Should cremations be outlawed for the environment?

[Itachi]

So many links bore me! This is our personal opinions not what others think. I can provide zillions of links to challenge your links but prefer too speak for myself. Once again cow's are supposed to be eaten albeit perhaps in not large numbers, we are dependent on them to provide dairy products too.

Plant based food does not provide the same taste or satisfaction that meat does, not even close too it. do like my veggies as well keeping a balance in my diet. It makes perfect sense to consume some meat as well.

cremation is also people's personal opinion and not what others think.

If you are contributing to the global warming because of your taste buds, you really are not in a position to criticize cremation to be honest.

 

[PakLFC]

cremation is also people's personal opinion and not what others think.

If you are contributing to the global warming because of your taste buds, you really are not in a position to criticize cremation to be honest.

Open air cremations damage the environment is i have proved repeatedly. I am saying some not all forms of meat is edible, Similarly, I am saying cremations in machines is fine but not open air ones that releases so much smoke and fumes.

 

[Napa]

Open air cremations damage the environment is i have proved repeatedly. I am saying some not all forms of meat is edible, Similarly, I am saying cremations in machines is fine but not open air ones that releases so much smoke and fumes.

The scientific measure of damage to the environment is the amount of carbon dioxide produced. Carbon footprint is the total amount of greenhouse gases (including carbon dioxide and methane) that are generated by our actions. Cruise ships, air conditioners, cars with engines larger than 1000 cc, animal farming etc. which have a much larger carbon footprint.

 

[Tubs]

So many links bore me! This is our personal opinions not what others think. I can provide zillions of links to challenge your links but prefer too speak for myself. Once again cow's are supposed to be eaten albeit perhaps in not large numbers, we are dependent on them to provide dairy products too.

Plant based food does not provide the same taste or satisfaction that meat does, not even close too it. do like my veggies as well keeping a balance in my diet. It makes perfect sense to consume some meat as well.

...but you asked for evidence? You may find other links funded by the meat industry to challenge my view, but it's the scientific consensus that animal agriculture is bad for the planet and that you don't need meat to be healthy.

Okay, now you're changing your view. You first said humans needed meat for protein, now you're mentioning taste pleasure. Those are entirely different views. You can forego meat if animal agriculture gets banned for environmental and/or ethical reasons, though. So I'm glad we agree.

 

[Itachi]

Open air cremations damage the environment is i have proved repeatedly. I am saying some not all forms of meat is edible, Similarly, I am saying cremations in machines is fine but not open air ones that releases so much smoke and fumes.

Everything in this world creates a pollution. Even noise, which have no smoke or fume also creates pollution. The important matter is, whether it is negligible amount or substantial.

animal meat industry, which you encourage to grow for the liking of your taste buds, creates far more pollution than few thousands people being cremated (NOT MILLIONS. Stop using that for God's sake. You have already proven wrong on that stat but as I see, you are still using it in arguments with others).

You claim that you care for environment but you yourself encourage the very processes which is harming the environment the most.

hypocrisy at its best.

 

[RedwoodOriginal]

Absolutely. But so should alot of other things that have a similar or worse impact on the environment.

 

[PakLFC]

Everything in this world creates a pollution. Even noise, which have no smoke or fume also creates pollution. The important matter is, whether it is negligible amount or substantial.

animal meat industry, which you encourage to grow for the liking of your taste buds, creates far more pollution than few thousands people being cremated (NOT MILLIONS. Stop using that for God's sake. You have already proven wrong on that stat but as I see, you are still using it in arguments with others).

You claim that you care for environment but you yourself encourage the very processes which is harming the environment the most.

hypocrisy at its best.

No not everything at all. Things with open air cremations is too much smoke and waste left afterwards. I am not encouraging anything rather saying that too much meat is bad for a person as well, That I can see why many people find blood of animals to be off putting as well. I would not hold any country responsible if they curtailed such practises. So in all aspects of like there has to be a balance looking at both sides of the argument. No one has proven me wrong here whatsoever instead i am trying to make all here vouching for open air cremations to reconsider your views.

It would be a good idea to put some form of limit on butchering. It would also be beneficial to only accept modern day cremations for the sale of the environment. This so called hypocrisy only exists in your mind.

 

[PakLFC]

...but you asked for evidence? You may find other links funded by the meat industry to challenge my view, but it's the scientific consensus that animal agriculture is bad for the planet and that you don't need meat to be healthy.

Okay, now you're changing your view. You first said humans needed meat for protein, now you're mentioning taste pleasure. Those are entirely different views. You can forego meat if animal agriculture gets banned for environmental and/or ethical reasons, though. So I'm glad we agree.

All that matters to me as a Muslim is Allah has allowed meat so this is the only stat i need. I will also inform you that even Muslim's are encouraged not to overdo it in anything at all including meat consumption. As i have already said cattle grows at a very fast rate so eating it makes perfect sense. Already in the subcontinent cattle can be seen roaming the streets freely, what do you suggest be done with them?. I am not changing anything at all, human's need meat for protein and yes it tastes wonderful too so where is the contradiction?

