This aspect of prejudice and intolerance is something that I have been wanting to comment on more fully ever since I briefly read the comments section of this video
Basically a woman working as a clerk in New York wants to quit her job because she refuses to be a part of gay men and women getting married. Well good riddance. In the video, one of the hosts notes that there are many other groups that would welcome her in for her decision, like the KKK for example.
This comment was met with a sizeable amount of outrage. How DARE he compare this woman's personal beliefs with such a vile hate group like the Klu Klux Klan??!! Just because she's not in favor of gay marriage! How reprehensible.
I disagree. First of all, the KKK hates the gays just as much as they hate the blacks and the catholics. It is true that they would commend her for her decision. So this is my question: if a person quit their job in protest of mixed race marriages, would it still be reprehensible to make such a comment based on their personal beliefs?
Assuming for a moment that this woman really does despise gay people (an assumption made on the fact that she would be willing to quit the job she's been doing for the better part of her life over something so asinine), hating gays doesn't qualify as a "personal belief" any more than hating black people. If you think racism is a personal belief and deserves the same respect as someone's religious preferences that's fine, so long as you're consistent. It's not OK to shout and be morally outraged at someone for being a flat-out racist, but pussyfoot around someone who is a flat-out homophobe.
Hating someone for how they are born, something they have no control over, is wrong no matter what, whether they are born with a certain amount of melanin in their skin, with a certain sexual preference or with a vagina. It disgusts me how homophobia is so accepted while racism is so reviled that people are terrorized into being overly PC for fear of offending someone. It's not even two sides to the same coin, it's the same side of the same coin because it's the exact same thing. It's a prejudice, dislike or even outright hatred, stemming from ignorance, for someone based on who they were born as. That's what is truly reprehensible.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Why I Am An Atheist
PZ Myers has put out a call for short essays on why you are an atheist. I have just submitted mine and I thought I would also post it here.
I am an atheist because I read.
I was raised in Rome Italy by a vaguely Catholic mother in a pretty Catholic country. However, since I was not forced to go to church outside of Christmas and Easter, I didn't take my first communion until I was 11 (and even then I studied my catechism with an extremely liberal nun) and my upbringing was never based on the rules and guilt-trips that are typical of the Catholic faith I did not immediately question the existence of God or the church itself. I just was not exposed to anything that was so explicitly divorced from reality from the perspective of a child. The first thing that I realized was that prayer was just not working out for me. This lead me to thinking, am I doing it right? What does being a Catholic even mean? What am I attesting to when I label myself at one? At the age of 12 I picked up the Bible and actually started to read it.
I am an atheist because I've experimented.
By age 13 I was studying ancient Roman history as is to be expected given the city in which I grew up. It struck me that the content of the Bible was no less fantastical than the wonderful stories I was learning about the gods that the Romans believed in. I came to the conclusion that all religions must be equally true. As my upbringing very much encouraged the belief in the superstitious and magic, as my mother is still a strong believer in everything from faith healings to fairies, I had now become a polytheist, I laid flower offerings at Minerva's temple in the Roman forum, I practiced Wicca and dabbled in pretty much any forgotten religion I could get my hands on.
I am an atheist because I reasoned.
Although I remained a pagan until the age of 17 when I first went to college, it had become more of a ritual than a true belief. I enjoyed keeping holidays like All Hallow's Eve, I used my prayers as a source of comfort being in a strange new country where I had to adjust. I didn't submit my faith to the sort of scrutiny I eventually knew it deserved. It was simply something to fall back on, something to keep me company, but never something I openly shared or overly contemplated. I began to transition out of feelings of faith as I made new friends, as I realized that if I was ashamed to share with others my beliefs, it must mean that they are completely ridiculous. I had now become an agnostic.
I am an atheist because I was honest with myself.
I did not identify myself as an atheist until I was 20. By then I was in my third year in college and had fully understood the scientific method. I had shied away from the term "atheist" because I was under the misguided notion that being an atheist meant being absolutely certain that there was no God. To me, this seemed as obtuse and arrogant as being absolutely 100% certain that there is a God. However once I began to fully appreciate the scientific method I realized that this was not the case. There is nothing in this life that we can really be absolutely 100% certain about, but I began to see my lack of belief like a null hypothesis.
