When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear...

As PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk has said, “When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the knife.”

I would like to hear from the atheists on this forum...

Do you agree with Ingrid Newkirk? If not, why not?
 

5wize

Well-known member
As PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk has said, “When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the knife.”

I would like to hear from the atheists on this forum...

Do you agree with Ingrid Newkirk? If not, why not?
I agree. It is the fight against the knife, or the fear of facing destruction, that is the foundation of our morality as well as the fodder of our dream of immortality.
 

docphin5

Active member
I agree. It is the fight against the knife, or the fear of facing destruction, that is the foundation of our morality as well as the fodder of our dream of immortality.
You fell for it. In case you need a reminder, it is illegal to eat a "boy" but that cow... yum, yum!. Is this where your a-theist moral relativity fits in?

BTW, who invited the animal rights activists into our forum? Geeez! Shall we start a thread that includes politics, religion, and animal rights into one and watch the fireworks!?
 
Last edited:

5wize

Well-known member
You fell for it. In case you need a reminder, it is illegal to eat a "boy" but that cow... yum, yum!. Is this where your a-theist moral relativity fits in?

BTW, who invited the animal rights activists into our forum? Geeez! Shall we start a thread that includes politics, religion, and animal rights into one and watch the fireworks!?
Oh contraire my Gnostic muse. It supports the fact that morality is local and not transcendent in absolutely the most stark way possible. If you think otherwise, then God better get a memo out concerning the preservation of His creation. Has God instructed you into Buddhism?
 

docphin5

Active member
Oh contraire my Gnostic muse. It supports the fact that morality is local and not transcendent in absolutely the most stark way possible. If you think otherwise, then God better get a memo out concerning the preservation of His creation.
Your gonna have to explain yourself. You want to eat boys but you don't want to go to prison so you don't. Is that your moral relativity kicking in?

Also, what part of creation do you think God is trying to preserve? Your moral relativism who may want to eat boys, or cows who only think about the grass they eat, or is it souls, as I have stated, that value absolute good, truth, justice, and honor as transcendent morality?
 

5wize

Well-known member
Your gonna have to explain yourself. You want to eat boys but you don't want to go to prison so you don't. Is that your moral relativity kicking in?
No, I do not want to be eaten so I don't want human consumption of humans to be part of our lexicon of accepted human activity. That right there is where our morality originates. We did not have to work too hard to find the pain points. We experienced lawlessness and a lack of capacity to thrive under such conditions, so we introduced what God could not, a sense of justice, peace, and law that created the underlay of civilization. We experienced how animal we become when our survival was threatened, and we didn't like it, so we created strategies to keep that fear of personal destruction at bay. That's it. There is no transcendent supernatural to it. How do I know? Simple. History is the canvass that shows us that we figured this out on our own. God has nothing to do with any of it. If you disagree, show me where in the arc of human history where God made this clear outside our own experience.
Also, what part of creation do you think God is trying to preserve? Your moral relativism who may want to eat boys, or cows who only think about the grass they eat, or is it souls, as I have stated, that value absolute good, truth, justice, and honor as transcendent morality?
God, as I stated above, isn't even concerned with souls as so many are shoved off the cliff without ever realizing his presence in a world we are forging on our own. Does God want a world where pigs are not to be eaten? Well, the next move is His then.
 

docphin5

Active member
No, I do not want to be eaten so I don't want human consumption of humans to be part of our lexicon of accepted human activity. That right there is where our morality originates. We did not have to work too hard to find the pain points. We experienced lawlessness and a lack of capacity to thrive under such conditions, so we introduced what God could not, a sense of justice, peace, and law that created the underlay of civilization. We experienced how animal we become when our survival was threatened, and we didn't like it, so we created strategies to keep that fear of personal destruction at bay. That's it. There is no transcendent supernatural to it. How do I know? Simple. History is the canvass that shows us that we figured this out on our own. God has nothing to do with any of it. If you disagree, show me where in the arc of human history where God made this clear outside our own experience.

God, as I stated above, isn't even concerned with souls as so many are shoved off the cliff without ever realizing his presence in a world we are forging on our own. Does God want a world where pigs are not to be eaten? Well, the next move is His then.
That was actually a very good, articulate response. Kudos, my friend! Damn you if you convert me to be an atheist. (just kidding, you still got a long ways to go!)
 

Tiburon

Member
You fell for it. In case you need a reminder, it is illegal to eat a "boy" but that cow... yum, yum!. Is this where your a-theist moral relativity fits in?

