Posted by Hemant Mehta in The arguments against vegetarianism/veganism and atheism are both similar and weak, says Brad Pritikin.
That’s just a snippet. The full comic can be seen here.
If you’re one but not the other, what’s your reason?
Perhaps you think, as co-artist and non-vegetarian Lisa Faires does, “I can’t stop because mmmm.”
(via ReasonableComics)
I agree with Lisa Faires. I try to limit the amount of meat I eat, but don’t you dare take my cheese away. I needs it!
I’m not a vegetarian, but I am an atheist. I agree that similar conversations are often had about the two things, as shown in the comic, but I don’t think that implies that being one means you ought to be the other too. After all, you could make the same arguments about eating vegetables as you could about eating meat. Who cares whether it’s traditionally done, or if people think you need it to be healthy — you can just take vitamin supplements to make up for what you’re missing! Do you think that means we should all eat only meat and no vegetables? Seriously, God is not the same as meat. I don’t even understand why someone would think these things are related, except to point out a humorous coincidence in which the same bad arguments are made in two cases. It doesn’t preclude the existence of good arguments in one or the other case.
I’m an atheist. I’m not a vegetarian.
I’m an atheist because I don’t believe god exists.
I’m not a vegetarian because I do believe eating meat nourishes the body. I’m not about to argue that you cannot obtain the same nourishments from other foods. It is more complicated, and more of a commitment, and severely limits your options meal-wise. Moreover, I don’t have moral scruples regarding this because I don’t deem a human’s life an an animal’s life of equal value. I wouldn’t argue that eating meat is BETTER than not eating meat, I find equal. I cannot stand condescending vegetarians, however.
Meat is tasty. have you ever tasted a communion wafer? No flavor at all.
I’m not sure I understand where this question comes from. You point out that some arguments against them are equally weak, but it does not then follow that all arguments for them are equally strong. What has one got to do with the other?
Y’know what? I really like meat. I also like consumer electronics. Both of these are environmentally devastating enterprises.
The thing is, I don’t care. I’m part of a massive framework of society that’s environmentally devastating. I can’t leave, and I can’t change it, and while it might be tempting to reduce my personal impact, that’s pretty insignificant. If I’m going to do something insignificant, I’ll do something I enjoy instead.
Also: you may not take my bacon away. Not yours.
@konstanty: Communion wafers are Jesus. Jesus may have been god made man, but he was definitely a man. Humans taste like pork, hence the phrase “long pork”. Pigs make bacon. Ergo, Communion wafers must really be bacon. HOLY CRAP, I think I’ve just converted.
I am an atheist vegetarian and would agree that this same bad argument is made in both cases. However most of the time I feel that the person defending meat eating feels that I have the moral high ground and the person defending religion believes that they have the moral high ground.
I agree with thoughtcounts Z that these two areas really aren’t related. They do seem to be highly correlated, though. Vegetarianism and veganism seems to occur a lot more amongst atheists than other groups. It would be interesting to see some approximate figures and know some reasons why.
To me, being a vegan is healthier than being a fundamentalist. I only equate the two as being the more extreme versions of their respective states.
I am an atheist and a meat eater but I don’t think people are likely to harm themselves or others by not eating animal products. Being a fundamentalist can, in fact, be harmful. So can eating only raw food but that’s not what you’re talking about, here.
I am an atheist because I don’t think that god exists.
I am a vegetarian because, although I understand that humans are, essentially, omnivores, we have developed sufficient technology to make meat unnecessary. We no longer have to kill other animals in order to feed ourselves and be healthy, so why should we?
I’m not a vegan, and I understand the implicit hypocrisy, but I find it too difficult a diet to stick to.
I’m an agnostic atheist. I don’t “know” that god does or doesn’t exist, so, until it’s proven that he does (because you can’t prove a negative) I choose to not believe. As far as veganism/vegetarianism goes; Meat is just too damn tasty.
I’m an atheist because I have no reason to believe in god. Humans have been eating meat for hundreds of thousands of years and I don’t see a compelling reason to completely stop. Sorry to anyone I offend, but the harsh treatment of animals bit doesn’t fly with me.
That being said, I only eat fish, seafood, chicken and turkey. And milk products and eggs. If I were to find good reason to give up any of the above I’d certainly comply, but such reasoning for me remains to be seen. And unagi tastes really good
The irony of this is that people that believe the literal story in Genesis don’t think that it is natural at all to eat meat. Apparently all the lions were herbivores back in the garden.
I think it’s a stretch to present the arguments for/against atheism and vegetarianism as similar. Meat-eating and theism are both majoritarian practices in America, so to a certain extent they’re both going to be defended as “natural,” and what “everyone” does, just as any other common practice will. For example,
X: So, you’re not planning on having kids?
Y: Yep.
X: But having kids is natural. Everyone does it.
Or
X: So, you like to have sex with sheep, instead of other humans?
Y: Yep.
X: But having sex with other humans is natural. Everyone does it.
Other than that they’re all about majoritarian practices, I don’t see much similarity in the arguments about theism, vegetariaism, child-having, or sheep-REDACTED.
