0
0

Vegetarianism and Atheism (self.atheism)

Vaxinam が 投稿

I have a question. If: All animals can sense pain and be hurt and we are conscious of this Then: How can we slaughter them in the unethical way that we do today

上位 200 件のコメント全て表示する 295
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]Atheistsilviazbitch 10ポイント11ポイント  (4子コメント)

The answer lies in the Parable of the Otter from the gospel of St. Terrence:

“I was walking along the bank of a stream when I saw a mother otter with her cubs, a very endearing sight, I'm sure you'll agree. And even as I watched, the mother otter dived into the water and came up with a plump salmon, which she subdued and dragged onto a half submerged log. As she ate it, while of course it was still alive, the body split and I remember to this day the sweet pinkness of its roes as they spilled out, much to the delight of the baby otters, who scrambled over themselves to feed on the delicacy. One of nature's wonders, gentlemen. Mother and children dining upon mother and children. And that is when I first learned about evil. It is built into the very nature of the universe. Every world spins in pain. If there is any kind of supreme being, I told myself, it is up to all of us to become his moral superior.”

― Terry Pratchett

[–]Jelboo 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Rest well, Sir Terry. The funniest, wisest writer I've ever read.

[–]Frithguild 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

Plants are our evolutionary relatives, too.

[–]Atheistnonamenolastname 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

We eat babies.

[–]Atheistternary_quasigroup 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

As a vegetarian atheist, I eat baby carrots and baby peas.

[–]SkepticParatoxical 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

We are related to all life on this planet, plants included.

[–]Agnostic Atheistlawofeffect 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

Plants are our relatives too. So why do we eat at all?

[–]yourlycantbsrs 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

Because they don't feel pain or have preferences. Animals do.

[–]Agnostic Atheistlawofeffect 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

You are moving the goal post. Your original claim was that we shouldn't eat them because we are their ancestors.

[–]yourlycantbsrs 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Do you always immediately jump to counterarguments before reading user names?

That wasn't my argument. I'm not OP

[–]Vaxinam[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

And why can't one change their mind in an open discussion I don't understand

[–]Agnostic Atheistlawofeffect 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Nobody is making you change anything and I personally don't care if you do change your mind. Come on folks. Grow a pair. We are just talking here.

[–]Agnostic Atheistlawofeffect -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

My comment was made in response to the OPs claim. From my perspective you are moving the goal post in the context of the OPs argument. It doesn't matter if you are the OP or not. That is what it looked like to me. You shouldn't assume everyone knows where you are coming from. I'll be sure to extend to you the same courtesy.

[–]Agnostic AtheistUSLogic 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

I'm confused as to how atheism affects vegetarianism. Neither are on the same level of logic. Atheism deals with a lack of belief in a god/s, while vegetarianism is a practice of abstaining from the consumption of meat. The two are not about about what's ethical or not, as you posed your question.

So I would need you to reframe or elaborate your question for a more accurate answer.

[–]Vaxinam[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I rephrased my question. Pretend I said nothing about atheism because I didn't mean it like that.

[–]Agnostic AtheistUSLogic 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I see, it change while I was composing my reply.

So your question is if it's ethical or not to eat meat if the animal can feel pain. Which would also Intel who can say that it's right.

I as a person, making my own opinion to not include others as a whole, have to say no one has the right to say if it's ethical or not. I tend to bring up the survival aspect of consumption of meats being a practical need. However, in modern society, we hardly can make a case for such. As in a man in a city has the choice to eat meat even though there is a stock of grains and soy available to them. Yet a man in the wilderness may only have the available wildlife to keep himself alive. This line of reason give no ground for ethics.

We also can make a case for consumption of meat if an animal dies of natural causes. Which tends to mean the animal did not suffer from outside forces out of human control.

In short, as I'm not a good writer and to tend rabble, I think it depends on the situation. Such as: do you have the choice, was it natural death, did we (humans) influence an animal to suffer.

In all there's no real straight answer. It's more a personal ideal.

[–]Anti-TheistiBear83 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

Because animals are tasty, the slaughtering process makes attempts to minimize pain felt by the animal, animal death is much more acceptable than human death would be, and it's easier to be a lazy omnivore than a lazy vegetarian.

[–]Vaxinam[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Are you so sure about those attempts?

