The problem is that “we use it” isn’t synonymous with “it’s ethical for us to use it.” Unless you can provide a reason for equating the two (and be careful trying to do so–you’ll encounter some pretty ugly counterexamples if you try), pointing out that we use cows, or cows use us, or lions use antelopes, or trees use squirrels, is completely irrelevant.
Also, note that I and others are atheists. If that ends conversation, you may as well say so now and quit talking with us.
Whatever the word I used, I think you can see what I was trying to say about how the earths ecosystems work. Whether atheist or not, peta sends a wrong message about animals. If we cant eat animals? Why do other animals eat other animals? Why don’t they try and stop that?
I was not aware that I was trying to express my views with atheists (thanks for the heads up). I guess I will quit trying. I just hope you can see what I was “trying” to say.
Oh who really cares? It doesn’t matter. We’re here now. Plenty of people (and their churches) have religion and believe in God, and they have no problem with any part of evolutionary theory.
Why do SOME people have such a big problem with it?
Because they might get angry and eat the activists? Om nom nom 
This is gonna look like a nitpick, but it’s not.
It’s not that we can’t eat animals. It’s that we shouldn’t eat animals (according to PETA).
We are moral agents. We are capable of distinguishing between right and wrong. Other animals are not.
From your perspective, chimpanzees covet their neighbor’s ass all the time. Lions don’t remember the Sabbath or keep it holy. Black widow spiders don’t honor their father or mother. Magpies steal. Sharks kill. I don’t think I can find many examples of wild animals taking the lord’s name in vain, but you get the idea. Is it meaningful to accuse these animals of breaking the ten commandments?
Of course not: they lack the capacity to understand the ten commandments.
The opposite of “moral agent” pretty clearly isn’t “tool that you can treat however you’d like.” There are some non-moral-agents for whom that’s true: nobody (except the spoon) will get all bent out of shape if I go Uri Gellar on my flatware. But there’s a category of beings who cannot distinguish between right and wrong, but to whom we grant moral protections: they’re called moral subjects, and the classic example is a baby.
PETA argues that animals fall into that category as well. If you disagree with them, you should understand where the disagreement lies.
(For me, I agree animals fall into that category, but I disagree about its implication–namely, I disagree that animals have a desire specifically for life).
You have brought this up several times now, and I was hoping someone would correct you on this by now and prevent you from spreading this myth, but since I don’t recall anyone doing so, here goes: The theory of evolution doesn’t state that, and evolutionists don’t believe humans evolved from monkeys, only that we share a common ancestor that dates back from a few million years ago.
I enjoy talking about evolution, and if you ever want to see the millions of facts that support it, start a new thread on it, I’ll be happy to join in.
razncain
Not to derail a thread about religion to discuss PETA, but how does an organization say something like insulin is ok, but is against animal testing? Is animal testing ok only for things that are currently saving a high ranking member of PETA’s life? Was insulin developed without ever using animals?
Either you benefit from animal testing or you don’t. Saying well, it is ok because it was a long time ago, does not cut it.
PETA needs to stop preying on weak humans to advance their goals of stopping the prey of weak animals.
I used to get a slew of mail from left-leaning organizations due to my charity work. One was a letter from PETA which had a lot of random offers and information and ways to get involved. One of the offers was for a free guide and recipe book to becoming a vegetarian. I had toyed with the idea before and thought "why not? and ordered it. About a month later I get a 30 page magazine about the horrors of the meat industry and the suffering of animals and it had two recipes. Literally, two.
I called up PETA and asked if I was sent the right literature and they confirmed that. I told them that while it didn’t turn me off of meat, it turned me off of PETA. I was thinking of making a change and they made it more difficult.
Auntbeast, do you live in the Americas? Are you Native American? If you do and you’re not, I’d like to offer you two choices:
If you don’t do either, I believe you’re guilty of the same hypocrisy PETA is guilty of. Either you benefit from genocidal expansionism or you don’t. Saying well, it is ok because it was a long time ago, does not cut it.