Discussion: Why does god allow animals to suffer?

  • fishie9977 asked Why does God allow animals to suffer? Below her exposition.

Another imbecile displaying his "prowess".

Another imbecile displaying his “prowess”.

I‘ll start off by saying that I love animals and always have. I would rather be in the company of my pets than with people in general. To me, my pets deserve to go to Heaven a lot more than I do. I’ve sinned a lot, like most people, and then I look at my dogs, who give me unconditional love and don’t judge me or care one bit about all the bad things I’ve done. I don’t understand how God can let innocent animals suffer. I was raised Catholic and was always told that animals don’t have souls and can’t suffer like people can. I don’t believe that at all. One of my dogs was rescued from an abusive owner. When I first got her, she trembled every time I touched her and would often wake up from her sleep yelping. So it seems to me that had suffered, and also remembered and was very affected by what had happened to her. It took her weeks to trust me and even now, 8 years later, she still does not fully trust people aside from my family and close friends.
I would rather see humans that have done something wrong suffer than watch a human torture an innocent animal. Animal testing, animal abuse, animal fighting, etc. are all things humans do. And for some reason those people are rarely “punished.”
People who murder other humans go to jail far more often than people who murder or abuse animals do. They’re usually just fined, maybe get 1 or 2 years in jail, because for some reason, people, and most likely God, don’t value the lives of animals as much as they value human lives. If God punishes people who kill and torture other people, why not also punish people who kill and torture animals?I understand the idea that people suffer because Adam and Eve sinned, but why should that mean animals have to? They didn’t do anything wrong. There is absolutely no reason for God to let innocent animals suffer.

Additional Details

if animals are here for our use, and there is no spiritual reason for their suffering (growth, eternal reward), why didn’t God create them without the capacity to suffer? Animals suffer physically, mentally and even emotionally at our hands, and even as we have grown somewhat as a species in how we relate to each other, our treatment of animals has gotten worse and worse.  No other animal on the planet will use another in the same way. So why can man?
FAVORITE ANSWER

You can go one better than that. You are giving examples of human on animal violence i.e. people abusing their pets which I suppose Christians may try to counter with an argument about free will. I don’t really buy that but it exists. But what about animals just out in the wild? Animals that have never seen a human. What about the zebra that is disembowelled while still alive by a hungry lion? Why would God allow that?
Now I’ll say right now I’m an atheist, so when I see the zebra get ripped to shreds by a lion, while I find that sad for the zebra, I accept it as a simple fact of nature. Its evolution. Its neither good nor evil, virtuous or selfish it just is. But if someone believes in God, they have to believe God wants that, and a being that wants unnecessary suffering cannot be a loving one its a contradiction.
The problem that you are getting at is called theodicy, basically why does a good God allow bad things, and in a thousand years (and probably a thousand wars) there has never been a solution to it that leaves God in one piece. You cannot have an all powerful, all loving being AND suffering in the world. Its impossible its a logical paradox. There are only 3 possible solutions and like I said, none of them bode well for Christians, they are:

1. God is all powerful and can prevent suffering, but chooses not to. He is NOT loving.
2. God is all loving, and wishes to prevent suffering, but it is not within his power to do so. He is NOT all powerful.
3. God does NOT exist.

That’s it, that’s your options logically it MUST be one of those 3, as there is no 4th option that doesn’t contradict itself. You could have a dick God, or a useless God, or no God at all, but you cannot have an omnipotent, omni benevolent God and suffering (especially by the most vulnerable and helpless). You can have any combination of 2, but not all 3 at the same time. The Christian God —or any other God which is supposedly benevolent AND omnipotent does not and cannot exist. It doesn’t make sense.

Asker’s rating & comment

5 out of 5
thank you.
SOURCE PAGE



Boulder, Colo. DA does nothing about animal abuse and the community cheers

Guest opinion

Animal abuse treated too lightly in Boulder

By Rita L.R. Anderson

Garnett: The do-nothing DA when it comes to crimes against defenseless creatures.

District Attorney Garnett: Unwilling to prosecute fairly crimes against defenseless creatures.

POSTED:   02/15/2014

 

I am extremely concerned about the manner in which animal cruelty cases are handled in Boulder County. Several local citizens and I have repeatedly met with District Attorney Stan Garnett about the need to address animal cruelty more stringently. We have also discussed the issue of the well-studied connection between violence to animals and violence to humans. We have asked for psychological counseling for perpetrators of cruel acts, but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

You may remember the case of Nicholas Foti, the CU student who brutally killed a raccoon with a baseball bat and machete. Although he was initially charged with a felony, in the end he was faced with only misdemeanor charges and was sent on his way, even though we had pointedly asked the DA to look carefully at his case. The viciousness and brutality of this student were shocking. When I asked why they let him off so lightly, I was told that he was a student who was trying to do something with his life by going to college, so they didn’t want him to carry a felony on his record.

