The Vegan Thread

I can always abuse someone with a smaller penis than me, but wouldn't dream of discriminating.

does it happen often ;p

More often than you would imagine

;p

The most obvious form of discrimination, in human society at the moment, is against the poor.

This is true, although I would argue in some societies racist discrimination is likely to be a more serious problem, particularly in societies that are less unequal in wealth distribution than the one we know.

Also, I think that even more important than that form of discrimination against the poor is preventing people from becoming poor in the first place--discrimination plays a role in that, although it is obviously not discrimination against someone on the grounds of poverty before they have had a chance to become poor.

Assault is a crime, What is the point of enacting laws about 'racially aggravated assault', 'homophobic assault' or 'dietary induced assault'? Assault is illegal, end of.

I think these vary in the penalties imposed? Someone legal please correct me.

What I meant to imply by saying that discrimination 'culminates' in murder and attacks' was that if discrimination goes unchecked, the little instances of discrimination with which it inevitably starts are more likely (although of course by no means guaranteed) to be taken to their extreme consequences. I'd rather not that the existing laws against murder and assault have to be put into action.

What can you say about the extreme inequality in the world other than despair? There would be such a long way to go before this was likely to be clawed back. I can't predict the future, but I do think human rights and equality legislation helps--a little. I do hope that more will be done once these struggles are advanced further.

Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

Atheism, pah!

Atheists generally are not atheists through any kind of certainty of the non-existnece of gods (although there are 'hard' / 'strong' / 'positive' atheists), they are atheist through reasoning that gods are unlikely.

Of course if we want to apply a technical application of agnosticism, we would have to conclude that we are all agnostic about whether the sun will rise in the morning ? Whether the sky appears blue ? Whether the Eiffel tower is in Paris ? If I drop this ball will gravity carry it to the ground ? Are these my hands ? No one can be inerrantly certain about anything, rather we all hold reasoned views.

So for most reasoned views we do not feel the need to describe ourselves as uncertain, if asked are your eyes above your feet when stood up, most people don't struggle to take a strong position on the question, although technically they can never be 100% sure.

So for all practical purposes atheistic is how I would describe someone who thinks the idea of Shiva or Yahweh is vanishingly unlikely to the point of being unreasonable and nonsensical - in the same way that most people operate with reasoned certainty that they have hands and the sun will rise - although technically they could always find out they are wrong.

Atheism is not about certainty (that is found right at the other end of the spectrum - by definition - in religious belief) it's an expression of a reasoned opinion on a single proposition, it's only given the 'certain' label when contrasted with agnosticism, the three (atheist, agnostic and theist) are pitched as if they are the equidistant points on a liner graph of certainty, with agnosticism sat in the centre, but they are not.

Agnosticism is, for me at least, much more problematic, what after all would you be agnostic about ? Most people would conceded they are agnostic about the abrahamic gods, which in itself is a (at least partial) tacit admission to the idea of abrahamic gods actually being a cogent idea.

Even putting aside the Abraham gods, with agnosticism if a kid walked up to you in a supermarket and told you there was a blue dog living in his hand that controlled the world's banking system as well as being the creator of the universe - and when anyone tries to look for the dog it disappears - you would technically have to remain agnostic about this dog, you cannot after all demonstrate it's non-exitance . . . but you can reason the whole story is bullshit and so call yourself atheist (or a-dogist) in this context as you do not believe the dog exists, you do not have to know for certain to reject the idea as a load of stinking shit.

It gets worse for the Agnostic, even if the kid tells you 30 seconds later that he was only joking, you would technically have to remain agnostic as you can never know with inerrancy that he is telling the truth.

I think the only really tenable position is theological noncognitivism, even further down the food chain of certainty than agnosticism, but without the tacit tip-of-the-hat to (usually) the Abrahmic religions or other god hypotheses, but, although a theological noncognitivist, for practical concerns I would call myself an atheist - and certainly never agnostic.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, stuff, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, chocolate, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, crisps, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, eggs, blah, blah, blah, blah.

I could go on.

but the philosophical usage of 'belief-system', which I'll be prone to, isn't limited to religious applications.

No it's not.

But in the context of protecting 'rights' - it is commonly understood as meaning religious belief.

Oliver and Tynan do you believe in human culling to preserve the resources of the Earth?

Oliver and Tynan do you believe in human culling to preserve the resources of the Earth?

Yes*.

*how are you using the word 'believe' here ? :P

At least we agree on one thing.

No it's not.

But in the context of protecting 'rights' - it is commonly understood as meaning religious belief.

I see. It is important to give that sort of context--it doesn't appear to have been part of your claim about common parlance earlier, but this clarifies. I certainly wouldn't understand it in this way, but I'm not an expert on that area of legislation.

If the question is whether I agree with it or would support it, the answer is of course no.

Of course if we want to apply a technical application of agnosticism, we would have to conclude that we are all agnostic about whether the sun will rise in the morning ? Whether the sky appears blue ? Whether the Eiffel tower is in Paris ? If I drop this ball will gravity carry it to the ground ? Are these my hands ? No one can be inerrantly certain about anything, rather we all hold reasoned views.

Even putting aside the Abraham gods, with agnosticism if a kid walked up to you in a supermarket and told you there was a blue dog living in his hand that controlled the world's banking system as well as being the creator of the universe - and when anyone tries to look for the dog it disappears - you would technically have to remain agnostic about this dog, you cannot after all demonstrate it's non-exitance . . . but you can reason the whole story is bullshit and so call yourself atheist (or a-dogist) in this context as you do not believe the dog exists, you do not have to know for certain to reject the idea as a load of stinking shit.