I am an atheist because there has been no reason for me to believe in any God. I have not been presented with nor come across a single miraculous or inexplicable event that contradicts my assumption that no God exists. However, this does not mean that such an event could never happen. The day I experience something that would give credence to a God I am perfectly happy to refute my null hypothesis, but until that day comes, it holds strong.
Please share your thoughts
I am an atheist because I read.
I was raised in Rome Italy by a vaguely Catholic mother in a pretty Catholic country. However, since I was not forced to go to church outside of Christmas and Easter, I didn't take my first communion until I was 11 (and even then I studied my catechism with an extremely liberal nun) and my upbringing was never based on the rules and guilt-trips that are typical of the Catholic faith I did not immediately question the existence of God or the church itself. I just was not exposed to anything that was so explicitly divorced from reality from the perspective of a child. The first thing that I realized was that prayer was just not working out for me. This lead me to thinking, am I doing it right? What does being a Catholic even mean? What am I attesting to when I label myself at one? At the age of 12 I picked up the Bible and actually started to read it.
I am an atheist because I've experimented.
By age 13 I was studying ancient Roman history as is to be expected given the city in which I grew up. It struck me that the content of the Bible was no less fantastical than the wonderful stories I was learning about the gods that the Romans believed in. I came to the conclusion that all religions must be equally true. As my upbringing very much encouraged the belief in the superstitious and magic, as my mother is still a strong believer in everything from faith healings to fairies, I had now become a polytheist, I laid flower offerings at Minerva's temple in the Roman forum, I practiced Wicca and dabbled in pretty much any forgotten religion I could get my hands on.
I am an atheist because I reasoned.
Although I remained a pagan until the age of 17 when I first went to college, it had become more of a ritual than a true belief. I enjoyed keeping holidays like All Hallow's Eve, I used my prayers as a source of comfort being in a strange new country where I had to adjust. I didn't submit my faith to the sort of scrutiny I eventually knew it deserved. It was simply something to fall back on, something to keep me company, but never something I openly shared or overly contemplated. I began to transition out of feelings of faith as I made new friends, as I realized that if I was ashamed to share with others my beliefs, it must mean that they are completely ridiculous. I had now become an agnostic.
I am an atheist because I was honest with myself.
I did not identify myself as an atheist until I was 20. By then I was in my third year in college and had fully understood the scientific method. I had shied away from the term "atheist" because I was under the misguided notion that being an atheist meant being absolutely certain that there was no God. To me, this seemed as obtuse and arrogant as being absolutely 100% certain that there is a God. However once I began to fully appreciate the scientific method I realized that this was not the case. There is nothing in this life that we can really be absolutely 100% certain about, but I began to see my lack of belief like a null hypothesis.
I am an atheist because there has been no reason for me to believe in any God. I have not been presented with nor come across a single miraculous or inexplicable event that contradicts my assumption that no God exists. However, this does not mean that such an event could never happen. The day I experience something that would give credence to a God I am perfectly happy to refute my null hypothesis, but until that day comes, it holds strong.
Please share your thoughts
Monday, October 10, 2011
Quick Survey to Help Out
While reading Pharyngula as usual on my lunch breaks, I came across this survey on the American Family Values webpage. Of course if there's the word "Family" in the title you guessed what they're all about: FUCK the gays!
So this survey, apart from being composed of a few short and somewhat loaded questions, is supposed to demonstrate that the American people are small-minded bigots, therefore politicians should be swayed by that to vote down any legislation that would stop discrimination.
Of course this survey is on their website, so obviously the people taking it would be the kind of people that cruise that website anyway, so it's a completely biased sample. Therefore, in order to level the playing field ever so slightly, pass it around to as many people as possible and take the 20seconds to fill it out.
You will also notice that questions 1. and 3. are particularly loaded, since they are asking if the people support something that no one is advocating for anyway, but don't let that phase you. As PZ said, they're either going to have to outright lie or just ignore the survey entirely once we're all done!
Thank you for your support
So this survey, apart from being composed of a few short and somewhat loaded questions, is supposed to demonstrate that the American people are small-minded bigots, therefore politicians should be swayed by that to vote down any legislation that would stop discrimination.