Meat will never be banned because most of the world finds it edible. It is outdoor cremations that the west and most countries find damaging so have banned them. India one of the biggest exporter's of beef obviously see's nothing wrong with it either even though the cow is holy to Hindu's. That is what I called double standards.

 

[PakLFC]

The scientific measure of damage to the environment is the amount of carbon dioxide produced. Carbon footprint is the total amount of greenhouse gases (including carbon dioxide and methane) that are generated by our actions. Cruise ships, air conditioners, cars with engines larger than 1000 cc, animal farming etc. which have a much larger carbon footprint.

Never mind all that mumbo jumbo. Thread is about the massive damage open air cremations cause in countries where they are allowed. What problem do you have with cremations as allowed in the west?

 

[Napa]

Never mind all that mumbo jumbo. Thread is about the massive damage open air cremations cause in countries where they are allowed. What problem do you have with cremations as allowed in the west?

You haven't explained why open air cremations produce more carbon footprint than electric cremations. If anything, the efficiency of the fuel to electricity part of the energy cycle is only 15% to 20%, so it needs a lot more fuel to deliver the same energy to the body being cremated using electricity.

If this is mumbo jumbo to you, then you need to read up and understand the scientific issues. Carbon footprint is scientific reality not mumbo jumbo.

 

[PakLFC]

You haven't explained why open air cremations produce more carbon footprint than electric cremations. If anything, the efficiency of the fuel to electricity part of the energy cycle is only 15% to 20%, so it needs a lot more fuel to deliver the same energy to the body being cremated using electricity.

If this is mumbo jumbo to you, then you need to read up and understand the scientific issues. Carbon footprint is scientific reality not mumbo jumbo.

Do i need to tell you how much smoke and all open air cremations are responsible for? The other type may also be damaging yet is the better option i mean we need to take Hindu sentiments in to consideration as well.

Now cars produce damage too so should we all cycle to work then? Life is about balance where everyone has to compromise. Do I have to prove to you that your Ganga stinks as well? The west is progressive because it strikes a balance that everyone accepts.

 

[Napa]

Do i need to tell you how much smoke and all open air cremations are responsible for? The other type may also be damaging yet is the better option i mean we need to take Hindu sentiments in to consideration as well.

Now cars produce damage too so should we all cycle to work then? Life is about balance where everyone has to compromise. Do I have to prove to you that your Ganga stinks as well? The west is progressive because it strikes a balance that everyone accepts.

The visible particulate matter (smoke) from burning wood is mainly unburnt carbon. It is not carbon which causes climate change, it is the carbon dioxide which is produced by burning carbon that causes it.

While visible smoke may seem unappealing, the climate change impact on the environment comes from the amount of carbon dioxide produced. If the carbon is burnt completely, you may see no visible smoke, however the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide is still being produced and is still the major climate change agent.

The West is no model for balance, the per capita carbon footprint of the West is far greater than South Asian countries.



https://ourworldindata.org/per-capita-co2

 

[PakLFC]

The visible particulate matter (smoke) from burning wood is mainly unburnt carbon. It is not carbon which causes climate change, it is the carbon dioxide which is produced by burning carbon that causes it.

While visible smoke may seem unappealing, the climate change impact on the environment comes from the amount of carbon dioxide produced. If the carbon is burnt completely, you may see no visible smoke, however the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide is still being produced and is still the major climate change agent.

The West is no model for balance, the per capita carbon footprint of the West is far greater than South Asian countries.

View attachment 109170

https://ourworldindata.org/per-capita-co2

Lets get back to the basics of do open air cremations cause damage? Yes they do and always have done, they are even disgusting too look at which is why most countries have banned them. Certainly the west is no example but is still much better then India! Once more what problem do you have with cremations as practised in the west?

 

[Napa]

Lets get back to the basics of do open air cremations cause damage? Yes they do and always have done, they are even disgusting too look at which is why most countries have banned them. Certainly the west is no example but is still much better then India! Once more what problem do you have with cremations as practised in the west?

Obviously lots of things damage the environment, but as you can see from the link in my last post the most damage is being done by the people in the West. They may look disgusting to you, but the reality is your ancestors about 1,300 years ago were mostly cremated. If you think your ancestors were disgusting, I feel sorry for you

Many people would feel more disgusted by burying a body and having it eaten by bacteria and worms.

Cremation is a personal choice. Funeral pyres were an important part of Indo-European culture. Romans, Greeks, Vikings, Hindus, Persians all did it. Only when the Christianity and Islam became dominant did the Europeans and Persians stop doing them.

 

[Itachi]

No not everything at all. Things with open air cremations is too much smoke and waste left afterwards. I am not encouraging anything rather saying that too much meat is bad for a person as well, That I can see why many people find blood of animals to be off putting as well. I would not hold any country responsible if they curtailed such practises. So in all aspects of like there has to be a balance looking at both sides of the argument. No one has proven me wrong here whatsoever instead i am trying to make all here vouching for open air cremations to reconsider your views.

It would be a good idea to put some form of limit on butchering. It would also be beneficial to only accept modern day cremations for the sale of the environment. This so called hypocrisy only exists in your mind.

You don't reconsider your views for the sake of your taste buds (which contributes to severe form of pollution thus making it one of the biggest contributing factor) yet you ask others to do the same (for amount of pollution that is negligible when compared to animal meat industry).

