Vegan

[Ilovegod888]

I can cite Jewish literature that talks about the care that was taken with offerings, but I suppose that would just be making more excuses. As I stated, when we're talking about non-religious arguments, it's just a matter of preferences or opinions, not about right or wrong. There aren't packages to check at potlucks, people don't list the ingredients, and I wouldn't know who brought the dish to ask. It can be your preference not to eat something that damages your health, but again, that doesn't mean doing so is wrong. Again, I've already read the China study and looked at reasons to go vegan, I was one for a number of years. I would think that because you identify as a Baptist that you would have more respect for the Bible. Again, I know there are benefits to eating a vegan diet, but whether someone should is a matter of preference or opinion. I usually cut up a pineapple and bring that.

This isn't about preference about being vegan. I am not forcing you, I just wanted to hear the other side. Which doesn't exist. I trust and love the Bible, you have no idea. If you want to say I am not a devoted Christian than you can leave this forum. Being vegan isn't just about morals, it's about health, environment, waste of money, and plain cruel. If you read the China Study then you should understand. You have been Vegan for many years, why would you stop for mindless murder? I'm just heartbroken, I will pray for you.

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

I think it really helps when the word vegan is used to describe the moral philosophy and plant based is used to describe a whole foods, healthy diet of plant products. That way instead of expectations being unmet ("but you're vegan and you're wearing leather shoes!" to someone who is plant based or " I thought vegans didn't eat that! " (like snacks, candy, etc that are 100% vegan but not super nutritious))we can focus on what we have in common, and maybe motivate each other.

 

[Brookelowe454]

I think it really helps when the word vegan is used to describe the moral philosophy and plant based is used to describe a whole foods, healthy diet of plant products. That way instead of expectations being unmet ("but you're vegan and you're wearing leather shoes!" to someone who is plant based or " I thought vegans didn't eat that! " (like snacks, candy, etc that are 100% vegan but not super nutritious))we can focus on what we have in common, and maybe motivate each other.

That's what I was trying to say to Soyeong. She said she was vegan, yet she just ate a plant based diet. She did not respect the moral philosophy of veganism. I was trying to motivate her, but her beliefs proved otherwise.

 

[Soyeong]

The reason the bible is not evidence is because there is no proof of the stories in the bible. That's like saying "I believe in Jack and the Beanstalk because there is evidence of his existence in this book." According to what you're saying, the Quran is real, the Book of Mormonism is real, etc. That's been proven to YOU, not evidence, or facts. Once AGAIN, you fail to prove why you eat meat. I am still astonished as to why you still feebly try to reply, even though you know I don't agree with your religious beliefs. The bible is not true, it is only according to religious people. Now you're basically saying "everything is evidence, everything is a fact, as long as you just believe." I'm sorry, but that's something children say in fairy tales.

If someone witnesses a crime, there's no need for there to be proof of what happened before their testimony can be accepted as evidence of what happened. That's getting the cart before the horse. When an eyewitness testimony is solid, then it can be taken as proof of what happened. Jack and the Beanstalk is not close to the same genre as the Gospels, so that's a ridiculous comparison.

I didn't say that that the Quran or the Book of Mormon were real, but that they are evidence for the events that they contain. When someone reads the Book of Mormon and has the belief formed that what it says is true, then they used it evidence for their belief. Their belief in Mormonism didn't randomly and spontaneously pop into their head uncaused and for no reason, but rather their belief was formed because they thought they had sufficient reason to think that it was true. Things don't get proven without sufficient evidence, so saying that it was proven to me without evidence is again getting the cart before the horse. I have not said anything like "everything is evidence, everything is a fact, as long as you just believe."

I don't need to provide a non-religious argument for why I eat meat because it is a matter of personal preference. It's like asking me to prove that chocolate ice cream tastes better than vanilla. On the other hand, you have still not give any scientific proof that eating meat is wrong, you've only given personal reasons why you don't prefer it.

 

[Soyeong]

I think it really helps when the word vegan is used to describe the moral philosophy and plant based is used to describe a whole foods, healthy diet of plant products. That way instead of expectations being unmet ("but you're vegan and you're wearing leather shoes!" to someone who is plant based or " I thought vegans didn't eat that! " (like snacks, candy, etc that are 100% vegan but not super nutritious))we can focus on what we have in common, and maybe motivate each other.

I had always thought that the difference between a vegetarian and a vegan was that a vegan didn't eat animal products, such as milk or cheese, but I stand corrected.

 

[Brookelowe454]

If someone witnesses a crime, there's no need for there to be proof of what happened before their testimony can be accepted as evidence of what happened. That's getting the cart before the horse. When an eyewitness testimony is solid, then it can be taken as proof of what happened. Jack and the Beanstalk is not close to the same genre as the Gospels, so that's a ridiculous comparison.

