Philosophical Vegan Forum

A vegan atheist?... WTF?... I’m glad you don’t beleive in the flying spaghetti monster but I find this hilarious!... Do you beleive eating animals is somehow immoral?.. But then you eat poor defenseless plants who give use oxygen to breath?.. How do you sleep at night.. Ridiculous and I don’t want to live on this planet anymore! You sir.. need B..A..C..O..N in your life... I’m a rational person, do not beleive in deities and am not religious but veganism is also riduculous. Just some advice, I really do not have any "B..E..E..F" with you....

Maybe we should stop progress in society and stop research of all kinds, no longer build onto cities and make technological progress since it hurts kittens some how. I do think animals should be treated with respect and dignity but such is life. Lions have to eat prey in order to survive we cannot stop making progress in order to avoid hurting a few members of other species although we do have to be responsible and not abuse our abilites and try to not be cruel which is not always possible. I myself am an animal lover, and beleive animals are more intelligent than given credit for. Elephants for example feel deeply, but people can go way too far just as religious fanatics go too far

Why would you even try and push your beleifs on eating meat then criticize religious fanatics for doing the same that his hipocritical dont you think?... Again I am an atheist but this is so absurd, you also go as far as censoring the word B..A..C..O..N.. on this forum and replacing the word with *penis* like it is somehow blasphemous, how can you consider yourself rational?...

Research has also been done on plants and they seem to be aware of their surroundings.. Related plants will avoid growing roots near each others to give each other space, yet spread their roots far in order to compete with another plant of the same kind if unrelated, maybe we should all just suicide and not eat anything at all?

lol. I'm not sure if this was meant to be serious or funny. If it was meant to be serious it was pretty hilarious.

Jebus wrote:lol. I'm not sure if this was meant to be serious or funny. If it was meant to be serious it was pretty hilarious.

I wondered that myself when I first heard the term "vegan atheist", It had to be some kind of joke when I realized it was serious I had to look more into this which is why I'm here.

I'll be honest and say I don't have an open mind on veganism, but I am curious what the logic and rationality is behind this being both vegan and atheist at the same time is. I do know some vegans go as far as not eating eggs. You guys do realize that chicken eggs are not always fertalized and are not sentient beings right?... And this thread is meant to have some cartoonish in humor, but again honestly, I find the idea totally absurd, ridiculous, hipocritical, and downright hilarious. Hey at least I'm honest.

Hi, quite an antagonizing thread. If you want an in-depth perspective from me, I have already done a number of videos. I would suggest watching my Stupid Meat Eater Videos.

I've watched two of your man eater videos so far, I'm willing to watch a few more. I honestly still disagree. Plants are still life forms and although by human definition not sentient, who is anyone to say it is moral or immoral to eat them. I've had enough from religious people telling me I'm immoral and a sinner, and now have to hear vegans tell me I'm immoral for eating meat.

That is what I find hostile. I choose to be moral because that is who I want to be. But then things start to get crazy and everyone wants to have their own definition of what being moral and ethical is. Logically, I do not condone to murder, and I would demand justice for such a crime. But I certainly would not send somebody to prison for having a steak or even eggs for breakfast either.

If everyone wants to start getting really crazy about these things, we could start debating on the subject of keeping pets, Is it ok to keep cats and dogs as pets? Many animal lovers nueter and spade their pets which I'm totally against, but I'm not going to start trying to change peoples mind on that, to each their own. You could argue like many do that its best for them, I argue what gives us the right to say what is best or not for them. Still I'll let a pet owner be and do whatever they please, who's to say I'm the one in the right or wrong. Some things are obviously wrong and immoral, like murdering, child abuse etc, but people start to get crazy on these issues. I will not judge a pet owner as being moral and unethical for spading their pet, It is just that they do not beleive what their doing is immoral, at this point it all becomes a matter on everyone's definition of what is or isn't ethical or immoral.

