I find it interesting that anti-theists focus on religion as if
it is the biggest AVOIDABLE cause of fear, violence etc. You can stop believing in irrational things. It's a lot harder to instantly stop all suffering everywhere (or to think taking the first step as a vegan wipes away sufficient suffering and thus, one can be heard on all topics).
I think it's dangerous that they believe they think it can be stamped out. If you've ever seen the conversation they had at Christopher Hitchens' house, you'd know better. He read Hegel and corrects the misquotation about opium of the people all the time. Dennett is even more aware of the meme nature of religion (and obviously, so is Dawkins, he invented the term).
Harris did, indeed, say in a (not so recent) book of his that he thinks it may be even ethical to kill someone who has "dangerous ideas".. He does include himself in the list. As he does with profiling. The fact that people take these quotations out of context, makes me think most haven't read any of his books, essays or responses to critics. If you honestly he should include himself, you agree with him. If you're being dishonest and think even hitler or a nazi walking up to dozens of jews to shoot him isn't reason enough to stop them with deadly force (assuming you're quite sure they're not going to stop there because of what they believe and thus suspect you know how they will act), I suggest you think a little more about non-violence. It's not as if Sam Harris stop thinking of non-violent means to prevent violence. He just doesn't get stuck on veganism or denigrating believers (as if they can't handle some debate and criticism and all threaten violence when we draw cartoons or want to debate abortion of pregnancy -which is killing an unborn child after all, a very hard choice well worth debating without somebody claiming you should die for it-).
Anti-anti-theist and their ilk seem to focus on (hundreds on Muslims who respond in a pew poll that they support terrible things] and Islam [where they are getting their inspiration for guardianship over women, preventing education in far too many areas, death for apostasy, killing of innocents in suicide bombing, ...check the polls and read the Qu'ran yourself] as a huge problem. Consider for a moment that there are over over 6 billion people on the planet and the US has bombed and terrorized every country on the planet (name half a dozen exceptions if you can). Nobody is claiming every single muslim is fundamentalist and violent. Opponents paint them in that corner, but they never say that; they say the doctrine of Islam can easily be viewed that way, especially if you're humiliate by a halt in science since the 12th century. I'm counting the arab language compared with Spain (like Harris often does) and need a secular empire to defend your holy sites -Mecca; which annoys muslims to no end and was an explicit reason of Osama why he attacked-). The arab spring consisted underwhelmingly out of muslims and mostly out of socialists and socially aware workers. As anybody who didn't stop reading Chomsky after a couple of dozens of his books, would have noticed. If the billion christians aren't frustrated with the islamic caliphate that's unfolding, why would muslims be more annoyed with a crusade that's not in christs' name half of the time? Only the pop wants to send some missionaries to India now. I don't see christian theocracies being propped up. Not even near the level of Israel's theocracy. And that's a low bar compared with Saudia Arabia and Iran.
The violence perpetrated by the US and its allies in Muslim countries is quite imaginable. You just have to start reading history from the barbary states and the first ships built by the US to fight them. Though Islam has been around for longer and hasn't been a force for pacifism or veganism, so I don't get the apologetics.
I would go so far as to say humans (as a whole) have been incredibly incredibly tolerant. And domesticated non-human animals have been docile where wild animals have been intolerant and intolerable to live with (as a human who's used to technology and reasonable people). When we consider how every government eventually (when they run out of other power to get what they want, like money and diplomacy) they will end up waging war on anyone. Whatever the stated reasons are (The US fighting Germany was also only because the Japanese attacked their Hawai military outpost -which they had gained by removing its queen and wasn't really their territory-).
We all have interests in every region and in every resource. It matters if Saddam burns his oil fields so nobody else can get them or drains marshes in the greatest ecological disaster of our time. That doesn't mean we should congratulate Bush Sr. on his willingness to support Saddam in gassing Kurds and fighting Iran for 8 years. Nor does such violence make it okay for muslims to support ISIS (luckily, the number drops to mere millions of people) when the biggest army the world has ever seen does something they don't like.
