Why Christianity is False from Vegetarianism

[boatsnguitars]

(1) If it is immoral to eat animals, then Christianity is false.
(2) It is immoral to eat animals.
(3) Therefore, Christianity is false.

Arguments for (1)
-Jesus could not act immorally because he was God.
-Jesus ate animals
-Therefore, if eating animals is immoral and Jesus in fact ate animals, then he is not God.

Arguments for (2)
-it is immoral to cause unecessary suffering to sentient beings
-it is not necessary to eat meat to live healthily. Indeed, many nutritionists argue the exact opposite.
-we are causing suffering to sentient beings by eating their meat.
-thus, we are causing pain unecessarily.

[boatsnguitars]

Secondly, it is possible that eating animals doesn't cause unnecessary suffering for sentient beings.

That was addressed. You ignored it. It is unnecessary.
(As for Jesus not being God, that's great. He wasn't perfect, either, then, because he ate meat.)

-it is immoral to cause unnecessary suffering to sentient beings
-it is not necessary to eat meat to live healthily. Indeed, many nutritionists argue the exact opposite.
-we are causing suffering to sentient beings by eating their meat.
-thus, we are causing pain unnecessarily.

[boatsnguitars]

Your argument works, too, but I did provide my reasoning why eating animals is immoral, so it's not right to wave it off, you'd have to address the "Argument for (2) (For why eating animals is immoral):
-it is immoral to cause unnecessary suffering to sentient beings (If it's not wrong, say why)

You have your work ahead of you I fear. Many will not agree that it is immoral to kill a mosquito buzzing around their ear for example. If your starting premise cannot be agreed upon, you have a non start.

-it is not necessary to eat meat to live healthily. Indeed, many nutritionists argue the exact opposite. (If it is necessary to eat meat, or even healthier, say why)

Again, all it takes is disagreement from your opponent. Some may note how important protein is and how abundant it is in meat for example and then feel justified.

-we are causing suffering to sentient beings by eating their meat. (if we aren't causing suffering to sentient beings when we eat meat, say why)

Humans cause suffering by eating meat and by swatting mosquitos and by plowing our fields to plant crops. If you argument is to not cause suffering, we'll need to stop all of this.

-thus, we are causing pain unnecessarily. (if we aren't causing pain unnecessarily, then say why).

We do cause pain... Please note the animal kingdom we are a part of and the pain involved in said animal kingdom. Would the lion respect your words?

Just as we wouldn't wave off your argument by saying, all we do is reject your premise that punish children for eternity is immoral.

Your premise is too easily disagreed with. Punishing children for eternity as being wrong will be agreed upon by all, so your comparisons is not apt.

Humans do cause pain and suffering. Humans do not punish children for eternity.

Again, my point was to only point out how easily your starting premise is to reject. "Nuh uh" is all your opponent need say and they will feel justified.
That and think of the plants! Forced into the ground against their will! How cruel!

I think it's a more powerful argument that you are giving it credit for.
You argument that "all people have to do is reject a premise" is true for any argument.
While I agree that under Atheist Morality it's wrong to torture children for eternity, many theists argue otherwise. (certainly Calvinists)
The fact is, animals we eat are sentient. They do feel pain. We do not need to eat them, therefore, eating animals causes unnecessary pain. Under most moral theories, causing unnecessary pain is "bad".

I think you need to look at each point and provide a rebuttal, otherwise you are just waving it off. Wave away if you want, but that isn't a rebuttal.

[1213]

Secondly, it is possible that eating animals doesn't cause unnecessary suffering for sentient beings.

That was addressed. You ignored it. It is unnecessary.
(As for Jesus not being God, that's great. He wasn't perfect, either, then, because he ate meat.)

-it is immoral to cause unnecessary suffering to sentient beings
-it is not necessary to eat meat to live healthily. Indeed, many nutritionists argue the exact opposite.
-we are causing suffering to sentient beings by eating their meat.
-thus, we are causing pain unnecessarily.

The problem with that is, you offer only claims that may be incorrect.

[boatsnguitars]

Secondly, it is possible that eating animals doesn't cause unnecessary suffering for sentient beings.

That was addressed. You ignored it. It is unnecessary.
(As for Jesus not being God, that's great. He wasn't perfect, either, then, because he ate meat.)