I didn't say that that the Quran or the Book of Mormon were real, but that they are evidence for the events that they contain. When someone reads the Book of Mormon and has the belief formed that what it says is true, then they used it evidence for their belief. Their belief in Mormonism didn't randomly and spontaneously pop into their head uncaused and for no reason, but rather their belief was formed because they thought they had sufficient reason to think that it was true. Things don't get proven without sufficient evidence, so saying that it was proven to me without evidence is again getting the cart before the horse. I have not said anything like "everything is evidence, everything is a fact, as long as you just believe."

I don't need to provide a non-religious argument for why I eat meat because it is a matter of personal preference. It's like asking me to prove that chocolate ice cream tastes better than vanilla. On the other hand, you have still not give any scientific proof that eating meat is wrong, you've only given personal reasons why you don't prefer it.

*sigh* once again, you are just repeating your argument. Can't you understand that I do not agree with your statements nor do I think they are factual? I feel bad that you wrote such a long paragraph, because it's a complete waste of time. If you are trying to justify eating meat, then you have already done so, but that doesn't mean people will agree. If you are trying to convince me to eat meat, just know that I never will, so you can stop wasting your time. Lastly, this proves that you no longer serve a purpose on this forum, so you can feel free to leave. Otherwise, you'll just be wasting your time.

 

[Soyeong]

This isn't about preference about being vegan. I am not forcing you, I just wanted to hear the other side. Which doesn't exist. I trust and love the Bible, you have no idea. If you want to say I am not a devoted Christian than you can leave this forum. Being vegan isn't just about morals, it's about health, environment, waste of money, and plain cruel. If you read the China Study then you should understand. You have been Vegan for many years, why would you stop for mindless murder? I'm just heartbroken, I will pray for you.

I've been trying to draw a distinction between the moral aspect of veganism and personal preference. Saying that it is morally wrong requires making a religious argument because morality is a religious concept. Saying that it is about health, environment, money, and cruelty are matters of personal preference. I mistakenly thought that veganism was just a matter of diet, so I ate like one because out of the health concerns, not out of moral concerns, because the God morally permits and commands animals to be eaten. It would have been immoral if they had cited Genesis 1 and refused to obey God.

I didn't mean to imply you weren't a devoted Christians or that you didn't love the Bible, it just seemed rather flippant to refer to quoting from the Bible as religious babble.

 

[Ilovegod888]

I've been trying to draw a distinction between the moral aspect of veganism and personal preference. Saying that it is morally wrong requires making a religious argument because morality is a religious concept. Saying that it is about health, environment, money, and cruelty are matters of personal preference. I mistakenly thought that veganism was just a matter of diet, so I ate like one because out of the health concerns, not out of moral concerns, because the God morally permits and commands animals to be eaten. It would have been immoral if they had cited Genesis 1 and refused to obey God.

I didn't mean to imply you weren't a devoted Christians or that you didn't love the Bible, it just seemed rather flippant to refer to quoting from the Bible as religious babble.

You don't want to save this Earth or yourself? We have instincts to survive and eating meat will actually make you unhealthy. I don't know why you are still commenting. God didn't say, "Soyeong, eat meat!", he may have suggested it to other people but not you. He said he gave you everything, yet you decide to eat some heart disease filled meat. I've had enough of your religious arguments. Give it up, you choose not to help this Earth, God's Earth. Go ahead, eat meat just let this be a warning to you. You post on a scientific and logical forum, not some fake propaganda. Watch a torture video, and get back to me on your morals. Did God tell you to torture animals? No. Supply on demand, look it up. Oh wait, I bet you did you just chose to be ignorant and ignore the FACTS.

 

[Soyeong]

*sigh* once again, you are just repeating your argument. Can't you understand that I do not agree with your statements nor do I think they are factual? I feel bad that you wrote such a long paragraph, because it's a complete waste of time. If you are trying to justify eating meat, then you have already done so, but that doesn't mean people will agree. If you are trying to convince me to eat meat, just know that I never will, so you can stop wasting your time. Lastly, this proves that you no longer serve a purpose on this forum, so you can feel free to leave. Otherwise, you'll just be wasting your time.

Ummm...the post you responded had nothing to do with my the Bible or with trying to justify eating meat. You didn't appear to have a very good grasp of the meaning of "evidence" or "proof" because you were demanding proof of something before you would accept evidence for it, which is completely backwards. Eyewitness evidence is a form of evidence, and the Gospel accounts are solid eyewitness evidence. I believe in the resurrection of Jesus because I think this evidence and other corroborating evidence has proven it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Not once in this thread have I tried to convince you to stop eating meat. I have claimed that it is not morally wrong to eat animals, but you are free to not eat meat as a matter of preference. You claimed to have scientific evidence that it was wrong to eat animals, but you have not yet provided any, you have only given reasons why you don't personally prefer it.

