that time was in Philadelphia, and is now in San Antonio (but was from Katy). She seemed happy, yes, but she wasn't. I wouldn't say it was because of her faith, but instead consider it a quality of human beings in general. I seem happy when I'm usually not and I'm not religious, I'm social.
Buddhism isn't a religion, it's a philosophy. People often call it a religion, and some aspects of Buddhism deal a lot with the idea of "spirits", and beings that live forever as stars, etc. But Buddhism, especially Zen Buddhism deals with pragmatic ideas, like these, specifically.
Even though those beliefs are held by some Buddhists, they don't force it upon other people like religion does, it's just a theory to them. Not TRUTH, like spirits and demons and God is to the typical American Christian. You can't be saved by following parts of the Bible that don't have anything to do with God or Jesus. If you don't accept them as real and your father, etc. you won't even be considered.
One of the main ideas in Buddhism is that there are many paths to the summit, meaning that there are different ways to reach enlightenment. This is why "making an effort to improve" is so important. So long as you working your way to the summit, you're doing good.
I think you're right though, Religion is unhealthy and if you need structure in your life turn to Buddhism for your help.
Late-term abortion is something that should be avoided at all costs, and I've been hearing a lot about it lately, mainly from people who were told that they should have one by doctors because their children may have down's syndrome (everyone that was told this didn't have further testing done because of the risk of killing the child (50% chance), and all were born and found to be healthy).
It's something that should be taken care of before the child develops, but if it comes down to deciding later, it should still be up to the parents who created the child... It's sad, yes, but it's not our responsibility to decide who has to have children and who doesn't. Not everyone is happily married and ready, mentally, physically, or finically, to have children when they become pregnant, and we don't have the resources and in most respects, the right, to decide for people.
I believe that this is the true conservative stance on this issue. Limited government, more freedom and leave the moral decision to be made by the moral beings who are responsible for the child, not the government.
2. Atoms weren't proven to exist until this last century, but people believed that they did and have for over 2000, maybe even around 3000 years. Socrates spoke about philosophers that were long dead that believed that the universe was made of irreducibly small particles (of water) and Buddhists thought the same thing even before him. Santa and the Easter bunny do exist, even if it's just as a thought. Existence as a thought is still existence. If you disagree, fight with yourself about that because the idea of a self is a trick of the mind. In actuality your self doesn't exist just as santa doesn't exist.
3. It's more than sociological, it's psychological. I know, I see tons of people who claim to have lived horrible, drug ridden, lives before being "saved"... I know better than to argue with these people, because even though they're religious they seem to be more stable than they used to be, or at least happier with their lives. It's a deeply personal issue that does help a lot of people, and this I think is it's most important utility, something that should be considered in sciences. I know a lot of people who have went through rehab 1 or more times who are still on meth and heroin or something as harmless as weed, but I know more people who have found religion and changed for good, for just a little faith.
I don't know about you, but I think that should be worth sciences time, at least to find out why faith helps more than rehab. I tend to think, very quickly, that religion plays on parts of humanity that aren't as reasonable as maybe, we'd like them to be, but if it works it works. Faith does do good (not saying it doesn't do bad, or even that it doesn't do more bad than good), and that's something that I think science should be interested in.
First off, I would like to make it clear to you, that I am not religious, I do not believe in a personal god, I do not believe the universe was designed by anyone for any reason, I do not believe that people are only moral because of religious beliefs... I am not religious in any sense of the term. So, you're already wrong about my core beliefs starting with faith and then transcending from there, because I have no faith in religious doctrine.
Secondly, the idea of there being a god has never been disproved and likely will never be, using the scientific method, but that doesn't mean that it should be dismissed by the scientific community. If it hasn't been proven, or disproved, it should remain a topic until it can be. It may turn out, eventually, that though god doesn't seem to exist, it does in the minds of millions, maybe billions of people, and it more helpful to them than any scientific finding could be... Religious belief may be an important part of society (and then to social science) that is nearly irreplaceable.