-it is immoral to cause unnecessary suffering to sentient beings
-it is not necessary to eat meat to live healthily. Indeed, many nutritionists argue the exact opposite.
-we are causing suffering to sentient beings by eating their meat.
-thus, we are causing pain unnecessarily.

The problem with that is, you offer only claims that may be incorrect.

Which ones?

Is it not true that you can live a healthy life without animal meat?
Do animals not suffer when you kill them?
Is it moral to cause uneccessary suffering?

Which claims do you have a problem with?

[Clownboat]

I think it's a more powerful argument that you are giving it credit for.

I do not disagree that you think this.

You argument that "all people have to do is reject a premise" is true for any argument.

Obviously, but what you ignore is how easily your starting premise is for an opponent to reject. You're shooting the messenger here.

While I agree that under Atheist Morality it's wrong to torture children for eternity, many theists argue otherwise. (certainly Calvinists)

I'm not aware that or how atheism would provide any sort of morality. Atheism is only a position about the available god concepts.

The fact is, animals we eat are sentient. They do feel pain. We do not need to eat them, therefore, eating animals causes unnecessary pain. Under most moral theories, causing unnecessary pain is "bad".

You have ignored that plowing fields to plant crops also causes unnecessary pain. This renders your complaint about unnecessary pain moot.

I think you need to look at each point and provide a rebuttal, otherwise you are just waving it off. Wave away if you want, but that isn't a rebuttal.

I'm not here to refute your claim. I have only pointed out how easily your opponents can dismiss it.

See your avoidence of the killing of mosquitos or how planting crops causes unnecessary pain if you want to see examples of 'waving it off'.

[Clownboat]

Is it not true that you can live a healthy life without animal meat?

It is not true. Plowing fields causes unnecessary pain and suffering.

Do animals not suffer when you kill them?

Do you mean like mice, when you plow their homes in order to force plants into the ground against their will?

Is it moral to cause uneccessary suffering?

Yes. We need to eat.

[1213]

...Is it not true that you can live a healthy life without animal meat?
Do animals not suffer when you kill them?
Is it moral to cause uneccessary suffering?
...

Where do you get B12 vitamin, if not by eating meat?

I don't think we have any proof that animal can't be killed without suffering. But, I can accept that some ways can cause suffering.

[boatsnguitars]

...Is it not true that you can live a healthy life without animal meat?
Do animals not suffer when you kill them?
Is it moral to cause uneccessary suffering?
...

Where do you get B12 vitamin, if not by eating meat?

I don't think we have any proof that animal can't be killed without suffering. But, I can accept that some ways can cause suffering.

What foods are high in B12 for vegetarians?
List of B-12 foods for vegetarians
yogurt.
low-fat milk.
fortified plant-based milk.
cheese.
eggs.
fortified cereals.
nutritional yeast.

So, you agree it causes suffering, but you are - personally (subjectively) OK with suffering (so was Hitler, BTW, ) .

But from your rebuttal about B12, since that was your argument, I take it that since I've shown you ways vegetarians get B12 that you now have no other objection to the argument?

Or are you going to nickel and dime us to death because you simply don't want to agree to the premises, regardless of facts?

[1213]

...Is it not true that you can live a healthy life without animal meat?
Do animals not suffer when you kill them?
Is it moral to cause uneccessary suffering?
...

Where do you get B12 vitamin, if not by eating meat?

I don't think we have any proof that animal can't be killed without suffering. But, I can accept that some ways can cause suffering.

What foods are high in B12 for vegetarians?
List of B-12 foods for vegetarians
yogurt.
low-fat milk.
fortified plant-based milk.
cheese.
eggs.
fortified cereals.
nutritional yeast.

So, you agree it causes suffering, but you are - personally (subjectively) OK with suffering (so was Hitler, BTW, ) .

But from your rebuttal about B12, since that was your argument, I take it that since I've shown you ways vegetarians get B12 that you now have no other objection to the argument?

Or are you going to nickel and dime us to death because you simply don't want to agree to the premises, regardless of facts?

Thanks for the information. I had understood vegetarians doesn't eat those.

And about Hitler, by what I know, he was a vegetarian. Maybe that is why he was so angry at Jews?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hit ... etarianism

I still think it is possible that the killing of animal doesn't necessary cause always suffering.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #19

And about Hitler, by what I know, he was a vegetarian.

Hitler was also a dog owner. Is that supposed to mean something?