How it isn't hypopcrisy?

It doesn't sound like that in your mind because you are biased and driving your own agenda.

 

[PakLFC]

You don't reconsider your views for the sake of your taste buds (which contributes to severe form of pollution thus making it one of the biggest contributing factor) yet you ask others to do the same (for amount of pollution that is negligible when compared to animal meat industry).

How it isn't hypopcrisy?

It doesn't sound like that in your mind because you are biased and driving your own agenda.

Firstly this thread is about if or not cremation causes damage to the planet or not. Any person with an ounce of commonsense will tell you it does! So eating animal's causes pollution?? As I have repeated stated that not all forms of meat is edible for Muslim people, we only mostly consume beef giving us a perfect balance in our diet. As a Muslim naturally I will see everything through Islam.

I would understand if any government announces a restriction on slaughtering as it has rightfully banned open air cremations.

 

[SangasCoverDrive]

If we're talking about religious activities affecting the environment, then there are a lot of things that come before cremation.

 

[Itachi]

Firstly this thread is about if or not cremation causes damage to the planet or not. Any person with an ounce of commonsense will tell you it does! So eating animal's causes pollution?? As I have repeated stated that not all forms of meat is edible for Muslim people, we only mostly consume beef giving us a perfect balance in our diet. As a Muslim naturally I will see everything through Islam.

I would understand if any government announces a restriction on slaughtering as it has rightfully banned open air cremations.

Not all forms of meat is edible for Muslims? except pork, what meat is forbidden?

And you are either too naive or lack the knowledge of meat industry. eating meat doesn't cause pollution but meat industry does.

 

[OMB]

Not all forms of meat is edible for Muslims? except pork, what meat is forbidden?

And you are either too naive or lack the knowledge of meat industry. eating meat doesn't cause pollution but meat industry does.

yep, the meat factories of America are damaging Amazon forests. A quick research will tell you how. I have seen Nat Geo documentary on this but this link is one of the various sources.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/23/americas/brazil-beef-amazon-rainforest-fire-intl/index.html

Nothing wrong in eating meat.
It is the factory production for cheap fast food joints tightening the supply chains to such an extent that mass production of feed is killing the environment. The main cause are the consumers who demand and hunt for best deals on Uber Eats, Deliveroo, Zomato etc.

Much like tissue papers cause major destruction of the trees and not the cremations. Air pollution and Ozone depletion is caused mainly by the Auto industry and fluorocarbons in refrigerants.

Yes, I advocate moving to electric crematoriums if available.

 

[Tubs]

yep, the meat factories of America are damaging Amazon forests. A quick research will tell you how. I have seen Nat Geo documentary on this but this link is one of the various sources.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/23/americas/brazil-beef-amazon-rainforest-fire-intl/index.html

Nothing wrong in eating meat.
It is the factory production for cheap fast food joints tightening the supply chains to such an extent that mass production of feed is killing the environment. The main cause are the consumers who demand and hunt for best deals on Uber Eats, Deliveroo, Zomato etc.

Much like tissue papers cause major destruction of the trees and not the cremations. Air pollution and Ozone depletion is caused mainly by the Auto industry and fluorocarbons in refrigerants.

Yes, I advocate moving to electric crematoriums if available.

The only way to allow for meat to be profitable is to factory farm. Therefore, animal agriculture is terrible for the environment. I have linked tens of studies here which show the effect of animal agriculture on the environment, it is the scientific consensus that animal agriculture is a large contributor to climate change.

 

[PakLFC]

Not all forms of meat is edible for Muslims? except pork, what meat is forbidden?

And you are either too naive or lack the knowledge of meat industry. eating meat doesn't cause pollution but meat industry does.

Lots of meat is forbidden for Muslim's. Meat industry obviously produces meat for those who want it so what is the problem?. Anyway stick to what this thread is about instead of deflecting it to something different. Traditional cremations are rightfully banned in the west. If you want meat eating to be banned then start a petition or movement until then I will keep eating cow's! I am afraid you have no understanding of nature at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam...g to the Quran, the,, snakes etc. is unlawful.

 

[Napa]

Firstly this thread is about if or not cremation causes damage to the planet or not. Any person with an ounce of commonsense will tell you it does!

Any person with an ounce of common sense would realize that the question of whether open air cremations cause damage to the planet or not needs to consider the amount of damage. There are a thousand other human activities that damage the environment more.

I would understand if any government announces a restriction on slaughtering as it has rightfully banned open air cremations.

UK government banned open air cremations in 1902 not because of any harm to the environment, but in an attempt to regulate the cremation industry.

https://www.theguardian.com/g2/story/0,,1820024,00.html

70% of British funerals are now cremations. Cremations using electricity damages the environment more compared to open air cremations as it has a larger carbon footprint due to the 20% efficiency of the fuel to electricity conversion. Don’t be surprised if in the future more environmentally conscious science aware people start choosing open air funerals.

No replies unless I see the points I made being addressed.

 

[PakLFC]

Any person with an ounce of common sense would realize that the question of whether open air cremations cause damage to the planet or not needs to consider the amount of damage. There are a thousand other human activities that damage the environment more.