Of course this survey is on their website, so obviously the people taking it would be the kind of people that cruise that website anyway, so it's a completely biased sample. Therefore, in order to level the playing field ever so slightly, pass it around to as many people as possible and take the 20seconds to fill it out.
You will also notice that questions 1. and 3. are particularly loaded, since they are asking if the people support something that no one is advocating for anyway, but don't let that phase you. As PZ said, they're either going to have to outright lie or just ignore the survey entirely once we're all done!
Thank you for your support
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Making the Distintction Between Personal Belief and Being Flat Out Wrong
I came across this video a couple of years ago, but it came back to mind as it is once again relevant given that Ron Paul is running for the GOP nomination in 2012.
When I first saw it, I was horrified that Ron Paul, a politician that is represented in the media as a perfectly rational, intelligent and sane candidate, one that is not afraid to support positions that are not necessarily 100% compliant with the usual Republican talking points, one that has a scientific background could not accept evolution. I commented on the video with the same surprise and outrage, and my comment got absolutely buried by the mass of the United Church of Ron Paul who were scandalized that I could be so critical (now the video is gaining much more traffic given the current political climate, so the tone of the comments section has changed quite a bit, so don't be shy to throw your opinion in there). Now I understand that when people find a politician, or any public figure that they like, they tend to defend said person even if they do or say things that they would not normally defend in others -- it's a personal prejudice and it is quite normal. However I thought I would take a few moments to address why I defend my harsh criticism of a candidate for taking this position, and why I would not vote for one that was a creationist.
Something that both Ron Paul says before answering the question and something that was said to me repeatedly boiled down to essentially this: creationism is a personal belief, and to decide who you are going to vote for based on what they believe is irrational and prejudicial. I would normally agree, if creationism qualified.
Now before we start arguing semantics here let me explain what I am saying. The word "belief" is often used as someone's personal opinion on just about anything. In that case, any position that any candiate takes on any policy would qualify as a "belief", and no one is arguing that you shouldn't choose who to vote for based on that. When I talk about "belief" here, I mean to say something that someone thinks is true, but there is no or ambiguous evidence for or against the matter, something that you choose to believe personally based on feelings, emotions and maybe some logic based on extremely circumstancial evidence. A belief that there is intelligent life on other planets would qualify. A belief in a higher power or a spiritual essence would also. Creationism does not.
The facts are in ladies and gentlemen. The scientific data has spoken. Evolution happens. We've seen it, tested it, not a single piece of evidence has been found that refutes it. So why does this matter?
Because a person that can look in the face of science, reason and evidence and say "nope, not buying it" because of a personal prejudice is not, in my opinion, someone that is qualified to hold the presidency of a country like the United States. Who knows what other prejudices he has. If you don't accept evolution despite the vast body of evidence behind it, what about climate change? stem cell research? vaccines? What about making a judgement call on another foreign leader based on their history? I'm not saying that Ron Paul is also a global warming-denying anti-vaxer, I'm saying he's setting up a precedent that indicates that he believes what he wants to believe, not what the evidence tells him to. For this reason, I think it's a perfectly legitimate question to ask a candidate.
He can't even use the ignorance excuse. You can say sure Rick Perry is a creationist, he almost failed every class he took in college, he just doesnt know what he's talking about. But Ron Paul is an MD for X's sake, he should fucking know better. Actually it's worse that he has this scientific background, because it lends legitimacy to his stance to his little fanboys. Go read the comments section, you'll see plenty arguing that because he's an MD his position on a scientific matter can't be completely moronic. Enough to make my head explode.
There is always the slight possibility that he's just bullshitting to please his Republican fanbase. However, since the whole reason that he has such a cult-like following is because of the fact that people think he's not a bullshitter and he says what he thinks no matter what. Whatever his motivation, I don't like it.
That's my take on the whole thing. Am I being too biased, since I myself come from a scientific background? Let me know
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Thoughts on: The Death Penalty
If you wandered over here from my youtube channel www.youtube.com/user/CrystalEye736, you'll know that I have been uploading my favortive Penn and Teller Bullshit! episodes, most of which are of course a little controversial. However, of all the videos that I have uploaded, I never expected the one to get the most criticism, anger and violent comments to be the one on the death penalty.