I can see a connection between atheism and veganism, though I’m not sure I would go so far as to buy it.
It could be argued that it is immoral to believe in a god, as to do so requires an immense amount of personal dishonesty, lying to oneself if not to others. Usually to both.
It could be argued that it is immoral to kill another animal for food, especially given the way the meat is treated while alive, the environmental damage done to harvest meat and the genetic reality that we’re all basically variations on the same theme.
It could also be argued that the above arguments are a marshmallow in the middle of a cowpatty, and that one is not going to eat that cowpatty.
So the journey continues.
What does not eating meat have to do with a belief in god?
Wolves, as far as I know, don’t believe in god but eat lots of meat.
Meat = tastes good
Religion = not so much.
The last time I read the Illiad of Homer, I very nearly gave up atheism after reading of the sacrificial meals offered to Poseidon in hopes of achieving his favor in the Achaean’s fight against the Trojans, until I realized that all the temples have been destroyed, and animal sacrifice is illegal now. I did, however, quit being a vegetarian. Did you know that Sam’s Club carries lamb chine, which is just as delicious roasted as Homer describes?
I followed the Illiad with a book called, IIRC, “The Cult of the Sacrifice.” It was about the role of animal sacrifice in the classical Indo-European religions of Greece, Rome, Asia Minor, etc. Late in the classical period, when religions like Orphism, Pythagoreanism, Christianity, and Mithraism appeared, the adherents of these fringe religions refused to participate in public animal sacrifice. The Pythagoreans and Orphists, in particular, ate no meat at all. For this, they were labeled “atheists.” Even though they all were practicing theistic faiths of one kind or another.
I sometimes wonder to what extent the association between vegetarianism and atheism is a survival of the Late Classic conflict between the traditional, state religion based on public sacrifice, and these upstart religions.
Epicurus, OTOH, who while nominally deist, remains my favorite of the pre-Socratic philosophers and whose morals are the foundation of my own, once wrote to friend in Athens, “There’s a pot of cheese I’ve been saving. It should be ripe just when I return home. Save it for me.” (Or words to that affect.) So he was no vegan, at least, and enjoyed some nice cheese. Yay, Epicurus! Yay, cheese!
Vegetarianism is a perfectly appropriate decision for a person to make, and I support my vegetarian friends, atheist and theist alike, 100%. But it is neither a moral nor a rational decision.
I don’t see any necessary connection between atheism and vegetarianism, but I don’t see any conflict either.
We’re all just a big mess of rational and irrational motivations. Aesthetics, acculturation, and social identities all contribute to the decisions we make and the paths we take. But “correlation is not causation” with regard to atheism and vegetarianism.
Mmmmmm, meat.
I’m in the atheist-but-not-vegetarian category. Many years ago I was a vegetarian, for two full years. But I have a very fast metabolism, and I developed classic failure-to-thrive symptoms of listlessness and having to eat almost constantly just to keep myself going. I figured my consuming stuff ALL THE TIME wasn’t all that great for the environment, either, when just a leeeeeeetle bit o’ meat would keep me going for half a day.
I still cook mainly vegetarian dishes, though, ’cause raw meat feels yucky on my hands.
Well, I’m an atheist and a meatatarian. I don’t really eat any vegetables. Mainly, because my mother would gag trying to feed them to me as a child. The only things I eat that aren’t meat are white beans, red beans, rice, corn, and french fries (only skinny). In theory, I think it would be awesome to be vegetarian, but I’d probably die trying it. I fee strange that as a student of philosophy, I should have something more pertinent to add to the discussion, but I don’t. So, there it is.
As far as I’m concerned, the comparison isn’t a very good one. You can come up with plenty of reasons that theism is problematic, but frankly, I haven’t seen any necessary or sufficient way to go from the reasonable “We shouldn’t go out of our way to harm animals or living things in general” position to the “Meat is immoral” position.
I’m in the both category, and I for one loved this comic!
I am pesco-vegetarian, really (as I cannot give up seafood, and animal byproducts) but I understand the ability to glean nutrition from various different non-meat sources.
Oh… and it’s not out of empathy for animal life. I find animals cute and all, but I am a survivalist in my heart, so if it’s for survival… go for it. :p I find in this country where food is plentiful, it is bar far healthier to stick with soy, nuts, beans, etc for your proteins as opposed to animal fats. I also hated vegetables, so I became vegetarian to be able to enjoy them more.. and I do! My dad, who is a chef, is amazed at what I’ll eat now. (And I’ve lost 40 lbs)
I’m glad I read this thread… i knew it would be very interesting to hear the veggie myths that people still believe.
I think meat-eating and religion are similar in that many people cling to each simply because they are too uncomfortable with the thought of life without it. But in both cases, the arguments for never seem to make up for the arguments against.
God may provide some a sense of security/morality, but by worshiping God you are buying into a system that thrives on ignorance, obedience, and sometimes stubborn, if not violent, promotion and defense.
Similarly, meat may be tasty, but by consuming it you are often supporting cruel and inhumane treatment of animals (though this is getting better), contributing to the deterioration of the environment (vegetarians offset about 4 tons of CO2 every year), and propelling the notion that meat is the only way to get protein into your diet.