[–]Anti-TheistiBear83 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Yes.

The slaughtering process is designed to maximize efficiency.

Torturing animals to death is astoundingly inefficient.

The process could be better, but it isn't the sadistic horror show that PETA would like you to believe.

[–]Secular HumanistMerari01 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Mostly right.

Except of course for ritual slaughter, halal and kosher. We still condone that for some unfathomable reason.

[–]robertx33 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Now imagine 300 humans bred and nurtured into a highly efficient farm, to be slaughtered, chopped off and be mass produced as hamburgers. Mmmm, so efficient and tasty!

Don't get me wrong i'm a meat eater, but if we get a solution to completely not mass breed and kill animals, i'm all for it.

[–]yourlycantbsrs -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

Because animals are tasty, the slaughtering process makes attempts to minimize pain felt by the animal, animal death is much more acceptable than human death would be, and it's easier to be a lazy omnivore than a lazy vegetarian.

It's not really a choice between human death and animal death though.

And why does ease for the lazy matter?

[–]Anti-TheistiBear83 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's not really a choice between human death and animal death though.

You misunderstand: if people were being slaughtered the way we slaughter animals, it would be unacceptable.

Animals aren't people, and that makes killing them for food more acceptable.

And why does ease for the lazy matter?

Because I'm lazy.

[–]Pastafarianlisaslover 4ポイント5ポイント  (9子コメント)

What the fuck are you talking about? I suppose it is Sunday though.

[–]ApatheistArtan42 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I assume you don't take antibiotics or use disinfectant. We're related to bacteria as well.

[–]Strong Atheistburf12345 2ポイント3ポイント  (11子コメント)

I might answer you if you weren't hiding behind a throwaway like a coward

[–]Vaxinam[S] -4ポイント-3ポイント  (10子コメント)

I literally just made this account, idk what a throwaway is. Teach me?

[–]HermesTheMessenger 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Related;

Summary: Cannibalism in some form was common everywhere -- not just in isolated tribes -- up to the 1900s.

[–]ReaditLore 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You open the throat first I think.

[–]spaceghoti 5ポイント6ポイント  (21子コメント)

Because we are adapted to be omnivores.

[–]sumant28 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

http://youtu.be/Z4NsMiOMmCY

[–]lnfinity 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

American Dietetic Association

It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.

Dietitians of Canada

A well planned vegan diet can meet all of these needs. It is safe and healthy for pregnant and breastfeeding women, babies, children, teens and seniors.

The British National Health Service

With good planning and an understanding of what makes up a healthy, balanced vegan diet, you can get all the nutrients your body needs.

The British Nutrition Foundation

A well-planned, balanced vegetarian or vegan diet can be nutritionally adequate ... Studies of UK vegetarian and vegan children have revealed that their growth and development are within the normal range.

The Dietitians Association of Australia

Vegan diets are a type of vegetarian diet, where only plant-based foods are eaten. They differ to other vegetarian diets in that no animal products are usually consumed or used. Despite these restrictions, with good planning it is still possible to obtain all the nutrients required for good health on a vegan diet.

The United States Department of Agriculture

Vegetarian diets (see context) can meet all the recommendations for nutrients. The key is to consume a variety of foods and the right amount of foods to meet your calorie needs. Follow the food group recommendations for your age, sex, and activity level to get the right amount of food and the variety of foods needed for nutrient adequacy. Nutrients that vegetarians may need to focus on include protein, iron, calcium, zinc, and vitamin B12.

The National Health and Medical Research Council

Alternatives to animal foods include nuts, seeds, legumes, beans and tofu. For all Australians, these foods increase dietary variety and can provide a valuable, affordable source of protein and other nutrients found in meats. These foods are also particularly important for those who follow vegetarian or vegan dietary patterns. Australians following a vegetarian diet can still meet nutrient requirements if energy needs are met and the appropriate number and variety of serves from the Five Food Groups are eaten throughout the day. For those eating a vegan diet, supplementation of B12 is recommended.

The Mayo Clinic

A well-planned vegetarian diet (see context) can meet the needs of people of all ages, including children, teenagers, and pregnant or breast-feeding women. The key is to be aware of your nutritional needs so that you plan a diet that meets them.

