Atheism

I've always been gratified at the thought of kosher and halal dietary laws . . . more pork for me . . .

Spendi, some non-believers go out of their way to be unintrusive to people who do have beliefs.

you make atheists out as savages...

And it should be "may" eat I hope. I bet you can't eat cat or dog. But you may do. How about rat? Would you kiss a lady after rat pie had gone down?

I would imagine there is a sound economic reason for the Jewish taboo on pig. There usually is for religious rules. Which is easy to forget. Which religious rules of behaviour do you think didn't originate for a sound social reason? And subsequently become traditions of solidarity. Emblems.

What did the Rabbi say pan?

pan--do the bridge players have to be circumcised?

Rock
Anybody that follows spendi's posts long enough will discern that the man's a savage in the worst sense of the word. He attacks, denigrates, is misogynistic. He in fact at least online embodies the very qualities he ascribes to atheists. He appears to me to be a very desperate man.

I know him better than that, ed.

but stand by what I said...

Oh. Barbecue is heavenly, made with pork, but chickens and cows also make great barbecue.

Ed should know that we are all desperate men. I just don't like barrack lawyer types when we have such a good thing going.

You win that bet, though I'm sure somewhere in this wide world dog and cat make it to the dinner table.



I don't think those dogs on the marquee are advising patrons the restaurant is seeing eye dog friendly.



I read the Tommies in the Ypres trenches had some good recipes for rat.



Probably because in the Middle East the pigs would require more water to keep them cool and would compete with humans for food such as grains.


Emile Durkheim distilled religion into four major functions:
1. Disciplinary, forcing or administrating discipline
2. Cohesive, bringing people together, a strong bond
3. Vitalizing, to make livelier or vigorous, vitalise, boost spirit
4. Euphoric, a good feeling, happiness, confidence, well-being

I'm good with that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89mile_Durkheim#Religion

@littlek,
littlek
Quote:

Sigh

He accepted my apology graciously, though I imagined he thought I'd been raised in a horse stall.

I've eaten dog . . . it was somewhat stringy, but had a good flavor . . . i've never eaten rat . . .

When the Prussians were besieging Paris in 1871, Anatole France went to the local butcher looking for some little scraps to feed his cat. The butcher regretted that he had nothing for him . . . and then made an offer for his cat . . .

wonderful anecdote...

An Italian chef just got fired for talking about his cat casserole recipe on his cooking show. It's probably on youtube lol.

I'll bet Setanta didn't tell the lady he was getting near to a French kissing session with. Which would be cheating really. A lie of omission.

And he should be careful about mentioning Anatole France too.

It is possible that the Jewish taboo on pig is due to the fact that pig tastes the same as humans, or so I have read, missionaries being called "long-pig" in cannibalese, and what with meat being in short supply and butchers in those days being in a credit crunch like nothing we can envisage, really desperate men, and there are few women butchers, might have been motivated to sell human flesh too much.

I don't know why there are few women butchers. Maybe Kay can explain that. I feel sure she is an equal opportunity person.

In the spirit of sharing resources, and of demonstrating that utilitarianism is by no means the only approach to morality that doesn't depend on god, here are three books I find helpful.

Mark D. Hauser: Moral Minds: The Nature of Right and Wrong Harper International (2007)

Mark Hauser is a biologist who has investigated empirically to what extent human approaches to morality varies with cultures. He did this by interviewing people, presenting them with moral dilemas, and asking them how they would resolve them. By surveying respondents from a broad range of cultural, national, and religious backgrounds, he was able to show that we humans end up resolving these dilemmas in pretty much the same way, no matter how many gods people think are watching over their decisions.

Matt Ridley: The Origins of Virtue. Penguin Press 1998

... examines the evolutionary origin of your morality. Pretty similar to the first book, but more focused on the biology of it.

Phil Zuckerman: Society without God. New York University Press 2008

... compares life in the USA to life in the least religious societies on Earth, and finds that people in non-religious societies live fulfilled, ethical lives just the same.

thanks for the list

The Origins of Virtue - reviews

Amazon.com Review
Human life, scientific journalist Matt Ridley suggests, is a complex balancing act: we behave with self-interest foremost in mind, but also in ways that do not harm, and sometimes even benefit, others. This behavior, in a strange way, makes us good. It also makes us unique in the animal world, where self-interest is far more pronounced. "The essential virtuousness of human beings is proved not by parallels in the animal kingdom, but by the very lack of convincing animal parallels," Ridley writes. How we got to be so virtuous over millions of years of evolution is the theme of this entertaining book of popular science, which will be of interest to any student of human nature. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
From Library Journal
Relying heavily on game theory, zoologist and science writer Ridley focuses on how cooperation evolved in the generally selfish world of humankind. The result is a fascinating tale incorporating studies in theoretical and evolutionary biology, ecology, economics, ethology, sociology, and anthropology. Ridley details many complex behaviors, such as altruism in animals and humans, and reviews many anthropological investigations to show how these behaviors manifest themselves in differing groups. He also develops some absorbing ideas regarding extinct civilizations. Unfortunately, his conclusions are sometimes at odds with his claim that individual property rights are the key to conservation and that environmentalists are misguided. His criticisms of conservation efforts and of the concept of the "noble savage" can be one-sided, and his sources are limited. Still, the material will captivate a wide audience, including scholars who appreciate the original literature cited. Highly recommended.?Constance A. Rinaldo, Dartmouth Coll. Biomedical Lib., Hanover, N.H.
Copyright 1997 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.