Lastly, I think it's important to see how everything works independently and together. I am not the force binding religion and science together, they are both aspects of human life and by that fact are already bound. Which is not to say that they can't ever be separated, but for now whether you like it or not, each deals with the other and must be accepted until something right can be done about it. You can't just say that because they are different, they shouldn't conceder each other.
The only problem with your argument (that I want to pick on) is that you assume that religion doesn't already answer every question man needs to know the answer to. Science may very well be off course, or lead humanity off course (in accordance with scripture).
The only reason you disagree is because you disagree with religion? According to scripture, empirical things were created by God, so studying only empirical things is just studying God's creations, and does have an ultimate goal, does it not? If Science is out to explain the unexplained, and religion is supposedly there to spread the word of God, the being that is Himself the explanation... What do you think would happen if Science successfully explained everything (impossible, I know)???
Anyhow, I agree with you, but I don't agree with your argument, per say. Almost every social science (including political science and psychology) deals with religion, so if you dismiss religion because it's not verifiable, you still have to deal with it as a scientist.
I don't think Einstein meant if you're a scientist you should be religious, and if you're religious you should be a scientist too... He just meant that they are inherently intertwined and one without the other it's true to it's nature... to explain.
Science without X is lame science. Science seeks to answer questions through rigorous testing, trial and error if you will. This means, if you purposely deny any idea or leave anything out of the test you're not doing it right. Science without art is too, lame science.
Anyhow, Albert wasn't talking about christianity when he said this, or any typical religion of the time, he was speaking on more general terms. He was a scientific pantheist, which is to say, that he didn't believe in a personal god. "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."
You say that religion answers the why's, but Einstein also believed that there is no purpose in nature. Purpose (Intent) == Reason == Why. Pantheism revolves around existence and nature, so if a pantheist says that there is no purpose in nature, that means that God (equivalent to nature in pantheism) has no purpose in anything. God just is, as scientists typically believe the universe just is without a purpose or intention.
So what you get from this quote is actually incorrect. I'm not picking on your views, just differentiating between what he probably meant and what you're getting from it.
This is just funny:
"Why do you write to me 'God should punish the English'? I have no close connection to either one or the other. I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
-Letter to Edgar Meyer colleague January 2, 1915 Contributed by Robert Schulmann; also see CPAE Vol. 8 (forthcoming).
Einstein was a real badass.
This is a basic economics question. Socialist or not, if you follow each to their end.
Realistically, and to be accurate to the question, an individual's effort is never futile. If anyone studies up enough and is truly dedicated to conserving the environment it'll spread beyond their personal reach.
Take for instance the man who built a home in Boston for ~$170k that will by next year be paying for itself via selling excess electricity to their power grid. This means less pollution from the power plants too. If everyone was as dedicated to conservation, they would all be doing the same thing. Scraping older houses and replacing them with completely self sustainable homes and selling power. He doesn't even need a job anymore, after spending $170,000. All he has to do is keep up the house and it'll supply him with everything he needs.
Also, my father used to work for Frito-Lay, as a technician. On his spare time he'd go through the facility and make it more efficient. He's still doing it today as a maintenance technician for Saputo. Just by changing the architecture, a little at a time, of the factory he can save the business millions of dollars a year in energy savings. He's always been one to conserve energy too, that's just his thing, even at home.
While I agree, a great part of it is the businesses responsibility, that doesn't mean that you as an individual can't change it. The more people you have caring, the more the business sector will tune in and do their part, that's obvious.
Even if you believe that it doesn't make a difference where it counts, it's like religion in that it gives people something to do that is more worth while than sitting around the television and complaining about everything. It's a healthy alternative to people's daily bullshit.
And we are supporting Israel because they are affiliated with the Bible??? Even if you're supporting palestine though, why do you hold so firmly that they should be allowed to keep their land when it has cost so many lives to defend? What land is worth that many lives, really?
THIS IS FUCKING LUDICROUS.
Anyone supporting EITHER SIDE should be held accountable for crimes against humanity by association, especially America.