If you think anti-theists don't focus on US (or Israeli) policy, you haven't read over half a dozen books by any of the authors. If you think they blame only religion (instead of insisting religion doesn't get ignore when considering politics and socio-economic factors), you might have read some of the critics (like Aslan, who's a fraud; there, I said it). For the record, I've read over 10.000 pages of Noam Avrams Chomsky's work. Not counting footnotes, watching every video of them there is and his work on linguistics. The trick is not to stop at one book of one prophet.
Belief systems are often hijacked by those with the agenda not to question that belief system any more. Any ideology can become dogmatic if you don't question it. All ideas are dangerous, that's why you should watch some talks from the festival of dangerous ideas. I'm afraid of fear and I fight for peace, verbally and vehemently.
"Look at what large animal organisations are doing with the ideology of "animal rights"?" Is that a question? Peta kills an overwhelming majority of their animals and blocks a lot donations to charities because they still haven't found alternatives to animal testing. That's like boycotting eating plants because animals die in the harvest. Short sighted and it won't end up helping anybody.
"They are partners with animal industry." You're going to have to be more specific. I think this is a welfare versus vegan deontology question. I don't know what organisations you're talking about.
"Look at our speciesist indoctrination?"
I'm not a speciesist. I'm not indoctrinated not to eat humans if they die from getting hit by a car (which kills most people if we're not counting tobacco -but it would be unhealthy to eat those people, just like people in the city have the lungs of a smoker because of automobiles).
"We torture and murder 1 trillion nonhuman animals (land and aquatic) mostly for our palate pleasure."
Again, speak for yourself. I have no palate pleasure. I'd be fine with potatoes and white beans in tomato sauce if I got all my nutrition from it (I didn't so I had to expand my impact on the plant and cause more suffering on humans and non-humans alike by my mere existence and willingness not to starve).
"We do not need animal products to be healthy and we can easily meet all our nutrition needs from plants (and other non-animal sources) and yet we all accept this ideology completely because exploiting the vulnerable is easy and we do it out of habit, convenience and pleasure."
I've changed my diet every year out of nutritional reasons (and of course, ecological and concern for the suffering implied in feeding ourselves) for over a decade. There's no habit, convenience or pleasure in what I do. If you want to hook me up with a "vegan nutrition is the healthiest page", you're more than welcome too. But this doesn't seem to be the argument.
"It happens the world benefits economically by animal exploitation but animal exploitation is killing us and the planet since 51% of GHG are from animal use industry."
Animal exploitation takes a lot more forms than factory farming*. It includes factory (fossil fueled) agroculture (and transport). If you don't have a local vegan permaculture garden (away from the city), you're part of the problem. Does this mean you can't talk about religion now? I'll answer that one for you. No. It does not.
*Terrible way of reasoning. You would have to promote rabbits having no space at all to satisfy meat eaters that won't change their mind in a generation if you want to keep factory farming (ecological impact will be lower if you treat animals poorly). Or you should go Kerrygold/bio/farmer Joe style and remove greenhouse gasses by using rotation and not feeding animals 'human' food like corn that's only used to make them really fat anyway.
"1 acre per second of Amazon Rainforest is being cleared to make way for "cattle" farming and soy production used to feed animals in feedlots globally. "
Animal feed such as soy is now being use by people because they don't want animals to be fed with it (because they just end up dead and eaten anyway). Soy has a bad hormonal profile and should be avoided (for humans and bovines alike, the latter should eat grass at their volition and they can choose rather well what to eat when to maintain their own health and not be injected with antibiotics like in factory farms). Eating fairtrade or other tropical fruits is just as damaging. Again, if you're not a locavore, this point is rather futile. Though I won't censure you on the topic like you seem to want to do with anti theists.
"1000 gallons of water are used to make 1 gallon of milk."
I too am very concerned with the use of water. But I don't claim we should halt all debate until no humans (let alone other animals like bovines) have all the drinkable water they need not to have painfully short lives. Nor would it suddenly be okay to 'get' milk if it costs us zero drinkable water. Or to compensate the water the US has been saving in the last 5 years by breeding more animals:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1405/pdf/circ1405.pdf
Letting them dehydrate some more would probably save water too. This can't be what you're trying to advocate. So let's not let the discussion about animal welfare hinge on water filtration techniques and how regularly people shower (or indulge themselves in the superfluous act of taking a bath)
"The list goes on about the ecological disaster that is animal agriculture, and yet we value our taste buds over our species' survival."
