Atheists and vegetarianism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alpha Dude
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 204
  • Views Views 22K
Other things can be ruined like the sanctity of their body and a regard and respect for the life they had


The manner in which different religions treat the deceased varies greatly. As an example, Zoroastrians allow scavengers to feast on the deceased in order to return the body to the ecological system.

Are we supposed to accept the consequences of a particular set of customs or views on the appropriate treatment of deceased persons on the basis that they are founded on religion?

All the best,

Faysal
 
The manner in which different religions treat the deceased varies greatly. As an example, Zoroastrians allow scavengers to feast on the deceased in order to return the body to the ecological system.

Are we supposed to accept the consequences of a particular set of customs or views on the appropriate treatment of deceased persons on the basis that they are founded on religion?

All the best,

Faysal

As a cynical heathen it would be better for you to to follow your animalistic considerations in lieu of principles and ethics, given your minority state your views and customs are as negligible as those of the Zoroastrians wanting to be taken apart at the death towers (as it seems even they are unable to practice their customs modern day) but we on the other hand are certainly free to bring up the lewdness and absurdities of your ways and paint you as the typical prototypes poster children for immoral heathens!

all the best
 
The manner in which different religions treat the deceased varies greatly. As an example, Zoroastrians allow scavengers to feast on the deceased in order to return the body to the ecological system.

Are we supposed to accept the consequences of a particular set of customs or views on the appropriate treatment of deceased persons on the basis that they are founded on religion?

All the best,

Faysal

I think that most of the concerns about the appropriate treatment of a deceased person emanate from the fact that the body has and is considered by many religions as sacred.
This is why expositions such as bodies can be very upsetting to some people, because the sacred nature of the body has been violated when we see actual human bodies organised in an artistic fashion.

I visited the exposition with some friends it was in our area this summer and curiosity got the best of us, the exposition has a certain educational value because it allows the general public to actually see the insides of human bodies, there nervous system and cetera (the bodies there have been plastinated).

In all honesty I have found some of the exposition to be wrong, for example, there was a room with numerous unborn babies starting from the foetus. But most of it holds a great educational value,( I remember there were some students in Medicine in their last year that were explaining stuff to the visitors)

so all in all a curious experience.
 
But my point was that their capacity for pain and pleasure is not as significant as ours.

I would argue that we have no reason to suspect that the other animals feel any less pain or pleasure than we do, but that many animals lack the complex cognitive abilities to translate these sensations into suffering (IMO the real thing to be avoided). An ant most definitely experiences pain if it looses a leg, but it will not wake up in the middle of the night after terrible nightmares of the episode that led to this loss as many mammals would do.

Still, I'm not quite sure as to how this relates to whether or not it is right to kill and eat other animals, only that some animals require a more careful procedure to make sure they do not suffer, or suffer as little as possible, in the process.
 
Indeed, it is the family and loved ones and their traditions that matter at this point. The person themself is dead and gone, but their memory is cherished by their loved ones and going along with traditions to honour that memory makes sense, so long as they are legal and don't infringe on society as a whole. I think the only real conflict situation is when there are multiple loved ones with competing traditions.

As for myself, when I'm dead and gone I don't really care what they do with my body. It will just be meat. I think it'd be cool if they fed me to something, like a lion or a shark, so at least my body is used as a meal and not wasted away to no benefit. I've also signed my organ donor card and would be happy to be used as a cadaver for medical training or research. Whatever benefit can come of my corpse, I'm for it.
 
I would argue that we have no reason to suspect that the other animals feel any less pain or pleasure than we do, but that many animals lack the complex cognitive abilities to translate these sensations into suffering (IMO the real thing to be avoided). An ant most definitely experiences pain if it looses a leg, but it will not wake up in the middle of the night after terrible nightmares of the episode that led to this loss as many mammals would do.

Still, I'm not quite sure as to how this relates to whether or not it is right to kill and eat other animals, only that some animals require a more careful procedure to make sure they do not suffer, or suffer as little as possible, in the process.

Good point about the difference between pain and suffering. The real problem is that we have no reliable way of determining how capable a living organism is of suffering. What you say makes sense, but how can be quantify this ability for each life form? Almost by definition we are incapable of imaging what it is like to be cow, dog, ant or pig. Though science has certainly made progress in understanding how the brain interprets and processes pain and traumatic experiences, we will always have trouble applying this to animals.

On a side note. We shouldn't forget that in the production of meat the sentient being is only a side-product. We don't really need it, it only happens to be attached to the meat we'd like to eat. For me the best and most promising solution to this moral quandary of eating fellow sentient beings is a scientific breakthrough in breeding the metaphorical 'headless chicken'. We need a way to 'grow' the meat without the actual animal.