We humans give ourselves too much credit, we have a long way to go.

LogicIsNotRelative wrote:A vegan atheist?... WTF?... I’m glad you don’t beleive in the flying spaghetti monster but I find this hilarious!... Do you beleive eating animals is somehow immoral?.. But then you eat poor defenseless plants who give use oxygen to breath?.. How do you sleep at night.. Ridiculous and I don’t want to live on this planet anymore! You sir.. need B..A..C..O..N in your life... I’m a rational person, do not beleive in deities and am not religious but veganism is also riduculous. Just some advice, I really do not have any "B..E..E..F" with you....

Bla bla bla... Caricature... Bla bla bla...

Expand your mind. You won't regret it.

LogicIsNotRelative wrote:Maybe we should stop progress in society and stop research of all kinds, no longer build onto cities and make technological progress since it hurts kittens some how.

That's some massive slippery slope. Do you consider technological progress as a goal in itself, or as a means for achieving a (generally) more valuable, worthwhile life by making things more easy/productive and entertaining? I'm pretty sure that you too consider ethics to be more important than technological progress. The good a particular medical or technological advancement can be should be measured against other ethical considerations, and based on those outcomes we should take the right action.

That being said, I think most of us here won't say that animal experimentation is always unjustified; but it is in lots, if not in most, cases.

LogicIsNotRelative wrote:I do think animals should be treated with respect and dignity

O really? And what makes you think animals are treated like that in the current farming practices?

LogicIsNotRelative wrote:but such is life.

I'm not a fatalist. What makes you one?

LogicIsNotRelative wrote:Lions have to eat prey in order to survive

You're a lion?

LogicIsNotRelative wrote:we cannot stop making progress

What progress? As far as I can tell it's only destroying our planet and makes sentient live suffer unnecessary.

LogicIsNotRelative wrote:in order to avoid hurting a few members of other species

Not only is every animal saved from a miserable live worth it, it's also not just a few.

CountingAnimals estimated that "[a] vegetarian saves between 371 and 582 animals per year". For a vegan, this number will only be higher. (source: http://www.countinganimals.com/how-many ... rian-save/)

LogicIsNotRelative wrote:although we do have to be responsible and not abuse our abilites and try to not be cruel which is not always possible.

It's sad to say that not everyone thinks like this. In practice it's the economical benefit that has the highest priority. So by accepting practical reality, one ought to be vegan. As an alternative you could try to raise animals yourself and raise them by your own (high) ethical standards, or invest time in getting animals products from an ethically justified source (good luck with finding one though).

LogicIsNotRelative wrote:I myself am an animal lover

You might feel like an animal lover emotionally, but rationally you fall short.

LogicIsNotRelative wrote:and beleive animals are more intelligent than given credit for. Elephants for example feel deeply,

Definitely, yes.

LogicIsNotRelative wrote:but people can go way too far just as religious fanatics go too far

I would agree with that, but it's quite abstract what you're talking about. Can you give an example of things going too far. If you think veganism is, please explain why you think so.

LogicIsNotRelative wrote:Why would you even try and push your beleifs on eating meat then criticize religious fanatics for doing the same that his hipocritical dont you think?...

I don't think most vegans are pushing—merely expressing or advocating your views isn't pushing. But even if some vegan would push (which I don't advocate, because it's counterproductive): is it wrong to push justified beliefs that cause great harm onto sentient beings? Maybe if you were making this argument in a human context, things would fall into place in your mind.

LogicIsNotRelative wrote:Research has also been done on plants and they seem to be aware of their surroundings.. Related plants will avoid growing roots near each others to give each other space, yet spread their roots far in order to compete with another plant of the same kind if unrelated, maybe we should all just suicide and not eat anything at all?

It's sentience that we care about. Plants can't feel pain. But if you want to join the People for the Ethical Treatment of Plants: be my guest.

