"I respect your religion." Why should we?

[H3LL]

Your hear and read statements similar to "I don't agree/believe/accept your religion/belief, but I respect that it is important to you." Plus the PC attitude that seems to bend over backwards to be respectful to any and all religion.

Why?

Why should we respect anothers misguided/deluded/dangerous/damaging religion?

It is common to hear about respect for other religions, but the same attitude is not extended to other areas. For example, if a person/organisation is a Holocaust denier, what right minded person would say that they respect that. The same if they were in a cult that sacrificed people, or a group that is overtly racist or sexist etc. I have heard a person say that black people are not really proper humans and god does not care for them. Why should I either respect his racist view or the religion that he subscribes to. He's a scumbag...plain and simple. There is enough that is repulsive in the dogma of religions for the comparison to be valid.

I have stated several times that evidence suggests that all religions are fundamentally bad for humanity, hiding their agenda behind a few altruistic deeds and have yet to see any evidence to the contrary; although I keep looking for some strange reason.

Respect: To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem.

I hold no deferential regard or esteem for religious organisations, only abhorrence and disdain. Why should I be compelled to respect them or those that promote such things?

Should we be more honest and instead of showing respect say something like "I don't agree/believe/accept your religion/belief, and I consider it abhorrent and a cancer in society which would be better served if it were removed."

I can think of little that is less deserving of respect than religion.

Just asking.

[AGENT-ADAIR]

I dont respect narrow thinking and baseless theorys, sorry.

[Genesius]

Why should we respect anothers misguided/deluded/dangerous/damaging religion?


You can, of course, prove that religion is misguided/damaging. . . ?

Speaking for myself, It's a simple case of fair play - I respect their beliefs in the hope that they will, in turn, respect my lack of them. You know, the old "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I reserve the right to not respect individual believers. Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps, and similar whackjobs don't deserve anything but scorn. But I won't disrespect someone just because they have faith, simply because there is a nonzero chance that they might actually be right.

I have stated several times that evidence suggests that all religions are fundamentally bad for humanity, hiding their agenda behind a few altruistic deeds and have yet to see any evidence to the contrary; although I keep looking for some strange reason.

And that evidence is?

I dunno, maybe it's just where I was raised. Having lived around Amish & Mennonites all my life, I've known them to be generally very nice people, always ready to lend a hand even to a nonbeliever. They don't browbeat you with their faith, they're more than willing to let you go your way as long as you let them go theirs. So tell me why I should not show them any respect?

[AGENT-ADAIR]

You can, of course, prove that religion is misguided/damaging. . . ?

Speaking for myself, It's a simple case of fair play - I respect their beliefs in the hope that they will, in turn, respect my lack of them. You know, the old "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I reserve the right to not respect individual believers. Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps, and similar whackjobs don't deserve anything but scorn. But I won't disrespect someone just because they have faith, simply because there is a nonzero chance that they might actually be right.



And that evidence is?

I dunno, maybe it's just where I was raised. Having lived around Amish & Mennonites all my life, I've known them to be generally very nice people, always ready to lend a hand even to a nonbeliever. They don't browbeat you with their faith, they're more than willing to let you go your way as long as you let them go theirs. So tell me why I should not show them any respect?
Show them respect, not their religion?:D

[SwissSkeptic]

I don't respect any religion, but I respect everybody's right to choose and practice any religion they want.

[Z]

I respect religions that don't impose themselves on other people, and whose codes of behavior don't lead to intolerance or supression of others.

This reduces the list rather rapidly, doesn't it?

And, of course, I respect Discordianism. Seeing as how Eris is clearly in control of the universe, and all... :dragon:

[Mephisto]

I don't "respect" anyone's religion simply because they practice it, but I am very wary of most religious people's tendency to defend their religion to the death. Throughout history, religious argument was the quickest way to get oneself killed. I don't feel that's changed much on a global basis, but it's still "iffy" on a personal basis.

My general rule is: don't disrespect anyone's religion if they've got a gun.

[TragicMonkey]

I always thought "respect" meant "don't let on how ridiculous you think other people are".

[Mercutio]

When I am at my most cynical (so, very very rarely...of course), I note that most religions have two fundamental tenets. 1) we are right. 2) everybody else is wrong.

Since I agree with half of what they say, I think that counts as respect.

[Thomas]

It's funny how religion very often has shown little-to-none respect for various non-believers. Just think of the inquisition.
And now when they can't torture and murder their opposition anymore (within legal means), they want respect! Yea riiiight!

I will respect individual persons, and there is more than one believer on this board who I respect, but I definately do not respect their assumed lunacy.

Man will never truly be free until the last king has been strangled with the entrails of the last priest. -Voltaire

[H3LL]

You can, of course, prove that religion is misguided/damaging. . . ?
....And that evidence is? .....

Oh I don't know...Just stuff you get regularly in the news. I'll grab a paper at random and see what I can find.....

Here you go. I have a newspaper that was lying on the floor (tut!) from last Thursday, October 6th...I'll have a look.....

How about this....

Thursday 6th
Honour killing
Arash Ghorbani-Zarin was stabbed 46 times in an attack so brutal that the suspected murder weapon snapped

Why? Because he was in love with a girl that had an arranged marriage pending. Her family considered the attack a solution.

[Mr Baughan - Prosecution, told the court]..."It [the relationship] was not in accordance with the family's religious belief and protocol"

Nope...No harm there what-so-ever. :mad:

ETA: Maybe you can come back to us and explain what it is about the story that is not, as I suggested, misguided/deluded/dangerous/damaging.

[Chimera]

zaayrdragon wrote:
I respect religions that don't impose themselves on other people, and whose codes of behavior don't lead to intolerance or supression of others.

I agree, and want to add...

How can one respect a religion that supports extreme cruelty (damnation, hellfire, etc.) for those who don't follow it?

and

How can one respect a religion that supports a total lack of morality (you don't decide what is moral, you blindly obey your leader)?

Christianity and Islam are two major culprits here.

[wolfgirl]

I dunno, maybe it's just where I was raised. Having lived around Amish & Mennonites all my life, I've known them to be generally very nice people, always ready to lend a hand even to a nonbeliever. They don't browbeat you with their faith, they're more than willing to let you go your way as long as you let them go theirs. So tell me why I should not show them any respect?

