Vegan

[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.

 

[Brookelowe454]

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.

Then how come people are atheists? It is because they rely on facts, not just what others have seen. It's alright, you do not need to prove your religion to me, because honestly, that will get you nowhere. I have my beliefs, and you have yours. You will not prove anything by responding to me, and frankly, I cannot take someone seriously who justifies eating meat by using religion. ONCE AGAIN, this talk has been good, but I have not gained any new information. Just strengthened my vegan views. So thank you for that.

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

I disagree, but this debate is already happening on other threads. Not to derail, but a few thoughts. If morality comes from God, then athiest by definition would be amoral. The only thing keeping atheists from stealing, say, then would be the fear of getting caught. Yet atheists exhibit moral behavior for the most part just like Christians. So, I'd say there's no evidence that a moral compass, a conscience, etc. only comes from God.
Also, if morality comes from God, then everything sanctioned in the Bible, everything not forbidden, or permitted under certain conditions, would be moral. Slavery is permitted in the Bible , but I would hope that people still recognize this as not moral.

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.

 

[AlexDTX]

Have a link?

This link is to Pub Med.gov which is a medical site for research.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21624456

 

[AlexDTX]

This "soy high estrogen" junk has already been proven to be a myth. The studies are very inaccurate, because they were feeding lab rats 6 times the amount that a normal vegan would ever eat. Also, take a look at the China Study, it shows that men in China who were eating high levels (pretty normal to a human) of soy had no problem, in fact they thrived better than most Americans do.

I believe that the reason we eat meat is because we are sinners. Adam and Eve were VEGANS before they sinned. After they sinned, the humans started to eat meat. Back then, humans ate meat to survive, but we live in a first world country, where we have an abundance of fruits, vegetables, etc. So there is no humane reason to eat another animal. It's not just a matter of God, it also affects the environment. Animal agriculture is the number 1 cause of depletion of water sources, pollution, and deforestation. This is a fact, don't believe me? Watch the documentary Cowspiracy on Netflix. Veganism is the way to the future of solving the world's problems. (Not everything of course, but tons of environmental and human problems) We could literally feed the entire starving human population with the amount of grains that America has alone, 65 times. We could literally solve world hunger, yet we feed these grains to animals, and that isn't even their natural diet. I would really recommend watching 101 reasons to go vegan, Cowspiracy, and reading the China Study. They changed my life!

If this is junk science, then the government supports it.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21624456

 

[Soyeong]

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.

It doesn't matter that you don't live in Australia, the same principle of cropland vs rangeland applies everywhere. I completely agree that raising cattle for food damages the environment, but so does raising crops. The same goes for killing innocent animal. We can debate which causes more damage to the environment and which kills more animals, but get off your high horse because your diet also damages the environment and you hands are also stained with innocent blood. I have facts, you just like to pretend that I don't. Of course it would be immoral to eat my body because God prohibited cannibalism. I take pride in the fact that you think I base my world view on the Bible, and as a Christian, so should you. It is simply not true that everyone who eats any amount of meat ends up with heart disease or dying from a heart attack, though your prayers are appreciated.

 

[Brookelowe454]

If this is junk science, then the government supports it.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21624456

The government supports a lot of things that are incorrect, such as the meat industry. They hide the facts that animal agriculture is the #1 cause of deforestation and water depletion.. Watch Cowspiracy. Lastly, some vegans can't even eat soy and they are 100% fine with it. Soy isn't even a big part of a NATURAL vegan diet, so soyeong's argument is invalid. Vegans focus on fruits, vegetables, grains, nuts, and seeds. There you go.

 

[Brookelowe454]

It doesn't matter that you don't live in Australia, the same principle of cropland vs rangeland applies everywhere. I completely agree that raising cattle for food damages the environment, but so does raising crops. The same goes for killing innocent animal. We can debate which causes more damage to the environment and which kills more animals, but get off your high horse because your diet also damages the environment and you hands are also stained with innocent blood. I have facts, you just like to pretend that I don't. Of course it would be immoral to eat my body because God prohibited cannibalism. I take pride in the fact that you think I base my world view on the Bible, and as a Christian, so should you. It is simply not true that everyone who eats any amount of meat ends up with heart disease or dying from a heart attack, though your prayers are appreciated.

In Cowspiracy, it says, "To feed a person on an all plant-based diet for a year requires just 1/6 of an acre of land. To feed that same diet to a vegetarian that eats eggs and dairy, that needs 3 times more land. To feed an average US citizen's meat diet requirea EIGHTEEN (18) times more land than a vegan." So actually, we do help the environment.