Lol, How is this rambling any different from what I hear from mormons trying to convert me? Expand, by not eating meat? Lol I have gone vegan for 7 months before but not for any ethical reasons, It was to prove to somebody that you can build muscle while exercising while not eating meat and you had no need for silly protein shakes.

It is being sentient you care about not life? Argue with a tree hugger and he will feel he is correct and you will feel that you are is correct but in reality who is?.. I'm not environmentalist or activist of any kind, but I do argue that it is hipocritical to say you can't eat meat yet it is fine to eat plants. You want to bring science in to this? Just how how sentient do you have to be before its immoral to eat you? How would you measure such a thing?

Are you sure plants are not sentient? Starfish do not seem sentient but they are, they interact with each other compete etc if you watch them in time lapse, studies on plants show they communicate and do have feelings. When bitten by certain insects they release chemicals wich call out other insects and animals to come attack the insect attacking them. Chemicals that resemble a bird in heat for instance, the bird then comes and eats whatever plant is attacking the plant, (I do watch alot of physics and nature shoes). At what point does it become unethical to eat something? It is all a matter of definition. It is you that needs to expand. We cannot stop eating, it is just nature as cruel as it is eating animals is not unethical and is not unhealthy.

I have no problem with eating plants or animals, I just wish this foolishness about calling it unethical and unhealthy would cease.

That's some massive slippery slope. Do you consider technological progress as a goal in itself, or as a means for achieving a (generally) more valuable, worthwhile life by making things more easy/productive and entertaining? I'm pretty sure that you too consider ethics to be more important than technological progress. The good a particular medical or technological advancement can be should be measured against other ethical considerations, and based on those outcomes we should take the right action.

Yes, being ethical should come first, I do agree. Especially if its for entertainment purposes, I'm talking about curing disease, kids with cancer or other terminal illness. Animal experimentation can be very unethical and it is sad, I won't argue that of course, but I do not find a plantlife, or microbial life to be any less meaningful than any other life-form sentient or not.

Welcome to the forum, LogicIsNotRelative.

"I do think animals should be treated with respect and dignity but such is life."

I'm pleased to hear that you have some moral concern for the well-being of animals. You seem to be curious about why anyone would choose to be a vegan. You claim not to be very open-minded about veganism, but I don't believe that, seeing as how you chose to post on this forum, and ask questions about veganism. Anyways, regardless of whether or not you agree with the rationale behind veganism, I would like you to understand why some people refrain from harming animals and using them as resources. There are 3 primary reasons: moral/ethical, environmental, and health.

Contrary to popular assumptions, most vegans don't have "different" morals than nonvegans, but rather we extend the same concern that nonvegans have for some animals, to all animals. Vegans acknowledge that the vast majority of animals (with a few exceptions, such as sponges, and maybe also jellyfish and bivalves) are sentient. A sentient living being is one that has subjective awareness, meaning that it is a thinking/feeling individual with the ability to perceive and experience the world around them. As sentience is an evolutionary adaptation that allows animals to seek out resources and situations that benefit their well-being (i.e. food, water, shelter, mates, etc.), while avoiding danger (i.e. pain, hunger, predators, etc.); it seems obvious that animals have a desire to continue living, as well as a desire to avoid suffering.

Just about everyone seems to acknowledge that humans, as well as at least some animals, have these two desires. The reason why most people refrain from hurting other humans, as well as certain animals (especially companion animals), is because we view unnecessary violence and killing to be immoral. Rightly so, because not being killed, tortured, or otherwise harmed are the most basic and fundamental desires of sentient beings (both humans and nonhumans). The only way that most of us would consider such harm to be "good" or "excusable" is if there is some compelling need to inflict that harm.