 

[Brookelowe454]

Ummm...the post you responded had nothing to do with my the Bible or with trying to justify eating meat. You didn't appear to have a very good grasp of the meaning of "evidence" or "proof" because you were demanding proof of something before you would accept evidence for it, which is completely backwards. Eyewitness evidence is a form of evidence, and the Gospel accounts are solid eyewitness evidence. I believe in the resurrection of Jesus because I think this evidence and other corroborating evidence has proven it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Not once in this thread have I tried to convince you to stop eating meat. I have claimed that it is not morally wrong to eat animals, but you are free to not eat meat as a matter of preference. You claimed to have scientific evidence that it was wrong to eat animals, but you have not yet provided any, you have only given reasons why you don't personally prefer it.

I already said that I am done talking to you, because you are obviously WAY too religious to be able to comprehend basic facts. Can you write a single paragraph without saying God, Jesus, etc???? The Gospel does not provide evidence because if every eyewitness was considered fact, the world would be in chaos.... For example, in a murder trial, they do not simply believe the witness and take their word for it, thus the Gospel is not a credible source. I have provided plenty of information for you to learn, yet you refuse to believe it. That's your problem, not mine. I told you kindly that you could leave, because you are still wasting your time. I'm sorry if I have offended you!

 

[Soyeong]

You don't want to save this Earth or yourself? We have instincts to survive and eating meat will actually make you unhealthy. I don't know why you are still commenting. God didn't say, "Soyeong, eat meat!", he may have suggested it to other people but not you. He said he gave you everything, yet you decide to eat some heart disease filled meat. I've had enough of your religious arguments. Give it up, you choose not to help this Earth, God's Earth. Go ahead, eat meat just let this be a warning to you. You post on a scientific and logical forum, not some fake propaganda. Watch a torture video, and get back to me on your morals. Did God tell you to torture animals? No. Supply on demand, look it up. Oh wait, I bet you did you just chose to be ignorant and ignore the FACTS.

I do think that Americans have many health problems that trace back to unhealthy diets and tend to underestimate the importance of a good diet, but I do not think that having a little bit of meat once a week is going to condemn the Earth or myself. I agree that God did not tell me to eat meat, but the fact that He commanded people to eat meat means that it is not morally wrong. I have already stated a number of times that I think torturing animals is wrong.

 

[Soyeong]

I already said that I am done talking to you, because you are obviously WAY too religious to be able to comprehend basic facts. Can you write a single paragraph without saying God, Jesus, etc???? The Gospel does not provide evidence because if every eyewitness was considered fact, the world would be in chaos.... For example, in a murder trial, they do not simply believe the witness and take their word for it, thus the Gospel is not a credible source. I have provided plenty of information for you to learn, yet you refuse to believe it. That's your problem, not mine. I told you kindly that you could leave, because you are still wasting your time. I'm sorry if I have offended you!

I never said anything like that every eyewitness should be considered a fact. Eyewitness evidence should be evaluated as eyewitness evidence, but that does not mean that it is not credible or that it is not evidence.

 

[Ilovegod888]

According to your belief, eating meat is moral. Plus, supply and demand, you pay these impoverished people to do the dirty work for you. YOU pay them to slaughter the animals. So you do think it's right or you wouldn't be eating it. A little meat, really? A little corpse won't hurt right? Wrong.

Now what? You eat corpses, own it.

 

[Brookelowe454]

I never said anything like that every eyewitness should be considered a fact. Eyewitness evidence should be evaluated as eyewitness evidence, but that does not mean that it is not credible or that it is not evidence.

It should be evaluated. But there is no proof of this supposed eyewitness for your religion. Even if there was, once again, just a matter of belief. I'm glad that we had this discussion.

 

[Soyeong]

According to your belief, eating meat is moral. Plus, supply and demand, you pay these impoverished people to do the dirty work for you. YOU pay them to slaughter the animals. So you do think it's right or you wouldn't be eating it. A little meat, really? A little corpse won't hurt right? Wrong.

Now what? You eat corpses, own it.

It takes lots of resources and paying someone to do the dirty work to grow food for a plant-based based diet too. If you want to minimise animal suffering and promote more sustainable agriculture, adopting a vegetarian diet might be the worst possible thing you could do:

http://theconversation.com/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-theres-more-animal-blood-on-your-hands-4659

Published figures suggest that, in Australia, producing wheat and other grains results in:

• at least 25 times more sentient animals being killed per kilogram of useable protein
• more environmental damage, and
• a great deal more animal cruelty than does farming red meat.