BTW, who invited the animal rights activists into our forum? Geeez! Shall we start a thread that includes politics, religion, and animal rights into one and watch the fireworks!?
Your not addressing the actual OP. There is no mention of eating anyone or anything. It addresses the idea that each creature values it's own life and strives for survival.
 

Tiburon

Member
As PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk has said, “When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the knife.”

I would like to hear from the atheists on this forum...

Do you agree with Ingrid Newkirk? If not, why not?
I agree. But what are the implications of this? Does it mean we have to treat them all as equal?
 

treeplanter

Active member
As PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk has said, “When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the knife.”

I would like to hear from the atheists on this forum...

Do you agree with Ingrid Newkirk? If not, why not?
Does each value their life?
Yes

Will each fight for their life?
Yes

Do rats and pigs and dogs experience pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear?
Perhaps, to some degree, but nowhere near to the extent or level that a boy does

Are rats and pigs and dogs to be valued the same as a boy?
Hell no!

What are you driving at?




Are human lives of an infinitely greater import?
Yes
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Does each value their life?
Yes

Will each fight for their life?
Yes

Do rats and pigs and dogs experience pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear?
Perhaps, to some degree, but nowhere near to the extent or level that a boy does

Are rats and pigs and dogs to be valued the same as a boy?
Hell no!

What are you driving at?




Are human lives of an infinitely greater import?
Yes
I agree totally, except for the last sentence.
Are human lives of an infinitely greater import?
Yes, to humans
 

Furion

Active member
I agree. But what are the implications of this? Does it mean we have to treat them all as equal?

If you desire to have a relevant materialistic morality, then yes you must not place humans above other creatures.

Otherwise it's just one creature eating another, there is no morality here.

It is better to resolve it in a rational fashion like you are thinking, rather then to just not address it and proclaim "humans are of infinite importance", like some irrational people do.
 

Mr Laurier

Well-known member
As PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk has said, “When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the knife.”

I would like to hear from the atheists on this forum...

Do you agree with Ingrid Newkirk? If not, why not?
Ingrid Newkirk is a barking loon.
That you seem to agree with her bizzare and painfully wrong notions of biology, suggests that you need to read some basic science.
A rat is not a pig.
A pig is not a dog.
A dog is not a boy.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
If you desire to have a relevant materialistic morality, then yes you must not place humans above other creatures.
This doesn't follow.

Otherwise it's just one creature eating another, there is no morality here.
How do you know that? How are you defining morality?

It is better to resolve it in a rational fashion like you are thinking, rather then to just not address it and proclaim "humans are of infinite importance", like some irrational people do.
Do you have any examples of these irrational people?
 

5wize

Well-known member
If you desire to have a relevant materialistic morality, then yes you must not place humans above other creatures.

Otherwise it's just one creature eating another, there is no morality here.

It is better to resolve it in a rational fashion like you are thinking, rather then to just not address it and proclaim "humans are of infinite importance", like some irrational people do.
Relevant to whom?
 

Furion

Active member
This doesn't follow.

Yes, it does. If your morality is only based on humanity then it is arbitrary and bigoted, unworthy of consideration.

How do you know that? How are you defining morality?

I'm not defining it, I'm examing others definitions.

Do you have any examples of these irrational people?

Anyone who thinks humans are "infinitely greater" than other creatures. The height of arrogance in a material universe.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Yes, it does. If your morality is only based on humanity then it is arbitrary and bigoted, unworthy of consideration.
on the contrary. We are human. Any morality not based on humanity is not worthy of consideration. All morality is arbitrary and, if not bigoted, at the least subject to bias.
Anyone who thinks humans are "infinitely greater" than other creatures. The height of arrogance in a material universe.
I would agree. I just don't think these people exist.
 

Furion

Active member
on the contrary. We are human. Any morality not based on humanity is not worthy of consideration. All morality is arbitrary and, if not bigoted, at the least subject to bias.

So then it's just competing , specious moralites between species. Hardly inspiring.

Some look for transcendent morality, but it is not in yours.

I would agree. I just don't think these people exist.

The tree planter just said it, duh.
 

Furion

Active member
As PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk has said, “When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the knife.”

I would like to hear from the atheists on this forum...

Do you agree with Ingrid Newkirk? If not, why not?

Not an atheist but it seems the correct stance for their universe with no God.

It is the very definition of might makes right to place man above all that he sees. Man is on a giant power trip.
 
Top