To explain what I mean by this, take a moment to consider the famous athlete Michael Vick's hobby of forcing dogs to mutilate and kill each other for his own amusement. Is pleasure a good justification for harm? No. The dogs' desire to not experience such intense suffering trumps Michael Vick's mere sadistic pleasure. How about convenience? Is that a good reason to hurt an animal who desires not to suffer? No. If I kick a dog in front of me rather than walking around it, nobody would consider my excuse to be a sufficient justification.
Now let's consider harm being inflicted upon farmed animals (cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys, etc.). Anyone who is well informed about what happens (as a matter of standard procedure) to animals raised for food, in both factory farms and "humane/happy" farms, knows that they undergo a great deal of suffering during their short lives. Watch Earthlings* if you don't know what I'm talking about. What's the justification for this? What's the justification for any suffering or death inflicted upon these animals? These animals are sentient, just like humans and our companion animals. They too value their lives and desire not to suffer. It follows then that we need reasons better than just pleasure and convenience to justify any suffering and/or death that we impose upon them.

Reading this, you might now feel compelled to tell me that humans have a nutritional requirement to consume the flesh and/or bodily secretions of animals. We don't. Let me now be VERY clear about this: the human body has ZERO nutritional requirement to consume any substances derived from the bodies of animals. It is the position** of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitions of Canada that, "Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence." The American Heart Association and Mayo Clinic also have similar stances on vegetarian (and fully vegan) diets. Many modern health professionals, such as Neal Bernard (of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine) and Dr. T. Colin Campbell (author of The China Study), are constantly espousing the benefits of a whole-foods, plant-based vegan diet. If you'd like to educate yourself further on nutrition, I recommend watching Dr. Michael Gregor's YouTube channel: nutritionfacts.org***.

Now back to the morality of harming animals: I have provided an explanation of why many people feel that harming an animal requires reasons better than just pleasure and convenience. Once again, what's the justification? Pleasure and convenience? Those don't count. Nutritional requirement? You can't truthfully say that we NEED any food derived from animals, so that excuse is illogical. You might say that "humans are omnivores", but this is only true in the sense that humans CAN eat animals, but not in the sense that we NEED to eat animals. If, according to YOUR morality, you view suffering and death inflicted upon animals as something that requires a justification, then as far as I can tell you don't have one.

Lastly I would like to address your claims regarding "plant sentience." Based upon everything known about the requirements for sentience, sentience requires a brain and sensory organs connected with a central nervous system. There is no scientific evidence that plants have any sort of mind that prefers, or desires, or wants anything. In the absence of a central nervous system, plants simply reacting to environmental stimuli is not sufficient evidence of sentience. Sunflowers turn towards the sun, but will they still do so if I position a knife where they will be if they keep moving, thus threatening them with danger? Yes. Plants react to stimuli, but they make no conscious decisions. There is no cognition going on within a plant.

Finally I'd like you to think about this. Let's pretend for the moment that all plants are definitely sentient, proven beyond a reasonable doubt. With that said, what sort of lifestyle would inflict the least possible amount of suffering upon sentient beings (both plants and animals)? The answer is a vegan lifestyle. Animal agriculture is inefficient. About 55% of crops grown worldwide are fed to farm animals, and in the U.S. this number is 72%. I got these numbers from one of last year's National Geographics; feel free to do your own research though. This style of agriculture requires massive areas of land dedicated to growing crops that are eventually killed and fed to animals, who in turn are killed and fed to humans. Since it takes many pounds of plant matter to produce just one pound of animal flesh, it is far more efficient to grow plants directly for human consumption. Therefore plant-based agriculture would feed more people with far less land usage, and far less plants would be killed by humans. Do you truly care about the well-being of those sentient plants? If so, and you want to minimize the quantity of plants that you hurt and kill to sustain your body, then go vegan.

Thanks for reading. If you'd like advice on how to go vegan and maintain a healthy and satisfying diet, the members of this forum would be more than happy to oblige. If veganism still seems weird to you, feel free to investigate TVA's YouTube channel and this forum further. I'm an atheist too, and I chose to become vegan for ethical reasons based upon careful rational thinking. Not dogma. I hope you will apply your skepticism to matters beyond religion, including nutrition and animal ethics.