I suppose growing up in Europe I figured, who can really be in favor of the death penalty, apart from crazy right-wingers? Sure that isn't to say that I couldn't imagine wanting someone who killed someone I love to die a slow and painful death, but that is personal anger and vengence, not something I would condone being the law of the land. When my house was broken in to and my things stolen I wished for a while that I had been in the house at the time waiting for those fuckers with a baseball bat, but the idea that the penalty by law for burglary could be pummeling someone with a piece of wood would horrify me.
Nevertheless, even allowing for a few trolls and crazies, the number of comments that were disgusted with the idea that the death penalty should be abolished was enormously high. I say trolls because I can only hope that a few, like the one that told me to get myself raped and murdered because of my dissenting opinion, or the one that said he could care less if innocent people were executed as they were acceptable collateral damage in a necessary process, were trolls. If not, that would be immensly depressing.
So, never knowing I would need to address this, it seems as though I should outline in full why I came to the conclusion that the US should get with the program and abolish the death penalty. No, it's not going to be for any lofty philosophical moral reasons. Whether or not you think it's wrong to execute someone is immaterial in this argument for the moment. It comes down to the fact that the most common arguments that are pro-death penalty are really just ways to rationalize a thirst for vengence on those who have harmed others. I want to leave personal feelings, which I don't think have a place in lawmaking, out for a while and address these "rationalizations" in turn.
1. Why spend money keeping this filth alive? Kill them and they will no longer be a burden on the state!!
Well, that one is pretty easy. States which have the death penalty, like California for example, have spent more money executing the people sentenced to death than it would have to keep them alive. If you think about it for a little bit, it really isn't that hard to understand why. People spend years on death row, they have the right to appeals, which have enormous trial costs associated with them. You also have to house them in a seperate part of the prison, you have to staff and manage that part of the prison, all of which increases the costs per prisoner enormously. Think of it like this: is it cheaper to cook dinner for 100 people, or cook dinner for 99 people but one of them has to eat a completely seperate meal?
So here people say well then forget the long appeals process and just kill them as soon as convicted, do away with death row end of story. Well, considering that over 100 people have been found to be innocent after being sentenced to death in the US you shouldn't be in favor of this at all, unless you actually do think that over 100 innocent lives are perfectly acceptable collateral damage to the justice system.
2. The death penalty acts as a deterrant for other criminals
Once again, the facts say otherwise. The US has much higher murder rates than other 1st world countries which don't have one. Even individual states within the US which have the death penalty tend to have higher murder rates than those without (see http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state), so it's acting like a pretty shit deterrant.
3. It's justice for the families of the victim
OK, but life in prison isn't? Knowing that the monster that killed your loved one will rot in jail for the rest of their lives behind bars and die a lonely death in a cement block isn't? This argument is more difficult to understand because once again it falls back on personal feelings and opinion. There are many families that want the murderer that killed their loved one to be executed, and there are many who do not, it's not really feasible to base such a monumental law on this alone.
4. Life in jail or solitary confinement is cruel and unusual punishment, much better to put them to death
OK this one is absolutely ridiculous. You're saying that it's better for the criminal to be executed? Fine then, have an optional death penalty. Let the convict choose between being executed and life in prison. Actually, this is one death penalty that I could be completely in favor of.
That's the long and short of it anyway. Is there another point in this debate that I am missing? Let me know
I suppose growing up in Europe I figured, who can really be in favor of the death penalty, apart from crazy right-wingers? Sure that isn't to say that I couldn't imagine wanting someone who killed someone I love to die a slow and painful death, but that is personal anger and vengence, not something I would condone being the law of the land. When my house was broken in to and my things stolen I wished for a while that I had been in the house at the time waiting for those fuckers with a baseball bat, but the idea that the penalty by law for burglary could be pummeling someone with a piece of wood would horrify me.
Nevertheless, even allowing for a few trolls and crazies, the number of comments that were disgusted with the idea that the death penalty should be abolished was enormously high. I say trolls because I can only hope that a few, like the one that told me to get myself raped and murdered because of my dissenting opinion, or the one that said he could care less if innocent people were executed as they were acceptable collateral damage in a necessary process, were trolls. If not, that would be immensly depressing.