There is actually progress being made on this front:
Mad Science? Growing Meat Without Animals
19 November 2009

Winston Churchill once predicted that it would be possible to grow chicken breasts and wings more efficiently without having to keep an actual chicken. And in fact scientists have since figured out how to grow tiny nuggets of lab meat and say it will one day be possible to produce steaks in vats, sans any livestock.

Pork chops or burgers cultivated in labs could eliminate contamination problems that regularly generate headlines these days, as well as address environmental concerns that come with industrial livestock farms.

However, such research opens up strange and perhaps even disturbing possibilities once considered only the realm of science fiction. After all, who knows what kind of meat people might want to grow to eat?

Advantages touted

Increasingly, bioengineers are growing nerve, heart and other tissues in labs. Recently, scientists even reported developing artificial penis tissue in rabbits. Although such research is meant to help treat patients, biomedical engineer Mark Post at Maastricht University in the Netherlands and his colleagues suggest it could also help feed the rising demand for meat worldwide.

The researchers noted that growing skeletal muscle in labs — the kind people typically think of as the meat they eat — could help tackle a number of problems:

* Avoiding animal suffering by reducing the farming and killing of livestock.
* Dramatically cutting down on food-borne ailments such as mad cow disease and salmonella or germs such as swine flu, by monitoring the growth of meat in labs.
* Livestock currently take up 70 percent of all agricultural land, corresponding to 30 percent of the world's land surface, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. Labs would presumably require much less space.
* Livestock generate 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, more than all of the vehicles on Earth, the FAO added. Since the animals themselves are mostly responsible for these gases, reducing livestock numbers could help alleviate global warming.

Need to scale up


Stem cells are considered the most promising source for such meat, retaining as they do the capacity to transform into the required tissues, and the scientists pointed to satellite cells, which are the natural muscle stem cells responsible for regeneration and repair in adults. Embryonic stem cells could also be used, but they are obviously plagued by ethical concerns, and they could grow into tissues besides the desired muscles.

To grow meat in labs from satellite cells, the researchers suggested current tissue-engineering techniques, where stem cells are often embedded in synthetic three-dimensional biodegradable matrixes that can present the chemical and physical environments that cells need to develop properly. Other key factors would involve electrically stimulating and mechanically stretching the muscles to exercise them, helping them mature properly, and perhaps growing other cells alongside the satellite cells to provide necessary molecular cues.

So far past scientists have grown only small nuggets of skeletal muscle, about half the size of a thumbnail. Such tidbits could be used in sauces or pizzas, Post and colleagues explained recently in the online edition of the journal Trends in Food Science & Technology, but creating a steak would demand larger-scale production.

Dark thoughts

The expectation is that if such meat is ever made, scientists will opt for beef, pork, chicken or fish. However, science fiction has long toyed with the darker possibilities that cloned meat presents.

In Warren Ellis and Darick Robertson's epic sci-fi satire "Transmetropolitan," supermarkets and fast food joints sell dolphin, manatee, whale, baby seal, monkey and reindeer, while the Long Pig franchise sells "cloned human meat at prices you like."

"In principle, we could harvest the meat progenitor cells from fresh human cadavers and grow meat from them," Post said. "Once taken out of its disease and animalistic, cannibalistic context — you are not killing fellow citizens for it, they are already dead — there is no reason why not."

Of course, there are many potential objections that people could have to growing beef, chicken or pork in the lab, much less more disturbing meats. Still, Post suggests that marketing could overcome such hurdles.

"If every package of naturally grown meat by law should have the text, 'Beware, animals have been killed for this product,' I can imagine a gradual cultural shift," Post said. "Of course, we still have a long way to go to make a product that is even remotely competitive with current products."

http://www.livescience.com/health/091119-lab-meat.html

This is a fantastic development as far as I am concerned. I just wonder how many people would refuse to eat such meat? Would such meat be halal? Or would Muslims collectively boycott it? If so I'd be severely displeased with them :hiding:.
 
This is a fantastic development as far as I am concerned. I just wonder how many people would refuse to eat such meat? Would such meat be halal? Or would Muslims collectively boycott it? If so I'd be severely displeased with them :hiding:.

Maybe studies such as this:

Fears grow as study shows genetically modified crops 'can cause liver and kidney damage'



By David Derbyshire
Last updated at 9:43 AM on 21st January 2010


article1244824003B02C700000258217_233x35-1.jpg
An environmental campaigner protesting against GM crops. A study said it can cause organ damage.