We all know about the two police officers who were complicit in the killing of the elk on Mapleton Hill. One of the officers, Brent Curnow, was able to arrange a plea bargain with the DA. What is alarming is the reasons we were given for the DA agreeing to the plea bargain: Curnow was from a good family, he was a good father, he was a good cop, he was nearly bankrupt from his attorney fees, and what would it do to his children if their father went to jail? Is this legal justice? If he were from a different family and was a poor father, would he have received the same plea agreement? And, do good cops intentionally break the law?

Then there were the high school students in Longmont who viciously and deliberately herded geese into the street so they could run over them with an SUV. The perpetrators of this crime were given community service at Greenwood Wildlife Rehabilitation, which was a good start. However, when we again asked the DA why he didn’t more stringently prosecute this violent act or request psychological counseling, we were told the driver of the SUV was a high school football player and the boys came from good families. What?

When a homeless man by the name of McMorris brutally kicked and dragged a small puppy down the street, his case was taken all the way to the Colorado Supreme Court. Hmmm, guess he wasn’t from a “good family.” It appears there is a double standard in Boulder!

Next comes CU student Jace Robert Griffiths who admitted bludgeoning a raccoon to death in Boulder. This time the felony cruelty charges were dismissed because he had a hunting license. Really? Colorado Parks and Wildlife regulation No. 303 confirms that bludgeoning a raccoon with a bat is unlawful under the hunting statutes. Given that this is not legal hunting, why did the DA choose to dismiss the case? He surely must know the law and the hunting statutes. The definition of felony aggravated cruelty to animals is “A person commits aggravated cruelty to animals if he or she knowingly tortures, needlessly mutilates, or needlessly kills an animal.” Looks to me like this fits the criteria.

In yet another meeting with the DA, we were told 18 and 19 year olds sometimes think it is funny (or a word to that effect) to do these things. Doesn’t it then make sense to let them know it is NOT funny? It is sick, depraved, cruel and illegal. Even if you don’t care about the lives of animals, you should be concerned about the lives of humans who may suffer at the hands of people who have first committed brutal acts against animals.

Yet another case — Richard Moller admitted savagely killing one raccoon and injuring another with a nail-studded board. Is he from a good family? I suppose we will find out when he goes to trial in May.

Please tell Boulder District Attorney Stan Garnett we don’t want favoritism (or “affluenza” as national media calls it) in our justice system, but we do want prosecution and psychological counseling for those who commit brutal crimes such as these. No one should be judged on whether they are or are not affluent. Contact the DA at (303) 441-3798 or by email atsgarnett@bouldercounty.org.

Rita L.R. Anderson, of Boulder, is with In Defense of Animals.
_______________

If you agree with the article below, please contact Boulder District Attorney Stan Garnett (contact information at bottom of article) to tell him all animal cruelty cases need to be taken seriously.
 
Thanks,
Rita
 
FEEL FREE TO CROSSPOST

 




The Ocean’s Death March

by ROBERT HUNZIKER
oceansCoral-Reefs-Extinct-Dying-Carnegie-Institute-for-Science-Global-Warming-Shoal
Dead corals. Entire ecosystems are quietly dying. Meanwhile political corruption and plutocratic criminality assure there will be no remedy to any of these evils, all caused by humans.
Something is out of kilter in the ocean.

The problem is found throughout the marine food chain from the base, plankton (showing early signs of reproductive and maturation complications) to the largest fish species in the water, the whale shark (on the endangered species list.)

The ocean is not functioning properly. It’s a festering problem that will not go away. It’s called acidification, and, as long as fossil fuels predominate, it will methodically, and assuredly, over time, kill the ocean.

Scientists already have evidence of trouble in the seawater.

The use of fossil fuel, in large measure, is the primary pathway behind this impending extinction event. Excessive quantities of CO2, of which the ocean absorbs 30% of COemitted into the atmosphere, are changing the ocean’s chemistry, called acidification, which eventually has the potential to kill most, but not all, ocean life forms.