C’mon, haven’t you seen Babe?
The similarity between the arguments is amusing but then you ask:
This question makes no sense at all. I’ll answer that one if you answer this:
If you’re a left-handed retired Lithuanian railroad engineer, BUT you’re not a nearsighted card-carrying member of the Gilbert Gottfried Fan Club, what’s your reason?
Why the heck should I or anybody else have to justify their beliefs or lack thereof, their dietary habits and/or the relationship between the two? I see things the way I see things, I eat what I eat, I look for every golden opportunity to mind my own business, and ONLY when some goofball tries to impose his or her views or menu on me will I demand of THEM their reasons. Even then since I’m just defending my right to my views and my diet, my reasons are still none of their business.
Religion has been around for just as long, so what is the compelling reason to stop that then, I wonder?
Becky, David could answer what he thinks the compelling reasons to stop believing in God are, but what would be the point? I think we both can make a pretty good guess what his answers would be, and they’re completely different from the compelling reasons to be a vegetarian. I think there are compelling reasons for both, but they’re very different compelling reasons, so I don’t see why you would expect an atheist to be a vegetarian. I thought there were compelling reasons against invading Iraq, but I didn’t ask my friends, “Wait, you’re against the war in Iraq, too? Then explain why you believe in God.”
Atheist Vegan here. I don’t need meat (or dairy for that matter) to be healthy. And I sure as heck don’t need religion.
But I think that they are separate decisions. I chose both based on the evidence and my moral convictions.
Autumnal Harvest,
I don’t expect an atheist to be vegetarian. I don’t expect anyone to be anything but themselves, honestly. Like you said, there are very compelling reasons for both; and they’re both different. I just thought that the wording “Humans have been eating meat for hundreds of thousands of years” was a very poor argument for the decision to eat meat. You could use that same argument for why you believe in god. I don’t associate the two, as my atheist fiance loves meat, and so do others it seems, but I would have never questioned the argument “I like meat, and if you think I should stop…suck it.”
Insert the word god instead of meat, and I still wouldn’t question it. Just stop using the “it’s traditional” argument for why you do things. We have to break tradition now and then. 
–hmm did that make sense? :p
I’m a meat-eating atheist.
I do believe that vegetarians have a point, I just don’t think that it’s as much of a big deal as they make it to be. I don’t equate human life to animal life, and I also don’t equate animal life to vegetable life. We should be loyal to the HUMAN species.
If we don’t eat animals, them some OTHER animal will - so what’s the point? Should we just drive all bovines extinct by stopping their domestication? They certainly can’t live by themselves in the wild. If anything, dying to feed a human sounds like the best destiny that an animal can have… After all, they are supporting the existence of the only species on the planet with the potential to spread the seed of life to other worlds.
But we can argue from a different perspective, too (and I’m sure that many of you will frown on me for this one…). All animals that are born will eventually die. Killing an animal is not a crime against it per se, as it will no longer exist to be in any way affected by it. Killing an animal is a crime against those that it left behind… But when you kill a cow in a farm, you won’t leave sad bulls behind. You don’t leave its children scarred for life. You won’t destroy information that was stored in its brain that could be used to change our culture or our technology. I don’t believe that anybody mourns for a dead cow. So, what exactly is the sin in killing a cow?
And even if we were to stop eating animals, we’d still need to perform medical research - anyone arguing otherwise clearly has no idea of what’s at stake here, or has no value for the life of their fellow human beings.
“Our loyalties are to the species and the Planet. WE speak for Earth. Our obligation to survive is owed not just to ourselves, but also to that Cosmos, ancient and vast, from which we spring.”
Fair enough, Becky. Although I’d point out that he didn’t just say “Humans have been eating meat for hundreds of thousands of years”; it was part of a longer sentence where he said “and I don’t see a compelling reason to completely stop.” It seems reasonable to stick with tradition if you see no reason to stop.
But it’s nice to know, for future reference, that if I get in an argument with you, you find “suck it” to be a convincing argument.
The problem with this comic argument is that you actually need meat to be healthy (or at least some vitamins found in it) but you don’t need religion to be moral.
False analogy, as always.
Autumnal Harvest
You’re absolutely right, I tried not to take his comment out of context… I did quote two sentences originally, I believe. LOL to the suck it line. I don’t argue with people when they truly, honestly feel a certain way. It’s like arguing with a brick wall. Personally, I would prefer the argument “I like getting my proteins through meat and calcium through dairy, as other protein/calcium options taste bad” - which is essentially the same as “I like meat, so suck it”
I am an atheist and a meat-eater. Hemant comes from a religion that is vegetarian, so perhaps that is an artifact of his religion.
However, I am fine with people being vegans. I have had some fantastic vegan food and I don’t think vegans are necessarily missing out on anything they really need.
