|
On June 30 2011 04:45 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 04:31 Hasudk wrote:It probably makes no sense to argue about this, since its only comprehendible if you actually want to understand it. Isn't everything only understandable if you want to understand it? Show nested quote +The point is though that there are more than one way to get about knowledge. In fact you listed two different ways yourself: logic and empirical evidence. Both of which can be used to prove the existence of a God btw. There are numerous logical proofs of Gods existence, and f.ex. miracles are perfectly acceptable as empirical evidence of Gods existence as well. Miracles are not evidence of anything. Miracles are simply unexplainable things. Something that is unexplainable does not imply a God, because that would be an explanation and therefore a miracle would not be unexplainable. Also, I've never heard of a proof of a God using logic. Please direct me to one so that I can find a debunk for it  Show nested quote +Finally one could claim that there are even more ways to prove something then via logic or empirical evidence. One example of this could be feelings: you cannot prove via logic or empirical evidence that you love your girlfriend, but I'm sure that both you and her don't doubt it for a second. If we are talking about knowledge, you can only prove something with the scientific method. Loving your girlfriend has nothing to do with knowledge and facts. Show nested quote +This all sounds like Im trying to prove the existence of a christian God. Im not though, Im just trying to show you cannot understand religion from an atheist point of view. Of course you can understand religion from an atheist point of view. Religion is simply faith without evidence. Religion and it's teachings cannot be used as evidence for anything. Show nested quote +Saying that f.e.x christianity is about believing in the existence of a God is missing the point, its not the existence but the goodness of God that they believe in - they trust in God. Im sure that a lot of christians are in doubt (and probably also about the existence of their God), but there are also a lot of christians (and muslims, jews, hindus etc.) that know for certain that their God exists. You cannot know for certain that their God exists. Even if 'God' talked to them. Even if a bush ignited in front of their eyes and it spoke to them. There are a million explanations for those things and a God is just one of them. I'm sorry, but it didn't make sense at all I'd prefer if we didn't continue this discussion as this thread is not about religion but about inhumana slaughter.
I think your post is an excellent and intelligent example of why you cant understand religion from an atheist point of view. Its all about the viewpoint. Consider that at some point in history everybody knew that the earth was the center of the universe - today we know something different, tomorrow something different again. Tomorrow our current knowledge might be false, but does that mean we don't know it to be certain today?
Religion is about knowing that God exists – you might disagree, you might know that God does not exist, but that is actually irrelevant for wether or not religious people know that their God exists.
Also logic is relative, based on common assertions an other implicit values, therefor it makes no sense to argue with someone that their logic is not logical – its logical to them. Google "logical evidence for Gods existence", there are more than one, and as far as I know there are also counter-arguments for all of them.
As for the whole empirical evidence thing, I don't think you can find many examples of a piece empirical evidence that contains its own explanation. The apple certainly doesn't tell you that its falling because of gravity, thats just a theory that we use to explain the empirical observations. The same can be said to be true of miracles.
|
On June 30 2011 06:28 Fattah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 06:20 On_Slaught wrote:
You are misplacing the burden. The burden is on the people who are actually doing the killing to show that their way is humane, not for everyone else to find a better solution.
I'm not taking a stance towards which is right since I don't know enough on the subject, but it is a very unfair stance to place the burden on anybody but the killers to show they are doing it in the most humane way. And how do you suggest they prove it is humane? How did the lawmakers who banned it, prove that any other way is more humane? Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 06:21 BlackJack wrote:On June 30 2011 06:15 Fattah wrote:
Now if you can prove with empirical evidence and statistical data that stunning the animal before Halal slaughter is less painful then I don't see why Muslims wouldn't be more than willing or even satisfied to do it. Do you really believe that? What's up with the half quote? Read the whole thing. Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 06:24 Rabbitmaster wrote:On June 30 2011 06:15 Fattah wrote:. You do realise it's possible for someone to eat meat but still not wanting to let animals suffer needlessly? Actually, no. I didn't realize that, and I still can't. Don't quote me on this but I think the reason why Halal slaughter is this way, is because it is (was) believed to be the most painless way to slaughter an animal. Now if you can prove with empirical evidence and statistical data that stunning the animal before Halal slaughter is less painful then I don't see why Muslims wouldn't be more than willing or even satisfied to do it. If there is another less painful way (again, using empirical evidence and statistical data) to slaughter animals that doesn't involve "slitting the throat in one slice" then I don't think I'm qualified enough to talk about it, and frankly neither are you. (assuming you are not a nuero scientist specialized in throat slitting.) In regards to Kosher, I am sorry I can't approach the subject with what limited knowledge I have about it If it was possble to change a muslims (or any religious persons) mind with simple statistics and empirical evidence, the world would be very VERY different. How many muslims believe in the theory of evolution? And evolution has more evidence going for it than the theory of gravity. Ok I am not a theologian, but the matter of evolution has something to do with theology rather than ritual.
