Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 10:13 am

Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?
RE: Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?
Funny how the natural explanation is not good enough for Atheist/Agnostic vegans when it comes to meat consumption, but it's good enough when it comes to debating religions.

And Jinkies said I'm comparable to a theist in this situation Wacky
"We are all connected; To each other, biologically. To the earth, chemically. To the rest of the universe atomically.”

-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Reply
RE: Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?
Everyone has some irrationality. It miffs me that Dawkins would make eating meat a moral issue knowing evolution has always produced omnivores.
Reply
RE: Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?
(May 30, 2012 at 11:48 am)Brian37 Wrote: Everyone has some irrationality. It miffs me that Dawkins would make eating meat a moral issue knowing evolution has always produced omnivores.

Though Dawkins said he eats meat...
"We are all connected; To each other, biologically. To the earth, chemically. To the rest of the universe atomically.”

-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Reply
RE: Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?
I will have to admit, I should be a vegetarian. I don't like how our food source is treated. But the evolutionary side of me says "yummy" so that is a conflict I don't think I will ever resolve.
Reply
RE: Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?
The trouble is that being a vegetarian will not address the issues you think it will. This all stems from our naivety (by and large) with regards to how food is produced, where, and why any given practice is engaged in. For an easy example, most of the lines of conversation in this thread against omnivorism boil down to suffering (necessary or otherwise, whatever-the-hell that means). Trouble is that we seem to be so enamored with our ability to reduce our own personal suffering that we forget the means by which we accomplish this (essentially by increasing the "suffering" of others). We are not as competent as many of us have led ourselves to believe in this arena. Some living thing somewhere will suffer regardless of what you eat, all that remains is to decide which things you don't wish to include in your list of creatures that "should not suffer".
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
RE: Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?
Quote:An Atheist doesn't have any moral basis by which he can define what is good and what is bad objectively as far as I know.

Kindly go fuck yourself.

[Image: No-one-has-been-stoned-to-death-by-atheists.jpg]
Reply
RE: Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?
(May 30, 2012 at 12:10 pm)NoahsFarce Wrote:
(May 30, 2012 at 11:48 am)Brian37 Wrote: Everyone has some irrationality. It miffs me that Dawkins would make eating meat a moral issue knowing evolution has always produced omnivores.

Though Dawkins said he eats meat...


I should care what Dawkins eats exactly why?

Quote:An Atheist doesn't have any moral basis by which he can define what is good and what is bad objectively as far as I know.


Of course not,neither does anyone else as far as I've ever seen. Morality is a purely subjective,dynamic,changing concept,based on pragmatism. If morality was objective, there would be a universally accepted,unchanging moral code. There isn't,so it ain't.
Reply
RE: Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?
I don't really see eating meat as a moral issue. It's the killing of animals for food when we do not need to that I view as immoral. I just find killing things that don't need to be killed isn't a very moral action. So, I don't do it.

Other people have different morals, and as long as they don't have any impact on my life I don't see why I should care too much. I don't eat meat and that suits me fine. I've not eaten meat in over 20 years now; I don't even really think of it as food. But I wouldn't expect anybody else to become veggie just because I have my moral objections. In fact, I wouldn't think much of a person who did!
Reply
RE: Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?
(May 15, 2012 at 4:48 am)Jinkies Wrote: Is your argument that most people here eat meat, and this is not a vegetarian site, therefore the arguments here are obviously going to be absolute shit? I don't agree if that's your point. I pointed out a number of flaws in some of the arguments here, but not all arguments on a site such as this are necessarily going to be that terrible. I'm not sure why you think so poorly of people such as yourself, but honestly not everyone has such poor arguments as you.
No, I'm saying that the number of meat-eating atheists is proportional to the number of meat-eaters in real life. It's simple math, and if you could do it, you wouldn't be so shocked.

(May 15, 2012 at 4:48 am)Jinkies Wrote: Wait, so your "instinct" affects the types of food your body can consume? That's amazing! While James Randi hasn't touched on this topic exactly, you should totally contact him as soon as possible. There's no fucking way he won't give you that million bucks for having some sort of magical body.
No, but my instinct tells me what I can and should eat. That is a rather basic ability that all animals possess. Are you saying that it is physically impossible to eat meat? Well I hate to break it to ya, but I can!

(May 15, 2012 at 4:48 am)Jinkies Wrote: Also, desire and instinct are not the same thing. You should educate yourself about what instincts actually are before claiming that they are what drive your behavior in this area.
I know the difference, and in this case it is instinct. I want the latest cellphone; the urge to eat meat is a bit different than that.

(May 15, 2012 at 4:48 am)Jinkies Wrote: I kept going on about morality because people kept giving shit arguments that I responded to. How are you missing that?
How do you keep missing the fact that your arguments are not logical as well? There is nothing logical about why eating meat is "immoral". Those are two separate fields.

(June 3, 2012 at 3:50 am)NoraBrimstone Wrote: I don't really see eating meat as a moral issue. It's the killing of animals for food when we do not need to that I view as immoral. I just find killing things that don't need to be killed isn't a very moral action. So, I don't do it.
But we need to kill them in order to eat them, and we need to eat them so we can... live! Is there anything wrong with that?

(June 3, 2012 at 3:50 am)NoraBrimstone Wrote: But I wouldn't expect anybody else to become veggie just because I have my moral objections. In fact, I wouldn't think much of a person who did!
I wish more people were like that.

(May 24, 2012 at 7:49 am)jain.rahul Wrote: An Atheist doesn't have any moral basis by which he can define what is good and what is bad objectively as far as I know.
So you're telling me you have never heard of reason? How old are you?

(June 3, 2012 at 3:50 am)NoraBrimstone Wrote: Someone who believes in God, goes on the word of God as to what is Good and what is bad.
And God doesn't exist, so your morality is based on, drumroll please...

[Image: absolutely_nothing_road_sign_lg.jpg]
"Sisters, you know only the north; I have traveled in the south lands. There are churches there, believe me, that cut their children too, as the people of Bolvangar did--not in the same way, but just as horribly. They cut their sexual organs, yes, both boys and girls; they cut them with knives so that they shan't feel. That is what the Church does, and every church is the same: control, destroy, obliterate every good feeling. So if a war comes, and the Church is on one side of it, we must be on the other, no matter what strange allies we find ourselves bound to."

-Ruta Skadi, The Subtle Knife
Reply
RE: Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?
(May 30, 2012 at 11:48 am)Brian37 Wrote: Everyone has some irrationality. It miffs me that Dawkins would make eating meat a moral issue knowing evolution has always produced omnivores.

Why on earth should any atheist care about Richard Dawkins' moral position on ANY issue? Such things have nothing to do with atheism..

The guy is a brilliant biologist.polemicist and debater,but poor philosopher generally.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Do you agree with Albert Einstein? Scabby Joe 11 4664 April 26, 2012 at 2:05 am
Last Post: AthiestAtheist



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)