I am well aware of the climate change problem. Just recently a scientist that should advise the European Commission was fired because feeding people on plants might help agro-industry and greenpeace was afraid of that. Now the EU has no science to back it up and the ecological disaster looms even greater.
I've read Chris Hedges tiny 3 page article on it. I even read Ginny Messina's puny review of the Vegetarian Myth (including the links to attempt to refute Michael Pollan). I remain underwhelmed. At least Hedges uses references (mainly to 8 years old data, but that's fine I guess).
"Yes we ignore our own contribution to violence and most of us are completely taken in by an ideology when we think we can benefit and in the case of many in the West, we [think we]benefit from US imperialist ideology so many don't speak out against it."
My country is tiny, cutting down on defense even more (wasn't much to speak of, but I don't mind getting rid of the army all together). But it does have (somewhat illegal) nukes from the US here in case Russia invades when we stop giving them money for their precious oil and gas. Which we need to live because nobody wants to stop using it. I don't know how you're powering your computer. I'm using outdated nuclear reactors with cracks in them. I eagerly await safer and better alternatives, but this has only caused a deterioration and lack up upgrades and safety precautions (because of investments the politicians won't do anymore) in the reactors. At this rate, we're going back to 'natural' gas.
Part 2:
"Vegans for Nonviolence PS You wrote <<>> "
PS: I am not "attacking" VfN. I'm posting a comment to an article. Please note my disclaimers. I do not speak for anybody except myself in the moment of writing, I'm willing to change my mind based on new information (and everyday includes new information if you look some up) . I have noticed this page is not only about veganism but it is about numerous human related social justice issues. For me, the attack on 'new' atheists is a social justice issue. Their arguments are ignored and misleading information is spread about them.
80% of my interst are about nonviolence, not veganism (because that would be very limiting).
In the case of Harris (letter to a christian nation, end of faith, god as an omniscient landbroker in Israel) , Dawkins (against the war in Iraq, just like Harris) and Hitchens (even dislikes the Dalai Lama and mother theresa and think Buddhists are too religious and not philosophical enough), they single out 'Muslims' (they do not) as if Muslims are worse than other religion (not true, but the doctrine is worse than that of Jainism of Quakers and the more fundamentalist people are in those faiths, the less we have to worry about them in an age where you can easily kill thousands of people with box cutters and millions if you trade nuclear secrets).
"Harris in particular does this." I've read everything he's ever written (it's not that much). He takes great pains to make clear what he is and is not talking about. I felt the same way you did in the beginning, but then I kept on reading what he himself says (in the context of his own words and writing).
Enough with the vilification of anti atheists. There's enough of it already without vegans supporting those who promote the vilification of anti-theists. Yes there are fundamentalists in antitheists (racists who don't look at white muslims or black atheists) and atheists (nihilist on morality or speciciests). There are fundamentalists in any religion because religion is about dogma and doctrine. Not about skeptically rethinking and doubting your own and other people's position.
"But there is far more violence perpetrated by the US government in the name of "freedom" and "democracy", than any of these religious groups combined." I take it 'crusades' is not part of your rethoric then. That would make the US government a christian theocracy bent on enforcing their religion. The vilification of 'freedom' and 'democracy' by muslims (not Islam or its doctrines) annoys me to no end. It's one step closer to war instead of reconcilliation.
"How about we focus on that ideology: That it is acceptable to invade Muslim countries for their resources and bomb and destroy them?"
Non-Muslim countries get invaded all the time and North-Korea is the only one without resources. Are you arguing we should invade them or that they're less tolerant than muslims? Also, a country shouldn't be muslim, christian, jewish, hindu, buddhist, jain or any other religion. It should serve its people (and non-human animals) and be secular if anything. The people are free (freedom) to be whatever they want to be and can elect 'democratically' whomever they want to have rule over them (Saddam was a thug, Taliban wasn't nice and the harshest dictatorships like Pakistan with their blashemy laws still get billions in military gadgets from the US in the hopes of not having another 9/11 or embassies burned to the ground over cartoons and whatnot).