Ehm, actually it does not. The fact of evolution is a scientific question, same goes for the matter of wether animals suffer when having their throat slit, in effect they can both be proven based on evidence. The opposition to the first, and the enforcement of the latter are both derieved from theology however, in effect they are based on faith (also tradition). So what exactly is the difference?
Even if you can not prove wether the animal suffers or not with our current knowledge and technology, it is still highly plausible that we one day will. And even more plausible, in my opinion, that the animal actually does suffer.
Let me know if this post was, in any way, unclear and i will rephrase my point. Slightly drunk at the moment.
|
I would say the emotional knee-jerk responses in this thread is the poison that keeps us from progressing as a race. Funny how a worldview centered around logic is completely mired in rage and disdain.
|
Australia8532 Posts
I suppose the natural inclination for most people would be animal welfare as to minimise the amount of suffering for the animal. However, i have always been under the impression that the Muslim/Jewish traditions were done so in a way that renders the least pain possible for the animal. I was always told that was the whole point of them.
This feels a little ill-thought to be honest. There aren't a ton of facts in the OP but it doesn't instil a great deal of confidence in the system.
|
On June 30 2011 07:00 bkrow wrote:
I suppose the natural inclination for most people would be animal welfare as to minimise the amount of suffering for the animal. However, i have always been under the impression that the Muslim/Jewish traditions were done so in a way that renders the least pain possible for the animal. I was always told that was the whole point of them.
This feels a little ill-thought to be honest. There aren't a ton of facts in the OP but it doesn't instil a great deal of confidence in the system.
I have heard this as well. I don't think the animals welfare is any worse being killed kosher.
|
Go back to the fucking middle ages where causing suffering to life in the name of religion is considered rightful.
You read about this on a forum. Meh. Who cares. But if you would be there and if you would see it with your own eyes, if you would see this poor animal, it`s eyes, it`s fear and its pain when its being brutally murdered, if you could feel it, this folly, this hipocrisy, this senslessness, you would not be so indifferent.
Religions, sooner or later, need to be seen for what they truly are. It is forthright. Feel offended all you want. The truth remains the truth and your beliefs, religious affiliations will not change it.
|
I think that not only the law itself but also the OP's poll (in its wording at least) is incredibly stupid. I mean what does the Dutch government expect with this ? Does anyone really thinks ( apart maybe OP's author, i don't want to call him out) animal well being is what at stake here ? Am I the only one who thinks it's just about oppressing (ok that might be a lil' strong, let's just say "putting the blame on") a specific set of persons, just for political benefit ? Are there really people around here falling in that trap ?
And as far as the Poll wording goes what about :
What is worth more?
* Insulting millions of people by prentending to care about Animals well being
* Not putting oil on the already pretty complicated Religious tension bondfire
I'm so appalled by this that I actually went ahead and wrote that post instead of watching Huk stream. That's how upset I am, exactly.
Don't Dutch lawmakers have nothing better to do with their time, you know like finding actual solution so that people who are actually suffering in their country get better ?
-Kerm
ps : And don't even try to throw Foie Gras, Corrida or Hijab ban at my face
pps : Reading WallieP's OP a second time, I realize that he does not realy mean to take side, just trying to expose the law as it is. I still find his poll is worded in a biased fashion though.
|
On June 30 2011 07:05 Kerm wrote:
I think that not only the law itself but also the OP's poll (in its wording at least) is incredibly stupid. I mean what does the Dutch government expect with this ? Does anyone really thinks ( apart maybe OP's author, i don't want to call him out) animal well being is what at stake here ? Am I the only one who thinks it's just about oppressing (ok that might be a lil' strong, let's just say "putting the blame on") a specific set of persons, just for political benefit ? Are there really people around here falling in that trap ?