This problem is unquestionably serious, and here’s why: The rate of change of ocean pH (measure of acidity) is 10 times faster than 55 million years ago. That period of geologic history was directly linked to a mass extinction event as levels of COmysteriously went off the charts.

Ten times larger is big, very big, when a measurement of 0.1 in change of pH is consistent with significant change!

According to C.L.Dybas, On a Collision Course: Oceans Plankton and Climate Change, BioScience, 2006: “This acidification is occurring at a rate [10-to-100] times faster [depending upon the area] than ever recorded.”

oceanspacific-starfish-dyingIn other words, as far as science is concerned, the rate of change of pH in the ocean is “off the charts.” Therefore, and as a result, nobody knows how this will play out because there is no known example in geologic history of such a rapid change in pH. This begs the biggest question of modern times, which is: Will ocean acidification cause an extinction event this century, within current lifetimes?

The Extinction Event Already Appears to be Underway

According to the State of the Ocean Report, d/d October 3, 2013,International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO): “This [acidification] of the ocean is unprecedented in the Earth’s known history. We are entering an unknown territory of marine ecosystem change… The next mass extinction may have already begun.”

According to Jane Lubchenco, PhD, who is the former director (2009-13) of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the effects of acidification are already present in some oyster fisheries, like the West Coast of the U.S.  According to Lubchenco: “You can actually see this happening… It’s not something a long way into the future. It is a very big problem,” Fiona Harvey, Ocean Acidification due to Carbon Emissions is at Highest for 300M Years, The Guardian October 2, 2013.

And, according to Richard Feely, PhD, (Dep. Of Oceanography, University of Washington) and Christopher Sabine, PhD, (Senior Fellow, University of Washington, Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean): “If the current carbon dioxide emission trends continue… the ocean will continue to undergo acidification, to an extent and at rates that have not occurred for tens of millions of years… nearly all marine life forms that build calcium carbonate shells and skeletons studied by scientists thus far have shown deterioration due to increasing carbon dioxide levels in seawater,” Dr. Richard Feely and Dr. Christopher Sabine, Oceanographers, Carbon Dioxide and Our Ocean Legacy, Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, April 2006.

And, according to Alex Rogers, PhD, Scientific Director of the International Programme on the State of the Ocean, OneWorld (UK) Video, Aug.  2011: “I think if we continue on the current trajectory, we are looking at a mass extinction of marine species even if only coral reef systems go down, which it looks like they will certainly by the end of the century.”

“Today’s human-induced acidification is a unique event in the geological history of our planet due to its rapid rate of change. An analysis of ocean acidification over the last 300 million years highlights the unprecedented rate of change of the current acidification. The most comparable event 55 million years ago was linked to mass extinctions… At that time, though the rate of change of ocean pH was rapid, it may have been 10 times slower than current change,” IGBP, IOC, SCOR [2013], Ocean Acidification Summary for Policymakers – Third Symposium on the Ocean in a High- CO2 World, International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme, Stockholm, Sweden, 2013.

Fifty-five million years ago, during a dark period of time known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), huge quantities of CO2were somehow released into the atmosphere, nobody knows from where or how, but temperatures around the world soared by 10 degrees F, and the ocean depths became so corrosive that sea shells simply dissolved rather than pile up on the ocean floor.

“Most, if not all, of the five global mass extinctions in Earth’s history carry the fingerprints of the main symptoms of… global warming, ocean acidification and anoxia or lack of oxygen. It is these three factors — the ‘deadly trio’ — which are present in the ocean today. In fact, (the situation) is unprecedented in the Earth’s history because of the high rate and speed of change,” Rogers, A.D., Laffoley, D. d’A. 2011.International Earth System Expert Workshop on Ocean Stresses and Impacts, Summary Report, IPSO Oxford, 2011.

Zooming in on the Future, circa 2050 – Location: Castello Aragonese

Scientists have discovered a real life Petri dish of seawater conditions similar to what will occur by the year 2050, assuming humans continue to emit COat current rates.

This real life Petri dish is located in the Tyrrhenian Sea at Castello Aragonese, which is a tiny island that rises straight up out of the sea like a tower. The island is located 17 miles west of Naples. Tourists like to visit Aragonese Castle (est. 474 BC) on the island to see the display of medieval torture devices.

But, the real action is offshore, under the water, where Castello Aragonese holds a very special secret, which is an underwater display that gives scientists a window 50 years into the future. Here’s the scoop: A quirk of geology is at work whereby volcanic vents on the seafloor surrounding the island are emitting (bubbling) large quantities of CO2. In turn, this replicates the level of COscientists expect the ocean to absorb over the course of the next 50 years.

