How do religious people justify raising and slaughtering animals for food?

[notimportant1234]

I think the difference here is that you speak about ethics and our comfort and I'm questioning our survival in different circumstances.

Edit: You changed your post 3 times . Now the matters that you are aproaching are not really biological unless , are you stating that beeing an omnivore is a flaw ? Because the rest is just tehnology , you didn't improve something biological you just found a way to catch pray easier. Do i denie that we made our life easier through science ? No. Did we made any "improvements" on the enviroment ? No. We just found better ways to do our jobs , not an improvement on us at all , with all the tehnology we haven't evolved that much psychological we just have better masks.

[Shell B]

I don't see why it makes a difference to you, whether someone is religiois or not in this case. If you think raising/eating animals is immoral, it should be immoral for everyone. I don't see why you think religious people need to justify an action and atheist people don't have to justify that same action.

I think the point isn't that religious people have to justify it and non-religious people do not. I think the point is that your moral compass is inherently different, as it has to factor in god, biblical teachings, etc. It's not a question without merit. How do you justify killing and eating animals as opposed to how atheists do it? Is it different? Does god care? It's a fair question. He did say he can't justify it, so it's clear he's attempted to and come up short.

[The Grand Nudger]

We had to invent agriculture to survive, which -is- a method of exploiting autotrophism.  Ofc I'm talking ethics, because we were talking ethics....but moving the goalpost doesn't help.  "God" fucked the pooch on that one too, if we wish to believe in such things.

We came into this world without clothing, without shelter, without sufficient means of feeding ourselves. Without the ability to hedge against the various diseases, injuries, and illnesses that would plague us directly as a result of seeking out the fisrt three, and some..even, that are unique to us.

This, Not..is "the design". Do you consider it unimproved? Is there some "but what if" that would make an improvement in our ability to feed ourselves, itself already improved by our own hands..somehow, not an improvement?

More fundamentally, this "survival" business sounds like a metric of evolutionary biology, not divine power and ability...pretty sure I already handled that. Unless we're discussing an incompetent creator, "survival" is planned obsolescence.

[notimportant1234]

We are just going into the absurd here, but I'll go along . Would it had helped if we had absolute knowledge from the start ? Imagine what would a barbarian would do if he would have known how to make a nuclear bomb or to make guns because if you want scientifical knwoledge from the start then that kind of information would have been available also there is no half measure. I mean we have brains, this are problems that we can solve and are the only problems that we are trying to solve , we tryed so little to improve ourselfs

[The Grand Nudger]

We are just going into the absurd here, but I'll go along . Would it had helped if we had absolute knowledge from the start ?

Probably, but we didn't and still don't possess it....yet managed to improve upon the purported design of a creature that allegedly does.  Something is amiss.

Imagine what would a barbarian would do if he would have known how to make a nuclear bomb or to make guns because if you want scientifical knwoledge from the start then that kind of information would have been available also there is no half measure. I mean we have brains, this are problems that we can solve and are the only problems that we are trying to solve , we tryed so little to improve ourselfs

A "barbarian" would do what we do, they were fully modern human beings.  We all owe alot to them, they were solving problems with less knowledge under harsher conditions. That there are problems to solve in the first place acknowledges flaws in the purported design.

Above, all I see is "we don;t solve all the problems, we don;t solve enough of the problems, we haven't improved ourselves enough". Well..okay, but we're pushing that rock...aren't we? Heaven sits, arms folded. Silent and unhelpful.

[Minimalist]

How do religious people justify raising and slaughtering animals for food?

Perhaps they are hungry?

[Catholic_Lady]

I don't see why it makes a difference to you, whether someone is religiois or not in this case. If you think raising/eating animals is immoral, it should be immoral for everyone. I don't see why you think religious people need to justify an action and atheist people don't have to justify that same action.

I think the point isn't that religious people have to justify it and non-religious people do not. I think the point is that your moral compass is inherently different, as it has to factor in god, biblical teachings, etc. It's not a question without merit. How do you justify killing and eating animals as opposed to how atheists do it? Is it different? Does god care? It's a fair question. He did say he can't justify it, so it's clear he's attempted to and come up short.

In that case, I can only speak for my own faith and say that we do not consider it sinful to eat meat. So, justification isn't necessary.

[notimportant1234]

Well I somehow agree with "they were fully modern human beeings" , you are just reinforcing my statement , we just have better masks. But the difference betwen the scientists/philosophers and the rest of the population was much bigger , today it is almost unnoticable.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well I somehow agree with "they were fully modern human beeings" , you are just reinforcing my statement , we just have better masks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_modernity

Full modernity is a term for populations that express anatomic and behavioral equivalence to our own.  It's not a comment on how we're savages with "better masks".  

But the difference betwen the scientists/philosophers and the rest of the population was much bigger , today it is almost unnoticable.

I beg to differ, but who cares...I find it absurd that in a failure to defend the notion of a creator on ethical grounds the conversation invariably turns to the inequity and shortcomings of man.  

This servile debasement of our nature and our accomplishments makes little sense in context...as even if we were savages with better masks..we still improved the design of a god.  The bar for divinity gets lower and lower.

[Shell B]

I think the point isn't that religious people have to justify it and non-religious people do not. I think the point is that your moral compass is inherently different, as it has to factor in god, biblical teachings, etc. It's not a question without merit. How do you justify killing and eating animals as opposed to how atheists do it? Is it different? Does god care? It's a fair question. He did say he can't justify it, so it's clear he's attempted to and come up short.

In that case, I can only speak for my own faith and say that we do not consider it sinful to eat meat. So, justification isn't necessary.

Well, you've kind of justified it by saying it isn't sinful. That's your justification. As for me, I justify it on basis of being hungry and liking the taste. If that's not good enough for veggie types, tough.