The Atheist Vegan

Dog Fights vs. Animal Rights

2007-08-19T07:58:00.001-07:00

Michael Vick is a dirt bag. Uneducated, primitive, unintelligent. He's on the lower end of the bell curve. But, so are all omnivores. Further, they are hypocrites for criticizing Michael Vick, since they routinely kill over 100 animals yearly in much crueler circumstances. Lets look at the following comparisons:

Dog Fighting vs. Pig Slaughter Houses

Even though humans have a near universal dog fetish, it should be noted that pigs are smarter and have more developed personalities. As worst, they are on equal footing with dogs in terms of intellectual capacity -- around the cognitive level of a three year old human. With dog fighting, there is actually incentive to have a strong, healthy, well exercised dog. Chances are these animals are raised in much better conditions than the millions of pigs which are raised in factory farms setting and slaughtered each year. The pigs will spend their entire lives in concrete pens, force fed hormones and substandard food, getting little exercise, at the end of which they will be killed by tortuous methods including electrocution, boiling alive, or bleeding to death. Many of the animals are not killed by the time the reach the processing stations, and die as they are being turned into pork chops and sausages. These pigs, whom omnivores are directly responsible for murdering, are at least facing as much pain as a few dogs who are dying as a result of fighting.

Cock Fighting vs. Factory Farmed Chickens

The factory farmed chicken, which accounts for the vast majority of chicken products (keep in mind "free range" usually means there is a small opening leading to a wire pen outside the factory where chickens can theoretically see some sunlight -- this rarely happens), must be in far worse conditions than the cocks who are raised to fight. The chicken which reaches the plate of an omnivore has spent most of its life in a small wire cage, in cramped conditions, being pumped with hormones, often in close proximity of other dead animals, beaks are often burned off, among other horrors.

Final Thoughts

Dog fighting, and animal fighting in general is barbaric and shouldn't be allowed. But there really is no difference between fighting dogs in a basement and slaughtering millions of sentient pigs. The suffering is just as real, the conditions probably much worse, the numbers far great, and the message the same: that humans are entitled to use other sentient beings how they wish, without regard for their well being. If you are one of the omnivores who annually kills 100's of defenseless animals, think twice before you point the finger at Michael Vick.

Go(re) Vegan?

2007-07-05T06:31:00.000-07:00

While pop-culture interest in "Global Warming" has skyrocketed in the months following Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. Everyone is talking about in some way or another, whether to "debunk" the science (we're betting these people also spend a good deal of time "debunking" evolution) or preaching "go green" by doing things like.... drive a Prius.

Gore & space cadet Richard Branson have both ponied up $25m to the "first person to develop a technology that will efficiently remove carbon from the atmosphere". (I sent them a couple douglas fir saplings, but I am still waiting for my check). Which alludes to perhaps the biggest inconvient truth of the whole Global Warming crisis : we already know how to drastically reduce greenhouse gasses : GO VEGAN.

"Researchers at the University of Chicago have determined that switching to a vegan diet is more effective in countering global warming than switching from a standard American car to a Toyota Prius."

To highlite the issue, PETA has demanded that the LIVE EARTH concert for Global Warming eliminate meat from the menu. They say, and I agree, that a concert for the environment selling meat is hypocritical. (Not to mention all the cars that will be driving to the event, etc. etc.)

In the words of Yvonne Taylor, "There's no such thing as a meat eating environmentalist."

The original article is here:
Wembley Urged To Take Meat Off Live Earth Menu

Floods are judgment on society, say bishops

2007-07-01T06:01:00.001-07:00

Just in time for the release of Evan Almighty, amateur climatologist Graham Dow, who also moonlights as "Bishop" of the Catholic Church of England announces "Pro-gay laws were to blame for the floods," and "This is a strong and definite judgment because the world has been arrogant in going its own way. We are reaping the consequences of our moral degradation, as well as the environmental damage that we have caused."

Taking a page from Cortez, the Bishop is trying to co-opt natural phenomenon to sway the behavior of the people.