UK government banned open air cremations in 1902 not because of any harm to the environment, but in an attempt to regulate the cremation industry.

https://www.theguardian.com/g2/story/0,,1820024,00.html

70% of British funerals are now cremations. Cremations using electricity damages the environment more compared to open air cremations as it has a larger carbon footprint due to the 20% efficiency of the fuel to electricity conversion. Don’t be surprised if in the future more environmentally conscious science aware people start choosing open air funerals.

No replies unless I see the points I made being addressed.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Even if other activities damage the planet does not excuse open air cremations.

The British cremations of today are not open air ones rather done behind closed doors with the remains of the deceased in boxes. It may also cause damage yet is a far better option than what happens in India. You see so to avoid upsetting the faithful any government will insist we are not doing this to upset your religious beliefs much like France says to the Muslim's. You get me?

You are free to runaway with your unconvincing arguments.

 

[Napa]

The question is whether open air cremations damage the environment?

Obviously, in answering this question it is relevant to consider the amount of damage. All human consumption activities damage the environment.

Vacations damage, cars damage, meat eating damages, manufacture of clothes damages, manufacture of furniture damages, births damage, open air cremations damage, burials damage (the decomposing human body releases carbon dioxide) etc. etc. etc.

So instead of asking if a particular activity causes damage we should rather be asking the amount of damage it causes relative to other activities? I have already provided data showing that the activities of people living in the West are far more damaging, so open air cremations would rank low among activities causing damage.

I am out of this thread

 

[PakLFC]

Once again many things cause damage to the earth. Open cremations are in that category too.

 

[Itachi]

Once again many things cause damage to the earth. Open cremations are in that category too.

So is meat production industry.

Are you ready to go vegan?

 

[PakLFC]

So is meat production industry.

Are you ready to go vegan?

See the headline of this thread. Deflecting it to something else does not mean cremations are not damaging the environment. I suggest you consider a burial when your time comes. There are plenty of veggies on my plate i assure you.

 

[Itachi]

See the headline of this thread. Deflecting it to something else does not mean cremations are not damaging the environment. I suggest you consider a burial when your time comes. There are plenty of veggies on my plate i assure you.

You are deflecting my question.

Are you ready to go vegan since meat producing industry is one of the largest contributor of pollution?

Its a simple yes or no question.

 

[PakLFC]

You are deflecting my question.

Are you ready to go vegan since meat producing industry is one of the largest contributor of pollution?

Its a simple yes or no question.

Yes I am if convinced it is beneficial for my body and the environment miyan! Now would you consider being buried instead of burnt after death too?

 

[Itachi]

Yes I am if convinced it is beneficial for my body and the environment miyan! Now would you consider being buried instead of burnt after death too?

If I am convinced, then yes.

 

[PakLFC]

If I am convinced, then yes.

Wat evidence are you seeking?

 

[Itachi]

Wat evidence are you seeking?

priority list.

The top contribution has to be removed first which includes consuming meat as it leads to more spread of meat industry which ultimately leads to severe level of pollution as documented. The meat eaters has to stop eating meat first and then i am convinced that the other small factors of pollution needs to be addressed.

 

[PakLFC]

priority list.

The top contribution has to be removed first which includes consuming meat as it leads to more spread of meat industry which ultimately leads to severe level of pollution as documented. The meat eaters has to stop eating meat first and then i am convinced that the other small factors of pollution needs to be addressed.

No. The human body needs meat to meet it's needs. Not everyone wants to be a grass eater! I don't want cattle to be invading other countries like they do India.

 

[Itachi]

No. The human body needs meat to meet it's needs. Not everyone wants to be a grass eater! I don't want cattle to be invading other countries like they do India.

So while you are indirectly promoting one of the greatest element of pollution, others should stop much less polluted activities?

That's not how life works. Life is give and take.

If you can't stop eating meat, others will continue their traditions.

 

[PakLFC]

So while you are indirectly promoting one of the greatest element of pollution, others should stop much less polluted activities?

That's not how life works. Life is give and take.

If you can't stop eating meat, others will continue their traditions.

So give and take means eat some meat without becoming a cannibal. The thread is not about telling others what they can or can not do rather is cremations cause damage to the earth. The simple answer is yes they do. Once again it is natural to eat some forms of meat otherwise the cows will be invading the planet. They may be holy to Hindu's but to others we love our kebabs, within reason! We need veggies and dairy products too.

 

[Tubs]

So give and take means eat some meat without becoming a cannibal. The thread is not about telling others what they can or can not do rather is cremations cause damage to the earth. The simple answer is yes they do. Once again it is natural to eat some forms of meat otherwise the cows will be invading the planet. They may be holy to Hindu's but to others we love our kebabs, within reason! We need veggies and dairy products too.

Again, I sent you many studies showing that meat and dairy aren't necessary for humans, and in some cases can be detrimental. But you ignored them. Animal agriculture is one of the single biggest causes for anthropogenic climate change and contributes the majority of emissions according to recent studies. But you refuse to accept this as if you want to be consistent, it would force you to make a change in your own life. However, you are very happy to tell others to change their traditions, which have less of an effect on the environment.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

If this is a religious obligation then it should never be banned. There are other ways to look after the environment.