The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada

Vegetarian diets (see context) can provide all the nutrients you need at any age, as well as some additional health benefits.

[–]yourlycantbsrs -4ポイント-3ポイント  (18子コメント)

You should google "appeal to nature".

[–]spaceghoti 2ポイント3ポイント  (13子コメント)

I'm not appealing to nature as an authority. I'm pointing out that we've adapted to eat both vegetation and meat. Both are part of a healthy diet for our species, and if we choose to reject one or the other we can put our health at serious risk. Remaining healthy as a vegetarian requires research and skill not everyone possesses.

In the end, it should always be a product of informed choice.

[–]taterbizkit 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Don't bother with this numbskull. S/he's a notorious troll, known across several subs for picking fights over veganism.

[–]yourlycantbsrs -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm educating others about basic errors in reasoning.

Please leave me alone.

[–]yourlycantbsrs 0ポイント1ポイント  (10子コメント)

Both are part of a healthy diet for our species, and if we choose to reject one or the other we can put our health at serious risk. Remaining healthy as a vegetarian requires research and skill not everyone possesses.

This is factually false. Being vegetarian is way easier than you think and doesn't require any serious planning unless you currently eat like an uninformed child.

There are millions of vegetarians who don't have access to the internet but are still healthy. You have access, you can do the research. What's your excuse?

In the end, it should always be a product of informed choice.

Have you informed yourself about the ethical arguments against eating animals? I imagine you still eat them, but I hope you've made an informed choice.

[–]spaceghoti 2ポイント3ポイント  (9子コメント)

I have, in fact, made an informed choice. I choose to eat both meat and vegetables. Thanks for asking!

[–]yourlycantbsrs 2ポイント3ポイント  (8子コメント)

And why do you think this is an informed choice? What have you read on the matter? What ethical theory do you endorse and why does it permit eating meat?

[–]spaceghoti 3ポイント4ポイント  (7子コメント)

And why do you think this is an informed choice? What have you read on the matter? What ethical theory do you endorse and why does it permit eating meat?

First of all, I've looked into vegetarianism and decided it is not for me. I don't have the skill or patience to gather and prepare all the food required to make up for what I'd lose in giving up meat. Nor do I have the opportunity to grow my own.

Secondly, atheism offers no moral imperatives whatsoever. It is descriptive, not prescriptive. Being an atheist does not automatically include a moral demand to become a vegetarian.

The fact that I have not arrived at the same moral conclusions you have does not give you the right to harass me over it. If being vegetarian gives you a warm glow of self-righteousness then I'm happy for you. That does not mean I have to give a shit about it or accept it as a moral imperative for myself.

This concludes this discussion.

[–]Strong Atheistburf12345 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

You planning on replying to the antagonistic weed muncher?

[–]spaceghoti 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

You planning on replying to the antagonistic weed muncher?

Why would I do that after announcing the end of the discussion?

[–]Strong Atheistburf12345 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

He's being a taunting schmuck?

[–]yourlycantbsrs -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

First of all, I've looked into vegetarianism and decided it is not for me. I don't have the skill or patience to gather and prepare all the food required to make up for what I'd lose in giving up meat. Nor do I have the opportunity to grow my own.

What would you lose giving up meat?

Secondly, atheism offers no moral imperatives whatsoever. It is descriptive, not prescriptive. Being an atheist does not automatically include a moral demand to become a vegetarian.

Duh. No shit, that's really obvious.

The fact that I have not arrived at the same moral conclusions you have does not give you the right to harass me over it. If being vegetarian gives you a warm glow of self-righteousness then I'm happy for you. That does not mean I have to give a shit about it or accept it as a moral imperative for myself.

You heard it here, folks, calming asking others to justify their views and explain how they've looked into the issues is HARASSMENT! but wait, no, it is not.

This concludes this discussion.

Remember to clean out your ears next time you take your head out of the sand

[–]Anti-TheistJackRawlinson -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Good answer.

Preachy vegetarians can eat my choad. Well, I suppose they can't, come to think of it.

[–]Strong AtheistJim-Jones 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm a long time member of PETA.

The People for the Eating of Tasty Animals.

[–]Knight of /newDudesan 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

You should google "appeal to fallacy".