 

[Ilovegod888]

It doesn't matter that you don't live in Australia, the same principle of cropland vs rangeland applies everywhere. I completely agree that raising cattle for food damages the environment, but so does raising crops. The same goes for killing innocent animal. We can debate which causes more damage to the environment and which kills more animals, but get off your high horse because your diet also damages the environment and you hands are also stained with innocent blood. I have facts, you just like to pretend that I don't. Of course it would be immoral to eat my body because God prohibited cannibalism. I take pride in the fact that you think I base my world view on the Bible, and as a Christian, so should you. It is simply not true that everyone who eats any amount of meat ends up with heart disease or dying from a heart attack, though your prayers are appreciated.

Actually, watch Cowspiracy. I don't do nearly as much damage as you do. What if I was atheist, and I ate your flesh. You wouldn't be happy. I would never do that, because I have a respect for all creatures. You can't love animals and eat them. You can't think factory farming is bad yet you eat it. I agree with Brooke, she knows the facts. Why don't you?

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

If this is junk science, then the government supports it.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21624456

As far as I know, there are a few studies, including this one, that link soy isoflavones to fertility and pregnancy, including fetal development. One suggests that to much can reduce fertility, this one suggests possible effects to the development of the (male) baby in utero, and one suggests a benefit of soy in lowering blood pressure in utero. All animal studies so far.
The Mayo Clinic suggests avoiding high amounts of soy while pregnant or breastfeeding, and if one has an allergy, but considers it safe for healthy adults, children and even infants. Considering the research, seems reasonable to me.

 

[Soyeong]

In Cowspiracy, it says, "To feed a person on an all plant-based diet for a year requires just 1/6 of an acre of land. To feed that same diet to a vegetarian that eats eggs and dairy, that needs 3 times more land. To feed an average US citizen's meat diet requirea EIGHTEEN (18) times more land than a vegan." So actually, we do help the environment.

The amount of land used isn't the only factor because animals can graze on land that isn't suitable for raising crops. But again, we can debate of which diet causes more damage to the environment or which causes more innocent animal deaths, but the fact is that both cause damage to the environment and cause innocent animal deaths. Not causing as much damage to the environment is not the same thing as helping the environment.

 

[Soyeong]

Then how come people are atheists? It is because they rely on facts, not just what others have seen. It's alright, you do not need to prove your religion to me, because honestly, that will get you nowhere. I have my beliefs, and you have yours. You will not prove anything by responding to me, and frankly, I cannot take someone seriously who justifies eating meat by using religion. ONCE AGAIN, this talk has been good, but I have not gained any new information. Just strengthened my vegan views. So thank you for that.

If you look at something marvelous, such as a human cell, one person things that it happened by chance over the course of billions of years while another person thinks that it must have been created. They both have the same facts about how a cell works, but they draw different conclusion, so it's not that one has evidence and the other doesn't, but that they interpret the evidence differently. Atheists weren't there to observe how the cell evolved over billions of years, so they aren't relying on what they've seen either. They also have seen no direct evidence that God does not exist.

If someone sees something happen and they tell you about it, what they saw happen doesn't go from being factual to non-factual. You don't have to look at the evidence for Christianity if you don't want to, but you should stop pretending that it doesn't exist.

 

[Soyeong]

I disagree, but this debate is already happening on other threads. Not to derail, but a few thoughts. If morality comes from God, then athiest by definition would be amoral. The only thing keeping atheists from stealing, say, then would be the fear of getting caught. Yet atheists exhibit moral behavior for the most part just like Christians. So, I'd say there's no evidence that a moral compass, a conscience, etc. only comes from God.
Also, if morality comes from God, then everything sanctioned in the Bible, everything not forbidden, or permitted under certain conditions, would be moral. Slavery is permitted in the Bible , but I would hope that people still recognize this as not moral.

I did not say anything about atheist being amoral or that someone needs to believe in God in order to act morally. In fact, atheists can act more morally than Christians. However, they can't justify moral behavior on their worldview alone. For instance, an atheist can think that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and act accordingly, but on atheism they have no moral grounds to say that people ought to share that preference.

In the ANE, when people couldn't pay their debts, they could either starve, beg, or sell their future labor. Begging wasn't really an option if they were able-bodied, so providing them with the third option is a moral good.