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydgxje2sC9o
** http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12778049
*** https://www.youtube.com/user/NutritionFactsOrg

LogicIsNotRelative wrote:Lol, How is this rambling any different from what I hear from mormons trying to convert me?

The fact that you can't rebut my response point by point says enough.

LogicIsNotRelative wrote:Expand, by not eating meat?

Ethics is about actions and their consequences; if those are bad it can result in abstaining from certain practices. By opening your mind it's easier to see the flaws in your reasoning and why the case for veganism is very well established.

LogicIsNotRelative wrote:It is being sentient you care about not life? Argue with a tree hugger and he will feel he is correct and you will feel that he is correct but in reality who is?.. I'm not environmentalist or activist of any kind, but I do argue that it is hipocritical to say you can't eat meat yet it is fine to eat plants. You want to bring science in to this? Just how how sentient do you have to be before its immoral to eat you? How would you measure such a thing?

I would suggest you take a look into ethics, especially consequentialism and it's branches utilitarianism and preference utilitarianism. Sam Harris is advocating a pretty sophisticated moral framework that's understandable to most (educated) people.

If you're really interested I could go a bit into depth, but I don't get the impression this is working out as a serious conversation.

LogicIsNotRelative wrote:Are you sure plants are not sentient?

Depends on the grade of certainty you're talking about, but I'm pretty confident, yes.

LogicIsNotRelative wrote:Starfish do not seem sentient but they are, they interect with each other compete etc if you watch them in time lapse, studies on plants show they communicate and do have feelings. When bitten by certain insects they release chemicals wich call out other insects and animals to come attack the insect attacking them. Chemicals that resemble a bird in heat for instance. At what point does it become unethical to eat a plant? It is all a matter of definition. It is you that needs to expand. We cannot stop eating, it is just nature as cruel as it is eating animals is not unethical and is not unhealthy.

Sentience is highly connected to consciousness. At a bare minimum there should be a central nervous system, which plants lack.

But the bottom line is: even if plants were sentient, you would hurt and kill less of them by eating them directly instead of feeding them to animals (leaving animals themselves out of the calculation altogether). So veganism would still be the most ethical option.

LogicIsNotRelative wrote:Yes, being ethical should come first, I do agree. Especially if its for entertainment purposes, I'm talking about curing disease, kids with cancer or other terminal illness.

The list was by no means all-inclusive.

These kind of arguments aren't going to get you anywhere: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-texas-sharpshooter

LogicIsNotRelative wrote:but I do not find a plantlife, or microbial life to be any less meaningful than any other life-form sentient or not.

Meaningful in which sense? Ethically? If so: you consider the ethical implications of killing a human and a plant as being on the same level?

LogicIsNotRelative wrote:Lol, How is this rambling any different from what I hear from mormons trying to convert me? Expand, by not eating meat?

I agree that it would be unreasonable for Mormons to try and convert you if the views that they present are based upon unverifiable/unfalsifiable claims regarding the supernatural. However, plenty of reasonable claims can be made regarding the ethics, health issues, and environmental problems associated with animal exploitation and consumption. Such claims have a multitude of evidence supporting them.

Veganism isn't about "expanding" your "spirit". It has nothing to do with being superior to anyone, pleasing a deity, or buying your way into heaven. As I explained earlier I'm an atheist, and so have no aspirations to any kind of afterlife or "enlightened spiritual state." Veganism involves addressing some of the very real, demonstrable issues in the world. It involves improving the lives of sentient beings right now, in this life.

Additionally, if your actions bring no harm whatsoever to any sentient beings, then it's none of my business what you may choose to do. If, however, your actions bring needless harm to beings who value their lives, then it's everyone's business and I wouldn't care that you have a problem with compassionate people seeking to end senseless suffering, violence, and death.