[–]yourlycantbsrs -3ポイント-2ポイント  (1子コメント)

They're not wrong solely in virtue of providing a bad justification. They just need to try to find a better justification.

[–]Anti-TheistJackRawlinson -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Here's mine: "Fuck 'em, they're only animals."

Happy now, darling?

[–]Agnostic AtheistThatScottishBesterd 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

At least you're shitposting on Sunday.

[–]Secular HumanistCerebralBypass 0ポイント1ポイント  (23子コメント)

By that stupid logic you should stop eating plants (evolutionarily related), breathing (what, you think your air is pure?), drinking (what, you think your water is pure?), or even moving (everywhere you step to might commit a tiny massacre). Enjoy trying to live on sunshine while you lay there immobile.

But thanks for shitposting!

[–]Y2KNW 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's Jainism, isn't it? :)

コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

    [–]Strong Atheistskizmo 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

    How can we be eating our relatives!

    We don't give a shit.

    [–]Anti-TheistCharlieDarwin2 1ポイント2ポイント  (14子コメント)

    Our digestive track is not made for eating lots of plant material. We don't have a part of the digestive track were we ferment plant material to get fatty acids. Basically, we are not made to digest a lot of plant materiel. That is why many people fart a lot when eating to much plant food. Our body uses enzymes to digest food so we are not able to get all the minerals we need just from eating plants. We need to eat meat to get fats and minerals to fuel our big brains. The brain is 3 pounds of fat. It needs fatty acids to survive. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20329590

    [–]yourlycantbsrs -5ポイント-4ポイント  (13子コメント)

    Hey pal, I think you're making a pretty basic mistake here, it's called an appeal to nature. Please look it up while you're online.

    [–]Anti-TheistCharlieDarwin2 3ポイント4ポイント  (9子コメント)

    Actually, I am appealing to human physiology. Other animals have a way to get fatty acids from plant material. Humans don't have this in their digestive system.

    [–]yourlycantbsrs -3ポイント-2ポイント  (8子コメント)

    I'm not sure what you mean, can you elaborate?

    And I'm not sure why something that happened a long time ago to people would be relevant today. We don't need meat to keep our big brains, so that seems kinda irrelevant.

    Regarding your edit: every major dietetic association in the world says veganism can be perfectly healthy. Why do fatty acids matter if this is true?

    [–]Anti-TheistCharlieDarwin2 1ポイント2ポイント  (7子コメント)

    Read the link on the first post.

    [–]yourlycantbsrs -3ポイント-2ポイント  (6子コメント)

    Says nothing about it being hard without meat.

    Do you think all the major dietetic associations are wrong?

    [–]Anti-TheistCharlieDarwin2 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Associations are not right about many things. Some say low fat diet prevent heart disease. This has been debunked. Some say a low fat diet is okay for diabetics. Eating carbs is okay for a diabetic?? Really?? How can a diabetic get better doing this? It is best for a person to educate themselves then make good decisions based on good knowledge. A person should not base their decisions only on authorities.

    [–]Anti-TheistCharlieDarwin2 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Humans need fatty acids for the brain. The human digestive system can't get fatty acids from plant material. Early hominids had a digestive system that could ferment grasses to get fatty acids. Homo Sapiens are not capable of doing this. Our digestive system uses enzymes to digest food.

    [–]yourlycantbsrs -5ポイント-4ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Please answer my simple question:

    Are all the dietetic associations who say veganism can be healthy wrong?

    [–]Y2KNW 0ポイント1ポイント  (28子コメント)

    Because they're not sentient. Plants can be said to "experience pain" as they react to injury. What do you intend to eat now?

    [–]yourlycantbsrs 1ポイント2ポイント  (27子コメント)

    Wait, you really think animals aren't sentient?

    [–]Y2KNW -1ポイント0ポイント  (26子コメント)

    Prove they are.

    [–]yourlycantbsrs 2ポイント3ポイント  (24子コメント)

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness

    See the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness.

    [–]Y2KNW -1ポイント0ポイント  (23子コメント)

    brings pop philosophy to a rationalist subreddit

    also: conciousness =/= sentience

    [–]yourlycantbsrs 0ポイント1ポイント  (9子コメント)

    Regarding your edit: what exactly do you think sentience is? I think it's the ability to feel pain or pleasure and have subjective experiences.