Alenônimo - I won’t ever argue with the fact that meat tastes good, (oh how I miss ham) but I will argue with the fact that you need meat to be healthy. (this is including non-meat eaters, which eat animal byproducts, unlike vegans)
A simple search of ‘vegetarian’ on Google led me to the ‘Vegetarian nutrition’ section on Wikipedia. I’m not sure if I can post links but you should really check it out! It lists potential red zones for vitamins vegetarians might be lacking on, and tells vegetarian-friendly foods that can help supplement it.
It also states that: “Evidence suggests that vegetarians are generally healthier and live longer than non-vegetarians. They have lower rates of coronary heart disease, obesity, hypertension, type 2 diabetes and some forms of cancer. ”
I’m not sure where this “evidence suggests” comes from, but they have a ton of references at the bottom that I’ll probably look at some time in the future.
Thanks for the support Autumnal Harvest, but Becky puts forth an interesting question I’d actually like to answer:
Religion, for a long time, was the only method for explaining things. Now that we have modern science, and more specifically the scientific method, we no longer need religion. In my mind it has far outlived it usefulness and one might wonder how useful it ever was.
My personal reason for not believing in your deity of choice is that I have no reason to believe in him any more than to believe in someone else’s favorite deity or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Russell’s Teapot. If you’d like to provide me with evidence of your deity’s existence please ask him to rip off the roof from above my head and tell me he exists. A small feat to ask for from an omnipotent creator, might I add.
Human ancestors have been eating meat for about 2.5 million years. Burial rites may have occurred about 300,000 years ago. I’ll admit that religion has been around a long time, but I won’t jump to say we are evolved for it. There might be a case to be made linking some form of religion that would be passed down through generations to evolution of the species, those that didn’t follow the religion were killed and thus everyone shared the religion. But even if such a connection could be established it would not prove religions to be true but just something we made up a long time ago.
David - Cool.. I agree with you. What you said above is exactly the reason I am an atheist, too.
I just hear the tradition argument stated within why people believe in a religion, and it’s interesting that it’s applied to meat-eating as well.
FSM doesn’t exist without meatballs. What would a vegan say about that?
It is incorrectly applied to meat eating. Eating meat is no more a tradition than eating fruit. We have evolved eating meat over the past 2.5 million years. You can design diets that work just as well/better as a meat diet and you can design meat diets that are very unhealthy, but neither is a sufficient reason to stop or start eating meat.
I guess my question is: Why should I stop eating meat?
I am both an atheist and a vegetarian. I would be a vegan if I didn’t love cheese so much–I don’t eat any other dairy, but cheese is such a staple of my diet that it would be too much of an adjustment for me at this stage of my life.
However, I do get both of those responses on a regular basis, really more so for vegetarianism than for atheism!
All this talk of bad arguments, and no one jumped on this one? If you can prove a positive, you can prove a negative; the idea that you “can’t prove a negative” is falsity that just won’t die. You cannot, however, choose what you believe.
Fully agree with Lisa.
Btw, I actually like this comic on the same website better…
here
I found the argument, that no one mourns a dead cow interesting. And it’s also one of the reasons I don’t feel guilty eating meat (I’m a meat eating atheist). However, studies have shown some sort of mourning expressed by dairy cows, when their calves are taken away, so assuming that all other aspects of the farming methods used were humane, I would consider it worse to drink milk or eat cheese, than I do eating meat or eggs. Also, dairy cows and egg layers get the worst deal out of all the farmed animals (ok, chickens and turkeys have it pretty rough too), so maybe I should stop eating eggs and dairy products, while still eating meat. Now that’s a bit backwards, isn’t it?
Anyways. I try to source my meat carefully, to avoid the worst factory farming, but I essentially don’t think it’s wrong to kill an animal (for whatever reason) so long as it is done humanely, and I do love my meat.
Daniel, your post is heresy! The FSM is simply spaghetti and a light tomato and garlic sauce. No meatballs! I beg you to reconsider. Your immortal kreplah is at risk!
Thanks for your question infidel. I’m a high priest of a reformed Pastafarian Vegan sect and our Dear Lord is comprised of consecrated whole grain flax pasta with wheatballs. This may sound like gibberish to nonbelievers but Veganarians know what i’m talkin about. We eat cake and we have it too.
The comic itself may not have nailed home Brad’s original point but many of those quick to dissent have illustrated it in a much more representational rendering.
I do find it interesting when an atheist can painstakingly dissect a religious argument calling out the myriad of logical fallacies but turn around and resort to the very same when defending the irrationality of exploiting non-humans.
What’s irrational about exploiting non-humans? Seems like a much more rational thing to do than trying to exploit humans. After all, humans are more apt to fight back effectively against exploitation, while non-humans can be exploited with far less danger and trouble. Whether it’s chickens or carrots, those non-humans are a lot easier to exploit. So that seems rational to me.
Bananas on the other hand…
I don’t really get the connection, as it suggests veganism is the only acceptable conclusion a rational person can come to when considering their own diet. I’m an atheist because no argument has ever convinced me that there is a god, and I am not a vegan because no argument has ever convinced me that it’s a better (or more moral) lifestyle.