I've had this argument on here a few times. I DO NOT respect religion. It is baseless and requires a suspension of rational thought. I cannot respect the following of such beliefs. I can, however, show people respect, respect for their behavior, their kindness, etc., without showing respect for their religion. Religion is just silly! (And yes, I'm aware that that's not a scientific claim, just an opinion.)

[jjramsey]

I note that most religions have two fundamental tenets. 1) we are right. 2) everybody else is wrong.

Those who believe evolution is true believe that they are right and that everyone who doesn't believe that evolution is true is wrong. Those who believe the earth is round believe that they are right and that everyone who believes the earth is flat is wrong. Part and parcel of holding any firm belief is the implication that those who believe the opposite are wrong, and provided that one has warrant for believing firmly, there is nothing wrong with this.

The problem lies not in believing "I am right/you are wrong" but in not having sufficient warrant for such firm belief in the first place.

[Thomas]

The problem lies not in believing "I am right/you are wrong" but in not having sufficient warrant for such firm belief in the first place.
And you are well aware that religion doesn't have "sufficient warrant" for most of its claims concerning cosmology, zoology, ethics, human origin etc., so let's get rid of it. Agreed?

[Thomas]

How about this....

Thursday 6th
Honour killing

I have only read the Koran sporadically. Is honour killing an integrated part of Islam?

I fully agree that religion is doing plenty harm, but I'm not sure if this particular case is a direct consequence of religion as much as a consequence of the traditions (which you of course can say is a product of the given dominating religious ideology, but I'm interested in knowing if honour killing is part of the Islamic doctrine).

[Bri]

I fully agree that religion is doing plenty harm

Do you really think it's religion that is doing the harm, or is it intolerance in the name of religion? Nearly all religious people believe in tolerance and condemn intolerance in the name of religion. Extremists will of course use whatever best meets their goals. Do you really think that intolerance would magically disappear without religion?

-Bri

[Thomas]

Do you really think it's religion that is doing the harm, or is it intolerance in the name of religion?
Intolerance in the name of religion and literal religious intolerance. And by removing religion we're removing the latter and removing the excuses for cruelty in the name hereof.

Furthermore, by removing religion we're also removing an ancient haven for terrorists, frauds and other manipulators. With no religion the natural born culprits will probably seek to use political ideologies as an excuse for more cruelty, and then we can deal with that. But let's get rid of religion first, then we can focus more on mundane politics. We're wasting time on nonsense right now.

[Bri]

Intolerance in the name of religion and literal religious intolerance. And by removing religion we're removing the latter and removing the excuses for cruelty in the name hereof.

So you think that removing an excuse for cruelty will remove cruelty? Or are you saying that cruelty can only be committed in the name of religion?

-Bri

[H3LL]

So you think that removing an excuse for cruelty will remove cruelty? Or are you saying that cruelty can only be committed in the name of religion?

-Bri

There are many cruelties that are religion specific whereas others can and do occur with or without religion. As an example, heresy is a bit difficult to accuse someone of without religion. A net reduction of cruelties would be nice.

[Thomas]

So you think that removing an excuse for cruelty will remove cruelty? Or are you saying that cruelty can only be committed in the name of religion?

Bri's strategy no.1:

So you think that [insert your own vivid assumptions here and make it seem like that was what the poster said]?

I will not answer to baloney.

Which part of:


With no religion the natural born culprits will probably seek to use political ideologies as an excuse for more cruelty, and then we can deal with that.


..didn't you understand?

[Bri]

A net reduction of cruelties would be nice.

Sure it would be. However, getting rid of religion will only make those people who need an excuse to be cruel choose a different excuse. There are plenty to choose from (race, nationality, sex, sexual orientation). Very few mainstream religions advocate cruelty, so it's unlikely that you can blame cruelty on religion even if a certain percentage of cruelty is committed in the name of religion.

You can also note that a lot of good is done in the name of religion. Would getting rid of religion lessen the amount of goodness in the world?

-Bri

[JLam]

Getting rid of religion is a wonderful idea. But it's just that.

An IDEA.

None of us, no matter how much we disagree with religion, are going to see the day when religion disappears from this planet. It. Will. Never. Happen.

So, what to do in the meantime? I suggest that rather than engaging in self-righteous chest thumping and poo-pooing those who disagree with us, we should face some facts...

1) Most people believe in some sort of diety.
2) Despite this, most people are pretty nice.
3) There will always be people who aren't nice, both inside religion and outside of it.
4) Knowing this, we should associate with the nice people, and don't associate with those who aren't nice.
5) Having done this, we should stop complaining about stuff we can't control, and focus on the stuff we can control.

I often see athiests actively try to shove their agendas down the throats of those who are unwilling to hear the message. Whenever the subject of religion is brought up, they clearly and emphatically let anyone who can hear them know that they don't believe. In fact, if you go to the American Athiests website, they've got an article that helps people "come out of the closet" of athiesm in stages (http://www.atheists.org/comingout/othercloset.html). Here's an excerpt from Stage 5 (the ultimate goal)

Degree 5:
Completely open. Every time the subject comes up, you state your disbelief with pride and frankness. Anyone who doesn't like you because of your atheism is a bigot and is not your concern. You've written letters to the editors of newspapers on the topic, and you may have an atheist bumper sticker on your car.

Then, they give you this advice:

The first step, after admitting your atheism to yourself, is to be with people like you, and the easiest way to do this is to join an atheist group. No, this is not a shameless plug for you to join American Atheists, but it is a plea to join something. You have no idea how great it is to walk into a room full of people and know that they are ALL atheists and think you're right. It's the easiest way to make atheist friends and develop a power base from which to draw when confronting the other people in your life.

Be with people like you??? How is this different from church?

Power base? Confronting? I despise that behavior coming from evangelicals, and I'm supposed to engage in it? How is this any different? :confused:

I don't believe in a god. But for me to cut myself off from potentially fufilling relationships with other human beings simply because they worship an invisible man in the sky and I don't seems to me to be the absolute height of arrogance and stupidity.

Do your thing, believe what you want in private, and associate with those whom you think are nice people -- religious or not. That's it. It doesn't have to be any more complicated than that.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Your hear and read statements similar to "I don't agree/believe/accept your religion/belief, but I respect that it is important to you." Plus the PC attitude that seems to bend over backwards to be respectful to any and all religion.

Why?