And as far as the Poll wording goes what about :
What is worth more?
* Insulting millions of people by prentending to care about Animals well being
* Not putting oil on the already pretty complicated Religious tension bondfire
I'm so appalled by this that I actually went ahead and wrote that post instead of watching Huk stream. That's how upset I am, exactly.
Don't Dutch lawmakers have nothing better to do with their time, you know like finding actual solution so that people who are actually suffering in their country get better ?
-Kerm
ps : And don't even try to throw Foie Gars, Corrida or Hijab ban at my face
pps : Reading WallieP's OP a second time, I realize that he does not realy mean to take side, just trying to expose the law as it is. I still find his poll is worded in a biased fashion though.
You have no proof that it is just for political benefit. It might very well be true though, at least to some degree.
The honesty of those responsible for choices, priority of actions and correct investment of time and energy certainly is an issue, and not just in Netherlands, but in every country.
Nonetheless, religious rituals involving killing animals that have to be awake for the sake of a tradition of the ritual is absolutely sick. We live in the fucking XXI century.
|
On June 30 2011 06:54 Hasudk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 04:45 Thorakh wrote:On June 30 2011 04:31 Hasudk wrote:It probably makes no sense to argue about this, since its only comprehendible if you actually want to understand it. Isn't everything only understandable if you want to understand it? The point is though that there are more than one way to get about knowledge. In fact you listed two different ways yourself: logic and empirical evidence. Both of which can be used to prove the existence of a God btw. There are numerous logical proofs of Gods existence, and f.ex. miracles are perfectly acceptable as empirical evidence of Gods existence as well. Miracles are not evidence of anything. Miracles are simply unexplainable things. Something that is unexplainable does not imply a God, because that would be an explanation and therefore a miracle would not be unexplainable. Also, I've never heard of a proof of a God using logic. Please direct me to one so that I can find a debunk for it Finally one could claim that there are even more ways to prove something then via logic or empirical evidence. One example of this could be feelings: you cannot prove via logic or empirical evidence that you love your girlfriend, but I'm sure that both you and her don't doubt it for a second. If we are talking about knowledge, you can only prove something with the scientific method. Loving your girlfriend has nothing to do with knowledge and facts. This all sounds like Im trying to prove the existence of a christian God. Im not though, Im just trying to show you cannot understand religion from an atheist point of view. Of course you can understand religion from an atheist point of view. Religion is simply faith without evidence. Religion and it's teachings cannot be used as evidence for anything. Saying that f.e.x christianity is about believing in the existence of a God is missing the point, its not the existence but the goodness of God that they believe in - they trust in God. Im sure that a lot of christians are in doubt (and probably also about the existence of their God), but there are also a lot of christians (and muslims, jews, hindus etc.) that know for certain that their God exists. You cannot know for certain that their God exists. Even if 'God' talked to them. Even if a bush ignited in front of their eyes and it spoke to them. There are a million explanations for those things and a God is just one of them. I hope that makes sense =) I'm sorry, but it didn't make sense at all I'd prefer if we didn't continue this discussion as this thread is not about religion but about inhumana slaughter. I think your post is an excellent and intelligent example of why you cant understand religion from an atheist point of view. Its all about the viewpoint. Consider that at some point in history everybody knew that the earth was the center of the universe - today we know something different, tomorrow something different again. Tomorrow our current knowledge might be false, but does that mean we don't know it to be certain today? Religion is about knowing that God exists – you might disagree, you might know that God does not exist, but that is actually irrelevant for wether or not religious people know that their God exists. Also logic is relative, based on common assertions an other implicit values, therefor it makes no sense to argue with someone that their logic is not logical – its logical to them. Google "logical evidence for Gods existence", there are more than one, and as far as I know there are also counter-arguments for all of them. As for the whole empirical evidence thing, I don't think you can find many examples of a piece empirical evidence that contains its own explanation. The apple certainly doesn't tell you that its falling because of gravity, thats just a theory that we use to explain the empirical observations. The same can be said to be true of miracles.
