Ask an atheist

[Maniacal]

@Girl in picture: Nope.avi

Do you belong to an Atheist social group? Do you feel that it's an Atheist's duty to promote a public understanding of Atheist? Do you believe in separation of church and state?

No, same as with anyone's duty to not be racist, judgmental or prejudice about other people because of trivial matters, of course.

 

[Linkman226]

TraitorFish- Lucky, all I got was some couple looking at each other

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

Looking at article Linkman posted...must...not...Godwin...

 

[Linkman226]

But it resembles the regime of He-Who-Must-not-be-Named so much...

 

[Leoreth]

It can't be as bad as this

Now technically in Germany you must declare your religious confession when you register in the town you live in

Not being a member of a confession (i.e. officially being member of a church) is not equivalent to be an atheist, of course (rather to the desire not to pay church taxes), but in the eyes of that guy they would be just as bad, I guess

 

[Artifis]

This goes to the heart of the matter. Just because one species out of millions is able to live in more habitats than any other single species doesn't, in itself, imply anything special about that species. It's very easy to find something unique about any given species, but that doesn't mean it has any value or worth. It just 'is'.

Also, I don't see how this affects the core idea behind my lack of belief in gods. No matter where one looks, there is no evidence that humans have been affected by anything 'super'-natural - we are the product of natural processes that have been going on for billions of years. Our migrations out of Africa, and our interactions with other Homos along the way, is well documented by physical anthropology and genetic analysis. Our impact on the globe, for better or worse, is likewise historically confirmed. Nothing about gods anywhere (except in cultural development, where there are also various other kinds of made-up creatures).

(for the most part)

The reason they are connected is that both religion and the speciest view this person is espousing come from a that arrogant idea that we are special or favored above all else.

From that same viewpoint of "I'm more special than thou" also comes racism, greed, selfishness, nationalism, and so on and so forth.

Disclaimer: I'm not using our uniqueness in any sense to argue for the existence of the supernatural.

So let me try to paraphrase what you're saying.

We are effectively at the top of the food chain. And if I'm not wrong, your view is that just because we're at the top of the food chain it doesn't make us unique, any more than the lion of the Savannah is unique.

Likewise, just because we as a species are more intelligent than all the others, placing us at the top of the intelligence chain, it doesn't mean that we're unique. It just means that we're the most intelligent species.

Is this right?

To answer your last statement, it's one thing to use the "I'm more special than thou" argument in relation to other species. It's another to use in when referring to other human beings. But perhaps I shouldn't use the word "special". I'll use other adjectives like "cleverer/stronger/adaptable".

 

[Linkman226]

I don't see how there's any difference between demeaning a chinese, black, or white person than it is to demean, say, a whale.

 

[Leoreth]

Well, the first difference I could see is that a Chinese/Black/whatever person can understand that he's discriminated against.

Also, that kind of anti-speciesism would basically follow complete equality in rights of humans and animals.

 

[Artifis]

^

And furthermore, I think I'm justified in killing the humble onion to use in my salad. Attempting to do the same to other people just because they're racially different is quite a distinct and separate issue. (Although I'm not too sure what you meant about the "complete equality in rights of humans and animals" part)

But Linkman226, what of the first part of my response?

 

[Leoreth]

I'm referring to the way we use other living beings for our own advantage. I can't think of a more aggressive act than killing and eating something. And as you said, if you're a true anti-speciesist, you must apply the same principles to all forms of live, no matter if human, animal or plant. That brings into question how it can be justified to domesticate and eat animals (for example), while slavery and cannibalism (i.e. the exactly equivalent behaviour towards humans) is considered horrible by most people (at least I don't think Linkman wanted to suggest these things).

You can't even be a Vegetarian or Vegan then because plants are only other species as well. Making excuses for them would be incredibly plantist

So, in the end, mankind has to be speciesist at least in its own moral perspective. It's a matter of pure survival.

 

[MilesGregarius]

First, Artifis came for the tubers and I said nothing.
Then, Artifis came for the legumes...

 

[Linkman226]

Well, the first difference I could see is that a Chinese/Black/whatever person can understand that he's discriminated against.

Also, that kind of anti-speciesism would basically follow complete equality in rights of humans and animals.

1) Wait, so verbal racism is ok if you speak in a language that the victim does not?

2) A whale is certainly as intelligent as a human. Hence my choice. I'm not referring to all animals.

^

And furthermore, I think I'm justified in killing the humble onion to use in my salad. Attempting to do the same to other people just because they're racially different is quite a distinct and separate issue. (Although I'm not too sure what you meant about the "complete equality in rights of humans and animals" part)

But Linkman226, what of the first part of my response?

1) Yes, yes you are. Considering the onion doesn't have nerves or intelligence.

2) To respond to your question- Yes, that's correct

I'm referring to the way we use other living beings for our own advantage. I can't think of a more aggressive act than killing and eating something. And as you said, if you're a true anti-speciesist, you must apply the same principles to all forms of live, no matter if human, animal or plant. That brings into question how it can be justified to domesticate and eat animals (for example), while slavery and cannibalism (i.e. the exactly equivalent behaviour towards humans) is considered horrible by most people (at least I don't think Linkman wanted to suggest these things).

You can't even be a Vegetarian or Vegan then because plants are only other species as well. Making excuses for them would be incredibly plantist

So, in the end, mankind has to be speciesist at least in its own moral perspective. It's a matter of pure survival.