Why should we respect anothers misguided/deluded/dangerous/damaging religion?

It is common to hear about respect for other religions, but the same attitude is not extended to other areas. For example, if a person/organisation is a Holocaust denier, what right minded person would say that they respect that. The same if they were in a cult that sacrificed people, or a group that is overtly racist or sexist etc. I have heard a person say that black people are not really proper humans and god does not care for them. Why should I either respect his racist view or the religion that he subscribes to. He's a scumbag...plain and simple. There is enough that is repulsive in the dogma of religions for the comparison to be valid.

I have stated several times that evidence suggests that all religions are fundamentally bad for humanity, hiding their agenda behind a few altruistic deeds and have yet to see any evidence to the contrary; although I keep looking for some strange reason.

Respect: To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem.

I hold no deferential regard or esteem for religious organisations, only abhorrence and disdain. Why should I be compelled to respect them or those that promote such things?

Should we be more honest and instead of showing respect say something like "I don't agree/believe/accept your religion/belief, and I consider it abhorrent and a cancer in society which would be better served if it were removed."

I can think of little that is less deserving of respect than religion.

Just asking.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

[Atlas]

This is a clash of ideological titans. Religion vs Atheism. You should use the definition of respect that allows you to respect your enemy for his power.

Religion is intensely powerful. It can be seen as an authoritarian regime's abuse of fragile human minds - but that's big picture. The little picture is how you deal with the person in front of you who is trapped in an idea.

It's ok to show or even feign respect if you think there is a role you can play in the enlightenment of another human being. That is, you respect the person and the mind that has made sense of the world - even though it has done so with a peculiar lack of facts. The human brain is marvelous in it's ability to do this. You can be a doctor supplying the medicine to make a sick person whole if you recognize and respect his fragility of mind as well as his brittle worldview.

Ok, dickheads don't deserve respect and anybody can be a dickhead so I'm not really addressing that aspect of religion. Nice people can be closed minded on certain topics just as many of us can be. But we inform each other every day, even on many issues we would have been thought closed to. It takes some time and some diplomacy.

When I left Christianity it wasn't because of any loud exchange of epithets with an atheist. It was because of good people giving me questions and new information. They respected me and my ability to manipulate idea. I just happened to be captured by an idea whose foundation was on sand but which seemed to me unassailable. Once I recognized that I was able to break free.

I was not a bad person as a Christian. I certainly didn't deserve disrespect. I lacked a certain clarity of thinking, that's all. Religion was spoon fed to me and I bought it all unthinkingly. I wasn't stupid. I thought the pablum was full of fact. Hey, live and learn.

We're all granted a certain intelligence and a certain knowledge on which that intelligence can work. Religion is a knowledge that has a power over minds up and down the many levels of intelligence. It is folly to completely disrespect such a powerful mechanism for the enslavement of the human mind. However it works should be a thing of study. First, to prevent us from falling under the sway of any similar mechanism and second, to develop strategies to blunt it's power and free the enslaved.

[geni]

As an example, heresy is a bit difficult to accuse someone of without religion.

As trotsky found out it's pretty easy.

[Thomas]

As trotsky found out it's pretty easy.
Aren't you using a different definition of heresy than those you argue against now?

I think the following was the intended definition in question:

An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs, especially dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma by a professed believer or baptized church member.Would you agree with the claim in the light of this definition?

Another definition reads:

A controversial or unorthodox opinion or doctrine, as in politics, philosophy, or science.And by this definition, all those who don't embrace your political or philosophical opinions, is guilty of heresy. But I hardly think that it's fair to use that definition in a thread about religion, the intended usage should be rather obvious.

I'm no Davidovich oracle, so if you meant something else, then I'm looking forward to be corrected.

[Bri]

I will not answer to baloney.

I apologize, and wasn't meaning to put words in your mouth (which is why I posted questions rather than statements). Let me clarify my questions.

You first stated that you felt that religion was "doing plenty of harm." You then admitted that it's not religion that is doing the harm, but those who are using religion as an excuse for cruelty that are doing the harm. Furthermore, you said that these people would continue their cruelty even if there was no religion (by changing the excuses used).

In my opinion, the above statements don't seem to correlate to your conclusion that religion should be eliminated (or that religion is doing "plenty of harm"). Perhaps I misunderstood your posts, which was the purpose of my questions.

Why advocate eliminating religion rather than simply addressing cruelty regardless of the excuses made for it? If someone began using atheism as an excuse for committing horrible crimes, would you advocate ridding the world of atheism even while acknowledging that the perpetrators would simply change excuses for committing those crimes?

-Bri

[Thomas]

I apologize, and wasn't meaning to put words in your mouth (which is why I posted questions rather than statements). Let me clarify my questions.

You use a very classic tactic: If you don't embrace my opinion, then you must belong to the opposite extreme. And that's a very unproductive approach.

Example: "So you don't think Bush is the greatest? Well, then you must be a communist!"


You first stated that you felt that religion was "doing plenty of harm." You then admitted that it's not religion that is doing the harm, but those who are using religion as an excuse for cruelty that are doing the harm.

I have never admitted such nonsense, what I said quite clearly is that religion is being used as a legit excuse for cruelty, and when we remove the excuse, then the culprits will have to run elsewhere, and then we follow them. That's what I said.


Furthermore, you said that these people would continue their cruelty even if there was no religion (by changing the excuses used).

That's right, so I wonder where you got that last idea from.


In my opinion, the above statements don't seem to correlate to your conclusion that religion should be eliminated (or that religion is doing "plenty of harm"). Perhaps I misunderstood your posts, which was the purpose of my questions.

True, you misunderstood it.


Why advocate eliminating religion rather than simply addressing cruelty regardless of the excuses made for it? If someone began using atheism as an excuse for committing horrible crimes, would you advocate ridding the world of atheism even while acknowledging that the perpetrators would simply change excuses for committing those crimes?

Let me give you an example: Halal meat. Have you seen how Muslims butcher the animals because of their religion? They basically just cut their throat and let them bleed to death.