I was a vegetarian for about six or seven years in my youth, and stopped around when I went to college (ironically when everyone I knew seemed to flip the other way), which was also the same time I totally gave up any sense of belief in god and went from a deist to an agnostic - I basically evaluated all the beliefs I held and gave up any that didn’t seem to hold to rational argument. I do feel very guilty eating pork, because pigs are very smart and I do think that’s rather unethical (but why did they have to be so delicious), and I refuse to eat animals like dogs or horses. But chicken? And cows? Not so much with the pathos. I do think they should be treated well and support free-range eggs and the like. And I only JUST realised, after being on this planet over two decades, that duh, cows have to be kept pregnant to produce milk, which sounds ridiculous when we were all protesting against doing the same thing to horses a few years back. But I think I would go into deliciousness withdrawal and die without dairy, seriously. I wouldn’t have survived being a vegetarian if I hadn’t allowed myself dairy and fish (come on, even dumber than chickens).
Also, I became a vegetarian originally (I was like 12) because I felt bad about us RAISING animals for slaughter and not giving them a good quality of life before killing them. It seems unsportsmanlike. I’ve never had an ethical problem with killing domesticated farm animals, who are basically bred to be as stupid as possible. If we could grow steaks in labs, I’d be all for that, but we are working the other way (to make livestock walking steaks). I believe PZ Meyers had a post about this, but it was forever ago and I’m not eager to go dig it up. XD
And yeah, I’m aware any appeals to us being “built” to be omnivores or “but the other carnivores do it!” are not effective or sound arguments. But I do think we get certain things from meat which we do not get from a diet or pure plant matter.. and at some level, I have to wonder what the difference is between killing one living thing for food and killing another. Is it the central nervous system? The brain? I just keep thinking of Mike the Headless Chicken and wondering what the difference between eating him and a cabbage is. And why is it not acceptable to kill and eat a chicken but it’s acceptable to kill billions of insects with pecticides so we can eat crops? It just seems to me like you have to draw a line at what kind of life is “acceptable” to kill in the pursuit of food, and I draw that line comfortably at domesticated cattle.
Sorry for the teal deer.
Well, why *not* eat meat? If you’re going to tell me that it’s cruel and inhuman, I’m going to tell you that we’re animals, and that many *many* other animals do it every day. Our digestive system is built to handle it, so in my opinion, it’s natural.
Yes, I agree that many of our current methods of meat “farming” are inhuman and indeed cruel, but that has nothing to do with eating meat in the first place. Eating some meats in moderation is good for our diets, plain and simple.
I have to say that associating atheism and vegetarianism/veganism is quite ridiculous. One has *nothing* to do with the other. I choose not to believe in an imaginary friend in the sky because, well, that’s simply a silly thing to believe in, and I see no reason to. I do not practice vegetarianism because I see no reason to. Neither theism nor vegetarianism are beneficial to me, and that is where their similarities end.
Honestly, I think associating one with the other, and placing expectations on others (such as the idea that vegetarianism and atheism should go hand-in-hand) is a bit unfriendly.
I’m a vegetarian through choice. I’m an atheist because I can’t force my brain to accept the religious point of view. Not that I want to.
In other regards I share many common characteristics with meat eating theists.
For the record:
mikespeir eats meat. Incorrigibly. The last meal he ever eats will probably involve meat.
I’m vegetarian and atheist. I chose the vegetarian life style a decade ago once it dawned on me that I can be a whole lot healthier by dropping meat from my daily menu. I can see why religion and meat consumption are lumped together - there are many parallels between them:
Both are harmful.
Neither is necessary for health or life.
Both are based on traditions, opinions, irrational beliefs, and feelings/emotions rather than science (i.e. meat eating is tasty, childhood comfort foods often include animal products in the West, the erroneous belief that to not eat meat means to miss out on essential nutrients and thus, some kind of extra effort must be made, or supplements must be taken, the idea that our ancestors knew better than modern man regarding health, morality, from whence we come, etc.).
Both are cultural (i.e. humans are cultural, not biological, omnivores - in other words, they are classified as omnivorous based on observation of their behavior, not on biological adaptations as is customary in classifying all other living things).
Both traditions are often fiercely defended, even when not under attack (the mere presence of a vegetarian/atheist in a room full of meat eaters/religious people often makes the latter feel defensive, offensive, or both, and they sometimes assume the vegetarian/atheist is silently judging them).
Both are addictive (like most harmful things).
Both give the illusion of well being (like smokers who feel great for decades, until they don’t).
Both have erroneous beliefs about morality and their opponents’ ethics (religious people believe there can be no morality without god, and meat eaters often assume that people go vegetarian on ethical grounds alone, which may explain why they may feel judged by vegetarians even when they are not).
Both have fanatics in their midsts.
Both are judged (and smeared) based on their respective fanatics most of the time.
Both are prone to using their own numbers as a way to justify their behavior and beliefs (there are more religious and meat eating people in the world than not, therefore, both traditions are correct, or superior). There are more religious people in the world than there are meat eaters, but that’s neither here nor there.
Both have a thing about males (religions put them first and make them out to be superior to women, male meat eaters think it’s macho to eat meat).