I have an issue with humans putting themselves on a pedestal as the incarnation of all that is Good and Holy, not with eating other living beings. Eating of non-sentinet organisms or at least organisms of sufficiently low sentience is acceptable.

First, Artifis came for the tubers and I said nothing.
Then, Artifis came for the legumes...

Excellent

 

[peter grimes]

So let me try to paraphrase what you're saying.

We are effectively at the top of the food chain. And if I'm not wrong, your view is that just because we're at the top of the food chain it doesn't make us unique, any more than the lion of the Savannah is unique.

Likewise, just because we as a species are more intelligent than all the others, placing us at the top of the intelligence chain, it doesn't mean that we're unique. It just means that we're the most intelligent species.

Is this right?

I'd agree with this. Except for a minor aspect of the last part - it's very difficult to determine exactly what the term 'intelligence' refers to. It can be many different things, even within cognitively normal humans. So once we start trying to apply human impressions of intelligence onto non-human primates we start to have problems figuring out exactly what it is that we are (or aren't) measuring. How useful is it to know that bonobos can make tools but can't reliably use nested phrases?

We're on safer ground when we look at the ratio of brain size to body size:
See graph on page 4
http://homepage.mac.com/wis/Personal/lectures/evolutionary-anatomy/Primate Brains.pdf

Here's another link with some other species labelled:
http://brainmuseum.org/evolution/paleo/index.html

I have a tough time in my own life deciding where to draw the line between when it's OK for me to eat a fellow living creature and when it's not. I don't have any qualms about eating vegetables, greens, nuts, fruits, mushrooms, or eggs and dairy. But when an animal has to die in order for us to eat the product we try to keep our own version of Kosher: We try very hard to make sure that the animal products we eat are from farms that practice 'good' welfare. No antibiotics, no hormones... Any fish is low-food chain species. Too bad about that, since it rules out a lot of the tastier stuff. Maybe once or twice a year we'll go for some salmon or tuna (but I'm even off tuna now, seeing as how the population may be already be below the sustainability limit).

When we dine out we rarely order meat, when we are at home we only eat about 1lb per person per week. We're very lucky in that this sort of diet is easy for us (and not expensive, as many people wrongly assume). New York City operates farmer's markets year-round. In order to sell at the market that farm has to be located with 150 or so miles of the city.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

2) A whale is certainly as intelligent as a human.

Could you please show your work.

 

[Artifis]

2) To respond to your question- Yes, that's correct

I'd agree with this.

Ah, I see then. In that case I'm perfectly fine with this viewpoint. In the act of paraphrasing it occurred to me that I wasn't saying that humanity was unique per se, but just that it was the best in _____ (insert suitable adjective).

As for choosing what to eat, would it not be pompous and arrogant (incidentally the result of seeing humans as "unique") on our part to assume we know the line of intelligence, after which we don't eat the animal? For example, pork is one of the most consumed meats in the world, yet the pig is highly intelligent.

Lastly, I'm aware that this topic is only tangentially related to the original question. But what the heck.

 

[peter grimes]

would it not be pompous and arrogant (incidentally the result of seeing humans as "unique") on our part to assume we know the line of intelligence, after which we don't eat the animal?

I don't think it's pompous or arrogant at all.

It's a decision each person makes for themselves, or a decision each person chooses not to make. Either way, it's a personal thing. I feel better about myself knowing that I'm not furthering the decimation of the Atlantic Tuna. But that's my choice. I'm not going to think you're a bad person if you disagree with me.

Beyond that, though, it's hard to see how one might draw a line of intelligence like that. Which is why I linked to the article about brain mass ratio to body mass. The point I was trying to make was that there's a continuum of ratios. Some species are perfectly average for their body mass, some are have a little higher brain mass, some even higher than that. It doesn't at all mean that they are closer to us in intelligence. But it does mean that there is a lot going on in those brains.

But even this is a crude analysis. If you just looked at the EQ you'd never guess that a crow could make tools spontaneously, or that an african grey parrot could form complex novel sentences.

 

[Linkman226]

Could you please show your work.

I'm going by the brain:body size ratio.

And concerning the pig... I don't eat pig, because I realize how intelligent it is. Moot point.

 

[Leoreth]

1) Wait, so verbal racism is ok if you speak in a language that the victim does not?

No. Discrimination is a social concept and thus is limited to our species (I'm not saying that all other species lack social concepts but afaik they lack this one).

2) A whale is certainly as intelligent as a human. Hence my choice. I'm not referring to all animals.

1) Yes, yes you are. Considering the onion doesn't have nerves or intelligence.

So what is it about, then? It's certainly not strict anti-speciesism. Is "respect" (for lack of a better word) towards a certain species depending on an intelligent threshold? Or its ability to feel and emote?

I have an issue with humans putting themselves on a pedestal as the incarnation of all that is Good and Holy, not with eating other living beings. Eating of non-sentinet organisms or at least organisms of sufficiently low sentience is acceptable.

Where to draw the line, then?

 

[Wolfbeckett]

I'm going by the brain:body size ratio.

But has it been conclusively proven that the brain:body size ratio is the sole determiner of intelligence or are there other factors that also play into it?

 

[Linkman226]

No. Discrimination is a social concept and thus is limited to our species (I'm not saying that all other species lack social concepts but afaik they lack this one).

I'm sure "eating another" is considered universally rude by at the very least most mammals, to put it mildly.

So what is it about, then? It's certainly not strict anti-speciesism. Is "respect" (for lack of a better word) towards a certain species depending on an intelligent threshold? Or its ability to feel and emote?

Ability to experience consciously.