Here's the official procedure:

A. Animal is to be placed in a relaxed, lying down position (if at all possible)

B. A very sharp knife is used (but kept hidden from the view of the animal)

C. Knife is placed at the throat of the animal

D. Allah's name is mentioned (Bismillah - Allahu Akbar)

E. Knife is drawn across the throat by the knot on the neck

F. One firm pass, cutting through the skin and esophagus right to the back of the neck is used.

G. Do not break or cut the backbone

H. Animal is allowed to bleed until the loss of blood causes unconsciousness

J. Only after it is confirmed the animal is dead can the butchering process begin

Now, I have even seen Muslims claim that "the main goal of halal butchering is to avoid any cruel or unnecessary suffering on the part of the animal." And that is the depths of religious lunacy.

Now imagine that we have removed Islam. What possible reason could anyone (but a few psychopaths) have for killing an animal in that gruesome manner?
Then there of course is the few psychopaths, and they wanna continue the violence, so they might become bullfighters, but mind you, how many animals do you think we have saved from a gruesome death, on say, a monthly term?

[geni]

Aren't you using a different definition of heresy than those you argue against now?

I think the following was the intended definition in question:

An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs, especially dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma by a professed believer or baptized church member.Would you agree with the claim in the light of this definition?


Sure but it cleary wasn't the defintion being used. Trivualy it's pretty clear that this thread goes beyond the RCC.


Another definition reads:

A controversial or unorthodox opinion or doctrine, as in politics, philosophy, or science.And by this definition, all those who don't embrace your political or philosophical opinions, is guilty of heresy. But I hardly think that it's fair to use that definition in a thread about religion, the intended usage should be rather obvious.

I'm no Davidovich oracle, so if you meant something else, then I'm looking forward to be corrected.

There is no real difference between the way churches react to doctriens they don't like and the way certian groups based around a political idiolgy. I just chose comunism because it was so strongly athiest.

[Thomas]

Sure but it cleary wasn't the defintion being used. Trivualy it's pretty clear that this thread goes beyond the RCC.

Well, if you both agree on the second definition, then you definately have something to argue about.


There is no real difference between the way churches react to doctriens they don't like and the way certian groups based around a political idiolgy.

True, but I think most people were debating religion, and not political ideologies, so I used the definition for that context.


I just chose comunism because it was so strongly athiest.
That is definately a major plus for Communism.

[geni]

Well, if you both agree on the second definition, then you definately have something to argue about.

the first defintion would involve a circular argument


True, but I think most people were debating religion, and not political ideologies, so I used the definition for that context.


That is definately a major plus for Communism.

Why?

[Thomas]

Why?
Because I hate organized deceiving. That's the short version, and for the long one you can read all my posts here in R&P.

the first defintion would involve a circular argument

Is it true or not that:


As an example, heresy is a bit difficult to accuse someone of without religion.

When heresy is defined by the first definition?

[Atlas]

Let me give you an example: Halal meat. Have you seen how Muslims butcher the animals because of their religion? They basically just cut their throat and let them bleed to death....

Now, I have even seen Muslims claim that "the main goal of halal butchering is to avoid any cruel or unnecessary suffering on the part of the animal." And that is the depths of religious lunacy.I do not find that ritual particularly cruel. The animal is calm until subjected to a few seconds of extreme pain and then it's unconscious.

It sounds better than flopping a live chicken up on the stump and taking a hatchet chop to its neck and letting it drop and run around until it keels over.

Slaughtering animals is as gruesome as it is unwholesome. Rituals like this are designed to put the human brain in a place where it can recover quickly after the performance of a bloody act.

It's a tradition that lends as much dignity to the animal as any other cultural tradition from over a thousand years ago.

Is bow hunting or hunting with a gun also as cruel?

What is the humane way to slaughter? Club the animal senseless and then slit its throat?

[Thomas]

I do not find that ritual particularly cruel.

..snip..

Is bow hunting or hunting with a gun also as cruel?

Yes, indeed.


What is the humane way to slaughter?

Captive bolt pistol knock out, and that is not just my opinion, it is Danish law. When you butcher animals in Denmark, they have to be sedated. For cattle we knock them completely out. We have been fighting Muslims over this as far back as I remember, because they say that a bolt pistol damage they brain of the animal, and then it's not halal.


Club the animal senseless and then slit its throat?
We changed the club for a bolt pistol many years ago. I'm pretty sure you have done the same in the states. Bang! Dead. Not lying on the floor shaking while the blood is slowly running from your throat.

As I read your stuff about bow hunting and gun hunting, I constantly had a certain tune in my head. So I decided to play and record it for your pleasure, and then maybe you can tell me where I've heard that tune before. Here. (http://www.progression-labs.com/music/untitled.mp3)

[Atlas]

I do agree that an unanticipated instantaneous death is probably more "humane" for slaughtering of animals, the techniques were not available when the tradition began. Halal throat slitting must have been considered the most humane and even god pleasing method of execution in its day.

After a thousand years of doing it the old way before modern factory, assembly line methods - it's hard to expect a culture to abandon it as cruel - Especially when the modern methods are so impassive and disconnected from its lifegiving meaning.

For a people steeped in belief of god as ruler over life and death, a mythology inevitably arises from the ritual slaughter of the animals that will be the sustenance of human life. It's a triune balance between the god, the human, and the animal.

That is missing in the "shot to the head ritual".

I am, I'm sure, romanticizing the butcher's attitude, but the butcher's task is up close and personal, it's terrible in its life giving implications. It makes us animal vampires, living off the dead. The brain supplies a god that turns the darkness to light, an amazing transformation. The ugly made good.

Hunting preceded the farming of livestock. These methods of providing food for our tables cannot be made cruel because factory killing is quicker. Ok, slack jawed yokels out of Deliverance present a dark side of "hunting." That doesn't make hunting cruel. Real cruelty ensues when wild animal herds are not thinned and the animals stray onto human habitat (eta: or slowly die of starvation because of overpopulation).

I'm not talking here about the American Buffalo hunters who would decimate herds for the cash they could exchange for skins. There was something horrific about that, leaving scores of rotting carcasses to the vultures. Yet that was no more cruel to the animals than the factory shot to the head.

I sympathize with your position, a concern for the suffering of animals - but the human sensibilities are a dimension to this as well. All primitive cultures reverenced the life giving animals they killed for food and blankets. Modern factory slaughter has no such dimension and resembles the buffalo hunter's attitude in a couple of unsavory ways.