“When you get to the extremely high COalmost nothing can tolerate that,” according to Jason-Hall Spencer, PhD, professor of marine biology, School of Marine Science and Engineering, Plymouth University (UK), who studies the seawater around Castello Aragonese (Elizabeth Kolbert, The Acid Sea, National Geographic, April, 2011.)

The adverse effects of excessive COare found everywhere in the immediate surroundings of the tiny island. For example, barnacles, which are one of the toughest of all sea life, are missing around the base of the island where seawater measurements show the heaviest concentration of CO2. And, within the water, limpets, which wander into the area seeking food, show severe shell dissolution. As a result, their shells are almost completely transparent. Also, the underwater sea grass is a vivid green, which is abnormal because tiny organisms usually coat the blades of sea grass and dull the color, but no such organisms exists. Additionally, sea urchins, which are commonplace further away from the vents, are nowhere to be seen around the island.

The only life forms found around Castello Aragonese are jellyfish, sea grass, and algae; whereas, an abundance of underwater sea life is found in the more distant surrounding waters. Thus, the Castello Aragonese Petri dish is essentially a dead sea except for weeds.

This explains why Jane Lubchenco, former head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, refers to ocean acidification as global warming’s “equally evil twin,” Ibid.

To that end, a slow motion death march is consuming life in the ocean in real time, and we humans are witnesses to this extinction event.

What to do?

The logic is quite simple. If fossil fuels cause extinction events, stop using fossil fuels.

Postscript: Alex Rogers, Scientific Director of IPSO and professor of Conservation Biology at the Department of Zoology, University of Oxford (Fellow of Somerville College): “Climate Change affects are going to be extremely serious, and it’s interesting when you think many people who talk about this in terms of what will happen in the future… our children will see the effects of this. Well, actually we’re seeing very severe impacts from climate change already… We’re already there.” (Source: State of the Ocean.org, Video Interview, Dr. Alex Rogers)

Robert Hunziker lives in Los Angeles and can be reached at roberthunziker@icloud.com.




Declaration signed on illegal wildlife trade

Can we believe that this time—without dealing effectively with demand at the source—that is China, Japan, Vietnam, etc.—we can bring this horrific animal holocaust to a stop? 

Rebecca MorelleBy Rebecca Morelle
Science reporter, BBC World Service

 

Ivory destruction
Some organisations want to have all ivory sales banned and stockpiles destroyed.
Governments from around the world have vowed to take action on the illegal trade in wildlife.  At the conference at Lancaster House in London, delegates from 46 different countries and 11 UN organisations have signed The London Declaration.

This outlines the steps that need to be taken to stop animal poaching, which governments agreed needs to be treated as a serious crime.

The illegal trade in wildlife is worth about $19bn dollars a year.

The London declaration states that investigating the links to corruption and organised crime needs to be made a priority.

The 46 countries have also committed to improving cross border cooperation – and to strengthening laws and policing.

While the good intentions of the signatories may be genuine, the policies adopted may be myopic and even downright counterproductive. First, in our view, it’s senseless to destroy existing stockpiles that have already cost the lives of tens of thousands of elephants. The idea that destroying stocks will affect demand is simply nonsense. Where on earth this idiotic policy arose, a policy which defies all laws of mainstream economics we would like to know, but what we are certain of is that it does little to dampen the desire for ivory among those parties committed to acquiring it. —Eds

Analysis

The London Declaration could be a pivotal moment for wildlife.

With four African presidents – as well as delegates from China and Vietnam – among the signatories, the illegal animal trade has been pushed from the conservation agenda to the political one.

But now the hard work begins.

The commitments agreed will need to be put into action – fast. Conservationists urge that there’s no time to spare because the survival of these key species is on the line.

But has the declaration gone far enough – especially when it comes to the ivory trade?

Some NGOs have called for a total ban of all ivory sales and the destruction of stockpiles around the world.

Without this, they say, poaching is unlikely to stop.

With tens of thousands of rhinos, elephants and tigers being killed each year, these species face a real risk of extinction.

The bulk of poaching takes place in Africa, but much of the demand comes from Asia, where animal products, such as rhino horns, are used in traditional medicine or are bought by the rich as trophies.

Speaking at the conference, the UK’s Foreign Secretary William Hague said: “The illegal wildlife trade is a global problem and it matters deeply to all of us gathered here today.

“We need to show the world our political commitment at the highest level across the globe to addressing this before it is to late.”