 

[Soyeong]

It should be evaluated. But there is no proof of this supposed eyewitness for your religion. Even if there was, once again, just a matter of belief. I'm glad that we had this discussion.

There are many scholarly books written that give good reason to think that the Gospels are high quality eyewitness accounts. So there is evidence which I think proves that beyond a reasonable doubt if you're willing to look at it.

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

I do disagree with the notion that morality requires a religious argument. I don't base my veganism on a religious belief. Personally I'm a long time vegan bit struggle with belief in God.

I've been trying to draw a distinction between the moral aspect of veganism and personal preference. Saying that it is morally wrong requires making a religious argument because morality is a religious concept. Saying that it is about health, environment, money, and cruelty are matters of personal preference. I mistakenly thought that veganism was just a matter of diet, so I ate like one because out of the health concerns, not out of moral concerns, because the God morally permits and commands animals to be eaten. It would have been immoral if they had cited Genesis 1 and refused to obey God.

I didn't mean to imply you weren't a devoted Christians or that you didn't love the Bible, it just seemed rather flippant to refer to quoting from the Bible as religious babble.

 

[Soyeong]

I do disagree with the notion that morality requires a religious argument. I don't base my veganism on a religious belief. Personally I'm a long time vegan bit struggle with belief in God.

There's a concept of saying you prefer or don't prefer something and a concept of saying people ought to prefer or not to prefer something, and morality is in regard to the latter. The problem is that without invoking religion, there is no way to go from the former to the latter. How do you go about saying that someone else ought to share your preferences and if they don't, then they are wrong, or how do you know that you ought to have the preferences that you do? If you say that everyone ought to not eat meat and those that do are wrong regardless of their opinion, then how do you show that to be the case? You could appeal to other preferences, such as health, or animal cruelty, or the environment, but what if they don't share those preferences? How do you make the case that they also ought to share those preferences and that they are wrong for not sharing them? The only way to get out of this to invoke religion and say that God has given a standard of right and wrong preferences that we ought to share. Without invoking religion saying that someone should share a certain preference is like trying to say that they are wrong for not liking chocolate ice cream better than vanilla. So if you're a vegan because you prefer that philosophy, then that is one thing, but if you want to say that people are wrong for not sharing that philosophy, then you need to invoke religion.

 

[Ilovegod888]

It takes lots of resources and paying someone to do the dirty work to grow food for a plant-based based diet too. If you want to minimise animal suffering and promote more sustainable agriculture, adopting a vegetarian diet might be the worst possible thing you could do:

http://theconversation.com/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-theres-more-animal-blood-on-your-hands-4659

Published figures suggest that, in Australia, producing wheat and other grains results in:

• at least 25 times more sentient animals being killed per kilogram of useable protein
• more environmental damage, and
• a great deal more animal cruelty than does farming red meat.

Yes, but I don't pay them to slaughter innocent defenseless animals like you. You destroy the Earth, your health, and the lives of others. While on the other hand I don't kill innocent beings, I save the Earth, and I am healthy. I don't live in Australia and sometimes I like to buy from small farms that are ORGANIC. You on the other hand, don't even ask where your meat is from. You could be eating cheap chemical beef. I know what goes in my mouth, you obviously don't. I pity you, you know nothing of the World around you because you can't take your head out of your Bible. I'm done talking with someone who has no facts, the only ones you could get was from Australia where I don't live. http://www.veganoutreach.org/whyvegan/environment.html. Face it, you have no facts, because you don't even believe in them. Why don't you look around you, if you have children, they will probably be broke. How would you like it if I ate your body when you were 4 years old? Would you still think it's moral? Again, I will pray that you don't get heart disease but then I just would be prolonging the inevitable. I guess I will pray that you won't die by having a heart attack. But, again, I would just be prolonging the inevitable.

 

[Ilovegod888]

There's a concept of saying you prefer or don't prefer something and a concept of saying people ought to prefer or not to prefer something, and morality is in regard to the latter. The problem is that without invoking religion, there is no way to go from the former to the latter. How do you go about saying that someone else ought to share your preferences and if they don't, then they are wrong, or how do you know that you ought to have the preferences that you do? If you say that everyone ought to not eat meat and those that do are wrong regardless of their opinion, then how do you show that to be the case? You could appeal to other preferences, such as health, or animal cruelty, or the environment, but what if they don't share those preferences? How do you make the case that they also ought to share those preferences and that they are wrong for not sharing them? The only way to get out of this to invoke religion and say that God has given a standard of right and wrong preferences that we ought to share. Without invoking religion saying that someone should share a certain preference is like trying to say that they are wrong for not liking chocolate ice cream better than vanilla. So if you're a vegan because you prefer that philosophy, then that is one thing, but if you want to say that people are wrong for not sharing that philosophy, then you need to invoke religion.