Atheists and vegetarianism

[Skavau]

Obedience is a matter only understood and peddled by atheists, for I can't imagine outside of their material world and personal gain in the here and now why they'd have to conform themselves to standards of things unseen!

Uh, the english confuses me again.

accommodate? I rather think you should be so lucky!

Thank you for the spelling correction. In any case, was anything I said there wrong?

You are not the measuring stick by which folks evaluate their lives!

No, and neither ought other people be bound by your measuring stick (as you would have them be).

No we are talking murder as would occur in the animal kingdom. You know in keeping with our aped ancestors.

Why would we deliberately take effort to keep in with the actions of our ancestors?

Do animals kill without a reason? In fact I think they show more compassion than some humans. Killing for the basic instincts and for the aofre mentioned. Do animals live in fear? I guess you gain something at the price of another.. indeed those weaklings would perish and there would be a strong orderly society..

Of course, if you're contrasting this with the animal kingdom as I think you are - we don't see this, and we now have the capacity and technology to allow the weaker members of society to live in comfort and we have the capacity and technology now to allow everyone personal liberty. We have no reason to cull the population on such extreme measures like over-population or issues of famine.

I don't think you took a course in statistics in your entire life.. it is sad when the ignorant are left to google and think they have a legitimate point!

Odds Are, It's Wrong

It’s science’s dirtiest secret: The “scientific method” of testing hypotheses by statistical analysis stands on a flimsy foundation. Statistical tests are supposed to guide scientists in judging whether an experimental result reflects some real effect or is merely a random fluke, but the standard methods mix mutually inconsistent philosophies and offer no meaningful basis for making such decisions. Even when performed correctly, statistical tests are widely misunderstood and frequently misinterpreted. As a result, countless conclusions in the scientific literature are erroneous, and tests are often contradictory and confusing

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feat...are,_its_wrong

Of course, you still outright refuse to read the link I referenced - so I'll take this with a pinch of salt as you do mine.

In any case, all you're doing is claiming you're suspicious of all statistics. So it is more selective skepticism on your behalf. Also you're contrasting statistics in science with statistics collected from information pools such as censuses and investigations by independent sources.

 

[جوري]

Uh, the english confuses me again.

Stay in school kid!

Thank you for the spelling correction. In any case, was anything I said there wrong?

Always!

No, and neither ought other people be bound by your measuring stick (as you would have them be).

Tough since societies run on majority consensus and the majority aren't atheists!

Why would we deliberately take effort to keep in with the actions of our ancestors?

Why not?

Of course, if you're contrasting this with the animal kingdom as I think you are - we don't see this, and we now have the capacity and technology to allow the weaker members of society to live in comfort and we have the capacity and technology now to allow everyone personal liberty. We have no reason to cull the population on such extreme measures like over-population or issues of famine.

Yes I have seen by manufacturing genetically engineered foods that cause end organ damage! good point ..
Anyhow the entire point is the question of ethics from your desired perspective will have no calculable risk, will be left to the devices of folks slightly better evolved than animals and with the basic instincts!

Of course, you still outright refuse to read the link I referenced - so I'll take this with a pinch of salt as you do mine.

Ummmm firstly the link is WOT warned against and secondly have you not learned anything at all from the new science magazine?

In any case, all you're doing is claiming you're suspicious of all statistics. So it is more selective skepticism on your behalf. Also you're contrasting statistics in science with statistics collected from information pools such as censuses and investigations by independent sources.

Not selective at all, having a higher education precludes one from jumping into the oaf band wagon. If you have taken at least a couple of college courses on stats. You'll know how to sort through the crap. And I can sort through the crap rather well!

all the best

 

[Skavau]

Tough since societies run on majority consensus and the majority aren't atheists!

You do not speak for the majority. In fact, this is a completely self-destructive point. Within secular society, most people don't believe what you believe. You are a distinct minority within secular societies on morality so if my opinion is disregaradable, as is yours.

In any case, even if the majority were atheists - no-one would actually be telling you what to do. In an ideal state - I have no problems with you living as much as a pure Islamic lifestyle as you can. I have no problem with anyone having a full religious observance.