    [–]Y2KNW -2ポイント-1ポイント  (8子コメント)

    Chickens don't have subjective experiences, they process input through an instinct filter of "eat, shit, sleep, fuck, fight, flee". No chicken will every try to bargain for its life or try to get the group to do things democratically.

    Their brains aren't developed enough for that because they're a prey species and are too busy trying to not be eaten.

    [–]yourlycantbsrs 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

    Nice goalpost shifting. What cows or pigs? Or by "animals" did you really just mean chicken? PS you're still wrong about chickens, the science is there and you're ignoring it.

    [–]Y2KNW 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

    Killed pigs and cows, too. Cows are some of the dumbest things you'll ever deal with. I've also butchered deer, moose, elk, bear, and fish.

    I'm starting to think this whole "animals are people too" shit is the result of never actually participating in food gathering or processing.

    [–]FlamboyantTurd 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

    How many infants and mentally retarded people have you killed? THey're dumber than those animals, so ya know, it's fine to kill them. And make their lives miserable.

    [–]yourlycantbsrs -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Animals aren't people, but they are sentient.

    [–]yourlycantbsrs -2ポイント-1ポイント  (12子コメント)

    You're anti science if you think animals aren't sentient.

    Or maybe you're busy conflating sentience and sapience.

    [–]Y2KNW 1ポイント2ポイント  (11子コメント)

    Anti-vaxxers and creationists are anti-science.

    I've chopped the heads off hundreds of chickens and was more worried about getting my shoes dirty.

    [–]yourlycantbsrs 0ポイント1ポイント  (10子コメント)

    Anti-vaxxers and creationists are anti-science.

    So you're grouped with them when you say things like:

    I've chopped the heads off hundreds of chickens and was more worried about getting my shoes dirty.

    and saying things like that make you look like a sociopath.

    [–]Y2KNW 0ポイント1ポイント  (9子コメント)

    make you look like a sociopath.

    u/yourlycantbsrs thinks all farmers are sociopaths, kids. You heard it here first.

    [–]yourlycantbsrs 0ポイント1ポイント  (8子コメント)

    People who don't care at all about suffering at all show sociopathic tendencies. You might wanna reread my post so you don't continue to intentionally misinterpret me.

    [–]Vaxinam[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Define sentient.

    [–]Rickleskilly 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Because they are tasty!

    [–]Irreligiousash-27 -1ポイント0ポイント  (14子コメント)

    I would recommend you stand naked in the lion enclosure at your nearest zoo, much like the lions themselves. You'll soon realise you're not at the top of the food chain without your ability to use/create tools.

    That's how the whole world works and apart from an over inflated sense of importance we're creatures that must exist in that world. Denying that would seem to me, at least, to be supremely arrogant.

    [–]yourlycantbsrs 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

    Do you know what an appeal to nature is?

    [–]Irreligiousash-27 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Yes, I do. Can you tell me which aspects of the appeal to nature are actually missing from comment?

    [–]yourlycantbsrs -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

    No, because none of them are. You're saying "go look at lions, they eat meat, they're animals, we're animals too, so it's okay for us to eat animals.".

    [–]Irreligiousash-27 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

    As I understand the appeal to nature, it requires that a judgement call be made. That the act be considered good or bad. I don't see any suggestion in my comment that what the lion or we do is good or bad.

    [–]yourlycantbsrs 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

    You said

    That's how the whole world works and apart from an over inflated sense of importance we're creatures that must exist in that world. Denying that would seem to me, at least, to be supremely arrogant.

    which seems to imply that it's permissible.

    Do you not think that eating animals is permissible?

    [–]Vaxinam[S] -3ポイント-2ポイント  (8子コメント)

    That is how the whole world works, because they don't realize what they are doing. We do. We can survive without doing it. Why do it.

    [–]Irreligiousash-27 2ポイント3ポイント  (7子コメント)

    Can you clarify what you mean by "don't realise". I'm pretty sure the lion would realise it's having you for dinner and that will stop it feeling hungry.

    Are you suggesting that the rest of nature is wrong? It's far more complicated and dare I say, humble than we humans, so I'm not inclined to set myself above nature. Once again, I would suggest such an outlook would be arrogant in the extreme.