Actions from the meeting include:

  • Treat wildlife trade as a serious crime within the UN convention against transnational organised crime
  • Strengthen legal frameworks and help law enforcement
  • Better cross-agency mechanisms to deal with wildlife crime
  • Endorsing governments which are destroying wildlife products
  • Renounce governments which use products from species threatened with extinction

Conservationists broadly welcomed the news, but they say action will be need to be taken quickly.

Heather Sohl, chief species adviser at WWF-UK, said: “Governments signing the London Declaration today sent a strong message: Wildlife crime is a serious crime and it must be stopped.

“This trafficking devastates species populations, but also takes the lives of rangers, impedes countries’ economic development and destabilises society by driving corruption.”

Dr John G Robinson, chief conservationist at the Wildlife Conservation Society, said the illegal trade involved “well-financed and well-armed syndicates”.

He commented: “The declaration calls for governments to crack down on these criminals with stiffer penalties and more aggressive investigation and prosecution, including addressing the corruption and bribery that facilitate these crimes.

“It further calls for addressing this crisis at all points of the supply chain – where the animal is killed, where the parts are trafficked, and where the products are purchased.”

Prince Charles and The Duke of Cambridge, Prince William, attended the meeting, hosted by the UK government.  The conference heard from the presidents of Botswana, Chad, Gabon and Tanzania, and the foreign minister of Ethiopia.

President Khama of Botswana said that he would put the country’s ivory stockpiles out of reach of the markets. As an additional pledge, the leaders of Botswana, Chad, Gabon and Tanzania have agreed to a moratorium on the ivory trade for at least 10 years, as part of an elephant protection initiative.

While the trade of ivory has been banned under CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) since 1989, some states have been granted permission to sell their ivory stocks in the past.

In 1999, CITES authorised a “one-off” sale of stockpiled ivory from Zimbabwe, Botswana and Namibia to Japan, and in 2008 Namibia, Botswana, South Africa and Zimbabwe sold their stocks to buyers in China and Japan.

In essence, by issuing a 10-year moratorium, the four African states are saying they will uphold the ban, and not ask for permission from CITES to sell any of their ivory.




TUMS latest ad is grotesquely insensitive

Par for the course in a rampantly speciesist world?
To speak of Madison Avenue ethics is an oxymoron. In most cases the same goes for taste. This is an industry that will cheerfully use anything and anyone to achieve its mendacious goals. If an assassinated president like Lincoln is made to do the Conga, along with other legendary presidents, just to sell cars, what can keep them from desecrating the image of a victimized animal few care about to push an antacid?

Tums TV Spot, “Chicken…”
Source: Foxylvania

chicken

– It’s grotesque, absurd, and surreal, and like something out of a vegetarian’s worst nightmare…the plucked, decapitated, and man-sized chicken in a commercial for Tums Ultra Strength antacids.  Standing upright at an upscale outdoor barbecue presumably where it was consumed, this most foul fowl and the man who is now tormented by it become aware of one another’s presence at the same time.  The chicken carcass utters what I suppose martial arts challenges would sound like if vocalized by a chicken, and begins to swing its sizable plucked wings at the hapless human, landing at least one good slap.  Although caught off-guard, the man responds by dodging and directing a punch at the giant plucked bird…thankfully, we are spared the full  fury of the combat.


…the announcer then interjects, “When that chicken you had at the barbecue starts fighting with heartburn,  fight back with Tums!”  Antacids apparently succeed where fisticuffs do not, for in the final scene, the man and the great carcass are playing nicely with one another at a friendly game of volleyball.  Sports is often seen as an outlet for male aggression and a substitute for war, after all…and I do so like to see conflict resolved amicably, especially when it involves the barbecued dead…

ACTION
If you think this kind of ad is indeed a gross show of insensitivity, then try and contact the people responsible for it. I warn you, it ain’t easy.  Like malefactors everywhere —both of the corporate and political sort, they hide themselves pretty well behind (literally) platoons of security honchos and multiple layers of hacks. After all they are capitalist celebrities.The agency is BRUNNER DIGITAL, and this is their “staff/leadership” page.  The CEO is Michael Brunner. The press contact listing is:
Amy Trow 
VP, Director of Marketing 
412-995-9557 
atrow@brunnerworks.com
The corporation responsible for this atrocity is: 

GlaxoSmithKline,  British big pharma with numerous consumer products. Its CEO is Andrew Witty, since 2008. This corporate suit was—get this—knighted in 2012.  Is that a laugh?