 

[Soyeong]

Actually, watch Cowspiracy. I don't do nearly as much damage as you do. What if I was atheist, and I ate your flesh. You wouldn't be happy. I would never do that, because I have a respect for all creatures. You can't love animals and eat them. You can't think factory farming is bad yet you eat it. I agree with Brooke, she knows the facts. Why don't you?

Again, we can debate which causes more damage or kills more innocent lives, but not doing nearly as much damage is still doing damage and not killing nearly as many innocent lives is still killing innocent lives.

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

I did not say anything about atheist being amoral or that someone needs to believe in God in order to act morally. In fact, atheists can act more morally than Christians. However, they can't justify moral behavior on their worldview alone. For instance, an atheist can think that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and act accordingly, but on atheism they have no moral grounds to say that people ought to share that preference.

In the ANE, when people couldn't pay their debts, they could either starve, beg, or sell their future labor. Begging wasn't really an option if they were able-bodied, so providing them with the third option is a moral good.

Atheists can justify their moral worldview based on the needs of the community. We're the kind of species that need community to survive.
Slaves were also captured in war, from conquered people, or people were born into slavery. That was true in the ANE, and slaves could be used sexually by their masters, sold away from parents, and killed at will. Nothing moral there.

 

[Ilovegod888]

Again, we can debate which causes more damage or kills more innocent lives, but not doing nearly as much damage is still doing damage and not killing nearly as many innocent lives is still killing innocent lives.

I don't kill anything for your information. You just are brainwashed from the meat industry. My food is natural, that's why you can't say anything. You didn't even watch Cowspiracy, no wonder you're not educated.

 

[Brookelowe454]

If you look at something marvelous, such as a human cell, one person things that it happened by chance over the course of billions of years while another person thinks that it must have been created. They both have the same facts about how a cell works, but they draw different conclusion, so it's not that one has evidence and the other doesn't, but that they interpret the evidence differently. Atheists weren't there to observe how the cell evolved over billions of years, so they aren't relying on what they've seen either. They also have seen no direct evidence that God does not exist.

If someone sees something happen and they tell you about it, what they saw happen doesn't go from being factual to non-factual. You don't have to look at the evidence for Christianity if you don't want to, but you should stop pretending that it doesn't exist.

First of all, evolution is a theory, just as religion is, but scientific facts are different. They are not theories, they are not beliefs, they are facts. Whether you understand what a fact is or not is your problem. Did you tune out every science class you went to because they "weren't facts?" If it wasn't for science, you wouldn't be alive, so don't act like your religion solves everything. I'm mature, and you should be too, so we should stop this discussion as you have no factual evidence. Stop looking at a religious point of view. It will literally get you nowhere. Bye...

 

[Brookelowe454]

The amount of land used isn't the only factor because animals can graze on land that isn't suitable for raising crops. But again, we can debate of which diet causes more damage to the environment or which causes more innocent animal deaths, but the fact is that both cause damage to the environment and cause innocent animal deaths. Not causing as much damage to the environment is not the same thing as helping the environment.

Okay.... you can refuse to help the environment and even deny that I'm helping, but that's probably only because you don't want to feel bad. Sorry, but if we don't take care of this Earth, your future children won't exist. Frankly, I don't care because I'm not having children, but I still care about the earth because I'm a good person. It's SOOOOO obvious that veganism is WAY better than the environment, because *sigh* once again, it is based on facts that we have experienced. 70% of the Amazon is GONE because of animal agriculture ALONE. Every person that is vegan counts, unless of course you don't understand supply and demand. Keep supporting mass tortures, fine by me, but don't get mad if someone calls you hypocritical.

 

[Ilovegod888]

Again, we can debate which causes more damage or kills more innocent lives, but not doing nearly as much damage is still doing damage and not killing nearly as many innocent lives is still killing innocent lives.[/QUOTE
When people argue they usually have facts, I have provided mine.

Cowspiracy
http://bitesizevegan.com/environmental-societal-impact/do-vegans-kill-more-animals-than-meat-eaters/

 

[Soyeong]

Atheists can justify their moral worldview based on the needs of the community. We're the kind of species that need community to survive.
Slaves were also captured in war, from conquered people, or people were born into slavery. That was true in the ANE, and slaves could be used sexually by their masters, sold away from parents, and killed at will. Nothing moral there.

Survival is also something they prefer, but not everyone prefers survival. Atheists can certainly act in ways that promote survival, but on their worldview, they don't have any grounds to say that we ought to prefer survival. How would you convince a suicide bomber that they ought to prefer survival? Slavery in the Bible was different than it's surrounding culture.