    [–]yourlycantbsrs -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Animals force sex on each other in nature. Is it okay for people to do that because people aren't above nature?

    [–]Irreligiousash-27 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Can you give me an example of a commonplace case where an animal forces sex upon another, which is not in keeping with the recognised natural breeding practices of that animal?

    I can't think of any at the moment.

    [–]yourlycantbsrs -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Did you try googling?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_coercion

    I'm confused as to why people ask questions on reddit instead of googling.

    [–]Vaxinam[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

    I meant that the lion wouldn't realize the full extent of what it is doing like we do. What does it even mean that nature be wrong? Is morality not a figment of our imagination? So who sets the rules of that figment?

    [–]Irreligiousash-27 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

    I know what you mean but in stating that morality is a figment aren't you sort of backing me up there. After all, saying that morality is a figment is saying that morality is not real. If it's not real how can it be applied to the natural world?

    Personally I believe it is real but question it's applicability to situations where it can only be applied in one direction. In such cases it is more appropriate to rely on common sense and logic. Is it sensible or logical to eat meat? I don't think morality should apply here.

    [–]Vaxinam[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    It is a figment of our imaginations. But that doesnt make it any less real. I meant that in the sense that without us to come up with the boundaries, there wouldn't be any morality, only an inaccessible one since there are no beings who can access it mentally.

    Why shouldn't morality apply when we slaughter animals in the horrible way that we do?

    [–]Vaxinam[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    *realise hahah. Thanks for correcting me I'll never forget.

    [–]Atheistsnakesayan 1ポイント2ポイント  (10子コメント)

    Because it's the circle of life; and the principle of survival of the fittest, simple as that.

    [–]yourlycantbsrs -2ポイント-1ポイント  (9子コメント)

    Do you know what an appeal to nature is?

    [–]Knight of /newDudesan[M] 3ポイント4ポイント  (8子コメント)

    Please stop spamming this post.

    [–]yourlycantbsrs -4ポイント-3ポイント  (7子コメント)

    I'm sorry for trying to educate folks about basic errors in reasoning. I shouldn't try to educate more than a single individual making a certain kind of mistake. Trying to educate multiple people who are making the same basic error is spam.

    [–]Knight of /newDudesan[M] 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Copying and pasting the exact same post four times in a single thread is spam.

    Any further spam will result in a ban.

    [–]Strong Atheistburf12345 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

    You've been copying and pasting the same question multiple times in this thread, how is that not spam?

    [–]Gnostic AtheistSympathy_for_the_FO 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

    1 . Because meat is delicious.

    2 . Vegetarianism/veganism are political diets not based on any sound science, but an emotional appeal.

    [–]yourlycantbsrs 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

    2 . Vegetarianism/veganism are political diets not based on any sound science, but an emotional appeal.

    How exactly can you base ethics on science? Do you realize that's not possible?

    [–]Gnostic AtheistSympathy_for_the_FO 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

    How exactly can you base science on an emotional appeal? Do you realize that's not possible?

    [–]yourlycantbsrs 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

    I'm not sure what your comment had to do with mine. It feels like you're avoiding the discussion

    [–]Gnostic AtheistSympathy_for_the_FO 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

    You don't have a point. So there is no discussion.

    [–]yourlycantbsrs -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

    The point is that veganism is based on ethics and ethics are based on reasoning and logic rather than science.

    [–]Agnostic Atheisteinyv 1ポイント2ポイント  (19子コメント)

    Well that was a stupid question. One thing has nothing to do with the other. Atheism is the lack of belief in God or gods. Nothing else. People can be vegetarian, vegan, pescatarian, an asshole, a moron etc..

    [–]lnfinity -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

    When you lose the justification that humans were created in the image of God and the rest of creation exists to serve us, then you had better have some other reason for continuing to support the mistreatment and slaughter of billions of other individuals every year.

    [–]Agnostic Atheisteinyv 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

    the original question changed since I posted the response. The original question had nothing to do with pain or anything and it was why I responded the way I did. Besides my answer said nothing about god since I don't believe in a god.