What are you even arguing? That because a religious person claims to know that God exists that means atheists can't understand it? I understand religion full well, I just think it's blatantly false. If it turns out to be wrong that does indeed mean we didn't know for certain because it literally means known for sure, beyond a doubt. People weren't certain about the earth being flat, they just thought it was.
|
What kind of proof are you talking about, a tape or something ? A stolen mail ?
Come on, given the political context of the Netherlands (the little than I know about at least), given the political context of Europe, that's pretty obvious.
We have been living in "the fucking XXI century for more than ten years now", why does the law only gets talked about now do you think ?
|
On June 30 2011 07:04 UFO wrote:
Go back to the fucking middle ages where causing suffering to life in the name of religion is considered rightful.
You read about this on a forum. Meh. Who cares. But if you would be there and if you would see it with your own eyes, if you would see this poor animal, it`s eyes, it`s fear and its pain when its being brutally murdered, if you could feel it, this folly, this hipocrisy, this senslessness, you would not be so indifferent.
Religions, sooner or later, need to be seen for what they truly are. It is forthright. Feel offended all you want. The truth remains the truth and your beliefs, religious affiliations will not change it.
BRUTALLY MURDERED ! TERRIBLE TERRIBLE DAMAGE
Killing an animal for food is murder?
|
On June 30 2011 07:23 UFO wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 07:05 Kerm wrote:
I think that not only the law itself but also the OP's poll (in its wording at least) is incredibly stupid. I mean what does the Dutch government expect with this ? Does anyone really thinks ( apart maybe OP's author, i don't want to call him out) animal well being is what at stake here ? Am I the only one who thinks it's just about oppressing (ok that might be a lil' strong, let's just say "putting the blame on") a specific set of persons, just for political benefit ? Are there really people around here falling in that trap ?
And as far as the Poll wording goes what about :
What is worth more?
* Insulting millions of people by prentending to care about Animals well being
* Not putting oil on the already pretty complicated Religious tension bondfire
I'm so appalled by this that I actually went ahead and wrote that post instead of watching Huk stream. That's how upset I am, exactly.
Don't Dutch lawmakers have nothing better to do with their time, you know like finding actual solution so that people who are actually suffering in their country get better ?
-Kerm
ps : And don't even try to throw Foie Gars, Corrida or Hijab ban at my face
pps : Reading WallieP's OP a second time, I realize that he does not realy mean to take side, just trying to expose the law as it is. I still find his poll is worded in a biased fashion though.
You have no proof that it is just for political benefit. It might very well be true though, at least to some degree. The honesty of those responsible for choices, priority of actions and correct investment of time and energy certainly is an issue, and not just in Netherlands, but in every country. Nonetheless, religious rituals involving killing animals that have to be awake for the sake of a tradition of the ritual is absolutely sick. We live in the fucking XXI century.
So when's the next law banning industrial farmed animals then?
From what I have seen, Halal/Kosher does not look anywhere as bad as those factory farms.
|
On June 30 2011 07:23 UFO wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 07:05 Kerm wrote:
I think that not only the law itself but also the OP's poll (in its wording at least) is incredibly stupid. I mean what does the Dutch government expect with this ? Does anyone really thinks ( apart maybe OP's author, i don't want to call him out) animal well being is what at stake here ? Am I the only one who thinks it's just about oppressing (ok that might be a lil' strong, let's just say "putting the blame on") a specific set of persons, just for political benefit ? Are there really people around here falling in that trap ?
And as far as the Poll wording goes what about :
What is worth more?
* Insulting millions of people by prentending to care about Animals well being
* Not putting oil on the already pretty complicated Religious tension bondfire
I'm so appalled by this that I actually went ahead and wrote that post instead of watching Huk stream. That's how upset I am, exactly.
Don't Dutch lawmakers have nothing better to do with their time, you know like finding actual solution so that people who are actually suffering in their country get better ?
-Kerm
ps : And don't even try to throw Foie Gars, Corrida or Hijab ban at my face
pps : Reading WallieP's OP a second time, I realize that he does not realy mean to take side, just trying to expose the law as it is. I still find his poll is worded in a biased fashion though.