Some people just happen to think that not all ways of surviving are morally equivalent. Your argument is identical to the one in the comic. If you don’t care about the suffering of non-human animals, no one can convince you that you should stop eating meat.
Similarly, if a theist doesn’t care about objective evidence, it is useless trying to convince them that they shouldn’t believe in God.
Rationally, objectively, reasonably, and without reference to any sort of divinity or other supernatural entity, bacon cheeseburgers are teh yummy.
Are you implying the only valid argument for not eating meat is that it stops the inhumane treatment of farm animals? I can think of a number of other arguments for vegetarianism. And the argument in the comic is unsupported. Providing support makes it a valid argument. I agree, without the support I’ve added, my argument is similar to the comic’s argument, and quite poor at that.
I heard a pretzel put up a good fight against the President. As far as I know, it’s been his only attempted assassination.
I’m with the people who don’t get the question in the first place. Atheism and vegetarianism are completely different things, entirely unrelated. I can’t choose to believe or not believe in god, but it’s certainly a choice to eat meat. One which I make almost every day. Although I recognise many good reasons not to eat meat, right now it’s simply not feasible for me to make that transition. I have trouble getting enough sustenance as it is and constantly have to fight to stay at a healthy weight. Perhaps in the future.
For the record, I think being a “vegetarian” but still eating fish (from fisheries) is one of the most hypocritical choices one can make. The oceans are depleted. We’re killing them. The ecological disaster that overfishing has caused and is causing every day is far, far worse than what we do to livestock. If one purports to care about the welfare of the earth as a whole, one should never, ever eat fish or seafood again.
J Myers, I’m confused - how do you prove the nonexistence of something? Can you prove that Russel’s Teapot does NOT exist? It may be possible to prove a negative, but not nonexistence - that’s a special case, surely?
i’m a vegan and an atheist. i get the same questions too.
“you’re a vegan?”
“yeap.”
“what do you eat?”
“anything that doesn’t come from animals.”
“you’re an atheist?”
“yeap.”
“what do you believe?”
“not in god.”
it’s strange how those answers completely freak people out.
@vegatee
Ummm….. I don’t suppose you realized that about 75% of those also apply to vegetarianism? (Glass houses, stones, etc.) My one problem with vegetarians as individuals or groups is their fanaticism.
@Marzipan
Those are really not the same issue. Many countries in Europe have laws to ensure the humane treatment of farm animals. It makes things more expensive, but it’s the right thing to do. I would fully support such legislation here, but I see little interest in that in this country, and I think that’s partly the fault of vegetarians. When anyone tries to start a conversation about humane treatment of farm animals, it immediately gets sidetracked on to “we shouldn’t be eating them at all”. They are such fanatics that there doesn’t seem to be any room for a middle ground, and it’s the animals that pay for that.
Domestic animals are dependent on humans to survive. Many species of wild animals have gone extinct when they got in our way, but that will never happen to the domestic animals, and that is a major plus considering the way the environment is going at the moment. They get benefits from this arrangement, it’s not all one-sided.
In Victorian England, dogs were sometimes a commercial animal. They pulled dog-carts for people who needed a small cart for their business (peddlers, ragpickers, etc.). When they were made illegal in London in 1840, the week after the law was put into effect the streets were full of dead dogs, killed by the owners because they couldn’t afford to feed them.
So here’s my question for vegans - what is supposed to happen to all the cows and chickens if people no longer need dairy products or eggs? It’s not like they are going to become apartment pets. Why is extinction better than an arrangement that benefits both? Why is abandonment of an ancient relationship a better moral position than working for laws for humane treatment?
It’s a real question by the way - while it’s clear what side of the issue I’m on at this point, I’ve never had an opportunity to ask a vegan for their take on it.
For the record - I buy my eggs at a farmer’s market, from happy hens. I get as much of my meat there as possible too.
I remember reading a quote, something to the effect of:
“I’m going to just admit that there are no good arguments for eating meat. That way, when I do it, I won’t be both a hypocrite AND a liar.”
This is charming, but I think too generous. As an atheist, I would say my argument for not being a vegan is:
I don’t believe animals dying is morally bad, so there’s nothing bad about killing them for food.
I DO believe that animal suffering is morally bad, but not eating meat is an impractical and impotent way to ameliorate this. Instead, one should focus on reforming the industry, not ignoring it.
I DO believe that PETA hurts this cause, so I would never help them. But other organizations that are purely for reducing animal cruelty would be great, and I would gladly support them.
It’s impractical to believe that humans will ever stop eating meat, and it’s self-righteous to think that, because I’m not taking part in it, I’m somehow morally superior. If I’m not helping the problem in a meaningful way, then I’m not helping the problem in a meaningful way. There’s no moral high ground here.
Gullwatcher
You’re stereotyping. You assume that the majority of vegetarians are fanatics. One of my points was that, like religious people, vegetarians are judged based on the extremists amongst them, not the majority.
As for 75% of the parallels applying to vegetarians… I don’t see it, except in cases wherein vegetarianism is a culture-based choice, which would make it no different from religion or meat consumption.