However, you do not share the same ideals. In your ideal state, I and others of non-Islamic persuasions would indeed not have the liberty we would grant you. You have already admitted this. So do you really take democracy seriously?

Why not?

You know, just being the devil's advocate for the hell of it is pointless. I thought you were going to show me how it is preferable to murder than not? Just be suggesting we act in random ways (like our ancestors) and then shrug your shoulders when asked why is a sign of just disagreeing for the sake of it.

Do you have a point, exactly? There is no reason to act like our ancestors. Especially no moral reason.

Anyhow the entire point is the question of ethics from your desired perspective will have no calculable risk, will be left to the devices of folks slightly better evolved than animals and with the basic instincts!

Again, you just have a problem with the human condition. You don't think we're equipped to formulate our own perspectives without divine guidance.

Ummmm firstly the link is WOT warned against and secondly have you not learned anything at all from the new science magazine?

Reinstall your Firefox Addon. The Vexen website is not a virus risk. AVG is not informing me of any risks and it contains basically nothing but text.

Not selective at all, having a higher education precludes one from jumping into the oaf band wagon. If you have taken at least a couple of college courses on stats. You'll know how to sort through the crap. And I can sort through the crap rather well!

No, you can't.

In fact your bias is your undoing.

 

[جوري]

You do not speak for the majority. In fact, this is a completely self-destructive point. Within secular society, most people don't believe what you believe. You are a distinct minority within secular societies on morality so if my opinion is disregaradable, as is yours.

Until such a time you survey the majority door to door you don't get to dictate what the majority wants, society is composed of families as its basic units, and most families value structure and ethics as suitable environment to raise their children and live decent productive lives!

In any case, even if the majority were atheists - no-one would actually be telling you what to do. In an ideal state - I have no problems with you living as much as a pure Islamic lifestyle as you can. I have no problem with anyone having a full religious observance.

No one in an Islamic state would be telling you an atheist what to do either, so long as your personal freedoms don't impinge on the general good of the public. It is a sad state when the ignorant such as yourself speak of societies that are neither in existence nor do they have the slightest sliver of knowledge about!
Reading two paragraphs on a forum from third party sources is no substitute for a proper education!

However, you do not share the same ideals. In your ideal state, I and others of non-Islamic persuasions would indeed not have the liberty we would grant you. You have already admitted this. So do you really take democracy seriously?

See above reply!

You know, just being the devil's advocate for the hell of it is pointless. I thought you were going to show me how it is preferable to murder than not? Just be suggesting we act in random ways (like our ancestors) and then shrug your shoulders when asked why is a sign of just disagreeing for the sake of it.

I have shown quite the extensive list two posts ago, you have chosen to ignore it. and it remains if you don't have a clearly delineated system of right or wrong you are left to your devices, you add and subtract as you see fit and come up with nonsensical conclusions at the end of the day which you plaster for the purpose of having the last word not because you have some semblance of knowledge of what it is you are talking about!

Do you have a point, exactly? There is no reason to act like our ancestors. Especially no moral reason.

You haven't defined morality for us from your perspective to speak of points or non-points!

Again, you just have a problem with the human condition. You don't think we're equipped to formulate our own perspectives without divine guidance.

Where did your 'own perspective' come from? you created in yourself ex nihilo?

Reinstall your Firefox Addon. The Vexen website is not a virus risk. AVG is not informing me of any risks and it contains basically nothing but text.

What is the point when I have already shown you that stats are often wrong and misinterpreted and are a tool of the ignorant, which frankly you are!

No, you can't.

lol.. coming from you, it is a compliment. I don't look for validation from nameless computer atheists!

In fact your bias is your undoing.

good to have an objective than to forge forth on weakness to no end!

all the best

 

[The Adogmatist]

If moral rules directing behavior not to hurt each other comes solely from religion,
what keeps wolves from tearing each other apart even if they do not kneel before the cross of Christ?
what makes bees gather nectar all day for their queen's children even if they do not heed the word of the Prophet?
why would a mother bear defend her cubs to her death when she has never read the commands of Krishna?

Also, why are there so many atheists on the "islamic board"? Or am I just joining all the wrong discussions?

Oh, and I've met many atheists who are spiritualists and not restricted to the materialistic point of view. One example is Deists who usually believe in some form of cosmic energy, guiding principle, prime mover etc.