You have no proof that it is just for political benefit. It might very well be true though, at least to some degree. The honesty of those responsible for choices, priority of actions and correct investment of time and energy certainly is an issue, and not just in Netherlands, but in every country. Nonetheless, religious rituals involving killing animals that have to be awake for the sake of a tradition of the ritual is absolutely sick. We live in the fucking XXI century.
Like why do people still not read the thread? What's wrong with your eyes?
There was even a guy linking a test done by scientists that shows that slitting the throat of the animal is less painful than stunning it.
BOOM.
And who cares anyway. It dies fairly quickly however you do it, and it's obviously more humane or whatever to do it the religious way. Just because it's religious doesn't mean it's bad... Just that it's probably bad.
I dunno where all these PETA guys comes from. First the policeman killing a dog thread, where poeple says that he should be put down for murder and shit, and now this.
|
On June 30 2011 07:50 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 07:23 UFO wrote:On June 30 2011 07:05 Kerm wrote:
I think that not only the law itself but also the OP's poll (in its wording at least) is incredibly stupid. I mean what does the Dutch government expect with this ? Does anyone really thinks ( apart maybe OP's author, i don't want to call him out) animal well being is what at stake here ? Am I the only one who thinks it's just about oppressing (ok that might be a lil' strong, let's just say "putting the blame on") a specific set of persons, just for political benefit ? Are there really people around here falling in that trap ?
And as far as the Poll wording goes what about :
What is worth more?
* Insulting millions of people by prentending to care about Animals well being
* Not putting oil on the already pretty complicated Religious tension bondfire
I'm so appalled by this that I actually went ahead and wrote that post instead of watching Huk stream. That's how upset I am, exactly.
Don't Dutch lawmakers have nothing better to do with their time, you know like finding actual solution so that people who are actually suffering in their country get better ?
-Kerm
ps : And don't even try to throw Foie Gars, Corrida or Hijab ban at my face
pps : Reading WallieP's OP a second time, I realize that he does not realy mean to take side, just trying to expose the law as it is. I still find his poll is worded in a biased fashion though.
You have no proof that it is just for political benefit. It might very well be true though, at least to some degree. The honesty of those responsible for choices, priority of actions and correct investment of time and energy certainly is an issue, and not just in Netherlands, but in every country. Nonetheless, religious rituals involving killing animals that have to be awake for the sake of a tradition of the ritual is absolutely sick. We live in the fucking XXI century. Like why do people still not read the thread? What's wrong with your eyes? There was even a guy linking a test done by scientists that shows that slitting the throat of the animal is less painful than stunning it. BOOM. And who cares anyway. It dies fairly quickly however you do it, and it's obviously more humane or whatever to do it the religious way. Just because it's religious doesn't mean it's bad... Just that it's probably bad. I dunno where all these PETA guys comes from. First the policeman killing a dog thread, where poeple says that he should be put down for murder and shit, and now this.
It's really those people that put humanity's future in doubt. How could you ever put another human down just because he killed an animal, intentional or unintentional. Sure, it may not be right. However, you can't apply an eye for and eye. He's another of humanity. you can't put another human down for that. It maybe a life, but it was an animal.
|
How are they stunning it/knocking it out? If they're bashing them over the head I'm not sure how that's better than slitting the throat. If they're drugging them I'd rather not get extra drugs/chemicals in the food.
I like animals but there are more important things to consider than how they are killed for our consumption. Like the hormones they are given, feeding, and care of them.