Fresh fears were raised over GM crops yesterday after a study showed they can cause liver and kidney damage.
According to the research, animals fed on three strains of genetically modified maize created by the U.S. biotech firm Monsanto suffered signs of organ damage after just three months.
The findings only came to light after Monsanto was forced to publish its raw data on safety tests by anti-GM campaigners.

They add to the evidence that GM crops may damage health as well as be harmful to the environment.
The figures released by Monsanto were examined by French researcher Dr Gilles-Eric Seralini, from the University of Caen.
Yesterday he called for more studies to check for long-term organ damage.
'What we've shown is clearly not proof of toxicity, but signs of toxicity,' he told New Scientist magazine. 'I'm sure there's no acute toxicity but who's to say there are no chronic effects?'
The experiments were carried out by Monsanto researchers on three strains of GM maize. Two of the varieties contained genes for the Bt protein which protects the plant against the corn borer pest, while a third was genetically modified to be resistant to the weedkiller glyphosate. All three strains are widely grown in America, while one is the only GM crop grown in Europe, mostly in Spain.
Monsanto only released the raw data after a legal challenge from Greenpeace, the Swedish Board of Agriculture and French anti- GM campaigners.
Dr Seralini concluded that rats which ate the GM maize had ' statistically significant' signs of liver and kidney damage. Each strain was linked to unusual concentrations of hormones in the blood and urine of rats fed the maize for three months, compared to rats given a non-GM diet.
The higher hormone levels suggest that animals' livers and kidneys are not working properly.
Female rats fed one of the strains also had higher blood sugar levels and raised levels of fatty substances caused triglycerides, Dr Seralini reported in the International Journal of Microbiology.
The analysis concluded: 'These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown.'
Monsanto claimed the analysis of its data was 'based on faulty analytical methods and reasoning, and does not call into question the safety findings for these products'.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-cause-liver-kidney-damage.html#ixzz0jhwiPRlu


are the reason people aren't jumping for the modified band wagon as you are!

all the best
 
well what exactly is going on? do you know before asking people to dump crap down their bodies?

No, I haven't really looked into it yet. I will when it becomes available. As always it will have to go through considerable testing before it is approved for human consumption.

The article I posted has a bit about it though:
Stem cells are considered the most promising source for such meat, retaining as they do the capacity to transform into the required tissues, and the scientists pointed to satellite cells, which are the natural muscle stem cells responsible for regeneration and repair in adults. Embryonic stem cells could also be used, but they are obviously plagued by ethical concerns, and they could grow into tissues besides the desired muscles.

To grow meat in labs from satellite cells, the researchers suggested current tissue-engineering techniques, where stem cells are often embedded in synthetic three-dimensional biodegradable matrixes that can present the chemical and physical environments that cells need to develop properly. Other key factors would involve electrically stimulating and mechanically stretching the muscles to exercise them, helping them mature properly, and perhaps growing other cells alongside the satellite cells to provide necessary molecular cues.

We'll see. It is not as if the current meat production process is that kosher though, with all the hormones and antibiotics used in industrial livestock farming, let alone diseases and whatnot.
 
No, I haven't really looked into it yet. I will when it becomes available. As always it will have to go through considerable testing before it is approved for human consumption.

The article I posted has a bit about it though:
Just because something is approved for 'human consumption' doesn't mean it is good for you or that it won't have ramifications down the line. Messing with nature usually has some horrifying consequences.. so go for it at your own peril but don't advise others to jump off the bridge along with you with silly statements such as this:
Originally Posted by KAding
Or would Muslims collectively boycott it? If so I'd be severely displeased with them :hiding:.
Not that your displeasure is high on the list anyway but for the meek and impressionable I hope they do some minor research before jumping on the idiot band wagon!

We'll see. It is not as if the current meat production process is that kosher though, with all the hormones and antibiotics used in industrial livestock farming, let alone diseases and whatnot.

Well the lesson to be learned here is to look for a trustworthy butcher and a decent farm that one trusts to have a 'kosher type' meat. If no such methods are secured then there are alternatives to meat from which one can get their basic nutrients it isn't a life or death situation if a person only has one onion smothered steak every two yrs.

all the best
 
As a cynical heathen it would be better for you to to follow your animalistic considerations in lieu of principles and ethics, given your minority state your views and customs are as negligible as those of the Zoroastrians wanting to be taken apart at the death towers (as it seems even they are unable to practice their customs modern day) but we on the other hand are certainly free to bring up the lewdness and absurdities of your ways and paint you as the typical prototypes poster children for immoral heathens!

all the best

Egyptians no longer build Pyramids, and the Aztec no longer make human sacrifices. What you've stated has no relevance to my post.