 

[Tubs]

If this is a religious obligation then it should never be banned. There are other ways to look after the environment.

A bad position to hold. While I agree that there are much bigger issues, religious obligations should never be given special consideration. If a religious practice was shown to be harmful (whether that means painful to humans and non-human animals, the environment, or otherwise) then it shouldn't be allowed just because it's religious.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

A bad position to hold. While I agree that there are much bigger issues, religious obligations should never be given special consideration. If a religious practice was shown to be harmful (whether that means painful to humans and non-human animals, the environment, or otherwise) then it shouldn't be allowed just because it's religious.

Im talking specifically about this particular religious obligation. In this case the religious aspects of open cremations religious significance far outweights the small negative environmental effects.

 

[PakLFC]

Again, I sent you many studies showing that meat and dairy aren't necessary for humans, and in some cases can be detrimental. But you ignored them. Animal agriculture is one of the single biggest causes for anthropogenic climate change and contributes the majority of emissions according to recent studies. But you refuse to accept this as if you want to be consistent, it would force you to make a change in your own life. However, you are very happy to tell others to change their traditions, which have less of an effect on the environment.

Your sending's are not divine revelation which can not be disagreed with. I ignore you because as a Muslim we are told to maintain a balance in Islam, too much of anything is a bad thing. Your attempts to deflect the debate from cremation's to dietary habit's does not impress me at all. As explained I am not a big meat eater, can do without it living on green's for weeks. Now let me once again tell you that burials are much better then cremations. Why do you want to be burnt after death instead just someone visiting your grave after your gone sounds much better.

 

[Itachi]

Your sending's are not divine revelation which can not be disagreed with. I ignore you because as a Muslim we are told to maintain a balance in Islam, too much of anything is a bad thing. Your attempts to deflect the debate from cremation's to dietary habit's does not impress me at all. As explained I am not a big meat eater, can do without it living on green's for weeks. Now let me once again tell you that burials are much better then cremations. Why do you want to be burnt after death instead just someone visiting your grave after your gone sounds much better.

Of all the brilliant scholars that Islam has, you chose zakir Naik?

 

[PakLFC]

Of all the brilliant scholars that Islam has, you chose zakir Naik?

I am no fan of a crackpot like Zakir. Here he has answered this question well.

 

[PakLFC]

Once again if people stop eating cattle then what do vegan's propose to do with zillions of cows, pigs and chickens?

 

[Itachi]

Once again if people stop eating cattle then what do vegan's propose to do with zillions of cows, pigs and chickens?

natural selection. The nature automatically controls population of a species unless the birth is artificially induced.

 

[PakLFC]

natural selection. The nature automatically controls population of a species unless the birth is artificially induced.

No it doesn't. Cattle will naturally keep being produced just like human beings are.

 

[Itachi]

No it doesn't. Cattle will naturally keep being produced just like human beings are.

study natural selection. if they are more than nature can handle, it will weed out the excess automatically unless artificially breed.

 

[PakLFC]

study natural selection. if they are more than nature can handle, it will weed out the excess automatically unless artificially breed.

You instead study nature. Life always finds a way!

 

[Itachi]

You instead study nature. Life always finds a way!

exactly. that's what I told.

global warming is also overrated. life will always find a way.

 

[Tubs]

Your sending's are not divine revelation which can not be disagreed with. I ignore you because as a Muslim we are told to maintain a balance in Islam, too much of anything is a bad thing. Your attempts to deflect the debate from cremation's to dietary habit's does not impress me at all. As explained I am not a big meat eater, can do without it living on green's for weeks. Now let me once again tell you that burials are much better then cremations. Why do you want to be burnt after death instead just someone visiting your grave after your gone sounds much better.

Zakir Naik, LOL.

Anyway, you have conceded any credibility entirely. You have shown that you are anti-science, which is the only method for getting empirical data about the natural world. You have no credibility.

 

[Tubs]

Im talking specifically about this particular religious obligation. In this case the religious aspects of open cremations religious significance far outweights the small negative environmental effects.

Fair enough, my apologies I misunderstood you. I agree that there are more pressing environmental matters.

 

[PakLFC]

Zakir Naik, LOL.

Anyway, you have conceded any credibility entirely. You have shown that you are anti-science, which is the only method for getting empirical data about the natural world. You have no credibility.

I do not need your reference for credibility!!))You have no knowledge of human nature other then stop eating meat and even dairies. This is against how most people live and always will. You obviously no nothing of the great contribution Islam made to science.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...medes-einstein-darwin-ptolemy-razi-ngbooktalk

 

[PakLFC]

exactly. that's what I told.

global warming is also overrated. life will always find a way.

Eating meat is in human nature. Now what are on on about??

 

[Giannis]

I personally lean towards a ban, also people shouldn't be allowed to pour the ashes into any natural body of water or anywhere in public, that's just nasty. Apparently the Ganges is one of the dirtiest rivers in the world, just imagine how pristine it would have been if cremations weren't a thing.

 

[Itachi]

Eating meat is in human nature. Now what are on on about??