"There's no need to write pages in response."
Yes there is.
"Is much easier to attack a group that is "other", like the military-industrial complex, than address the greatest perpetrator of violence and destruction today and that is the suicide bombing and martyrs and their Caliphate adventurism and imperialist policies as expressed in ISIS. Islam was first, the US came onto the scene 5 centuries after Islam stopped contributing to Science (it's golden age resulting in words like alcohol, algebra and naming 2/3ths of the stars in the sky).
"Are you saying that Halal is worse than everyday slaughterhouses?"
I'm saying it's not. I'm saying it's worse than veganism and better than factory farming.
"Stop blaming religion for speciesism."
Only western religion makes it harder for anti-speciecism. A lot of easter religions are actually very open minded and directed at suffering instead of humans as the chosen people of the divine.
"Speciesism existed long before any political system or any religion."
Reincarnation is present in a lot of religions (transmigration in the eastern ones). Tribalism is the oldest group forming with people outside the tribe not being referred to as 'humans' and thus could be killed. I suppose that's a kind of speciesism. It's not humanism, that's for sure.
"And as I said if Harris and Dawkins care about animal suffering, then they should be vegan. Why aren't they vegan?"
The same reason Bill Gates isn't but funds it. So that one day, everybody can be. But it's like asking: If you care about animal suffering, why haven't you killed yourself yet? Your existence causes more than it could ever redeem.
These are terrible questions and there's no point asking Aslan if he's vegan because that's neither here nor there.
(This is in response to a facebook post which did not allow me to make such a lengthy comment. Here is what was said before:)
Vegans for Nonviolence shared a link.
Before anyone has a knee-jerk reaction to this piece, please read the entire essay (4 pages) before making comment. Thanks.
"To be sure, there is plenty to criticize in any religion and no ideology – religious or otherwise – should be immune from criticism. But when Richard Dawkins describes religion as “one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus,” or when Sam Harris proudly declares, “If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion,” it should be perfectly obvious to all that these men do not speak for the majority of atheists. On the contrary, polls show that only a small fraction of atheists in the U.S. share such extreme opposition to religious faith.
In fact, not only is the New Atheism not representative of atheism. It isn’t even mere atheism (and it certainly is not “new”). What Harris, Dawkins and their ilk are preaching is a polemic that has been around since the 18th century – one properly termed, anti-theism.
The earliest known English record of the term “anti-theist” dates back to 1788, but the first citation of the word can be found in the 1833 edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, where it is defined as “one opposed to belief in the existence of a god” (italics mine). In other words, while an atheist believes there is no god and so follows no religion, an anti-theist opposes the very idea of religious belief, often viewing religion as an insidious force that must be rooted from society – forcibly if necessary. "http://www.alternet.org/belief/why-richard-dawkins-sam-harris-and-new-atheists-arent-really-atheists
"To be sure, there is plenty to criticize in any religion and no ideology – religious or otherwise – should be immune from criticism. But when Richard Dawkins describes religion as “one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus,” or when Sam Harris proudly declares, “If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion,” it should be perfectly obvious to all that these men do not speak for the majority of atheists. On the contrary, polls show that only a small fraction of atheists in the U.S. share such extreme opposition to religious faith.
In fact, not only is the New Atheism not representative of atheism. It isn’t even mere atheism (and it certainly is not “new”). What Harris, Dawkins and their ilk are preaching is a polemic that has been around since the 18th century – one properly termed, anti-theism.
The earliest known English record of the term “anti-theist” dates back to 1788, but the first citation of the word can be found in the 1833 edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, where it is defined as “one opposed to belief in the existence of a god” (italics mine). In other words, while an atheist believes there is no god and so follows no religion, an anti-theist opposes the very idea of religious belief, often viewing religion as an insidious force that must be rooted from society – forcibly if necessary. "http://www.alternet.org/belief/why-richard-dawkins-sam-harris-and-new-atheists-arent-really-atheists