To be sure not to deviat from the blatant hypocryse of christian mythology in general, he continues "In the Bible, institutional power is referred to as 'the beast', which sets itself up to control people and their morals. Our government has been playing the role of God in saying that people are free to act as they want..."

Somehow the "institutional power" of the Church avoids being labeled as "the beast" when it attempts to control the people and their morals.

For you anorexics who may have lost your toothbrush this morning:
Floods are judgment on society, say bishops

The Skinny Bitches Are Coming!

2007-06-18T12:28:00.000-07:00

Since I only date Skinny Bitches, I wanted to give a big thank you to Rory Freedman and Kim Barnouin for writing the new diet book, Skinny Bitch, which promotes a vegan diet. This is just the thing to buy for any female in your life... if all goes according to plan, we'll be seeing a bunch of newly converted vegan skinny bitches running around in a city near you.

Cognitive Dissonance

2007-06-16T19:15:00.000-07:00

A great friend of mine has decided to "experiment" with being vegetarian for a month to see if he'll experience any health benefits. While this was not my primary reason for a vegan diet, it is surely a reason for many. There a bountiful health benefits inclusing drasitc reduction in cancer and heart disease. I wanted to post a link to a great article written by David Yount, entitled Eight Arguments in Favor of Eating Meat and Objections Thereto -- Before you read it, think up YOUR best rationale for eating meat (if you still do that is), and then have at it. Here is what he covers, see if your argument doesn't fall into one of these categories:

1. The Bible Argument: “The Bible says we shall have dominion over the animals and I take that to mean that we can eat meat and use animals however we want. Therefore, we can eat meat.”

2. The Tradition Argument:“I’ve been brought up eating meat and never questioned it. Our culture accepts eating meat as well. Therefore, I should be able to eat meat.”

3. The Taste Argument:“I love the way meat tastes. I won’t deprive myself of this. Therefore, I should be able to eat meat.”

4. The Teeth Argument: “Our teeth are made for eating meat. All animals that have teeth like ours eat meat. So we should be able to eat meat.”

5. The Nutrition Argument:“We need the protein that is provided in meat. Therefore, we should be able to eat meat.”

6. The Darwinian/Machiavellian Argument: “The process of evolution has placed humans, the stronger, in a position to be able to use the weaker (non-human animals) for our eating and other pleasures. Other animals besides us eat meat (i.e., other animals) – are they immoral? E.g., if the lion eats the zebra, that isn’t morally wrong. So it’s a natural instinct we have to eat meat. Therefore, we should be able to eat meat.”

7. The A-moral Beings Argument: “Non-human animals are a-moral beings. Non-human animals cannot question their actions like humans can, and this is what makes humans special. If beings cannot question how they live, then they have no intrinsic worth or rights. Therefore, we should be able to eat meat.”

8. The Intelligence/Rationality Argument:“Humans are more intelligent and more rational than non-humans. These characteristics give us the right or opportunity to be able to use non-humans for food. Therefore, we should be able to eat meat.”

Of course, he brilliantly and simply refutes every single one of the above. The result, for the average meat eater -- is that they end up agreeing "technically" or "philosophically" they shouldn't eat meat, but then continue to do so because the addiction is too strong.

http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~yount/text/meatarg.html

It's important to point out that much of this holds true for the poultry and dairy industry as well, as animals are torture and killed in the production of milk and eggs.

Holy (Mind) Fuck.

2007-06-15T20:37:00.000-07:00

This week I was reading on Wired.com about the rising problem of degree mills issuing fake credentials to folks. This practice is almost as frightening as actual universities such as Liberty University, which require faculty to sign a "declaration of faith". The "declaration" includes such intellectual gems from christian mythology as

"Angels were created as ministering agents, though some, under the leadership of Satan,
fell from their sinless state to become agents of evil."

"The universe was created in six historical days ..."

"Human beings were directly created, not evolved..."