Before this posting I hadn't really given much thought of animal slaughter as part of the reason why god is so necessary to many people. Now I'm imagining how you descibe your behavior to children who see their father commit atrocities against dumb animals. How do you instill in them an anti cruelty bias if they are subjected to heinous acts of slaughter on their walks to school. I think using an imaginary god to fill in the picture for impressionable children is not a bad thing. What's bad is the permeating influence of the myth which develops into a kind of cultural enslavement.

[Melendwyr]

It makes us animal vampires, living off the dead. All life lives off death.

[geni]

Because I hate organized deceiving. That's the short version, and for the long one you can read all my posts here in R&P.

But comunism made it pretty clear that organized deceiving is not incompatible with athiesm

[Roboramma]

I do agree that an unanticipated instantaneous death is probably more "humane" for slaughtering of animals, the techniques were not available when the tradition began. Halal throat slitting must have been considered the most humane and even god pleasing method of execution in its day.
Just because it might have been more humane than other options available a thousand years ago doesn't suggest that it should continue today.
The only thing that does suggest that it should is religion, and Thomas' point was that if the religion wasn't there, there'd be nothing stopping us from more humane practices.
And he's right, isn't he?

After a thousand years of doing it the old way before modern factory, assembly line methods - it's hard to expect a culture to abandon it as cruel - Especially when the modern methods are so impassive and disconnected from its lifegiving meaning.
I don't really see your point here. If it weren't for religious reasons, I don't think it'd be that hard for people to abandon this practice. It doesn't seem to be about culture except in so much as religion is a part of culture. But the question is, if the religion weren't there, would this practice still exist?

As to the idea that it isn't more cruel than the other methods used today, it seems that you're saying that because the person killing the animal has "reverence" for it in some way, that makes the killing less cruel.
I don't see it that way. It's that act itself that is or is not cruel, the animal's experience of it that is better or worse, not the intention behind it. The animal certainly has no experience of the thoughts of the butcher.

I'm not talking here about the American Buffalo hunters who would decimate herds for the cash they could exchange for skins. There was something horrific about that, leaving scores of rotting carcasses to the vultures. Yet that was no more cruel to the animals than the factory shot to the head.
Why not? How do you define cruelty that a painful death is no more cruel than a painless one?

I sympathize with your position, a concern for the suffering of animals - but the human sensibilities are a dimension to this as well. All primitive cultures reverenced the life giving animals they killed for food and blankets.
Are you sure about that? I can't argue the point, just don't accept it as fact right away.

[Atlas]

All life lives off death.But only humans ever become troubled by that fact. It may be considered an intellectual weakness experiencing such cognitive dissonance in the face of natural reality. Fortunately the brain balances that weakness with a god centered intellectual weakness that makes it all easier to deal with.

[Atlas]

Just because it might have been more humane than other options available a thousand years ago doesn't suggest that it should continue today.
The only thing that does suggest that it should is religion, and Thomas' point was that if the religion wasn't there, there'd be nothing stopping us from more humane practices.
And he's right, isn't he?Yes. When humans arbitrarily decide to deprive an animal of its life they choose to perform the act with speed or gentleness. We also get to decide what is truly humane about the practice.I don't really see your point here. If it weren't for religious reasons, I don't think it'd be that hard for people to abandon this practice. It doesn't seem to be about culture except in so much as religion is a part of culture. But the question is, if the religion weren't there, would this practice still exist?

As to the idea that it isn't more cruel than the other methods used today, it seems that you're saying that because the person killing the animal has "reverence" for it in some way, that makes the killing less cruel.
I don't see it that way. It's that act itself that is or is not cruel, the animal's experience of it that is better or worse, not the intention behind it. The animal certainly has no experience of the thoughts of the butcher.
Cruelty is an offense to human sensibilities. Animals kill one another in ways that are hard to watch. Cats play with their prey and often don't even eat it. We accept that as the way of the world. The difference between a shot to the head and the slitting of the throat to consciousness is only a few seconds. We decide those few seconds are cruel arbitrarily. We have no insight into the thoughts of the animal brain. We do not know if the searing pain we anticipate actually occurs for longer than the gun shot in the brain.

But to answer your question on religion - in the absence of knowledge of the facts of the pain felt by the animal and the quickness and efficiency of the death by gunshot to the head - I think it's safe to assume that without religion supporting the ritual it would be thrown over for efficiency.

I personally think that a life in a pen for the preparation of veal is more cruel than the extra few seconds of pain before death. I also believe that if human beings could taste the difference in fear induced adrenaline flavored meat, or found it to be more nutritious, we'd induce that state in the animals we killed - as humanely as possible, of course.
Why not? How do you define cruelty that a painful death is no more cruel than a painless one?Buffalo hunters could get very close to the herds using a stalking horse. They dropped the beasts with a single shot just like in a slaughterhouse. The herd did not run at the sound of the blast. Re-arm, re-aim, and blast again. It was very much an efficient slaughterhouse action. The cruelty inflicted was pretty much equivalent. It was horrific because the cause was not to trade death for life but death for money.Are you sure about that? I can't argue the point, just don't accept it as fact right away."Every" is no doubt an exaggeration. Hindus reverenced their cattle (though not for meat), Eskimos their walrus, Native Americans their buffalo. I do believe that the need for meat is tied to a need for god.

[The elementalist]

Respect: To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem.

this is egoistical sentiment...esteem is the energy meter of the ego...



Respect-to make descions or actions with the subject or subjects that are realtive to one's self and "life".

[Thomas]

Yes. When humans arbitrarily decide to deprive an animal of its life they choose to perform the act with speed or gentleness. We also get to decide what is truly humane about the practice.

"Get to decide"? Who are we? The Islamic doctrine doesn't allow you to "decide" what is humane or not, and that's the point.


Cruelty is an offense to human sensibilities. Animals kill one another in ways that are hard to watch. Cats play with their prey and often don't even eat it. We accept that as the way of the world. The difference between a shot to the head and the slitting of the throat to consciousness is only a few seconds.

Does it only take "a few seconds" for an oxe to bleed to death from a slit throat? I have seen halal filmclips that was way longer than "a few seconds". It's long ago, but it definately wasn't "a few seconds".


We decide those few seconds are cruel arbitrarily. We have no insight into the thoughts of the animal brain. We do not know if the searing pain we anticipate actually occurs for longer than the gun shot in the brain.