    [–]Vaxinam[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (15子コメント)

    Right. The reason I ask this here is because theists would use their belief in a god to justify their meat eating

    [–]Agnostic Atheisteinyv 2ポイント3ポイント  (13子コメント)

    Evolution itself would justify eating meat since the amount of calories and so forth is so much greater that it would take a lot more "non meat" to get the same amount. So evolutionary wise it makes sense why we are omnivores. But there is no atheist directive when it comes to eating meat.

    With advances in civilization and technology most do not have to kill to survive especially if one lives in a city or able to go to a store. People in more remote areas do not have that luxury so killing is a must. Now if people are going to eat meat, it should be fine swiftly. I also don't think they should be caged up where they can't move etc.. But that is a discussion outside of atheism.

    [–]yourlycantbsrs -3ポイント-2ポイント  (12子コメント)

    Please look into what an appeal to nature is and how you're committing this error

    [–]Agnostic Atheisteinyv 2ポイント3ポイント  (11子コメント)

    If you are going to school me on fallacies you might want to get it right. There is a difference between appeal to nature fallacy versus naturalistic fallacy. You are trying to imply that I used the naturalistic fallacy which I did not . No where did I make the claim because it is natural that it is good. My comment is a matter of fact, more calories derived from meat in comparison to non meat so evolutionarily wise and eating meat had an impact on human development. I didn't say it was good to keep killing animals, I did say sometimes it is necessary.

    [–]yourlycantbsrs -4ポイント-3ポイント  (10子コメント)

    If you are going to school me on fallacies you might want to get it right. There is a difference between appeal to nature fallacy versus naturalistic fallacy.

    I know. I've taught college classes on this stuff.

    You are trying to imply that I used the naturalistic fallacy which I did not .

    No, I said appeal to nature...

    I did say sometimes it is necessary.

    When is it necessary?

    [–]Secular HumanistMerari01 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

    If you actually did then you should be fired for getting it so horribly wrong.

    But you didn't, so that's good.

    [–]Agnostic Atheisteinyv 2ポイント3ポイント  (7子コメント)

    I am stating you are using the wrong fallacy. It is not the appeal to nature fallacy. The closest you can get based on what I said even though I have not committed it, is the naturalistic fallacy. Naturalistic fallacy is because it is natural it is good. No where did I make that claim. I did however state facts from an evolutionarily standpoint about the calories derived from animals versus non meat. When is it necessary, I already said it, so read again.

    [–]yourlycantbsrs 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

    You're confusing the fallacies.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

    vs

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

    [–]Agnostic Atheisteinyv 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

    You are right, I mixed the 2 up. So thank you for correcting me from that standpoint. Nonetheless, I still did not commit the appeal to nature fallacy you are claiming. I might have confused the names of the appeal but my point still stands.

    [–]yourlycantbsrs 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

    You are making that error because you're saying evolution justifies eating animals.

    [–]Knight of /newDudesan 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Many theists use their beliefs to justify not eating meat.

    コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

      [–]MeeHungLowe 0ポイント1ポイント  (90子コメント)

      It must be Sunday...

      Meat tastes good. Salt makes meat taste better.

      [–]yourlycantbsrs 2ポイント3ポイント  (89子コメント)

      And do you think eating meat is morally justifiable?

      [–]MeeHungLowe 1ポイント2ポイント  (88子コメント)

      We are animals & omnivores. Morality has nothing to do with it. If you wish to be a vegan, go for it - eat or don't eat whatever you wish. Claiming moral superiority based on your diet is silly.

      [–]lnfinity -2ポイント-1ポイント  (5子コメント)

      I'm sure that if someone chose a diet that required enslaving and killing humans you would say it was wrong. Morality has something to do with it.

      Many other animals have personalities, interests, and lives of their own that have value independent of what they can provide to us. You already recognize this. If someone chose to beat a stray dog, you would say it was wrong. Why then when it comes to other animals do you suddenly ignore the morality of what is being done to them?

      [–]MeeHungLowe -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      If dogs tasted like pork, we would be BBQ'n fido. Cannibalism is generally not a species advantage for mammals - we don't reproduce in large enough litters for it to make sense. It does happen in some species, like Chimpanzees, but I think that has more to do with males protecting their own offspring by killing the offspring of other males.

      Have you ever lived on a farm? Ever done any animal husbandry or veterinary work with livestock? Ever seen a pack of stray dogs take down and kill a lamb?