It gets worse for the Agnostic, even if the kid tells you 30 seconds later that he was only joking, you would technically have to remain agnostic as you can never know with inerrancy that he is telling the truth.

I could go on.

I believe that the sun will rise, that a ball will fall to the ground, that the tower in Paris does not lean and is not in Pisa. I believe all these things, and more, because they are demonstrably true.
I have no reason to believe that gods exist ( or for that matter, blue dogs living in the hands of deluded children) and I can not even conceive of a way that they could be demonstrated to exist. Ergo, they are not worthy of my consideration (until such time that someone can, at least, propose a method of verification).

Having said that, I basically agree with you, and when asked, I normally say that I am an atheist or "have no religion"

I see. It is important to give that sort of context--it doesn't appear to have been part of your claim about common parlance earlier, but this clarifies.

I think this thread has become hideously distended, it's like a small mad woman.

I certainly wouldn't understand it in this way, but I'm not an expert on that area of legislation.

It's not a legislative thing, like I say in common parlance most people understand 'belief system' as pointing towards religion.

If you are 'down the pub'™ and said to your 'mate'™:

"you know the Asians, what kind of belief system are they then ?"

The answer would likely be 'I don't know, Hindu ?'

Rather than - "I think they are conservatives over there, or maybe Labour, not sure ?"

disclaimer:*(I made these two 'pub' characters up and in no way are they meant to represent actual real life characters, even the agnostics should cast them aside on to the pile of 'things that don't exist' after reading this post.)*

I believe that the sun will rise, that a ball will fall to the ground, that the tower in Paris does not lean and is not in Pisa. I believe all these things, and more, because they are demonstrably true.

I have no reason to believe that gods exist ( or for that matter, blue dogs living in the hands of deluded children) and I can not even conceive of a way that they could be demonstrably exist. Ergo, they are not worthy of my consideration (until such time that someone can, at least, propose a method of verification).

Having said that, I basically agree with you, and when asked, I normally say that Iam an atheist or "have no religion"

Join me in theological non-conitivism, the women are better and there is free beer.

I will convert you.

"I have no reason to believe that gods exist"

What do you mean by 'gods' and what do you mean by 'exist' ?

Oliver and Tynan do you believe in human culling to preserve the resources of the Earth?

Can I choose the cull?

"I have no reason to believe that gods exist"

What do you mean by 'gods' and what do you mean by 'exist' ?

Probably the same as you meant here

Atheists generally are not atheists through any kind of certainty of the non-existnece of gods.

Even putting aside the Abraham gods, with agnosticism if a kid walked up to you in a supermarket and told you there was a blue dog living in his hand that controlled the world's banking system as well as being the creator of the universe - and when anyone tries to look for the dog it disappears - you would technically have to remain agnostic about this dog, you cannot after all demonstrate it's non-exitance . . . but you can reason the whole story is bullshit and so call yourself atheist (or a-dogist) in this context as you do not believe the dog exists, you do not have to know for certain to reject the idea as a load of stinking shit.

I think the only really tenable position is theological noncognitivism, even further down the food chain of certainty than agnosticism, but without the tacit tip-of-the-hat to (usually) the Abrahmic religions or other god hypotheses, but, although a theological noncognitivist, for practical concerns I would call myself an atheist - and certainly never agnostic.

Are you mu mummy?

Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

I should point out that these words are not mine, but those of T H Huxley.
I think he has a point though.

I need to re-read Ayer (note to self, and others)

I should point out that these words are not mine, but those of T H Huxley.
I think he has a point though.

I need to re-read Ayer (note to self, and others)

Plagiarist

Probably the same as you meant here

That's what an atheist would think, but the claim god does not exist is a category error to me . . . so I am asking the question as a theological noncognitivist.

When I refer to gods, I mean the things called 'gods' referenced by both atheists, agnostics and theists, I may reference the use of the word 'god', but have no clue as to what it means.

I can happily say the Jews believe in '*7879Hkdlslsips&' - without myself knowing what this thing '7879Hkdlslsips&' might be.

When I used the word non-existence in reference to the hypothetical blue dog I mean it either does or does not physically exist.

So . . . . what do you mean by 'gods' and what do you mean by 'exist' ?

Why should gods have to be something that exist or don't exist?

Can the not also be an ideal, or a set of values that one can attempt to adhere to, in the purpose that this will allow them to lead a better life.

Most (if not all) religions, when stripped to their most basic structure are essentially a set of ideals which are then represented by a god, so as to give identity to the religion which then serves the purpose as a means of direction towards which devotion can be practiced.

A god, need not be proved to have a physical manifestation, but merely a representation of 'something'.

giving something an identity to direct the direction of the great unwashed is what marketeers call branding. branding enables greater profit without the hassle of having to justify the use or fitness of a thing.
the aethist's biggest mistake. no icon to believe in.
even the anarchists realized you need something to scrawl on the wall.
howz about some antitheism?
not that that is any good either. folks need to keep busy.

This thread is awesome, in a kind of bad way.

I've had my tea, which was delicious by the way, drunk 3/4 bottle of red wine, gone to bed, read half a chapter, got sleepy, went to sleep, woke for a piss at about 3.30am, got up for work at 5.15am, had a shower, cycled to work, got changed, took a massive shit (on works time, of course), logged on (no pun intended) browsed the news, gone onto the forum to find Tynan STILL arguing on a thread about dinners without meat in them and how convicted bum rapers should be allowed Tofu.

Truly Epic.

Don't you find it awkwardly uncomfortable during the day if you've had a post-shower shit?

No. I discovered this marvellous invention called bog roll. I give my arse crack a really polish, and everything is tickety boo.

I do know what you mean - my arse isn't ready-for-rimming fresh, but I'd rather get paid to do a crap than dump on my own time.