Even if you don't eat meat, life will find a way to sustain your body. Hence why indirectly promote the meat industry which a major contribution for pollution?

 

[PakLFC]

Even if you don't eat meat, life will find a way to sustain your body. Hence why indirectly promote the meat industry which a major contribution for pollution?

Sure without meat I will not enjoy my food constantly. Vegans to me always appear weak and malnourished as if they are lacking in something. Now, cremations should be allowed as performed in the west only. The traditional method in India should banned for the sake of Indian people themselves.

 

[Itachi]

Sure without meat I will not enjoy my food constantly. Vegans to me always appear weak and malnourished as if they are lacking in something. Now, cremations should be allowed as performed in the west only. The traditional method in India should banned for the sake of Indian people themselves.

I am not talking about enjoying. I am talking about surviving.

If animals are to be killed for enjoyment, then you shouldn't also oppose people who hunts various animals be it rare or extinct for the sake of enjoyment and thrill.

 

[Tubs]

I do not need your reference for credibility!!))You have no knowledge of human nature other then stop eating meat and even dairies. This is against how most people live and always will. You obviously no nothing of the great contribution Islam made to science.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...medes-einstein-darwin-ptolemy-razi-ngbooktalk

Muslim scientists did great things, that is nothing to do with Islam itself. Same for the huge number scientists who happen to be Christian, Jewish, Hindu, atheist, etc.

Human nature? First of all, that isn't a verifiable statement. Regardless, it seems like you're appealing to nature, which is a fallacy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

Once again, I back up my claims but you don't. You dismiss all evidence and just assert that the Quran is true and that it's 'human nature' to do x. Humans did many behaviours which we wouldn't agree with today during their evolution, such as committing infanticide, raping, having large harems, wiping out enemy tribes, being animists, etc. By your appeal to nature, you'll have to accept all these as morally correct. But I'm sure you'll dismiss all this, too.

 

[Tubs]

Sure without meat I will not enjoy my food constantly. Vegans to me always appear weak and malnourished as if they are lacking in something. Now, cremations should be allowed as performed in the west only. The traditional method in India should banned for the sake of Indian people themselves.

Why are you so anti-science?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19562864/
It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32332862/

This study compared vegans to omnivores, and found that vegans were slightly fitter.

Both groups were comparable for physical activity levels, body mass index, percent body fat, lean body mass, and muscle strength. However, vegans had a significantly higher estimated VO2 max (44.5 ± 5.2 vs. 41.6 ± 4.6 ml/kg/min; p = 0.03, respectively) and submaximal endurance time to exhaustion (12.2 ± 5.7 vs. 8.8 ± 3.0 min; p = 0.007, respectively) compared with omnivores.

So will you admit that what appears to you isn't scientific? And you have just admitted that you are justifying eating meat for sensory pleasure. You're willing to contribute to the industry which is one of the biggest contributors to climate change for sensory pleasure? At least we know it's not due to scientific reasons.

 

[PakLFC]

Why are you so anti-science?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19562864/
It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32332862/

This study compared vegans to omnivores, and found that vegans were slightly fitter.

Both groups were comparable for physical activity levels, body mass index, percent body fat, lean body mass, and muscle strength. However, vegans had a significantly higher estimated VO2 max (44.5 ± 5.2 vs. 41.6 ± 4.6 ml/kg/min; p = 0.03, respectively) and submaximal endurance time to exhaustion (12.2 ± 5.7 vs. 8.8 ± 3.0 min; p = 0.007, respectively) compared with omnivores.

So will you admit that what appears to you isn't scientific? And you have just admitted that you are justifying eating meat for sensory pleasure. You're willing to contribute to the industry which is one of the biggest contributors to climate change for sensory pleasure? At least we know it's not due to scientific reasons.

I do not read your links. I told you Islam has contributed greatly to science. Allah and Islam have told me everything! You can eat meat too within reason then be laid to rest by being cremated in a machine. No need to pollute the world in an open air outdoor cremation. I am saying that consuming meat also benefits the earth as well.

 

[PakLFC]

I am not talking about enjoying. I am talking about surviving.

If animals are to be killed for enjoyment, then you shouldn't also oppose people who hunts various animals be it rare or extinct for the sake of enjoyment and thrill.

We do not hunt animal's. The Islamic concept of zibahi and halaal are for all to see. Animal's are partly created for people to eat.

 

[PakLFC]

Muslim scientists did great things, that is nothing to do with Islam itself. Same for the huge number scientists who happen to be Christian, Jewish, Hindu, atheist, etc.

Human nature? First of all, that isn't a verifiable statement. Regardless, it seems like you're appealing to nature, which is a fallacy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

Once again, I back up my claims but you don't. You dismiss all evidence and just assert that the Quran is true and that it's 'human nature' to do x. Humans did many behaviours which we wouldn't agree with today during their evolution, such as committing infanticide, raping, having large harems, wiping out enemy tribes, being animists, etc. By your appeal to nature, you'll have to accept all these as morally correct. But I'm sure you'll dismiss all this, too.

