Why is it that, among the religious who believe we should love all of God's creations, the cutoff seems to be animals and humans? What about insects? I suppose I could add to the subject by including plant life and smaller, lesser known sea life, like plankton or something...

I just always viewed it as a logical inconsistency that nobody really cares about. Even within the "insect" category, I wonder why it is that a butterfly is given so much more significance than a fly (we swat flies, but admire the colorful butterfly and don't swat them). Is it really simply aesthetics and how society views/values beauty from a broader perspective?

I personally am an agnostic and do not have qualms about killing/eating insects, animals, plant/sea life. However, I do try to understand, accept, and respect the views of say, a PETA member, "tree huggers", and my personal favorite, my ex gf who refused to kill spiders and etc and would trap them and set them free outside. I always liked that about her even if it can be seen as super weird/not normal, maybe not even healthy. Thing is, among those I just mentioned, I do feel an empathy towards the idea of not "murdering". It's similar to the view of someone who is anti abortion. I can see and to an extent feel the grotesque/gruesome nature of killing life. Part of me can be indifferent to it. Part of me just accepts it nihilistically. Yet part of me feels like an ******* when I find myself killing bugs in my basement. But I digress...

Just wanted to hear others' views on my thoughts. Flame away

All of creation <- that is a lot.

It includes death, pain, illness, sickness, bacteria, viruses...

It also includes your fear or whatever is causing you to kill a bug.

I believe that Jainists do not believe in killing animals or insects.

AT some point animals far down the ladder don't know they are alive and can't perceive pain. Your own white blood cells for instance. Insects, presumably are in that category. Maybe The dance of bees might be a counterargument.

How certain are you of this? Id argue it is somewhat difficult if not impossible to prove such things about another form of life.

Leviticus 11; New Century Version (NCV)

Verses:

20 “‘Don’t eat insects that have wings and walk on all four feet; they also are to be hated.

21 “‘But you may eat certain insects that have wings and walk on four feet. You may eat those that have legs with joints above their feet so they can jump. 22 These are the insects you may eat: all kinds of locusts, winged locusts, crickets, and grasshoppers. 23 But all other insects that have wings and walk on four feet you are to hate. 24 Those insects will make you unclean, and anyone who touches the dead body of one of these insects will become unclean until evening. 25 Anyone who picks up one of these dead insects must wash his clothes and be unclean until evening.

Whats so special about the evening?

More people are awake and up to no good.

Probably do experience pain

https://blog.oup.com/2011/11/bug-pain/

Leviticus couldn’t count?

Seems like clumsy wording on the part of the good folks who translated the NCV:

Here's the KJV:

Lev. 11:20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination into you.

Lev. 11:21. Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth.

Summary: v.20 creepers that aren't leapers. v.21 creepers that are also leapers.

If you hurt an ant, they will wrap their front legs around their antennae, and open and close their manidible as if they were groaning. If ants don't feel pain, then why are they wasting energy displaying such gestures?

what ABOUT insects anyway?

This thread is really starting to bug me.

Hehe OK lagtight...

I have a hard time thinking ants and other life can't perceive pain or lack the mental cognition to be aware they're alive, etc...

Even if they're not aware or capable of any concept or abstract thought, what, they just live life through pure survival instinct and no reasoning behind that?

Wouldn't survival instinct, at it's very base nature, imply that dying is bad? Undesirable? Even in the most inelegant of thought, isn't it impossible to not be able to perceive pain? What is survival instinct and the senses if pain does not exist in the mind?

Sorry I ignored this thread for so long. I only really follow BFI and politics.

I killed another insect today and like any typical human just did it and moved on, but the thing is, I have a high degree of empathy (and I question if it borders on mental disorder). Smashing a bug and not thinking about it is one thing, but it is cognitive dissonance in real time. If you think about it, it is a brutal destruction of a life form. So like some nonzero part of me that is like a Star Trek don't violate the Prime Directive geek realizes that for a split second I've given excruciating pain to this...thing...if but for a brief moment at the end of its life. I wouldn't want an asteroid crushing me as if God was playing marbles and I just happened to be in his ****ing garage! Whatever, maybe I'm in denial of my true inner nature, a JINO (Jainist in name only).

