Atheism and vegetarianism

[The Omnissiunt One]

Polls are unscientific and don't really tell us anything. How many of the atheists are vegetarians because of a philosophy stemming from atheism? How many are vegetarians independent of their atheism? How many vegetarians were vegetarians before they were ever an atheist? Does this represent a good proportion of the forum? Does this forum have a heavy atheist population that is not representative of the vegetarian community as a whole?

These are all good points. Still, even if atheism doesn't lead directly to vegetarianism, a questioning mind that rejects religion is more likely to question prevailing ethical attitudes whether the person becomes an atheist before or after giving up meat.

Plus, an atheist is free to decide his or her own morality, independently of a holy text. That's not to say that there aren't ethical vegetarians who are believers, just that there is a plausible reason why there should be a correlation.

Also, I think the results of the poll are significant enough that they can't be accounted for wholly by other factors. There doesn't seem a reason why the forum would be disproportionately atheistic, either. Of course, it is still very weak evidence, and a more in-depth study would be needed before we could draw any conclusions.

Are we all agreed that fish do not deserve our pity and are yummy? SUSHI FTW!!!

No, I think fish do deserve our pity, and the only totally defensible diet is veganism. Unfortunately, it's just too inconvenient, plus I like tuna toasties.

[leo-rcc]

"Don't eat tuna, the fishing kills the Dolphins!"
"What about the Tuna?"
"Fuck the Tuna, the're ugly and delicious."

[Edwardo Piet]

I think the dolphin's nervous system is more sophisticated?

[The Omnissiunt One]

"Don't eat tuna, the fishing kills the Dolphins!"
"What about the Tuna?"
"Fuck the Tuna, the're ugly and delicious."

Dolphins are recognised to be more intelligent than higher primates, so I'd say that they were persons, so killing them is wrong per se, not to mention that they have more developed nervous systems. Anyway, as I said, I don't think pescetarianism is totally defensible, just more defensible than being an omnivore. But I'm probably reading into what you said too much, if it was just a joke.

[lrh9]

I'd try the dolphin too. All though I read on the Wikipedia page about dolphin hunting that they are often contaminated from pollution in the water.

Didn't see a source for that. Wonder if it is propaganda by the people opposed to eating dolphin.

[Minimalist]

White wine with dolphin?

[cdog]

Sake and whale?

[leo-rcc]

Dolphins are recognised to be more intelligent than higher primates, so I'd say that they were persons, so killing them is wrong per se

Why do you put those artificial boundaries up as to why one should or should not kill an animal for food?

not to mention that they have more developed nervous systems. Anyway, as I said, I don't think pescetarianism is totally defensible, just more defensible than being an omnivore.

I think it is totally defensible, but I don't have to defend it. You just draw a line in the sand and say anything beyond that is wrong to eat, I make no such distinction. You make a moral judgment in your food choice which is great for you, but you cannot apply those moral values on me or anyone else.

But I'm probably reading into what you said too much, if it was just a joke.

It was, but like in any joke there is a grain of truth in there.

[Edwardo Piet]

Well animals that are more intelligent and with more developed nervous systems would suffer more than those who don't, that's why it makes a difference IMO.

[leo-rcc]

Well animals that are more intelligent and with more developed nervous systems would suffer more than those who don't, that's why it makes a difference IMO.

Why is that different? What you are saying is that no animal should suffer, fine, so when I kill the animal without suffering where does that leave you then?