Are you for real!!? What Muslim Scientists achieved was inspired by Islamic research. I am telling what what as a Muslim the Islam tells me as to what is and is not acceptable. Killing and eating animal's is perfectly fine, it is what Allah created then for. Burning people after they have passed on is very much against nature yet you can still do so providing it does not harm the earth? Why should people not eat animal's?

You are backing up nothing other then being full of conjecture. Of course to me Islam and the Qur'an are the ultimate sources of information. There are also many vegans who began eating meat too, now they can't do without it. Now you are rambling on about what people do in general that has nothing to do with this thread at all. Now lets get back to the original point here that open cremation is harmful towards the environment. Don't deflect this thread to something else when you have been stumped. Back to the pavilion for you!

 

[Itachi]

We do not hunt animal's. The Islamic concept of zibahi and halaal are for all to see. Animal's are partly created for people to eat.

That's what I got from you.

As I see it, you apply two different standard for Muslims and non muslims.

1. for Muslims, use religion as logic to justify no matter what that action lead to pollution because it's from God.

2. For non muslims, use pseudo science but throw their religion out of the window.

The hypocrisy that surrounds here is surprising.

 

[Tubs]

Are you for real!!? What Muslim Scientists achieved was inspired by Islamic research. I am telling what what as a Muslim the Islam tells me as to what is and is not acceptable. Killing and eating animal's is perfectly fine, it is what Allah created then for. Burning people after they have passed on is very much against nature yet you can still do so providing it does not harm the earth? Why should people not eat animal's?

You are backing up nothing other then being full of conjecture. Of course to me Islam and the Qur'an are the ultimate sources of information. There are also many vegans who began eating meat too, now they can't do without it. Now you are rambling on about what people do in general that has nothing to do with this thread at all. Now lets get back to the original point here that open cremation is harmful towards the environment. Don't deflect this thread to something else when you have been stumped. Back to the pavilion for you!

See, you take your morality and 'science' from an archaic book. That is the issue. And the Muslims continued an upward trend from the Greeks and Romans, who continued a trend from the Egyptians. Are you going to say the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, etc were inspired by their religion? What about the Hindu scientists, too? Christian?

Conjecture? You are accusing me of conjecture? I have backed up every claim with evidence in form of peer-reviewed studies, yet you have posted a few news articles and said that 'Quran says it's okay so it's okay'. This shows you're not open to scientific inquiry. The reason why animal agriculture is mentioned here is because it is one of the worst things for the environment, far worse than cremation, but you refuse to stop contributing to it because it inconveniences you. Whereas you expect Hindus to stop cremations which aren't as bad for the environment. If you stop sticking your fingers in your ears and screeching 'lalalalal', you may learn something.

 

[PakLFC]

See, you take your morality and 'science' from an archaic book. That is the issue. And the Muslims continued an upward trend from the Greeks and Romans, who continued a trend from the Egyptians. Are you going to say the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, etc were inspired by their religion? What about the Hindu scientists, too? Christian?

Conjecture? You are accusing me of conjecture? I have backed up every claim with evidence in form of peer-reviewed studies, yet you have posted a few news articles and said that 'Quran says it's okay so it's okay'. This shows you're not open to scientific inquiry. The reason why animal agriculture is mentioned here is because it is one of the worst things for the environment, far worse than cremation, but you refuse to stop contributing to it because it inconveniences you. Whereas you expect Hindus to stop cremations which aren't as bad for the environment. If you stop sticking your fingers in your ears and screeching 'lalalalal', you may learn something.

Yes there is wisdom in all religions but Islam is the ultimate truth. I did not dismiss other religious scriptures as being hearsay. No doubt the ancient Greek's contribution to science and technology either. There is no harm in learning from others.

Did I not make it clear Islam's contribution to science then how can I be dismissive off it? Oh I see so the ancient people should have been using tractors to mow the field instead of animals!!? The poor people had no choice other then do what they knew. By the way the folk from the Harappan civilization ate animals too irrespective of what religion they followed. I don't think you have really thought through your obsession with cremation and the damage it causes hence the attempts to deflect this thread.

Cheap insults only further expose your insecurity.

 

[Tubs]

Yes there is wisdom in all religions but Islam is the ultimate truth. I did not dismiss other religious scriptures as being hearsay. No doubt the ancient Greek's contribution to science and technology either. There is no harm in learning from others.

Did I not make it clear Islam's contribution to science then how can I be dismissive off it? Oh I see so the ancient people should have been using tractors to mow the field instead of animals!!? The poor people had no choice other then do what they knew. By the way the folk from the Harappan civilization ate animals too irrespective of what religion they followed. I don't think you have really thought through your obsession with cremation and the damage it causes hence the attempts to deflect this thread.

Cheap insults only further expose your insecurity.

Calling Islam the ultimate truth is once again, subjective. Sure, most holy books may get some things right, but they aren't reliable sources of knowledge. Yes, no harm in learning from others at all, my only point was that Islam didn't bring about the golden age, it was just scientists who happened to be Muslim who continued an upward trend in scientific understanding.

I never judged the ancients for eating animals- they had to. My sole point was that I have backed up every claim I made about a plant-based diet being sufficiently healthy and better for the environment, and it is very viable to follow in all affluent countries and many less affluent countries. I never speak about indigenous or tribal people. You haven't backed up any claim with evidence, you just said that a book you consider holy allows you to eat animals, so the science must be wrong.