 

[جوري]

If moral rules directing behavior not to hurt each other comes solely from religion,
what keeps wolves from tearing each other apart even if they do not kneel before the cross of Christ?
what makes bees gather nectar all day for their queen's children even if they do not heed the word of the Prophet?
why would a mother bear defend her cubs to her death when she has never read the commands of Krishna?

Also, why are there so many atheists on the "islamic board"? Or am I just joining all the wrong discussions?

Oh, and I've met many atheists who are spiritualists and not restricted to the materialistic point of view. One example is Deists who usually believe in some form of cosmic energy, guiding principle, prime mover etc.

All creatures in the universe and all that is in creation are Muslim, only humankind has free will!

all the best

 

[The Adogmatist]

All creatures in the universe and all that is in creation are Muslim, only humankind has free will!

Interesting, what do you mean by "free will" and how do you know that humans, and only humans have that?

A cat can decide whether it should lie down in front of the door or in front of a chair, just like I can decide whether I should lie down on a bed or a sofa. Why would my choice be more "free" than that of the cat?

 

[جوري]

Anyhow, in keeping with the thread I think this article clarifies the Islamic objective for the treatment of animals:

Jump to article tools​

Humane Treatment of Animals

Description: The compassion and mercy of Islam not only encompasses humanity, but also extends to all creatures in the world.
By IslamReligion.com
Published on 13 Feb 2006 - Last modified on 04 Oct 2009
Viewed: 11398 (daily average: 8) - Rating: 4.7 out of 5 - Rated by: 23
Printed: 475 - Emailed: 16 - Commented on: 5
Category: Articles > Worship and Practice > Islamic Morals and Practices

God, the Creator of human beings and animals, has made animals subservient to us. We depend on animals for the food we eat and the milk we drink. We bring animals into our homes for love and companionship. We survive critical illness and live longer because of biomedical research on animals. We visit to zoos and aquariums to gain an appreciation for the spectacular diversity of life on earth. We benefit from specially trained dogs that detect drugs, guide the blind, and assist the disabled. God says in the Quran:
“And the cattle, He has created them for you. You have in them warm clothing and (other) advantages, and of them you eat. And therein is beauty for you, when you drive them back (home) and when you send them out (to pasture). And they carry your heavy loads to regions which you could not reach but with great distress to yourselves. Surely your Lord is Compassionate, Merciful. And (He made) horses and mules and asses that you might ride upon them and as an ornament. And He creates what you know not.” (Quran 16:5-8)
The mercy of Islam extends beyond human beings to all living creations of God. Islam prohibits cruelty to animals. Fourteen hundred years ago, long before the modern animal rights movement began with the publication of Peter Singer’s book, “Animal Liberation,” in 1975, Islam required kindness to animals and cruelty to them a sufficient reason for a person to be thrown into the Fire!
Once, the Prophet of Mercy spoke of God’s forgiveness due to the humane treatment of animals. He told his companions the story of a man who got thirsty on his way. He found a well, climbed down inside it to the water, and quenched his thirst. When he came out he saw a panting dog licking on mud out of extreme thirst. The man thought to himself, ‘The dog has become as thirsty as I was!’ The man went down the well again and got some water for the dog. God appreciated his good work and forgave him. The companions asked, ‘O Prophet of God, do we get rewarded on humane treatment of animals?’ He said, ‘There is a reward in (doing good to) every living being.’[1]
On another occasion, Prophet Muhammad, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him, described God’s punishment of a woman who was sent to Hell because of a cat. She kept her locked up, neither feeding her nor setting her free to feed herself.[2]
Islam laid down humane slaughtering regulations. Islam insists that the manner of slaughter should be that which is least painful to the animal. Islam requires that the slaughtering instrument not be sharpened in front of the animal. Islam also prohibits the slaughtering of one animal in front of another. Never, prior to Islam, had the world witnessed such concern for animals.
Humane Islamic treatment of animals can be summarized by the following points:
First, Islam requires that pets or farm animals be provided with proper food, water, and a place to live. Once the Prophet passed by an emaciated camel due to hunger, he said:
“Fear God in regards to these animals who can not speak their will. If you ride them, treat them accordingly (by making them strong and fit for that), and if you [plan to] eat them, treat them accordingly (by making them fat and healthy).” (Abu Dawud)
Second, an animal should not be beaten or tortured. Once the Prophet of Mercy passed by an animal branded on his face. He said, ‘Has it not reached you that I have cursed the one who brands an animal’s face or hits it on its face?’[3] The Prophet of Mercy advised his wife to treat an unruly camel that she was riding kindly.[4] Making animals fight one another for entertainment was also forbidden by the Prophet.[5]
Third, Islam forbids using animals or birds for targets when practicing shooting. When Ibn Umar, one of the companions of Prophet Muhammad saw some people practicing archery using a hen as a target, he said:
“The Prophet cursed anyone who made a living thing into a target (for practice).”
The Prophet Muhammad also said:
“‘Whoever kills a bird or anything else without its due right, God would ask him about it.’ It was said: ‘O Messenger of God! What is its due right?’ He said: ‘To kill it for food…and do not sever its head, and throw it!’” (Targheeb)
Shooting at live pigeons was once an Olympic event and today dove shooting is allowed in many places.
Fourth, separating nestling birds from their mothers is not allowed in Islam.
Fifth, it is forbidden to mutilate an animal by cutting off its ears, tails or other body parts without just reason.
Sixth, a sick animal under one’s care should be treated properly.
Through these rules and regulations legislated in regards to animals, the Muslims gains the respect and understanding that other creatures are not to be used and abused as one wills, but that they, like humans, have rights which must be given in order to ensure that the justice and mercy of Islam be met to all which inhabit this earth.