But to answer your question on religion - in the absence of knowledge of the facts of the pain felt by the animal and the quickness and efficiency of the death by gunshot to the head - I think it's safe to assume that without religion supporting the ritual it would be thrown over for efficiency.

Are you really arguing that we should treat animals as we please because we can't be 100% sure that the animals are feeling pain in the moment brutality? What will an oxe and you do if someone comes along and sticks a knife in your leg?



I personally think that a life in a pen for the preparation of veal is more cruel than the extra few seconds of pain before death. I also believe that if human beings could taste the difference in fear induced adrenaline flavored meat, or found it to be more nutritious, we'd induce that state in the animals we killed - as humanely as possible, of course.

Hmmm.. I hardly think that the calves in the pen is speculating about their destiny, but I'm pretty sure that they can feel pain.
There are plenty of cruelty from efficiency of farming worldwide, but one cruelty doesn't justify the other.


Buffalo hunters could get very close to the herds using a stalking horse. They dropped the beasts with a single shot just like in a slaughterhouse. The herd did not run at the sound of the blast. Re-arm, re-aim, and blast again. It was very much an efficient slaughterhouse action. The cruelty inflicted was pretty much equivalent. It was horrific because the cause was not to trade death for life but death for money.
You're right, but it's a strawman, because it doesn't matter how cruel the Buffalo hunters were. One cruelty doesn't justify the other, and right now we're talking about halal butchering and the unnecessary brutality that could be avoided with a bolt gun. All because of Islamic doctrine.

(bold formatting added)
"Every" is no doubt an exaggeration. Hindus reverenced their cattle (though not for meat), Eskimos their walrus, Native Americans their buffalo. I do believe that the need for meat is tied to a need for god.

In the quiet words of the virgin Mary: "Come again"?

[Bri]

You use a very classic tactic: If you don't embrace my opinion, then you must belong to the opposite extreme. And that's a very unproductive approach.

Example: "So you don't think Bush is the greatest? Well, then you must be a communist!"

Well, no. Actually, I wasn't using the tactic you suggested. I may have misunderstood what you were saying and asked for clarification, but I made no statements about what you "must be" as a result of what I may have thought your position was.

I have never admitted such nonsense, what I said quite clearly is that religion is being used as a legit excuse for cruelty, and when we remove the excuse, then the culprits will have to run elsewhere, and then we follow them. That's what I said.

How can anything that doesn't advocate cruelty be a "legit" excuse for cruelty? Do you think that the people who commit cruelty in the name of religion sincerely believe that their religion demands them to be cruel? If so, why do you think they will continue their cruelty even if there is no religion?

That's right, so I wonder where you got that last idea from.

Because you seem to be contradicting yourself. Again, I may simply be misunderstanding, but you said that religion is "doing plenty of harm," but then said that getting rid of religion won't stop the harm that religion is supposedly causing. That doesn't make sense. Furthermore, religious people in the world are no more cruel than non-religious people, so there is simply no evidence to support your conclusion that religion is doing plenty of harm.

It seems more appropriate to end the cruelty rather than blaming whatever is being used as an exuse for committing the cruelty. Again, if someone was committing violent crimes and using atheism as an excuse, would you advocate ending atheism?

Let me give you an example: Halal meat.

I'm sorry, but that's far from a cut-and-dry example of cruelty in the name of religion. Many would consider this way of quickly severing the blood vessels to the brain to be an extremely humane way of killing an animal. Many people kill animals in far less humane ways, and do so for reasons that have nothing to do with religion. Many consider it cruel to kill animals regardless of whether the animals suffer or not. Should we all stop eating meat altogether as a means of lessening cruelty in the world?

Please come up with a better example to support your statement that religion is doing plenty of harm.

-Bri

[Atlas]

"Get to decide"? Who are we? The Islamic doctrine doesn't allow you to "decide" what is humane or not, and that's the point.Who are we? The animal's life and death arbiter. We're killing it to disembowel and eat it. We get to decide what's a humane practice. Catch a fish by a hook in the mouth and release... humane? We decide. Islam does indeed allows you to decide. It allows you to decide for halal, a humane practice for a people who believe things about animals you don't.Does it only take "a few seconds" for an oxe to bleed to death from a slit throat? I have seen halal filmclips that was way longer than "a few seconds". It's long ago, but it definately wasn't "a few seconds".It's only a few seconds to unconsciousness, even if the body continues to spasm for a time, death several seconds after that. Large veins and arteries transfer blood from and to the brain. Sever all those, which the halal ritual described, and unconsciousness would have to be quick. Is there an online link to the film of the halal ritual?
Are you really arguing that we should treat animals as we please because we can't be 100% sure that the animals are feeling pain in the moment brutality? No. But the fact remains - we don't know. That's why the notion of cruelty enters our minds. No other animal thinks it cruel that humans slay cows. We decide what's cruel when it offends our sensibilities - No one thought halal was cruel for a thousand years. It was necessary and as quick and peaceful as possible. Now it's inhumane because today we feel the animal's pain. We accuse Islamics of inhumane treatment of animals because when they slaughter animals they hurt them more than we hurt them. We think they are barbaric because they still kill the old way - with a different kind of respect for the animal than us.
Hmmm.. I hardly think that the calves in the pen is speculating about their destiny, but I'm pretty sure that they can feel pain.
There are plenty of cruelty from efficiency of farming worldwide, but one cruelty doesn't justify the other.Veal calves lead a rotten life and to be incarcerated from birth to an early death surely meets some definition of cruelty. One cruelty is not the same as another and certainly doesn't justify another cruelty but it can serve to point out how fluid we are in our assessments. Is it terribly cruel to cause pain during the last 30 seconds of consciousness? The cure of death is assured. The pain they feel is no doubt intense but surely short lived and does not lead to long term anger or grudges. We decide it is cruel if and when we have the luxury of contemplating methods of annihilation we consider even more painless. We do not know the pain quotients involved in our victims. Most care enough about the killing ritual that they want it to be as painless for the animal as possible. No one is trying to make it a joyful experience for the beast. Islam appreciates the moment of slaughter slightly differently than you. They have what has been a humane ritual that has served them for a thousand years - now it's cruel and barbaric..? You're right, but it's a strawman, because it doesn't matter how cruel the Buffalo hunters were. One cruelty doesn't justify the other, and right now we're talking about halal butchering and the unnecessary brutality that could be avoided with a bolt gun. All because of Islamic doctrine.