Some insect parts like legs may twitch for a while after it is severed from the rest of the body. You can read that writing as "pain" if you choose.

However, it is difficult to interpret that detached twitching as "pain" felt by the body (the leg is not physically connected to the body anymore, so how would that even work?) or the leg (what neurological framework in the leg would be considered to be "feeling" the pain?). But then why would the leg be "wasting energy" like that? It's not always possible to read intention or motive into the behaviors of other creatures.

Your reaction can easily be interpreted as you projecting your own experiences onto the ant. And so that you read it "as if they were groaning" is your own choice of how to see the movement.

So there needs to be more than an observation of movement to really talk about "pain" in a meaningful way. Here's a biologist's take on it:

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/a...ants-feel-pain

So whatever "pain" you're reading into this is probably wrong. This doesn't say that they do not feel pain, but rather choosing to insert your human experience into the ant's experience is probably not yielding anything true about the universe.

Let’s not sling phrases like “yielding anything true about the universe” in the religion forum. The irony stings my eyes.

How so? Could you please elaborate on the idea that religion is unable to yield truth about the universe? Thanks.

Religion tends to concern itself with speculation about what happens to us when we die.

Im not familiar with most religious texts, but I don’t know of any that give verifiable, repeatable, predictable truths about the universe. Perhaps you could name a few. Thanks.

I'm sorry your eyes hurt. Maybe you should read the label before pouring things in there.

And some posters tend to concern themselves with speculations about things they know nothing about. I cited a scientist making scientific observations. If you would like to challenge the claim, you're free to do so. Just know what you're up against.

Edit: The Bible states that "everyone will die someday" (Ecclesiastes). I think this is a verifiable, repeatable, and predictable truth.

I might have only read a few of them, but you might want to check out the proverbs in the Book of Proverbs.

Here's a link to Proverbs 27 (NIV) if you're interested: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...27&version=NIV

I would caution against labeling wisdom as truth. They don't really function in the same way.

If wisdom leads someone to the truth or communicates the truth to them wouldn't it be correct to label said wisdom as the truth? (I guess I'm asking you this and maybe presenting a point that's right)

Notice that you said "the truth." Which truth, specifically is *the* truth here? Because this question is entirely different from a question of whether something is *true*.

Furthermore, even if it's true that wisdom leads *someone* to "the truth" it doesn't mean that the wisdom itself is actually true. People can incorrectly reach true conclusion from false hypotheses in many different ways. The truth of the conclusion doesn't inherently tell you about the truth of the hypothesis.

Wisdom is not truth. Wisdom may contain true observations about general human behaviors, but it doesn't stand as being true or false. Here's Proverbs 27:2:

This is a good idea. It's often better not to boast about your own goodness, and live in a way that your goodness is so good that others want to talk about it. But there's no sense in which it is true that you should let someone else praise you. There are times when it is important to be able to speak for yourself (such as when you're in an interview).

So the value of the good idea is relative to particular contexts, which makes it harder to interpret them as being either true or false on their own. You can also find back-to-back couplets of wisdom that seem contradictory if you try to make them "true." For example, Proverbs 26:4-5:

So which is true? Should you answer a fool or not answer a fool? The answer is that neither is true. Sometimes you should answer a fool, and sometimes you shouldn't. Sometimes it's best to let the fool be foolish without stepping in and getting entangled in it, other times it's good to speak up and point out the follies of a fool. It depends on context, the character of the fool, your standing in whatever forum the fool is being foolish in...

But both can happen, and we can cite examples of it. These are not truths, but just good ideas based on valid observations of human behaviors.

1) I think there might be a difference between talking about your skills in an interview and praising yourself.

2) Is Proverbs 26:4-5 not communicating an over-all truth though?