I am insecure because my position is backed up by science? Keep spouting out nonsense to try and win debate points- it's not working.

 

[PakLFC]

Calling Islam the ultimate truth is once again, subjective. Sure, most holy books may get some things right, but they aren't reliable sources of knowledge. Yes, no harm in learning from others at all, my only point was that Islam didn't bring about the golden age, it was just scientists who happened to be Muslim who continued an upward trend in scientific understanding.

I never judged the ancients for eating animals- they had to. My sole point was that I have backed up every claim I made about a plant-based diet being sufficiently healthy and better for the environment, and it is very viable to follow in all affluent countries and many less affluent countries. I never speak about indigenous or tribal people. You haven't backed up any claim with evidence, you just said that a book you consider holy allows you to eat animals, so the science must be wrong.

I am insecure because my position is backed up by science? Keep spouting out nonsense to try and win debate points- it's not working.

Islam is a fact for Muslim people not subjective at all so let it go coz you are not gonna win this one. The scientists you keep going on about were Muslim's inspired by Islam although the Greek's contributed great wisdom too prior to the Muslim's. Understand loud and clear that people need meat to fulfil their natural desires however as stated previously too much of anything is a bad things. This is why Islam insists on retaining a balance in everything, even too much faith is bad too. Your scientific claims do not satisfy be whatsoever when I do not regard them as divine revelation.

You are not winning anything with your embarrassing claptrap but are only trying to deflect this thread from it's original meaning to hide your defeat. This thread is about cremations not your flimsy obsession with people's diet's.

 

[Technics 1210]

Eating meat is natural - this is how life rises above to the top of the food chain, and any Darwinista proclaiming it doesn't, is doing so for the sake of ignorance and argument.

Cremation on the otherhand is unnatural. This is a fact. Life is born and dies, decomposes naturally, resulting in fertile land, nourishing the next life - this is the order of life, and has been for donkeys years before man. Cremation is the complete opposite - doesn't nourish land, and ends the natural cycle.

Of course humans didn't become the dominant specie by eating grass; it did so by eating meat.

Cattle is the major contributer in 'greenhouse gases'. If they are not eaten, then the earth will end up like Venus. Then your Greta Thunbergs would have a meltdown.

Oh, anyone who is against eating meat most likely buys products derived from dead animals. Leather shoes, handbags, coats, and so on.

Don't pander to the Greta Thunbergs

 

[Tubs]

Eating meat is natural - this is how life rises above to the top of the food chain, and any Darwinista proclaiming it doesn't, is doing so for the sake of ignorance and argument.

Cremation on the otherhand is unnatural. This is a fact. Life is born and dies, decomposes naturally, resulting in fertile land, nourishing the next life - this is the order of life, and has been for donkeys years before man. Cremation is the complete opposite - doesn't nourish land, and ends the natural cycle.

Of course humans didn't become the dominant specie by eating grass; it did so by eating meat.

Cattle is the major contributer in 'greenhouse gases'. If they are not eaten, then the earth will end up like Venus. Then your Greta Thunbergs would have a meltdown.

Oh, anyone who is against eating meat most likely buys products derived from dead animals. Leather shoes, handbags, coats, and so on.

Don't pander to the Greta Thunbergs

Oh my, I do love proving you wrong.

So the 'natural' argument is an appeal to nature fallacy. I know you don't understand philosophy, but please try and keep up. Rape, infanticide, living in the forest, having harems, being opportunistic hunter-gatherers, etc are all natural. Does that make those things moral and correct? Being monotheistic isn't natural, living in houses isn't natural, modern medicine isn't natural. Shall we toss all of those things out?

Yes, eating meat was part of our evolution (though there are examples of plant-based diets in early humans https://www.pnas.org/content/113/51/14674), but that doesn't mean it's necessary now. That's an appeal to tradition and an appeal to nature fallacy. Fantastic.

You seem to suggest that meat is necessary, well then you argue against the American Dietetics Association- It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19562864/

The cattle argument, oh my you're ignorant. Why are there so many cattle which cause such emissions? Because they're bred into existence. A transition to a plant-based diet would mean the demand drops. As the demand drops, the supply will drop. It's not hard. They will stop being bred into existence.

This Oxford study shows that a switch to a plant-based diet can reduce emissions caused from food by up to 71%: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6392/987.long , but we know you don't like and understand science! Another study showing the reduction in emissions and minimisation of rising global temperature by switching to a plant-based diet: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4
Sorry, that is too much science for you! Run, hide, and complain about Greta like a boomer!

Well, no. Many people who advocate for not eating meat for environmental and health reasons also abstain for moral reasons, like myself. Therefore, they will not buy good which are derived from animal products. There could perhaps be some edge-cases like some technology being comprised of parts which may be animal derived, but it is very easy to not consume animal products in the form of food and clothing.

This movement was about far longer than Greta was prevalent. The scientific literature has been mentioning this for years. But yes, you'd not know anything about that!

Remember everyone, this is the person who said that evolution isn't real and that peer-reviewed, scientific journals say that science leads to god!