So, never knowing I would need to address this, it seems as though I should outline in full why I came to the conclusion that the US should get with the program and abolish the death penalty. No, it's not going to be for any lofty philosophical moral reasons. Whether or not you think it's wrong to execute someone is immaterial in this argument for the moment. It comes down to the fact that the most common arguments that are pro-death penalty are really just ways to rationalize a thirst for vengence on those who have harmed others. I want to leave personal feelings, which I don't think have a place in lawmaking, out for a while and address these "rationalizations" in turn.
1. Why spend money keeping this filth alive? Kill them and they will no longer be a burden on the state!!
Well, that one is pretty easy. States which have the death penalty, like California for example, have spent more money executing the people sentenced to death than it would have to keep them alive. If you think about it for a little bit, it really isn't that hard to understand why. People spend years on death row, they have the right to appeals, which have enormous trial costs associated with them. You also have to house them in a seperate part of the prison, you have to staff and manage that part of the prison, all of which increases the costs per prisoner enormously. Think of it like this: is it cheaper to cook dinner for 100 people, or cook dinner for 99 people but one of them has to eat a completely seperate meal?
So here people say well then forget the long appeals process and just kill them as soon as convicted, do away with death row end of story. Well, considering that over 100 people have been found to be innocent after being sentenced to death in the US you shouldn't be in favor of this at all, unless you actually do think that over 100 innocent lives are perfectly acceptable collateral damage to the justice system.
2. The death penalty acts as a deterrant for other criminals
Once again, the facts say otherwise. The US has much higher murder rates than other 1st world countries which don't have one. Even individual states within the US which have the death penalty tend to have higher murder rates than those without (see http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state), so it's acting like a pretty shit deterrant.
3. It's justice for the families of the victim
OK, but life in prison isn't? Knowing that the monster that killed your loved one will rot in jail for the rest of their lives behind bars and die a lonely death in a cement block isn't? This argument is more difficult to understand because once again it falls back on personal feelings and opinion. There are many families that want the murderer that killed their loved one to be executed, and there are many who do not, it's not really feasible to base such a monumental law on this alone.
4. Life in jail or solitary confinement is cruel and unusual punishment, much better to put them to death
OK this one is absolutely ridiculous. You're saying that it's better for the criminal to be executed? Fine then, have an optional death penalty. Let the convict choose between being executed and life in prison. Actually, this is one death penalty that I could be completely in favor of.
That's the long and short of it anyway. Is there another point in this debate that I am missing? Let me know
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Thoughts on: Vegans, Vegeratianism and Animal Rights
I have had this one mulling around in my brain for quite some time, but it's such a big one that I really haven't has any concrete idea as to how to approach the subject in a coherent fashion. I guess I'll just have to wing it.
I have many mixed feelings about this, and I suppose that the reason why I wound up feeling so strongly about it is because of something that is going to sound controversial and a little polemic on my part: Veganism has become something like a fundamentalist religion.
OOOH no how can you say such a thing!! Well, for two main reasons:
1. The obnoxious conviction that their way of living is the only sane and rational way of living and that anyone who does not agree is either sorely misguided or just plain evil
2. The use of faux science to support their extreme lifestyle
--> If you are a vegan that does not fit one of these two points then relax, take a deep breath, I'm not talking about you.
I call it an extreme lifestyle because let's face it, it is. It goes against a person's biology and nature. That is not to say that it can't be done, and if an adult makes the choice and becomes a vegan I have absolutely zero problems with that, to each his own. I am an unabashed believer in personal freedom. I loathe people who randomly harass strangers for smoking thinking that they're doing them a favor, and yet if they see a morbidly obese person waddling down the cookie aisle have nothing but kind words for them. Let other people do whatever they like.
When you start trying to convert people to your way of life, whether you're a Jehovah's Witness or a Vegan, I might raise an eyebrow and find you annoying, but generally speaking I will remain quite unphased.
However the moment you start spouting made-up facts and faux science in order to support your own lifestyle and convince others that your beliefs are inerrant, I will rip in to you just like I would any young-earth creationist or holocaust denier. Making shit up is just disrespectful, and using fake science to convince other people to change their lifes is dishonest and cruel. So this is my ripping apart some common talking points that I have heard in favor of vegetarianism and veganism so far:
1. Humans are not meant to eat meat. That's why we cook it. We can't digest it, because we were never meant to eat it.
Grade-A Bullshit. Haven't you ever heard of sushi?!