That seems disingenuous. The very fact that we ARE humans means that we are intelligent, and capable of moral reasoning, which allows us to not do cruel things that other animals do. Just because something’s natural doesn’t mean that it’s right.
Let’s take your argument, but replace eating meat with rape.
Natural does not equal good. Reductio ad absurdum, QED.
Vegatee, I’d be curious to know how you’d respond to the rest of the gullwatcher’s points. His argument is similar to mine: the morally bad part isn’t the killing animals for food, it’s the animal cruelty. Veganism/vegetarianism does little to solve the latter problem, and groups like PETA might even make it worse. This does not mean veganism/vegetarianism is bad, but it might mean that meat eating with a concience towards animal suffering (like in Europe) is not bad either.
First, I’m flattered at the discussion our comic has spawned.
Second, thanks for linking to us Hemant, I’m a fan.
Third, there are a lot of questions here and a lot I’ve gotten via e-mail since publishing this comic. I’m thinking the best way to handle this might be to put up a FAQ about it. If anyone has a question they want me to address, e-mail me and I’ll consider putting it in the FAQ.
There is a lot here I’d like to respond to and simply don’t have time to but I want to clarify one thing.
The comic isn’t meant to say that the case for meat-consumption and atheism are equal. For one thing one is an ethical issue and the other is a scientific issue (I think).
The comic is meant to point out that not only do both theists and meat-consumers rely on logical fallacies, they often rely on the same logical fallacies.
Thanks again!
@Vegatee
It’s you who are assuming here. I didn’t say all or most are fanatics, I just said that the ones I have problems with ARE. I know lots of lovely vegetarians and none of them are fanatics, because I tend not to befriend the fanatical. But they are out there, I have met them.
I can’t say the same for groups - all the groups that have brought themselves to my attention (note the qualifier there) do seem to be fanatical.
For brevity’s sake, I’m going with numbers. You had 12 parallels - 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 all apply to vegetarianism as well.
Has anyone else here read “Real Food” by Nina Planck? She was a vegan until her job required her to eat different foods, and she found that her health improved enormously. It’s a very interesting book.
Gullwatcher
I’m not a vegan, but since I’m pretty close seeing how the only animal product I eat is eggs, I’ll try to answer this. Your question implies that somehow, meat consumption would disappear suddenly, over night, and the next day there would be millions of critters with no purpose all over the world. It’s a rather absurd scenario, don’t you think? I think that if such a thing as worldwide vegetarianism was ever to become a reality (not gonna happen), it would happen gradually. As with any decline in consumption that happens gradually, be it switching to hybrid cars, or cutting back on tobacco products, less demand would result in less production, until, eventually, there would be no demand at all.
As for your comment on the domesticated animals becoming extinct. So what? What’s the big deal about having domesticated animals? More than 99% of every species that has ever existed on this planet has gone extinct. Who are we to stand in the way of nature taking its course? Most domesticated animals are human-made versions of their wild ancestors. They’re unnatural in a way. I say, good riddance!
You mention that an arrangement wherein food animals are treated nice until they die is a good arrangement for both. I don’t see how any of us can decide what the animals may feel are good arrangements for them by using our own, human, and subjective points of view. We can only assume that they would prefer a severely shortened life span to be sheltered and given food to living out their lives in the wild. Since we’re applying human assumptions to animals’ views, we should also ask ourselves which we would prefer: living until we are ten years old, protected, fed, and sheltered, then whacked over the head to be made dinner, or live into our sixties or seventies, free, and on our own?
@Vegatee
Interesting - I always thought that vegetarians liked animals. I guess I was stereotyping there. I didn’t realize that they might consider whole categories of them as disposable. Do you include dogs and cats in that as well?
I like animals. I don’t judge them as unfit to live because they aren’t ‘natural’. I like lots of unnatural things, like sleeping in a house and indoor plumbing, all good unnatural things that most of us enjoy.
Actually, I specifically mentioned dairy and egg-producing animals. I expect that the reason you decided to switch it to meat animals in your reply is that you realized your argument won’t work for that (nice Palinizing, BTW).
As for the rest of the argument, I take it you have never had a pet. You can tell when an animal is healthy and happy. It’s not about ‘forcing a point of view on them’ (which is an absurd notion in and of itself), it’s obvious in the way they are. A healthy happy animal is a good thing, be it a dog, a cat, a cow, or a chicken.
Gullwatcher:
That’s not true. You did not say “the only vegetarians I have a problem with are the fanatics”, you said
That’s a blanket statement.
As for the parallels you mention as applying to vegetarianism as well (2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11):
Plant based foods are necessary for both health and life. Meat is not.
Vegetarianism, although in many instances is based on tradition and/or emotions, is also based on scientific facts, rather than anecdotal evidence as is the case with meat consumption and religion.
See my answer to number 3.
Yes, some vegetarians defend their lifestyles even when not under attack.
The scientific consensus is that vegetarians live longer, healthier lives. No illusions here.
It’s true, I’m sure, that some, or even many vegetarians have false beliefs about the thought processes and ethical standing of meat eaters and religious people.
Yup, there are extremes in every community.
