Richard Dawkins claims we should eat lab-grown human meat

[Brian37]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...-meat.html

He says it will help us overcome the taboo against cannibalism.

This was his actual tweet: https://mobile.twitter.com/richarddawkin...05?lang=en

Richard the nutcase strike once again.  
Glad however to see that atheists do not buy 100% of his crap  meat.  

Religion has no right to lecture.

"This is my body and my blood".

If Christians can call that metaphor, then what would make you think he was being literal?

I'd agree that cannibalism does exist and we do observe it, even in other species, but we also observe tornados, but no, I don't want to eat human meat even if cloned. We can simulate tornados too, but I would not want to be in the path of an F5. 

I think he really was just saying morals are not absolute, but did not choose his words wisely. 

If I was face to face with him I'd want to smack him and say, " You better clarify that shit, because you are not making any sense."


Surprise Lik, despite what far too many theists have been sold, we don't always agree.

[Fake Messiah]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...-meat.html

He says it will help us overcome the taboo against cannibalism.

This was his actual tweet: https://mobile.twitter.com/richarddawkin...05?lang=en

Reading his tweet it seems to me that he just asked a hypothetical question and not actually said that we or anyone should eat human meat.

[Brian37]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...-meat.html

He says it will help us overcome the taboo against cannibalism.

This was his actual tweet: https://mobile.twitter.com/richarddawkin...05?lang=en

Reading his tweet it seems to me that he just asked a hypothetical question and not actually said that we or anyone should eat human meat.

Yea I know, but that is the type of bullshit that feeds theists fears.

Hypothetically I could pay to have a "Real Doll" sex doll ....google it...... made in the image of my sister and fuck it. Would I do that? HELL FUCKING NO!

I lean to him simply making a stupid poorly worded statement. Why would you word it like that?

[The Grand Nudger]

Fair point... there are some species that engage in cannibalism... Praying Mantis' and maybe some types of spiders come to mind... but for them, though I've not got the slightest clue why they do that, it seems to be part of their lifecycle... not just individually but as a group... ie their reproductive goals are met... so in the balance of the whatever counts as their 'society'/collective, especially where there are many males to one female or whatever (ie like a hive, where some are expendible in service to the queen), it just doesn't seem to be detrimental at all to their success as a species. In other words it just seems that that's a finely balanced part of their ecosystem.

They need to eat, the food is there, so they eat.  The point of showing those sorts of ritual cannibalistic acts is that it demolishes any notion that cannibalism is somehow universally a bad idea in any evolutionary sense - a thing flatly selected against.  More mundane acts of cannibalism than any spider eating it's mate come next.  It rains food on the ocean floor from all the incidental cannibalism that goes down.  We've seen people do it, and we've seen other apes do it.  Cannibalism is present at every level and organization of life..from the smallest and "simplest" organisms up to ourselves.  Maybe because we all need to eat..hehehe.

But in the human case it would not be like that... not part of our nature but rather a deviation from it, and thus something that could upset that equivalent balance. If that makes sense? You're making me think more than I was planning to in this thread... I was just dipping in the middle of watching a programme

"Our nature" is not a thing set in stone.  It's only a deviation from "our nature" in that we don't do it..but cannibalism is the "nature" of a cannibal and not eating people would be a deviation form his "nature".  What balance would it, or could it, upset? It doesn't seem to be upsetting anything anywhere else.

More thought is always a plus, eh? So, about the above..and things we think make sense. Would it be fair to notice that your idea of the "balance" we find ourselves in, conceptualized as a natural balance..is more accurately a social balance? That you think that cannibalism is a deviation because it;s a deviation from your culture? That your notions of natural balance are silently informed by your cultural assumptions.

[Amarok]

Tell me again about transubstantiation.

Ok. What would you like to know about it?

Does or does not catholicism state that bread and wine become the literal flesh and blood of human being . Which is then consumed ?

[Angrboda]

Intelligence can be eaten!


"One ape discovered that eating the fresh brain of one's own kind increases the sexual impulses. He and his descendants became addicted to brains and hunted for them. It was not until later that they noticed that their intelligence increased as a result. The outcome of this process is HOMO SAPIENS."
— The Beginning was the End, p. 37

[Wikipedia || The Beginning Was the End]

[Catholic_Lady]

Ok. What would you like to know about it?

Does or does not catholicism state that bread and wine become the literal flesh and blood of human being . Which is then consumed ?

..In the physical form of bread and wine. This in no way means we think it is ethical or healthy to eat dead people. The Church is actually against such practice unless in cases of life and death.

[Amarok]

Does or does not catholicism state that bread and wine become the literal flesh and blood of human being . Which is then consumed ?

..In the physical form of bread and wine. This in no way means we think it is ethical or healthy to eat dead people. The Church is actually against such practice unless in cases of life and death.

Yeah that does not really answer the question .Saying it's in bread form does not really make it any less flesh of a human . The church seems to be against it except for something that sounds a great deal like it .

[Catholic_Lady]

..In the physical form of bread and wine. This in no way means we think it is ethical or healthy to eat dead people. The Church is actually against such practice unless in cases of life and death.

Yeah that does not really answer the question .Saying it's in bread form does not really make it any less flesh of a human . The church seems to be against it except for something that sounds a great deal like it .

Ok

[Brian37]

Does or does not catholicism state that bread and wine become the literal flesh and blood of human being . Which is then consumed ?

..In the physical form of bread and wine. This in no way means we think it is ethical or healthy to eat dead people. The Church is actually against such practice unless in cases of life and death.

Um no, we are not talking about modern western interpretations.

BACK THEN it was literally SOLD as magic, BACK THEN. 

But in reality it was a literary propaganda to compete with the animal sacrifice of polytheism.

Of course you don't view it that way, and I am glad you dont. But back then the motif of the magic of blood sacrifice was the social norm. All Christianity did was take that motif and change the interpretation.

It does not matter to me one bit, in discussing the motifs of polytheism or monotheism with blood sacrifice, animal or human. Humans back then mistook both animal blood and human blood as having magic powers.