But that's fish that's not meat
This is one thing that annoys the crap out of me. An animal's habitat does not make it any less of an animal. Animal flesh is animal flesh, whether it lives on land, in the sea or underground. Of course there are differences between different animals, but the difference between a chicken and a pig is really no greater than the difference between a chicken and a tuna. Animals are animals and meat is meat.
Anyway even disregarding the immaginary distictions between land animals and water-dwelling ones, ever heard of steak tartare? My grandmother regularly eats minced, spiced and raw pork, she is eighty-eight years old and she digests it just fine. The reason cooked meat is better for us than raw meat is simply a hygeine one. Raw meat can contain parasites that can infect us, and cooking it kills them, therefore rendering that meat safer and healthier to eat. And yes, other animals get infected regularly from their food as well. Considering that parasitic species outnumber non-parasitic species 4:1, that should hardly be surprising.
Of course humans were "meant" to eat meat. That's why we don't have fermenting bacteria in a ceacum like plant-eating animals do. That's why we have canines and incisors for ripping and tearing our food. That is why one of the essential vitamins we need to survive is B-12, which is only found in animal products. We are omnivores by nature, like it or not.
2. Deforestation happens to create pastures for livestock, so it's wrong to support that
OK, well deforestation also happens to create fields for agricultural purposes too. Do you ever hear anyone decide to not eat vegetables for that reason alone? If you're against farming that's fine, be against it. However that means that you should not have any moral objections against eating a duck you shot in the woods, or a trout you fished with a line from the stream. You should also be growing all of your own vegetables and be completely self-sufficient. Great. But most of the people who pull out this argument are not, which I call hypocrisy.
3. Meat is high in fat and cholesterol and low in vitamins, so it's healthier not to eat it
Um so what? When did the argument become either eat ONLY meat or eat ONLY vegetables? We are omnivores, not carnivores, we're supposed to eat a healthy balance of both. Of course there are people who eat way too much meat and are unhealthy because of it, but that's hardly an argument for cutting out an enormous portion of your diet entirely. Some people eat way too many carbs and become enromously fat and sick and even develop diabetes, but that is an extremely poor argument in support of choosing a carb-free diet.
4. I can't be a meat-eater because I support animal rights
Guess what: so do I. I find making an extremism distiction between supporting animal rights and eating meat one of the great hindrances to legislation for the protection of animals. Personally, I try to always eat organic and free-range meat because I believe that, just because we eat meat, it does not mean we should cause animals to needlessly suffer. I understand that we are all animals, and humanely killing a cow for food is no more evil to me than when any other animal kills to feed itself or its family. However that does not mean that we should grow chickens in cages that are smaller than they are, or slaughter pigs en masse as they spend their last moments in terror. We have the capabilities to avoid such unneccessary cruelty, and I think we should take steps to do so. But I think that the only way that certain countries will get up-to-date with regulations against these acts of cruelty is if the people start seeing it as something that most people are in favor of, not just a handful of extremists that want to ban the killing of animals anyway so what difference does it make if the conditions they're kept in are repulsive.
Well this is an extremely long subject and I only managed to touch on a tiny fraction of it, but if there are other veins of this ongoing debate that you will like to adress just start a thread!
I have many mixed feelings about this, and I suppose that the reason why I wound up feeling so strongly about it is because of something that is going to sound controversial and a little polemic on my part: Veganism has become something like a fundamentalist religion.
OOOH no how can you say such a thing!! Well, for two main reasons:
1. The obnoxious conviction that their way of living is the only sane and rational way of living and that anyone who does not agree is either sorely misguided or just plain evil
2. The use of faux science to support their extreme lifestyle
--> If you are a vegan that does not fit one of these two points then relax, take a deep breath, I'm not talking about you.
I call it an extreme lifestyle because let's face it, it is. It goes against a person's biology and nature. That is not to say that it can't be done, and if an adult makes the choice and becomes a vegan I have absolutely zero problems with that, to each his own. I am an unabashed believer in personal freedom. I loathe people who randomly harass strangers for smoking thinking that they're doing them a favor, and yet if they see a morbidly obese person waddling down the cookie aisle have nothing but kind words for them. Let other people do whatever they like.