Yup, vegetarians are smeared and judged based on the minority of fanatics among them all the time.
Vegetarians are the minority, so, I fail to see how this applies to them.
So, I agree that some (four out of twelve) of these points apply to vegetarians as well (I never said they didn’t), but hardly 75%.
@Vegatee
Ok, I’ll give you #11. I was thinking of “numbers” in terms of statistics, not as in the majority is right.
Your scientific facts are outdated and were often the product of bad science in the first place. For an interesting history of food science, check out “Good Calories, Bad Calories” by Gary Taubes, which sets out 40 years of food science and the government policies based on it, and how it was influenced by the politics and commercial interests of the people performing and funding the studies. The whole “meat bad, low-fat good” was a manufactured myth, and is not supported by the research.
A vegetarian diet is no healthier than a varied diet, low in processed foods, that includes meat. It’s just not a valid argument.
Gullwatcher
There’s a difference between producing animals and disposing of existing animals. To dispose of something, it has to exist first. I do not suggest we dispose of existing animals.
Dogs and cats are euthanized (humanely or otherwise) by the billions each year. Their suffering is of monumental proportions. Ideally, spaying and neutering would be regulated by law, and response to animal abuse would be enforced on all accounts. Unfortunately, the law still sees pets as objects in most cases, which can be used or abused with little more than a slap on the wrist for those who mistreat them.
Your indoor plumbing is not sentient and does not suffer from being used.
Actually, I did not notice, as I read too quickly over your reply. Sorry about that. Dairy cows can only produce milk if they are pregnant first. What happens to all the calves that are necessary to keep the milk flowing? Egg laying hens are probably the only domesticated food producing animal that can fit the scenario you describe, though, it’s highly unlikely, given the need for mass production, that it would ever come to be.
I don’t remember ever having lived without a pet (dogs, and lately one cat and dog). I don’t, however, have pets to eat them whenever I get a craving. My point is that, unlike a family pet, a farm animal can not have similar luxuries without reducing production to a great extent. People want their meat and that’s that. Cutting down their supply to make the necessary changes wouldn’t go over well.
@Vegatee
Those are not the words of someone who thinks of animals as valuable and as something that enriches the world. Sorry, they just aren’t - unless you misspoke or overstated your case?
And that’s a reason not to try, because…. why?
And I’m sorry, beyond that, your reply does require a more thoughtful answer than I can do right now, I have an appointment to get to. More later, I hope.
Taubes has zero background in nutrition education, whereas, I am working on my Master’s in Clinical Nutrition. Forgive me if I don’t suddenly bow to his conclusions. I am well aware of corporate influences on the studies that lay people have thrown at them. I am also aware of the mind boggling amount of influence the meat, dairy, and sugar industries have, not only on government recommendations, but the ADA itself.
I’m less than pleased that I may have to add an ADA certification to my resume, since I am disgusted, to say the least, by the conflict of interest inherent in their organization stemming from the funding they receive from the above mentioned industries. I am considering teaching and a private practice instead of hospital work simply so I can bypass having to have my name associated with an organization I think so very little of.
I don’t see anything more than pure eristics this time.
The point is there IS a difference - atheism is a culture thing and it actually intesified the position of morality in our civilization, the need of eating meat is biological (and it’s one of the most basic), so it’s completely independent from any culture issues.
I mean - veganism and vegetarianism are sort of a way round - getting what has to be gotten, but in totally different way than the nature ‘planned’ it. Someone feels better that way - ok, but it’s kind of cheating on our dark bestial side, fully natural, though.
@Vegatee
Fine, then refute them, but don’t just tell me that you know better and expect me to accept that.
I actually consider his lack of background in the field to be an asset, as it means he has no axe to grind. Were you a vegetarian before you started your studies? If so, how can I be sure that that hasn’t influenced you?
Gullwatcher
I may not be as available as I would like to be for this discussion, as I am buried up to my eyelids in biochemistry homework and I will be gone all weekend (Canadian thanksgiving) and have to finish everything before Friday. So, if you do feel like continuing this, that’s fine, but I may not be able to get back to you until next week. Already, I’ve spent much more time here today than I wanted, not to mention I got myself in a discussion about the ethics of vegetarianism which were not the reason I went vegetarian in the first place. I usually stay away from this line of debate. I don’t know what possessed me to get into it now. :o)
As for my love of animals, think what you may. As I said before, not wanting to see them bred for our own gustatory pleasures is not the same as not loving them or thinking they are disposable. I would go into a fiery inferno to save my little dog, just as I would for a friend or any other human being. Perhaps my use of the phrase “good riddance” was a bit over the top, but I do feel strongly about the overproduction of animals for our pleasure, be they food producers, or pets. It’s unethical, as far as I’m concerned.
Ditto. Just throwing a name and book title out there isn’t going to change anyone’s mind either.
I was a vegetarian before starting my Master’s. However, it was my study of nutrition as an undergrad that made me go vegetarian. As I mentioned before, ethics had nothing to do with it, nor did my feeling sorry for animals. I felt sorry for them before I went veg, but I still enjoyed my filet mignon and BBQ’s.