Even without the religion they probably would have chosen this method as a quick and efficient strategy for killing. I can admit that the people could be led into different killing strategies more easily, if not for their religion. I don't know that it's clear that all the strategies would be as humane as you'd like. Some would surely adopt a 40 pound hammer 'gainst the skull. That may be less stressful or painful than a bolt gun. Would you call it cruel because it splinters the skull bones? Some would. When it comes to the business of death, there's just no pleasin' some folks.
In the quiet words of the virgin Mary: "Come again"?I had to run and didn't finish that clearly. Animals give meaning to human life, as pets, as livestock, as meat on the table. Because we are the arbiters of life and death for the animals we own we create a mythos about how much greater we are than them. The way the world works has the "better" creature eating the lesser "creature". Who is the "better" creature who eats us after we die. I don't mean the body, we quickly hide that underground - the idea of being eaten by animals is abhorrent to us who have eaten them all our lives. We build a mythos around the questions we ask about the farmer who harvests souls. There are several parallels I could follow about being Lord to the animals and finding a Lord over us. I was attempting to return the topic of halal and slaughter to respect for religion and said it badly when I had to run.

I think what I wanted to get at was that the slaughter of animals for food make humans squeamish. We see that in time we too we be slaughtered. It weighs on the human mind. It seems as though we are just like the animal to something or someone farming us. We envision a creator as someone who takes us at death. One reason we must not be cruel to animals when we kill them is because we don't want the creator treating us so badly. Our daily meat is the same as our daily bread, we rely on the Great Spirit to arbitrate our life and death fairly, and not too cruelly.

[Freakshow]

There's a big difference between "respect" and "like". There are plenty of people that I respect, while not liking them. There are even people that I totally despise, but still have respect for. The two are not very much related to me.

I also think it is necessary to distinguish between religion, and the individuals that participate in that religion. I know many religous people (we atheists are a small minority) that I both like and respect greatly. I can respect their commitment to their cause, as they (referring to the specific people I am talking about, not to all religious people) have well-intentioned motivations for participating in their religion.

[hodgy]

Those who believe evolution is true believe that they are right and that everyone who doesn't believe that evolution is true is wrong. Those who believe the earth is round believe that they are right and that everyone who believes the earth is flat is wrong. Part and parcel of holding any firm belief is the implication that those who believe the opposite are wrong, and provided that one has warrant for believing firmly, there is nothing wrong with this.

The problem lies not in believing "I am right/you are wrong" but in not having sufficient warrant for such firm belief in the first place.

JJ, You are completely wrong :) - As a skeptic, I might believe you are wrong but if you present compelling evidence I will change my mind.

[TragicMonkey]

There's a big difference between "respect" and "like". There are plenty of people that I respect, while not liking them. There are even people that I totally despise, but still have respect for.

I think it's also important to point out that you can respect or like certain aspects of something or someone, while at the same time disrespecting or disliking other aspects.

For example, I may have a low opinion of the president's actions and philosophy, but I can admire his incredible dress sense. Have you seen his suits? He's the best dressed president ever. I've never seen him in the wrong tie, or in a badly-cut suit, or in stupid color combinations.

[Freakshow]

I think it's also important to point out that you can respect or like certain aspects of something or someone, while at the same time disrespecting or disliking other aspects.
Absolutely true.

[The elementalist]

Absolutely true.

This is like rudiments to me. Yeah, and if you think about the cons and flaws of others they will show up in them more often or when I thought about them comes up, you will probably reflect on the thoughts of their flaws.

[Atlas]

TragicMonkey, I suspect you are admiring the way Laura dresses him each morning. Dat's da rudiments, girl.

[Z]

This is like rudiments to me.

Are we talking organ bits, or the basis of a drum routine... or are you saying this (what the monkey said) is the base-level knowledge when dealing with people?

Clarity, lad... clarity.

Yeah, and if you think about the cons and flaws of others

The cons and flaws... If you think about people's scams and failings? Scams? Cons?

Or are you trying to use the latter half of 'pro and con'?

Best just to say, 'the flaws of others'.

they will show up in them more often

They-others or they-flaws? In them-flaws or in them-others? What???

or when I thought about them comes up,

I cannot parse this bit at all. When I thought about them comes up...???

you will probably reflect on the thoughts of their flaws.

Flaws have thoughts? Flaws think?

Lordy lordy, boy child... your writing is almost as bad as that spazz song your sig links to! PLEASE tell me that song isn't your work... or that you were stoned at the time? Please?

Or are you stoned, right now?

:D

[Bri]

Perhaps English isn't his first language. Give the guy a break.

-Bri

[Thomas]

Atlas and Bri,

I don't have time to respond in full right now. But let me make it quite clear: That if someone slits your throat and says "Allah Akbar" while you're lying on the ground shaking in pain, then there won't fall any tears from my eyes. It would be the nemesis for your primitive attitude towards animals.

There is a reason to why it is illegal to slaughter animals in that manner here in Denmark, and if you can't see that, then you must be a couple of goddamn yahoos.

[TragicMonkey]

And anyone who avers that human beings deserve to be murdered because they don't overvalue the lives of animals is clearly lacking in his own moral outlook.

[Beth]

I often see athiests actively try to shove their agendas down the throats of those who are unwilling to hear the message. Whenever the subject of religion is brought up, they clearly and emphatically let anyone who can hear them know that they don't believe.
....

Be with people like you??? How is this different from church?

Power base? Confronting? I despise that behavior coming from evangelicals, and I'm supposed to engage in it? How is this any different?

Just wanted to let you know I see this the same way. Being forcefully evangelical about your beliefs, be they Christian or Atheist is...well...basically the same.

Beth

[TragicMonkey]

Just wanted to let you know I see this the same way. Being forcefully evangelical about your beliefs, be they Christian or Atheist is...well...basically the same.

Being an atheist is a lot like being gay. You don't want to hide it, because that would be like you thought it was something to be ashamed about. But equally you don't want to throw it in the faces of the straights, because they might not care for it, and even if they did, so what? It's not like you're going to convert them, or should be trying to. And it's also about being a minority in a sea of a different majority: yeah, there's going to be a clannish aspect to it when you gather, and yeah part of that is complaining about those outside the group.

It's part of who you are, but it's not all of who you are. You needn't hide it, nor need you flaunt it.