When you start trying to convert people to your way of life, whether you're a Jehovah's Witness or a Vegan, I might raise an eyebrow and find you annoying, but generally speaking I will remain quite unphased.
However the moment you start spouting made-up facts and faux science in order to support your own lifestyle and convince others that your beliefs are inerrant, I will rip in to you just like I would any young-earth creationist or holocaust denier. Making shit up is just disrespectful, and using fake science to convince other people to change their lifes is dishonest and cruel. So this is my ripping apart some common talking points that I have heard in favor of vegetarianism and veganism so far:
1. Humans are not meant to eat meat. That's why we cook it. We can't digest it, because we were never meant to eat it.
Grade-A Bullshit. Haven't you ever heard of sushi?!
But that's fish that's not meat
This is one thing that annoys the crap out of me. An animal's habitat does not make it any less of an animal. Animal flesh is animal flesh, whether it lives on land, in the sea or underground. Of course there are differences between different animals, but the difference between a chicken and a pig is really no greater than the difference between a chicken and a tuna. Animals are animals and meat is meat.
Anyway even disregarding the immaginary distictions between land animals and water-dwelling ones, ever heard of steak tartare? My grandmother regularly eats minced, spiced and raw pork, she is eighty-eight years old and she digests it just fine. The reason cooked meat is better for us than raw meat is simply a hygeine one. Raw meat can contain parasites that can infect us, and cooking it kills them, therefore rendering that meat safer and healthier to eat. And yes, other animals get infected regularly from their food as well. Considering that parasitic species outnumber non-parasitic species 4:1, that should hardly be surprising.
Of course humans were "meant" to eat meat. That's why we don't have fermenting bacteria in a ceacum like plant-eating animals do. That's why we have canines and incisors for ripping and tearing our food. That is why one of the essential vitamins we need to survive is B-12, which is only found in animal products. We are omnivores by nature, like it or not.
2. Deforestation happens to create pastures for livestock, so it's wrong to support that
OK, well deforestation also happens to create fields for agricultural purposes too. Do you ever hear anyone decide to not eat vegetables for that reason alone? If you're against farming that's fine, be against it. However that means that you should not have any moral objections against eating a duck you shot in the woods, or a trout you fished with a line from the stream. You should also be growing all of your own vegetables and be completely self-sufficient. Great. But most of the people who pull out this argument are not, which I call hypocrisy.
3. Meat is high in fat and cholesterol and low in vitamins, so it's healthier not to eat it
Um so what? When did the argument become either eat ONLY meat or eat ONLY vegetables? We are omnivores, not carnivores, we're supposed to eat a healthy balance of both. Of course there are people who eat way too much meat and are unhealthy because of it, but that's hardly an argument for cutting out an enormous portion of your diet entirely. Some people eat way too many carbs and become enromously fat and sick and even develop diabetes, but that is an extremely poor argument in support of choosing a carb-free diet.
4. I can't be a meat-eater because I support animal rights
Guess what: so do I. I find making an extremism distiction between supporting animal rights and eating meat one of the great hindrances to legislation for the protection of animals. Personally, I try to always eat organic and free-range meat because I believe that, just because we eat meat, it does not mean we should cause animals to needlessly suffer. I understand that we are all animals, and humanely killing a cow for food is no more evil to me than when any other animal kills to feed itself or its family. However that does not mean that we should grow chickens in cages that are smaller than they are, or slaughter pigs en masse as they spend their last moments in terror. We have the capabilities to avoid such unneccessary cruelty, and I think we should take steps to do so. But I think that the only way that certain countries will get up-to-date with regulations against these acts of cruelty is if the people start seeing it as something that most people are in favor of, not just a handful of extremists that want to ban the killing of animals anyway so what difference does it make if the conditions they're kept in are repulsive.
Well this is an extremely long subject and I only managed to touch on a tiny fraction of it, but if there are other veins of this ongoing debate that you will like to adress just start a thread!
Monday, October 3, 2011
Is Science Compatible with Religion?