Check out the full, actual application for employment. The "doctrinal statement" on page four is where it really starts to get good:
http://www.liberty.edu/media/1312/applications/FacultyApp-0503.pdf

It would be amazing if we could draft similar declarations for state institutions, such as:

"We affirm to dispel all irrational belief, primarily, any belief that is not grounded in verifiable reality."

Why is "faith" the one area of our society where you can be a completely illogical buffoon and people will continue to "respect your beliefs"? Religion has one function, to preserve and further exaggerate social caste systems.

Thinking Pains

2007-05-14T06:30:00.000-07:00

"Cameron... is motivated by... fear..."

Everyone's favorite crackpot was recently engaged in a debate vs. reason. Kirk Cameron, childhood star of the hit Growing Pains is now trying to find salvation for himself and others as an evangelist.

The recent televised debate featured Cameron and his partner of Way of the Master (no, serioulsy) vs. a slightly more tolerable pair from the Rational Response Squad. The idea was, Way of the Master was going to prove the existance of god 100%, without the use of faith or the bible, and rely strickly on scientific methods. (no, seriously).

I watched the opening remarks before retreating to the head to relive myself orally of my most recent meal, but it went a little something like this. Way of the Master began with the tired "Creation requires a Creator" gambit, and then quickly spun out into preaching and biblical references, clearly ignoring the rules of engagment previously outlined.

The Rational Response Squad did a great job of refuting this easily refutable claim, however, they really scored a big zero on the charisma scale. This is problematic, especially when facing an opponent on a televised debate, even more so when your opponent is (arguably) a famous proffessional actor! It's remincent of the 1960 Nixon - Kennedy debate. Luckily though, the religious lunitics didn't have an argument (as always) and reason soundly won.

Even though I was pulling for him, Kirk failed in convincing me to adopt a theistic lifestyle, let alone make the leap to Christian mythology. I was fairly convinced, however, of the dangers of childhood stardom. Why can't they all just turn to meth and hookers for salvation after their careers drop off the face of the planet.

The ABC article and video can be found here:
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=3148940&page=1

Prayer is not the Answer

2007-04-19T06:17:00.000-07:00

Whenever we are struck with a great tragedy as a society, often, many people turn to religion for answers or salvation. The recent events at Virginia Tech are no different. Perhaps the grief from the situation is temporarily resolved and there is some benefit to the individuals doing the praying - but even if this is the case, it's an internal phenomenon.

It's relevant to revisit last years study on prayer, a review of which was published in the New York Times : Long-Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer

The findings of the study? We'll, obviously, prayer has zero effect. Ask any compulsive gambler who thinks he can will the dice, sure it might feel like if you think hard enough you can effect some outcome, but the truth is, you can't.

Of course, "people of faith", tend to respond the same way charlatans have responded for years when the rub is exposed. They say something along the lines of, the act of observing the phenomenon interferes as if prayer is some spiritual double slit experiment.

We can do better. Instead of praying, why don't we meditate on strategies to improve our society. We're still murdering people and animals everyday with no thought whatsoever. A little introspection goes much farther that a hundred congregations full of hot "prayer".

New T-Shirt Design, Coming Soon...

2007-04-18T13:17:00.000-07:00

Agribusiness journal concedes : The Activists Are Winning.

2007-04-18T13:14:00.000-07:00

From Agribusiness journal Feedstuffs recently (April 2) editorialized:

"Very recent developments would suggest that producers are now losing. If producers are losing, others are also losing -- everyone who has a stake in dairy, meat and poultry production... [I]t's not about animal welfare. It's not about cages and stalls... It's about raising animals for food, and the activists' agenda is to end the practice. It will take decades, but they are the ones who are winning -- piece by piece by piece."

It's about a movement toward non-exploitation. If you support the exploitation of other conscious organism, do not complain when you (or other humans) are exploited by another conscious organism. DNA vs. DNA. The same survival of the fittest framework that allows for consumption of our non-human brothers and sisters also allows for slavery, chavenism, racism, etc. If we as a species are to move into the future successfully, we must shed the archaic practice of exploitation, and transcend into a more protective, advanced society.