[Roboramma]

And anyone who avers that human beings deserve to be murdered because they don't overvalue the lives of animals is clearly lacking in his own moral outlook.
Hm. I don't think that's what he's saying at all. Maybe the post is a little emotional, but...

What I got from the post was that you can make the point that suffering and morality are socially constructed all you like, but when faced with the suffering yourself you're likely to change your mind.

I might say that what's important when it comes to animal suffering is the intention of the perpetrator, but when it comes to my own suffering I don't give a damn if the person who's got me tied up in his basement thinks he's doing it to save my soul, and that I actually want him to keep me there, or if he knows he's a sadistic f***.

We can talk about whether animals (or which animals) are capable of suffering similar to human suffering, but if they are clearly it's how much they suffer, and not the psychology of those causing the suffering that's important.

Anyway, that seems to be the point Thomas was trying to make - put yourself in the position of the one undergoing the pain and ask the question "would my tormentor's motives make a difference to me?".
Now, can we equate the animal to a human? No. But if the animal is capable of suffering, at least the aspect of the analogy that matters to the discusion at hand seems to hold.

Thomas only seems to say, "When you find yourself in this position, I won't feel sorry for you, because your own arguments suggest that I shouldn't."

Thomas, please correct me if I'm putting words in your mouth.

[Bri]

...if someone slits your throat and says "Allah Akbar" while you're lying on the ground shaking in pain, then there won't fall any tears from my eyes.

Hm. I don't think that's what he's saying at all. Maybe the post is a little emotional, but...

Well...I'm not sure about that, being at the receiving end of his comment, but I've apparently misunderstood Thomas before.

I might say that what's important when it comes to animal suffering is the intention of the perpetrator, but when it comes to my own suffering I don't give a damn if the person who's got me tied up in his basement thinks he's doing it to save my soul, and that I actually want him to keep me there, or if he knows he's a sadistic f***.

...

Anyway, that seems to be the point Thomas was trying to make - put yourself in the position of the one undergoing the pain and ask the question "would my tormentor's motives make a difference to me?".

That was my point, but I don't think it was Thomas' point. Do we really care what the motives of the person holding you captive in the basement are? In this case, he claims that his motives are religious, but do his motives change the fact that he's committing a crime? What matters is his actions. Unless his religion requires him to commit the action, we can't very well blame his religion for his actions even though he might. In fact, getting rid of his religion likely isn't going to change his actions at all.

Islam doesn't require its followers to eat meat. If eating meat is the cause of cruelty, then blame eating meat for the cruelty. If Denmark is so concerned about animal cruelty, why not simply ban killing/eating animals? Answer: because animals are delicious! Even Thomas admits that it's OK to kill animals and eat them as long as you meet his threshold of what is "humane." Many vegetarians have a higher threshold, but I don't see them suggesting that they wouldn't weep if Thomas was slaughtered quickly and painlessly with a bolt to his head.

That people who are Islamic and choose to eat meat have a different opinion of what is "humane" doesn't make them cruel.

-Bri

[ruach1]

But only humans ever become troubled by that fact. It may be considered an intellectual weakness experiencing such cognitive dissonance in the face of natural reality. Fortunately the brain balances that weakness with a god centered intellectual weakness that makes it all easier to deal with.

Yes I agree. It is easy for people to either knowingly or unknowingly engage in "God of the gaps" weaknesses which goes something to the effect of: "If I can't (or won't try) to understand something in the natural world, then I will stuff God into that gap of understanding, and I will be quite satisfied." This is so, so easy to do for too, too many people, and it can be considered a lamentable situation for humanity as a whole.

But what about Buddhism that does not profess a deity? What about a religion that does not profess to have a know-it-all, do-it-all god that is always on their side? Where does Buddhism fit into the skeptical framework?

[Thomas]

Thomas only seems to say, "When you find yourself in this position, I won't feel sorry for you, because your own arguments suggest that I shouldn't."

Thomas, please correct me if I'm putting words in your mouth.
Quite true, I don't wanna see anybody have their throat slit. Not cows, and not humans. And the post was emotional indeed. Animal mistreatment is one of the very few things that can trigger the fury of this viking.

When I was in Tunisia in north Africa, I saw a polar bear in a zoo, in a tiny tiny cage walking in circles, circles and circles. The poor bear had gone insane from the temperature and the size of the cage.
Would I like to put the keepers in a tiny cage and place it on the north pole until they realized what they were doing? Yes I would, but that's also as far as I would go.

[Bri]

I too am not a proponent of animal cruelty. But they are just so delicious!

Seriously though, thank you for clarifying, Thomas.

-Bri

[BJQ87]

so you go into giving examples of cults being delusional/misguiding/harmfull/ etc...then you go straight into basically assuming that all religions are this way? yea its true that we shouldnt respect someones religion if theyre going to use it to blow up the world trade center or something, but please dont generalise religion. The truth is, without the generosity of some specific religions, there would be a whole lot more suffering in this world.

[Bri]

yea its true that we shouldnt respect someones religion if theyre going to use it to blow up the world trade center or something, but please dont generalise religion.

The fact that someone uses a religion as an excuse to do something terrible doesn't mean that the religion advocates it. Very few religions advocate the sort of acts you're talking about, although a small minority of people use religion as an excuse for committing those acts.

-Bri

[wolfgirl]

Being an atheist is a lot like being gay. You don't want to hide it, because that would be like you thought it was something to be ashamed about. But equally you don't want to throw it in the faces of the straights, because they might not care for it, and even if they did, so what? It's not like you're going to convert them, or should be trying to. And it's also about being a minority in a sea of a different majority: yeah, there's going to be a clannish aspect to it when you gather, and yeah part of that is complaining about those outside the group.

It's part of who you are, but it's not all of who you are. You needn't hide it, nor need you flaunt it.I've always thought that it is necessary to be open about one's atheism in order to help dismiss the ignorant ideas that some people have about atheism and atheists. If I'm a nice person and then someone learns I'm an atheist, they will have to either rethink their opinion of atheists or rethink their opinion of me. Either way, it doesn't matter to me.

I have found that being open allows me to talk about it with people who may have never been exposed to such ideas. I don't preach to them unasked, but often they will ask me questions, curious about my ideas and how I explain this or that. If asked, I will do my best to represent atheism well.

I really think it's a responsibility we all have to each other.