      [–]yourlycantbsrs 0ポイント1ポイント  (81子コメント)

      We are animals & omnivores.

      Does that justify killing animals for food when you don't need to?

      Morality has nothing to do with it.

      Why not?

      If you wish to be a vegan, go for it - eat or don't eat whatever you wish. Claiming moral superiority based on your diet is silly.

      So causing less harm isn't a superior thing to do?

      [–]MeeHungLowe 1ポイント2ポイント  (80子コメント)

      Why is killing an animal for food immoral? Do animals not kill each other? Does that make the lion & the tiger immoral? Again, you can choose to be a vegan if you wish. Why is it important to you what anyone else eats?

      Does that justify killing animals for food when you don't need to?

      So, it is OK for someone stranded in the desert, where edible plants will not grow, to kill animals and eat them to survive? Why would this also not be immoral? When push comes to shove, is the human life more important than the animal life?

      How about the domestication of animals? Is that OK with you? Or, was domesticating wolves to become dogs also immoral? How about horses? Is riding a horse immoral?

      [–]Strong Atheistburf12345 -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Why is it important to you what anyone else eats?

      It's like he enjoys living up to the vegan stereotype

      [–]yourlycantbsrs -1ポイント0ポイント  (78子コメント)

      Why is killing an animal for food immoral? Do animals not kill each other? Does that make the lion & the tiger immoral? Again, you can choose to be a vegan if you wish. Why is it important to you what anyone else eats?

      Animals can't think about moral concepts. That's why they aren't responsible like people are.

      It's important what others eat because it causes suffering and damage to the environment that are avoidable

      So, it is OK for someone stranded in the desert, where edible plants will not grow, to kill animals and eat them to survive? Why would this also not be immoral? When push comes to shove, is the human life more important than the animal life?

      Yes, that's fine.

      How about the domestication of animals? Is that OK with you? Or, was domesticating wolves to become dogs also immoral? How about horses? Is riding a horse immoral?

      I think that if it's not necessary, causes suffering, and bad for the environment then it should be avoided. It depends on the situation.

      [–]Anti-TheistiBear83 1ポイント2ポイント  (76子コメント)

      Animals can't think about moral concepts.

      Precisely.

      Animals lack the capacity to think about moral concepts.

      Their brains are not as complex as human brains.

      That's why most people find it acceptable to kill them for food.

      [–]MeeHungLowe 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Good luck with your SJW crusade. You might have more luck if the little piggies, moo-moos and lambies weren't so damn tasty.

      [–]Anti-TheistJackRawlinson 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I'm not seeing why you're referring to atheism as your question is wholly about vegetarianism.

      [–]taterbizkit 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

      Because they're delicious.

      There is no intersection between atheism and veganism.

      [–]RYONHUEHUE 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

      Well then, why does this subreddit equate atheism and rational thought? If they do intersect, then why is everyone trying so hard to dodge the question?

      [–]taterbizkit 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      The "question" only arises from people who have made up their minds that no justification for meat eating can be possible.

      The question itself is densely packed with presumptions and conclusory thinking that it's just fucking tedious to try to address.

      And ultimately, it serves no purpose.

      I don't have to justify eating food that I enjoy. You don't have to justify your choices.

      There is already no point in discussion when one side has concluded that they cannot be wrong.

      This sub does not equate atheism and rational thought. Some of its members do, but that's on them. Ask them why they do it.

      [–]Secular Humanistdumnezero 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

      It's a bit of a stretch. You should try a less simplified approach in the future.

      p.s. veg for 11 years now (5 o.l.v. + 6 vegan)

      [–]Vaxinam[S] -3ポイント-2ポイント  (3子コメント)

      What's the question? I said, if animals are our evolutionary relatives who we are capable of eating because we are able to overpower them, why should we do such a thing? Is that not inhumane?

      [–]Secular HumanistCerebralBypass 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

      We're related to plants too. MURDERER!

      [–]Strong AtheistJim-Jones 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

      You should listen to the cries of the carrots.

      [–]Strong Atheistburf12345 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Using that logic, we wouldn't actually eat anything

      [–]Vaxinam[S] -5ポイント-4ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Right- so that furthers the question. How do we feel comfortable eating plants? I don't understand why this should be a logical extension that ruins the question. It only furthers the question.