Both my wife and I are both ethical Vegans, We both find in disturbing how few people within the atheist community don't see the dietary indoctrination that surrounds us in the same way that they do Religious dogma. In some ways the two are often very related.....
Atheists are not so "Good without god" unless we think UNSELFISHLY about our place among our other animal cousins on earth. Ethics don't come without deep thought, study, and objective decision making. We can't just accept all religious beliefs, with the exception of god. We must start from scratch and make ethical decisions based on reason, science, and compassion. Those who do any less, are atheists, but are not ETHICAL atheists. "Cave men did it" is as weak an argument as, "God told me I could do it" Here is a post that Bea said I could use. She expressed this idea better than I could.
By Bea Arthur on “disqus” a post about a couple killing turkeys
I don't know that there's that much difference between a religion and a philosophy - They are both sets of beliefs. The only difference is that religious "beliefs" are based in supernatural, unprovable tenets that have been given by ancient (unprovable) script AND that must be accepted without question (on faith). I hardly think that a belief system that is based on justice or kindness to everyone can be classified within that definition.
If anything, meat eating is more anchored to a "belief" that a deity has deliberately put everything (including others) here for our use. I know... I have a folder that I've been collecting for years - Filled with little snippets of people who justify using animals with lines like "That's what God put them here for", "That's why God gave them to us", "That's why we were given dominion", etc., etc. In all, I think one is much more likely to be in favor of animal rights if they question old theologies and come to new conclusions on their own... Hardly a "religion" at all being that one's own good judgment is at work.
Finally, I'm sorry you haven't the ability to think abstractly regarding the fundamental similarity between oppression. Put simply - All exploitation stems from the same source. It is the mantra of power. Might over right. This can and does apply to all victims regardless of their race, sex, species, etc. It is the truth that injustice is meted from bullies - It matters not whether the violence is done to those on two legs or four... The principle is the same.
"boring diet of rice, legumes & vitamin pill supplements any day"
fear of bordem is no justification for murdering your fellow mammals
"Therefore stop trying to preach and impose yr way of life on others in a forum that has absolutely nothing to do with religious dogma"
I started this thread with a request for discussion it is not my problem that you are trolling....
Yr Question regarding 'on how the atheist community don't see the dietary indoctrination that surrounds us in the same way that they do Religious dogma'? Probably because it has absolutely nothing to do with religious dogma. Although it seems apparent most atheists are better informed or more intelligent than religious followers, and as such could possibly be found more ethical in their life choices, the fact is that almost every religion begins with the main premise that we humans were created by a supernatural being, and that ALL Atheists totally refute this fanciful claim. This is the main premise of Atheism. Further more, the basis of most religions is that we humans are almost not just another animal and are quite different from or more special than, therefore animals were just created or put amongst us for our enjoyment, benifit, or food etc. So perhaps you should be trying to convert the religious right first mate. I wonder if you see the attack of a predator & its prey as murder or a mere force & function of nature? as I find it hard to believe many people would subscribe to your view of us eating other animals as murder, which I'd like to add is basically defined in our human dictionaries as 'killing one Human Being by another'..
Now I'm not sure what trolling means, but I suspect it's a derogatory term & an attack on me from you, but if you were asking for a discussion about Atheism, religious dogma and vegetarianism, from my view point it is totally unrelated which you have not been able to argue, so whether you feel its unethical to eat other animals is an entirely different argument... I'm not only entitled to respond to this, but it seems that because you cannot reframe your question or see you were wrong in the first place and also don't like my response, you feel the need to attack me, therefore perhaps you are the troll, whatever it means?
Further more, I notice you were not able to respond to Alice Carrs story & terrible tragedy of loosing her baby, which I might add, I know of 2 other women who were absolute vegans and were told by doctors to change their diet to include some animal products for the sake of their health & that of their babies
Trolling just means to coast through posts looking for arguments. ( so i can not troll my own post..)
