Pro Meat Eating Article

Reading Gary C. Smith's article, "Why People Eat Meat," it helped me realize how sincere some pro meat eating arguments can be. I believe that Smith did a good job defending the why eating meat is rational. He showed the nutritional benefits of eating meat which I had not heard of before. Through eating meat, human beings get the best source of iron. I thought this was interesting because usually meat eating is frowned upon due to high cholesterol. Also, I thought it was interesting how Smith faced the slaughterhouse problems in his article. By saying this, it made me realize that he does realize there is a need for change in the meat industry.

Through trying to find a pro meat eating article, I realized how the most valid ones face both the negative and positive side attributes to meat eating. People who defend meat eating in this manner truly understand why meat eating can be viewed as rational or irrational.

Funny Pro Meat Website

Finding reasonable pro-meat eating sides/arguments are hard to find. However, I did find this funny one. The website is www.ooze.com/pweeta. PWEETA stands for people who enjoying eating tasty animals. Their reasons for eat meating are so pointless. This made me wonder, why are pro-meat eating websites so hard to find?

I think this is because vegetarians and vegans are more serious about their reasons about why they do not eat animals/animals products. It seems like meat eaters usually have arguments about it tasting good. Also, society seems to be acceptable of meat eating. Therefore, meat eaters do not have to try as hard to defend their beliefs.

I look forward to seeing the reasonable websites other people found about pro meat-eating.

Does Paschal's Triangle Prove Anything?

During my trip to New Orleans, I began talking to a philosophy major from MCLA about what we were have been recently talking about it class. I mentioned that we talked about Paschal's Triangle and he brought in an interesting viewpoint. He told me that Paschal's Triangle does not prove whether there is a God or not. I had not thought of it in this way before. When learning about it before, I have learned that it either makes people believe there is a God or there is not a God.

This lead to us talking about Atheism and Agnosticism. This person told me that he considers himself a Christian but does not practice like a typical Christian (i.e. going to Church). He also said that people such as Thomas Aquinas who people claim have the evidence to prove that God does not exist do not have sufficient evidence to prove it. He discussed with me that he thought that believing and knowing are the same thing. This made me wonder if knowing and believing are only the same thing for a religious context or if it means that knowing and believing are the same thing no matter what.

I agree with this person to an extent that knowing and believing is the same thing. I mean, I know that God exists because I believe it. If someone believes in something completely, it is the same thing as them knowing in my opinion. But is it the same for objects?

Questions About Atheism/Conclusion to topic

After our discussions about Agnosticism and Atheism, I realized that I do not know that much about Atheism. All I really know is that they do not believe that God exists.

When discussing Atheism, I wondered what their explanations for miracles are. Do they not believe in miracles or not? I know it might sound like a dumb question, but I have no idea what an Atheist's view on this is. Also, do they believe in heaven and hell, an afterlife, etc.
______________________________________________________________________

Through discussing Atheism and Agnosticism, I have learned a lot. Even though I still believe that Agnosticism is more rational, I do believe that the argument for Atheism is good. I feel that people have a bias on their view on this topic, whether they realize it or not. People who are Atheists believe that Atheism is more rational and Agnostics believe that Agnosticism is more rational. Also, I think that people who are religious tend to think Agnosticism is more rational due to them believing that there is a God. It's one of those topics that there really cannot be a "right" answer because has a bias depending on their religious status.

Why Do Some People Claim They Are Atheists When They Are Really Agnostics?

From my personal experience, I have met many people who claim to be agnostic when they are really atheists. Why is that? Since I am neither atheist or agnostic, I do not really know how to explain it.

The main reason I think this happens is because of rebellion. From my personal experience of going to a Christian high school, I remember many of my classmates and schoolmates going against Christianity because they wanted to rebel against their family. However, does that mean they do not believe in a god all together or they do not believe in the "Christian God." I believe that they just do not believe in the "Christian God." From being around people for four years who are like this, I think they do believe in that there is a god, but not the ones their parents follow.

Also, I think it is really hard to not believe in some type of supernatural being after it being engraved into your mind all your life. For example, I went to high school with a boy whose parents were Christian. He said he didn't believe in the Christian God but believed more in a Buddhist-type God. It seems like people turn to other religions to search for their answers until they find the one that is right or they realize that religion does not answer their questions.

This question has always been in my mind and don't quite understand and wish I did. It seems like one of those things that is hard to understand unless you have tried to choose between agnosticism and atheism.

Is There Really a Middle Ground?

Is there really a middle ground? After talking in class today, I realized that I don't believe there is a middle ground. It seems like the supernaturalists need to compromise more than the naturalists. Why do supernaturalists have to compromise more than the naturalists? Are a supernaturalist's views too extreme for a naturalist to compromise for? I hope that people will leave comments to help me answer this because this is a question that makes me wonder whether we can coexist peacefully or not. What if some radical religious people do not want to compromise more than naturalists?

Can Naturalism and Supernaturalism Coexist Peacefully?

Can Naturalism and supernaturalism coexist peacefully? The idea of them coexisting peacefully sounds great, but is it really possible? I sometimes wonder whether this could actually work. The idea of them coexisting peacefully sounds like it could work, but are people willing to compromise? When reading about pragmatic empiricism, I thought about this. For example, are people willing to compromise about abortion. I personally do not think that a Christian who follows the Bible word for word would be willing to vote "yes" for abortion. Issues such as these make it seem hard for pragmatic empiricism to occur in the world.

Another example is evolution and creationism. In fact, during my American History II with Professor Pecor, we talked about this. Some people are very adamant about teaching one over the other. As people willing to compromise for "this" world to only teaching evolution, only teach creationism, or teach both? An issue such as this is an ongoing issue. Many people believe after the Scopes trial in the 1920's that the issue was done--Scopes lost the trial but it made way for evolution to be taught in public schools. However, as Pecor mentioned in my class, today evolution being taught is still a major today.

When will these two coexist peacefully?