Quick side note: I am fully embarassed about how much time has passed since the last time I updated this thing. I know that no one reads it anyway but still, mea culpa.
Anyway to the question at hand. While spending my lunch breaks reading science/atheist blogs this question seems to come up a lot in debates between religious scientists, skeptics, atheists and the like. Of course the general tone of the authors of the blogs I read is a hearty and emphatic
NO!!
I have a slightly different opinion:
What the hell does it matter?!
If I have learnt anything from religion and religious people it is this: people will believe whatever the hell they want, no pun intended. Pointing out that the Bible is incompatible with numerous facts of life will just make them shrug and call it allegory, or open to interpretation, or say "well I'm a spiritual person, I believe in a higher power, a purpose to life on earth, not in a big man with a beard sitting on a cloud and zapping people to Hell for not believing in him". So honestly, of all the things there are to discuss in this world, I find this debate to rank on the bottom of my list.
DON'T get me wrong. There are fundamentalist weirdos who make up facts in culus and peddle them as real science which supports their warped beliefs. They fully deserve to have their ridiculous claims intellectually torn limb from demented limb, if for no other reason than to teach their listeners who are ignorant of the facts not to believe everything you hear or read, but to look things up and think for yourselves. However, when I hear about these lofty debates about whether or not a scientist should or could ever really be religious, or how a Catholic teacher reconciles their religion with the teaching of science in their classroom, I think who cares.
The mere fact that there are over 10,000 denominations of Christianity alone in this world should be all you need to hear to realize that people will warp and mould and shape their beliefs to fit their own sense of logic and morality.
Can science be compatible with religion? In some people's heads: absolutely. In others: not a chance. Objectively speaking: there is no objective answer, because there is no such thing as an objective religion. All religion is something that is modified by each user to fit him or herself, so the answer to this debate is just as subjective and personal. Is science compatible with the literal word of the Bible, is science compatible with the belief held by a certain Christian cult that states that homosexuality is a choice, these are actual concrete questions with actual concrete facts to use in a debate. The rest is just philosophical ponderings.
That's what I think anyhow, would love to hear from anyone who has thoughts on the matter, and I will try to update this blog much more often, or delete it entirely.
Anyway to the question at hand. While spending my lunch breaks reading science/atheist blogs this question seems to come up a lot in debates between religious scientists, skeptics, atheists and the like. Of course the general tone of the authors of the blogs I read is a hearty and emphatic
NO!!
I have a slightly different opinion:
What the hell does it matter?!
If I have learnt anything from religion and religious people it is this: people will believe whatever the hell they want, no pun intended. Pointing out that the Bible is incompatible with numerous facts of life will just make them shrug and call it allegory, or open to interpretation, or say "well I'm a spiritual person, I believe in a higher power, a purpose to life on earth, not in a big man with a beard sitting on a cloud and zapping people to Hell for not believing in him". So honestly, of all the things there are to discuss in this world, I find this debate to rank on the bottom of my list.
DON'T get me wrong. There are fundamentalist weirdos who make up facts in culus and peddle them as real science which supports their warped beliefs. They fully deserve to have their ridiculous claims intellectually torn limb from demented limb, if for no other reason than to teach their listeners who are ignorant of the facts not to believe everything you hear or read, but to look things up and think for yourselves. However, when I hear about these lofty debates about whether or not a scientist should or could ever really be religious, or how a Catholic teacher reconciles their religion with the teaching of science in their classroom, I think who cares.
The mere fact that there are over 10,000 denominations of Christianity alone in this world should be all you need to hear to realize that people will warp and mould and shape their beliefs to fit their own sense of logic and morality.
Can science be compatible with religion? In some people's heads: absolutely. In others: not a chance. Objectively speaking: there is no objective answer, because there is no such thing as an objective religion. All religion is something that is modified by each user to fit him or herself, so the answer to this debate is just as subjective and personal. Is science compatible with the literal word of the Bible, is science compatible with the belief held by a certain Christian cult that states that homosexuality is a choice, these are actual concrete questions with actual concrete facts to use in a debate. The rest is just philosophical ponderings.
That's what I think anyhow, would love to hear from anyone who has thoughts on the matter, and I will try to update this blog much more often, or delete it entirely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)