Atheism and vegetarianism

[yuriythebest]

It's absurd to say that there's a link between atheism and being vegetarian. They have nothing at all to do with each other.

very well said- you can be an atheist who is vegetrian (like myself), but the two are not related, no more than "Republican vegeterian"

[The Omnissiunt One]

It's absurd to say that there's a link between atheism and being vegetarian. They have nothing at all to do with each other.

No, they are not conceptually related. But the sort of person who is likely to become vegetarian, I argued, may be more likely to become atheist (and vice versa). Someone who questions conventional metaphysical beliefs may well question conventional ethical beliefs too. It may or may not be true that this is the case, but it is an empirical question and cannot be settled without investigation.

[Existentialist]

There's an interesting parallel for me in terms of atheism and vegetarianism. For me, atheism means believing there is no God, a stance that the majority of rationalistic atheists insist on correcting me on. Their problem, from my point of view, is that they are agnostics in denial about their agnosticism, not atheists. These arguments get quite heated. But I also call myself a vegetarian - I eat only vegetation, not animal fats like milk or eggs. The majority of vegetarians also insist on correcting me, saying that I should call myself a vegan. I think they are lacto-vegetarians, ovo-vegetarians and lacto-ovo-vegetarians in denial, and they should get off my turf and stop using the word Vegetarian to describe a diet that isn't vegetation. I tend to take the etymologically purist line: atheo was already the greek word, the Romance languages added the -ism; vegetarian means of vegetation, not milk or eggs. The world is full of people nicking other people's identities: the Dawkins website has purloined the gay Coming Out slogan. I also seem to have a lot of Tories in my life disguising themselves as Liberal Democrats. Everybody seems to want to be something other than what they really are. Why's that?

[lrh9]

It seems that a lot of people are moral nihilists when it suits them, and they can't respond to an argument except by denying that morality exists.

If it does, you should be able to back it up. It is hypocritical to require moral nihilists to have an objective, absolute, and real base for their beliefs about policy (which we do) without subjecting yourself to the same standard.

You're probably right, but moral nihilists probably don't hold majority views generally, and they're certainly not likely to persuade anyone of their views who doesn't agree.

I support most secular laws in my country because they benefit me or abide by them because doing so is better for me than not abiding by them.

I think the same could be said of anyone. Laws are codifications of policy law makers desire, and laws are enforced by those who desire to enforce them.

I attribute these desires to natural impulses and behavioral programming. I don't believe in an objective empirical morality that can be used to label people or behaviors as 'right' or 'wrong'.

I have no objection to the discussion and implementation of a system of ethics and policy based on that system, but I do object to the heavy handed 'right and wrong morality' you smack down on omnivores and vegetarians.

Face it. You haven't a leg to stand on except your personal preference, just as I have freely admitted of myself.

Where does that leave us? (I all ready know the answer.)

[The Omnissiunt One]

I tend to take the etymologically purist line...

Language is just a system of communication, so it seems silly to cling to definitions which no-one uses. Having said that, I am a grammar Nazi myself, so I can't really talk. Also, the Vegetarian Society says that 'vegetarian' comes from the Latin 'vegetus', meaning 'lively'. Whether this is true or not is a matter for debate...

---

If it does, you should be able to back it up. It is hypocritical to require moral nihilists to have an objective, absolute, and real base for their beliefs about policy (which we do) without subjecting yourself to the same standard.

Hang on... you say you do have an objective base for your beliefs? Or have I misunderstood you?

I think the same could be said of anyone. Laws are codifications of policy law makers desire, and laws are enforced by those who desire to enforce them.

Moral nihilism would not be a good basis for law-making. Rational debate would be impossible. Everyone would just end asserting his or her opinion. It may be philosophically true to say that there are no objective morals, but it's not practical.

I have no objection to the discussion and implementation of a system of ethics and policy based on that system, but I do object to the heavy handed 'right and wrong morality' you smack down on omnivores and vegetarians.

By this definition, all moral judgements are heavy-handed. Anyway, it's not heavy-handed or absolute. Some omnivores may eat only free-range organic meat, making them more ethical than those who don't. My moral system allows for shades of grey.

Face it. You haven't a leg to stand on except your personal preference, just as I have freely admitted of myself.