Are we supposed to accept the consequences of a particular set of customs or views on the appropriate treatment of deceased persons on the basis that they are founded on religion?

All the best,

Faysal
 
Egyptians no longer build Pyramids, and the Aztec no longer make human sacrifices. What you've stated has no relevance to my post.

Are we supposed to accept the consequences of a particular set of customs or views on the appropriate treatment of deceased persons on the basis that they are founded on religion?

All the best,

Faysal

Your comments about the Egyptians and the Aztec are in fact the matter of no relevance to this issue-- we are not talking about 'human sacrifices' we are speaking of respect for the dead! I have no idea why the majority of you enjoy the route of deflection when at a loss for germane and reasoned responses. Try to focus pls. I can't be made to whittle myself away because you think you have something intelligent to say about some unrelated topic! Ethics has its basis and foundation in religion and indeed you should conform to it, if you don't or can't and wish to carry out hedonism as your baseline for ethical principles and pursuits, then be my guests as stated in my previous post we will be point it out at as an immoral, unfeeling conduct that has no room for that in a civilized conservative society.

all the best
 
Not that your displeasure is high on the list anyway but for the meek and impressionable I hope they do some minor research before jumping on the idiot band wagon!

Do you really need to get so bellicose?

Anyway, I'm willing to give this research a fair chance. We can judge the safety when they finalize the process. Just because something comes from a lab doesn't mean it is dangerous or bad for you.
 
Do you really need to get so bellicose?

Anyway, I'm willing to give this research a fair chance. We can judge the safety when they finalize the process. Just because something comes from a lab doesn't mean it is dangerous or bad for you.

I do when you have no idea what you are talking about and prompting something not to the well-fare of others because it bears the title of 'science' on it!
If it comes out a lab and you feel you can chow on it be my guests. Other folks who care for their well-fare and that of their family, shouldn't be made into a phase IV trial!

all the best
 
Your comments about the Egyptians and the Aztec are in fact the matter of no relevance to this issue-- we are not talking about 'human sacrifices' we are speaking of respect for the dead! I have no idea why the majority of you enjoy the route of deflection when at a loss for germane and reasoned responses. Try to focus pls. I can't be made to whittle myself away because you think you have something intelligent to say about some unrelated topic!

As you wish. :statisfie

Ethics has its basis and foundation in religion and indeed you should conform to it, if you don't or can't and wish to carry out hedonism as your baseline for ethical principles and pursuits, then be my guests as stated in my previous post we will be point it out at as an immoral, unfeeling conduct that has no room for that in a civilized conservative society.

A "yes" or "no" would have sufficed. I'll accept that as "yes".

all the best

likewise

Faysal
 
Ethics has its basis and foundation in religion and indeed you should conform to it,
Why should we conform to it?

And how do you know that ethics has such a basis? You label some religions as hedonistic. When you claim the basis of all ethics in religion, do you really mean a specific religion?

if you don't or can't and wish to carry out hedonism as your baseline for ethical principles and pursuits, then be my guests as stated in my previous post we will be point it out at as an immoral, unfeeling conduct that has no room for that in a civilized conservative society.
I'm amused by the inclusion of 'conservative'. You sound like a Fox News Anchor.
 
Why should we conform to it?

And how do you know that ethics has such a basis? You label some religions as hedonistic. When you claim the basis of all ethics in religion, do you really mean a specific religion?


I'm amused by the inclusion of 'conservative'. You sound like a Fox News Anchor.

Sometimes advancing from Kholberg's first level of morals (pre-conventionnal morals) stade 1: fear of punishment (hell/heaven) and passing to a more evolved level of moral is a good thing.
 
Why should we conform to it?
Some individuals indeed through their own volition choose not to live amongst civilized individuals and you are welcome to that life-style if you are capable of handling the consequences!

And how do you know that ethics has such a basis? You label some religions as hedonistic. When you claim the basis of all ethics in religion, do you really mean a specific religion?
Which religions have I labeled as hedonistic?

I'm amused by the inclusion of 'conservative'. You sound like a Fox News Anchor.
You sound like a oaf what is your point?
 
Sometimes advancing from Kholberg's first level of morals (pre-conventionnal morals) stade 1: fear of punishment (hell/heaven) and passing to a more evolved level of moral is a good thing.

Indeed.

Doing good because of fear of a punishment and/or a desire for reward is not a motivation that can be considered sincere. It is motivated entirely by self-interest.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top