|
On June 30 2011 06:54 Hasudk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2011 04:45 Thorakh wrote:On June 30 2011 04:31 Hasudk wrote:It probably makes no sense to argue about this, since its only comprehendible if you actually want to understand it. Isn't everything only understandable if you want to understand it? The point is though that there are more than one way to get about knowledge. In fact you listed two different ways yourself: logic and empirical evidence. Both of which can be used to prove the existence of a God btw. There are numerous logical proofs of Gods existence, and f.ex. miracles are perfectly acceptable as empirical evidence of Gods existence as well. Miracles are not evidence of anything. Miracles are simply unexplainable things. Something that is unexplainable does not imply a God, because that would be an explanation and therefore a miracle would not be unexplainable. Also, I've never heard of a proof of a God using logic. Please direct me to one so that I can find a debunk for it Finally one could claim that there are even more ways to prove something then via logic or empirical evidence. One example of this could be feelings: you cannot prove via logic or empirical evidence that you love your girlfriend, but I'm sure that both you and her don't doubt it for a second. If we are talking about knowledge, you can only prove something with the scientific method. Loving your girlfriend has nothing to do with knowledge and facts. This all sounds like Im trying to prove the existence of a christian God. Im not though, Im just trying to show you cannot understand religion from an atheist point of view. Of course you can understand religion from an atheist point of view. Religion is simply faith without evidence. Religion and it's teachings cannot be used as evidence for anything. Saying that f.e.x christianity is about believing in the existence of a God is missing the point, its not the existence but the goodness of God that they believe in - they trust in God. Im sure that a lot of christians are in doubt (and probably also about the existence of their God), but there are also a lot of christians (and muslims, jews, hindus etc.) that know for certain that their God exists. You cannot know for certain that their God exists. Even if 'God' talked to them. Even if a bush ignited in front of their eyes and it spoke to them. There are a million explanations for those things and a God is just one of them. I hope that makes sense =) I'm sorry, but it didn't make sense at all I'd prefer if we didn't continue this discussion as this thread is not about religion but about inhumana slaughter. I think your post is an excellent and intelligent example of why you cant understand religion from an atheist point of view. Its all about the viewpoint. Consider that at some point in history everybody knew that the earth was the center of the universe - today we know something different, tomorrow something different again. Tomorrow our current knowledge might be false, but does that mean we don't know it to be certain today? Religion is about knowing that God exists – you might disagree, you might know that God does not exist, but that is actually irrelevant for wether or not religious people know that their God exists.
You are going way too deep into philosophy without actually knowing what you're talking about. They did not know it was the center of the universe, they just thought it was so. Plato's classic definition of knowledge is "justified true belief", earth being the center of the universe fails on both being justified and true. If you have a better definition of knowledge I would like to hear it, but I honestly doubt it.
On June 30 2011 06:54 Hasudk wrote:Also logic is relative, based on common assertions an other implicit values, therefor it makes no sense to argue with someone that their logic is not logical – its logical to them. Google "logical evidence for Gods existence", there are more than one, and as far as I know there are also counter-arguments for all of them.
Logic is by definition not relative. 1+1=2. That is not debatable, relative or a matter of opinion.
On June 30 2011 06:54 Hasudk wrote:As for the whole empirical evidence thing, I don't think you can find many examples of a piece empirical evidence that contains its own explanation. The apple certainly doesn't tell you that its falling because of gravity, thats just a theory that we use to explain the empirical observations. The same can be said to be true of miracles.
It is a theory, and a well justified on at that. Apple falling to the ground is indicative of a force pulling it there. An unexplainable occurrence is not any more indicative of a god than anything else, usually less.
|
Again, I have to repeat. Non-stunned slaughtering was already banned. Dutch people care about animal right enough to do this. Yes, maybe they are hypocrites in doing so. But still they decided it was worth it to stun all animals before slaughtering.
This is not a ban of religious slaughter according to the letter of the law. This is a ban of non stunned slaughter. Stunning slaughtering is a perfectly fine alternative that doesn't cost more and the only reason not to do it is that halal and kosher slaughtering disallow it. Meat won't be more expensive if you stun the animal, which is why we have factory farming.
This new law is made by the animal rights party called 'party for the animals'. They have two seats in the 150 seat parlaiment. They are very effective at what they do and time and time again succeed in putting animal rights on the agenda. They put in motion all other parties, who feel forces to be more pro animal rights to try to take the seats away from this one issue party.
On June 30 2011 07:38 Adila wrote:
So when's the next law banning industrial farmed animals then?
From what I have seen, Halal/Kosher does not look anywhere as bad as those factory farms.
Yes! This party called 'Party for the animals' end every speech in partaiment with 'We hope this will help to end factory farming'. They do this every time. It's become a running gag, of a sort. The main aim of this party is to end factory farming. And they are perfectly right about that.
Yes, they are able to ban ritual slaughtering because of Islamophobia and populism on the part of the very right wing parties VVD and PVV. But who can blame the party for the animals for being able to do this? They only care about animal rights and are far from anti islam or anti religion.