Footnotes: [1] Saheeh Al-Bukhari

[2] Saheeh Al-Bukhari

[3] Abu Dawud, Saheeh Muslim

[4] Saheeh Muslim

[5] Abu Dawud, Al-Tirmidhi


http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/185/

 

[marwen]

Also, why are there so many atheists on the "islamic board"? Or am I just joining all the wrong discussions?

It's an Islamic forum, but not a "Just for muslims Forum". That means it talks about Islam, and anyone can join it if he want to express his opinion about Islam.

But my question is : why are atheist more likely to be vegetarian, more than the others ? I mean, what exists in atheism that pushes you to be vegetarian? I just want to know.

And btw, I'll be happy if I was invited to dinner by a vegetarian : I'll eat all the meat in the table, and I'll let to him all the salad ;D

 

[جوري]

Interesting, what do you mean by "free will" and how do you know that humans, and only humans have that?

A cat can decide whether it should lie down in front of the door or in front of a chair, just like I can decide whether I should lie down on a bed or a sofa. Why would my choice be more "free" than that of the cat?

free will not to be Muslim or to be Muslim.. lying on a couch or doing whatever isn't really a question of creed.

I was looking for the article here on how everything submits its will to God, written by Ansar Al'Adl but taken quite a bit of my time, perhaps someone should find it insha'Allah..

peace

 

[The Adogmatist]

why are atheist more likely to be vegetarian, more than the others ? I mean, what exists in atheism that pushes you to be vegetarian? I just want to know.

Thank you for the enlightenment about the forum

You asked "what exists in atheism...?" the answer to that is "nothing". "Atheism" means "without/no personal God", so all that is required to be an atheist is to not believe in any of the personal Gods (Allah, Jahweh, Krishna, Vishnu etc.).
It is just like being a vegetarian means that you do not eat meat. People have many different reasons for being vegetarian, but the only thing vegetarians have in common is that they do not eat meat. Just like with atheists, there are no special rules or commandments for vegetarians that all of them must follow. The only thing is that if they start to eat meat they are, by definition, no longer vegetarians. Just like an atheist who starts believing in a God is no longer an atheist.

I do not even know IF there are more vegetarians among people who do not believe in a personal God (atheists) than among people who do (theists). Many Hindus are vegetarians. But I would assume if it was so, it could be because an atheist would usually not have any incentives to follow the holy texts that usually accompany the personal Gods. And at least the three largest middle-eastern religions say that animals are made to serve and feed humans. Since atheists do not follow these texts they have to decide themselves what animals are for, and many seem to decide that they are not made to feed humans and so they become vegetarians (they seem to decide that plants are ok for eating).