In relation to my response to a predator "I will defend my self with all force needed". However this applies to human predators as well so I don't see the point. Your response is more indicative of guilt and denial rather than logic. Atheism usually stems from being skeptical. If you are truly skeptical of our modern diet you would see that it is not ethical to kill other sentient beings. It is impossible to convince religious people to be ethical in relation to animals as they believe that animal are here for us to exploit. Once the illusion of religion is removed it leaves us to make ethical choices based on our options in relation to our own survival and the other creatures around us. If it were not possible to be VEGAN then we would have no choice but to kill, However it is possible so it is the most ethical choice. On the other hand even if it were not possible to be fully VEGAN we would still be far less than ethical to consume mammals and to a slightly lesser extent avians.
This Issue is directly related to Atheism because without atheism animals have no rights nor any accepted level of sentience.
Isn't plant based agriculture responsible for the death of large numbers of animals mostly due to habitat destruction? Wouldn't the adoption of universal vegitarianism lead to the decimation of populations of domestic animals normally used for food? Aren't the ethical questions surrounding meat in the diet much more complicated than you suggest?
You claim that a vegan diet is 'the most ethical choice' but you don't give us convincing arguments. Your claim that religion is the primary justification for using animals as food is a straw man argument. Including meat in the diet is ethically justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with religion.
Actualy that is totally incorrect. almost 90 percent of agriculture is to feed livestock. If all livestock feed and pastural land was converted to grow just for human consumption we would have on conservative estimates over 5 times the amount of food required to feed all humans, hence Much land could be reclaimed and used as regeneration for CO2 reduction. This is obvious when you consider the amount of calorie consumption of an animal over its life time verses the net yield of calories that the slaughtered animal provides in the end. See the point...its pretty obvious.
I do not claim that religion is the primary justification for consuming animals. I say that once you remove the visor of religion and use just logical ethics. It is unjustifiable when one looks at the cost to the sentient fellow mammals and just as bad for climate change by the way. Almost 20 percent of total green house emissions worldwide are from livestock. So removing every car off the planet would have less effect than global change to a vegan diet.
We are indoctrinated in to more societal norms than just religion and animal consumption is one of those norms. It is plain wrong and future humans will recognise that just as we recognise the fallacy of religion.
"Aren't the ethical questions surrounding meat in the diet much more complicated than you suggest?"
Does the difficulty of the task justify not changing our ways? .... I would also ask you to provide examples of these difficulties so as we can debate them.
"Wouldn't the adoption of universal vegitarianism lead to the decimation of populations of domestic animals normally used for food?"
Obviously the inertia of change would facilitate the decline of livestock just through reduced breeding over that period. five years would be enough as most livestock never sees year longer. In relation to the reduced population of the livestock breeds. Many have said " there are things far worse than never having been born" ...slavery comes to mind, the production of animals for food is far worse than that.
"You claim that a vegan diet is 'the most ethical choice' but you don't give us convincing arguments."
If you read the posts you will see plenty of arguments for this ethical choice and more to come when you try to convince me of your ethical reason for not choosing a vegan diet.
"Including meat in the diet is ethically justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with religion."
on what ethical grounds?
On what ethical ground? Killing animals for food is unnecessary. Causing others to suffer and die is unethical. "Wouldn't the adoption of universal vegitarianism lead to the decimation of populations of domestic animals normally used for food?" Are you trying to convince us that you care about domesticated animals used for food? Really? Breeding more cows that people just to kill them when they reach 1/10th of their normal lifespans is somehow of benefit to them? As a meat eater you use 10 times as much land for your food than does a vegan. Even if the suffering of other animals is fine with you, using more land to eat than is necessary is selfish toward the 7 billion plus humans swarming the earth.
Why does chris robinson refer to atheists as "they" instead of "we"?
Good point.....freudian slip maybe?
"Further more, I notice you were not able to respond to Alice Carrs story & terrible tragedy of loosing her baby, which I might add, I know of 2 other women who were absolute vegans and were told by doctors to change their diet to include some animal products for the sake of their health & that of their babies"
This is simple anecdotal evidence, come on if that is the foundation of your argument its no wonder you conceded defeat and walked of with your tail between your legs.
The point is I guarantee none of these people new what they were doing diet wise and did not supplement properly. I would also point out that just because you know of three vegans that have lost a pregnancy in early term is hardly evidence. I know of 3 people that have died and all watched the nightly news....does that mean the nightly news killed them......you argue like a christian .........you are an idiot....