Maybe not, but at least I have the possibility of convincing people, as I have (to an extent) rational reasons for my moral beliefs, even if the basic principles upon which they're founded are ultimately irrational.

[Tiberius]

There's an interesting parallel for me in terms of atheism and vegetarianism. For me, atheism means believing there is no God, a stance that the majority of rationalistic atheists insist on correcting me on. Their problem, from my point of view, is that they are agnostics in denial about their agnosticism, not atheists. These arguments get quite heated.

I'm not in denial about my agnosticism; I'm just aware that atheism & agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive positions when you look at what they actually mean (as opposed to what you think they mean, or believe they mean).

As for the arguments getting heated; that tends to happen when one side is arguing from nonsensical definitions. There is no shame in agnosticism; in fact, agnosticism makes a better atheist, since one is able to be completely intellectually honest whilst at the same time neatly deflecting every philosophical bullet that is fired at them by the opposition. The same cannot be said of the gnostic atheist (the atheist who says "there is no God").

[Edwardo Piet]

I tend to take the etymologically purist line...

Well, clearly not always. The pure, true, original, proper non-bastardized meaning for "agnosticism" as defined by Huxley, you do not seem to accept.

[Existentialist]

I tend to take the etymologically purist line...

Well, clearly not always. The pure, true, original, proper non-bastardized meaning for "agnosticism" as defined by Huxley, you do not seem to accept.

As I said, it's a tendency, and I pick and choose. Words are our servants, not our masters.

---

As for the arguments getting heated; that tends to happen when one side is arguing from nonsensical definitions.

I think the heat comes from one side insisting that they are absolutely incontrovertibly right and that anybody who disagrees with them is objectively wrong. Once a person has positioned themselves thus, they often believe they acquire the right to denigrate and insult others. It's the Dawkins bin liner syndrome which goes something like "I have observed objective truth, therefore those with personal beliefs or opinions who disagree with my truth are deserving of my disdain." In the existentialist atheist - versus - rationalistic atheist debate, it is the rationalists who tend to turn up the heat first out of frustration that their "truth" hasn't been submitted to.

---

atheism & agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive positions when you look at what they actually mean (as opposed to what you think they mean, or believe they mean).

What you mean is, what you believe to be the "correct" meaning of atheist and agnostic. You may (or may not, it's up to you) downgrade this to the "majority-accepted" meaning, in order to preserve some semblance of righteousness, but you appear to be unable to concede that atheist and agnostic can legitimately mean different things to different people, and that a mature debate between equals involves two sides comparing their personal meanings for words in a mutually respectful way. Down that route I suppose lies respect for religion - something an existential atheist can easily embrace, but something that a rationalistic atheist will generally not countenance.

[lrh9]

Or have I misunderstood you?

Not at all.

Moral nihilism would not be a good basis for law-making. Rational debate would be impossible. Everyone would just end asserting his or her opinion. It may be philosophically true to say that there are no objective morals, but it's not practical.

It's the only basis for law making. Self interest governs all. The fact that self interest can be maximized in group policy does not make your morality real and agents maximizing the fulfillment of their self interests is by its very definition rational behavior.

By this definition, all moral judgements are heavy-handed. Anyway, it's not heavy-handed or absolute. Some omnivores may eat only free-range organic meat, making them more ethical than those who don't. My moral system allows for shades of grey.

My values based system can explain any outcome for a situation.

---

The same cannot be said of the gnostic atheist (the atheist who says "there is no God").

[The Omnissiunt One]

[quote='lrh9' pid='91322' dateline='1283364359']

[quote]It's the only basis for law making. Self interest governs all. The fact that self interest can be maximized in group policy does not make your morality real and agents maximizing the fulfillment of their self interests is by its very definition rational behavior.[/quote]

I'm not sure about this. Killing anyone over the age of seventy would benefit society, and be in our self interest, but there are laws against it nonetheless. Having a slave class of the unintelligent would be to our benefit, but it's illegal. Dealing arms to dodgy people who hurt the citizens in their own country would be to our benefit, but governments generally don't go in for that (though sometimes do, unfortunately). Having no animal cruelty laws whatsoever would be to our benefit, but there are some. Or are all these cases ultimately in our interests?

WHOOO! 400TH POST!!!