 

[The Adogmatist]

free will not to be Muslim or to be Muslim.. lying on a couch or doing whatever isn't really a question of creed.

That is also interesting. Why does free will have to be only related to creed? Why is the choice of religion more relevant to free will than the choice of football-team? Or the choice of materialism vs spiritualism? or the choice of considering a cat to be food or not?

 

[جوري]

That is also interesting. Why does free will have to be only related to creed? Why is the choice of religion more relevant to free will than the choice of football-team? Or the choice of materialism vs spiritualism? or the choice of considering a cat to be food or not?

Do you want to have free will or not? are we talking about animals or something else? anyhow here is an article that I was able to find but not the one I had in mind:

http://www.islamicboard.com/hadeeth/134291847-sun-prostrating.html

thus when a creature fulfills its duty i.e making honey, 'rising/setting' etc that is its prescribed form of worship!

And Allah swt knows best

 

[The Adogmatist]

Do you want to have free will or not? are we talking about animals or something else?

I'm not sure if I can choose to have free will or not, and I'm not sure what would be the most desirable. What are the pro's and con's of having free will?

I guess we are talking about any agent that one might suspect of having a free will

As to the animals (and the sun) worshiping Allah in everything they do: Firstly, I was told that they was actually worshiping Krishna in everything they did, how do you know that they do not worship both? Also how do we know that what they do is worship, but what other people do is not? For all I know I'm the only one with free will (which I'm not even convinced of) and everyone else are simply mindlessly worshiping Krishna, like the sun.

 

[جوري]

I'm not sure if I can choose to have free will or not, and I'm not sure what would be the most desirable. What are the pro's and con's of having free will?

I guess we are talking about any agent that one might suspect of having a free will

As to the animals (and the sun) worshiping Allah in everything they do: Firstly, I was told that they was actually worshiping Krishna in everything they did, how do you know that they do not worship both? Also how do we know that what they do is worship, but what other people do is not? For all I know I'm the only one with free will (which I'm not even convinced of) and everyone else are simply mindlessly worshiping Krishna, like the sun.

Greetings,

some questions you have to answer for yourself as to whether or not you like free will etc...
as for which religion, well again you need to establish that there is a God before you go off on tangents of which 'God'
There has only always been one God and folks trying to bring that God to a low common denominator by rendering him born or human or blue multi-colored or a reincarnate playing a flute . God should be outside of creation and outside the laws physics and the universe not the 8th avatar of Vishnu; incarnated as a handsome young man playing a flute. But that is something you have to figure out on your own time..
to me the less convoluted the more correct. God should be instinctively found as did Abraham and Moses and Enoch and Mohammed (p) reached him without rendering long tall tales of his being.

all the best

 

[Justufy]

Do you want to have free will or not? are we talking about animals or something else? anyhow here is an article that I was able to find but not the one I had in mind:

http://www.islamicboard.com/hadeeth/134291847-sun-prostrating.html

thus when a creature fulfills its duty i.e making honey, 'rising/setting' etc that is its prescribed form of worship!

And Allah swt knows best

You keep spreading this free will idea; however, im far from convinced free will exists at all, why wouldn't the choices we take only appear free? Could they in fact be influenced by society, our own particular human nature, biological factors and cetera? I think free will would be awesome, but im far from convinced it exists, here I would opt for a more deterministic point of vue.

Are we really free? Is a much controversial question in philosophy and much debate remains on this issue, I even think il create a thread about it here ‘’ are we really free?’’.

 

[Skavau]

Until such a time you survey the majority door to door you don't get to dictate what the majority wants, society is composed of families as its basic units, and most families value structure and ethics as suitable environment to raise their children and live decent productive lives!

Of course. I am not saying I know what the majority wants. However you believe it is acceptable to dictate what the majority should do. I suspect in any case, that the majority in secular nations do not support the introduction of Islamic jurisprudence - as you do. Fair assumption?

No one in an Islamic state would be telling you an atheist what to do either, so long as your personal freedoms don't impinge on the general good of the public.