And the poll is perfectly fine because contrary to the lies of some religious people, science claims there is no way that halal and kosher slaughtering can ever be less painful than stunning. This new law only bans halal and kosher slaughtering if and because they are less animal friendly. Religion never enters the debate. The issue is the pain the animal feels as measured by electrodes.
Personally, as a vegetarian, I don't think it it that important how the animal dies in the last minutes of it's life. But this is the same as all other arguments people have desperately tried to make. Examples are, humans are on the top of the food chain, lions/wolves tear apart their prey in the wild while it dies slowly, the nature of reality is a matter of opinion and not something that can be objectively determined by science, etc. Really, this reminds me of the vegetarian vs meat eaters debate where the meat eaters bring out worse arguments than I have seen most creationists do. But in this case the anti animal rights people and the strongly religious people are one and the same.
|
On June 30 2011 07:59 Playguuu wrote:
How are they stunning it/knocking it out? If they're bashing them over the head I'm not sure how that's better than slitting the throat. If they're drugging them I'd rather not get extra drugs/chemicals in the food.
I like animals but there are more important things to consider than how they are killed for our consumption. Like the hormones they are given, feeding, and care of them.
What would you prefer; Being hit hard over the head with a baseball bat, knocking you out practically instantly. Or being hanged by your feet, then having your throat cut and then slowly bleeding to death.
On June 30 2011 06:54 Hasudk wrote:
Consider that at some point in history everybody knew that the earth was the center of the universe - today we know something different, tomorrow something different again.
Are you implying that knowledge is objective and relative? In case you are there is no way of arguing with you, nor is there any way for you to argue with other people. Post-modern relativism is pretty pathetic honestly.
|
My god what a load of rubbish. I'm sorry for putting it like that, but it really is.
On June 30 2011 06:54 Hasudk wrote:
I think your post is an excellent and intelligent example of why you cant understand religion from an atheist point of view. Its all about the viewpoint. Consider that at some point in history everybody knew that the earth was the center of the universe - today we know something different, tomorrow something different again. Tomorrow our current knowledge might be false, but does that mean we don't know it to be certain today? They didn't 'knew' the earth was the center of the universe. They believed, without evidence, that the earth was the center of the universe. Just like some people believe in a god, they do not know there is a god for it is unknowable by definition.
Religion is about knowing that God exists – you might disagree, you might know that God does not exist, but that is actually irrelevant for wether or not religious people know that their God exists. You cannot know God exists. It's logically impossible to know.
Also logic is relative, based on common assertions an other implicit values, therefor it makes no sense to argue with someone that their logic is not logical – its logical to them. Google "logical evidence for Gods existence", there are more than one, and as far as I know there are also counter-arguments for all of them. Logic everything but relative. Logic is an universal language. If P then Q, P thus Q is as true as it is for us humans as for any other lifeform on any other planet in the universe. And this is just weird, you just busted your own argument by saying there are counterarguments for each logical 'proof'?
As for the whole empirical evidence thing, I don't think you can find many examples of a piece empirical evidence that contains its own explanation. The apple certainly doesn't tell you that its falling because of gravity, thats just a theory that we use to explain the empirical observations. The same can be said to be true of miracles. You seem confused about facts and scientific theories. Gravity is a fact. The theory of gravity tries to explain to the best of our knowledge how gravity, the fact, works. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution tries to explain to the best of our knowledge how evolution, the fact, works. We observe objects falling down. We observe planets circling around heavier objects. We observe groups of galaxies in specific motions relative to each other. This suggests there is some sort of force that does this. Gravity. The theory of gravity tries to explain how this force works, by matching formulas and laws with the empirical evidence. If something doesn't match the evidence, it is discarded.
No matter how hard you 'know' god exists doesn't matter. This should be obvious alone from the fact that many different people around the world 'know' for a fact that their belief is 100% correct. The truth is that none of their beliefs are correct. If you define a god as a supernatural being, it can, by definition, not be provable by the scientific method.
|
What? Where did tasteless go? He was still godly last time i see him...
For the rest, god exists when you want/need him. you dont have to look to far.
If you are sad and going thru hard phases of your life, you can ask him help, maybe itll help, maybe it wont. Not something you can touch with you own hands, but if you lose your hands, maybe you try harder...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