Dr. Dino is Extinct

2007-04-02T21:10:00.000-07:00

I've been toying with the idea of this blog for about a year now, and I encountered something today that turned theory to law -- thus, here is the inaugural post of The Atheist Vegan.

I can across a video of this evangelist, "Dr. Dino", who claims to follow the scientific method yet somehow has neglected, in his scientific pursuits, to question the accuracy of his Christian bible. He repeatedly criticizes evolutionists for "circular reasoning", when in reality, he is simply projecting his own fallacy of putting faith in a Bible whose authority and accuracy are only verifiable within itself. At the end of his video he encourages folks to contact him, so of course, I did.

I simply asked him:

The foundation of Christian belief relies upon circular reasoning.
For example:
"The bible is the word of god, so it's true." - Devotee
"How do you know it's the word of god?" - Agnostic / Atheist
"We know the bible is the word of God because the bible says it is."
"How do you know the bible is accurate?" - Agnostic / Atheist

Your thoughts?

I actually got a reply, however, it seemed to answer a question I didn't ask. I know what 2nd grade English teachers must feel like.Here is the reply:

Thank you for your question!

Life's DNA is exceedingly complex. King David put our organization this way:

Psalms 139:14-16 "I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them."

When a young mechanic learns how to change a car's spark plugs or change the oil he has gained some understanding of the engine, but he does not possess the ability to replicate such an automobile from scratch himself.

Is any simple automobile the result of random chance? Of course not. Yet today, geneticists have learned how to manipulate a few things within DNA. Aren't we like high schoolers, peering into the complexities of life and barely able to understand what it is we see? We are "fearfully and wonderfully made."

Evolution proposes that "God was not needed." As such it creates a "mental hiding place" where the same person who would admit that a car could not happen by chance will turn right around and claim that organic life happened by chance.

Taking something simple - compare a big oil refinery with the complex human digestive system. The refinery must be retooled if the incoming oil has any change in its composition. Yet your digestive system can handle a slice of pepperoni pizza, a handful of jelly beans, with a glass of soda - breaking down each organic substance down to the molecular level!! Each protein, mineral, fat, and sugar, gets individually processed. And the human digestive system is 100% biodegradable, portable, and was self-assembled. An oil refinery is simple in comparison. Did the oil refinery happen by chance? Does it improve by itself over time? Is it made of biodegradable parts? Do we have to concentrate to digest food? No, it happens while we then turn our attention to read, or talk, or drive a car (...that also did not fall together by time and chance); a car that runs on fuel from a big oil refinery.

If DNA is simple, then why does it take some of our most advanced equipment in order to even study it in the first place? Evolution is a "mental hiding place" to deny God's proper place in our lives. He is our Maker and we each have the choice of making Him our Lord.

Here are two sets of illustrations, FREE to download and use in classes:

http://www.creationism.org/books/BibleInPictures/index.htm http://www.creationism.org/images/DoreBibleIllus/index.htm -and-

Sincerely,
Paul Abramson

WTF? DNA? Random chance? Type writers? He doesn't even come close to answering my question. Of course, there is plenty to pick apart, even if that was somewhat relevant answer. It's rather arrogant to assume that if man can't do something now, then it's impossible for it to occur in manless nature. He tries comparing an oil refinery to the digestive system -- dude, guess what, if you eat oil you'll die. How about a furnace? You can burn pretty much anything flamable, and you'll get some sort of energy out - just as you can eat most anything edible. And who said DNA was simple? It's one of the most complex compounds in existence.

It's typical of the Christian human centric world view to assume that if humans have yet to accomplish something, that it's impossible it would happen in humanless nature.

So, my question still stands : how to you verify the existence of a God, whose only "evidence" for existence is a book. It's the same question I asked in Sunday school when I was 6 --- can't I just write a book, and say it's the "Word of God"? Well.. what's the difference? Oh, and your answers may be amusing, but the question is rhetorical -- anyone with at least a brain stem knows, you can't.