Well that's a reasonable perspective. Regretfully, Islam - or at least many Muslims in my experience have a fairly low standard for what constitutes as impinging on the general good of the public. I have observed Muslims stating that criticism and/or mockery of Islam can upset the balance and existence of a hypothetical 'utopian' Islamic state, and therefore ought to be banned for the general good. I have observed Muslims making similar justifications for the condemnation of apostasy and homosexuality.

So, I hope you can respect my caution when I hear you say someone is free to do as they will as long as they don't 'interfere' with the public. I mean, what to you constitutes interfering in this context?

It is a sad state when the ignorant such as yourself speak of societies that are neither in existence nor do they have the slightest sliver of knowledge about!
Reading two paragraphs on a forum from third party sources is no substitute for a proper education!

In this context, it is irrelevant. You have already said that right and wrong is simply a matter of obedience and disobedience to God. You have already stated people ought to adjust themselves to the 'supremacy' of Islamic ethics.

I have shown quite the extensive list two posts ago, you have chosen to ignore it. and it remains if you don't have a clearly delineated system of right or wrong you are left to your devices, you add and subtract as you see fit and come up with nonsensical conclusions at the end of the day which you plaster for the purpose of having the last word not because you have some semblance of knowledge of what it is you are talking about!

You made some ridiculous claim that a government that arbitrarily murders people on the basis of population control is a good one (ironically and despite your intentions, this is not a justification for murder but a claim that a necessary evil has to exist to quell overpopulation). Now, I'm going to assume that you take this point seriously and therefore could not find a means to condemn it in a godless universe.

So I'll ask you: Why would say, a government that murders people on the basis of over-population be unacceptable in a universe that presumes a theistic God that a universe that does not?

And onto the point, why is murder more contemptible on the presumption of a deity that it is not on the presumption of an absence of one?

Where did your 'own perspective' come from? you created in yourself ex nihilo?

My own perspective is an amalgamation of my own knowledge, my own experiences, my own biases and my own objectives.

What is the point when I have already shown you that stats are often wrong and misinterpreted and are a tool of the ignorant, which frankly you are!

The information I give you are effectively results from analysis and information from census. Draw what you will, but Scandinavia does very well. As does much of Europe.

 

[MicroSalma]

I'm not an atheist, but as an evolutionary biologist I feel I can give a decent response:

Whether a carnivorous lifestyle is moral or not is a question for all of us, not just atheists. I will say that there's nothing wrong with being a carnivore; that's simply how we've evolved.

The question then becomes: if we're willing to farm other animals, why should we not farm humans too?

Elaborate answers have been given (and I'd refer you to anthropology textbooks, and also work on moral philosophy), but the basic idea is that we have evolved empathy for each other, and the golden rule is inherent within us. Why though? Because without them, we would have died off long ago.

A society cannot function properly if we're out for ourselves; altruism is a key feature for survival (and something not unique to humans!)

 

[The Adogmatist]

The question then becomes: if we're willing to farm other animals, why should we not farm humans too?

Elaborate answers have been given (and I'd refer you to anthropology textbooks, and also work on moral philosophy), but the basic idea is that we have evolved empathy for each other, and the golden rule is inherent within us. Why though? Because without them, we would have died off long ago.

A society cannot function properly if we're out for ourselves; altruism is a key feature for survival (and something not unique to humans!)

Thank you for your insightful comment. Though I agree with you that this is one of the most probable sources for human morality, I would add that though you used this perspective for humans behavior towards other humans and hinted at other animals, I would also think this perspective can be used in relations between humans and other animals i.e. that some humans use the same empathy toward animals that other humans reserve exclusively for humans (or even just groups of people).

 

[MicroSalma]

Thank you for your insightful comment. Though I agree with you that this is one of the most probable sources for human morality, I would add that though you used this perspective for humans behavior towards other humans and hinted at other animals, I would also think this perspective can be used in relations between humans and other animals i.e. that some humans use the same empathy toward animals that other humans reserve exclusively for humans (or even just groups of people).

Indeed, a lot of people feel things like empathy for other animals (essentially a 'misfiring' of our empathy for other humans).

In fact, notice how the more human-like an animal is, the more important we consider it? For instance, no one bats an eyelid if you kill an ant. In fact, there wouldn't even be a huge uproar if you killed a bird. But kill a chimpanzee, and you'll probably end up in prison!

This is an example of anthropomorphisms.