Is Vegetarianism/Veganism The New Religion in N.A.

[mabudon]

Don't sweat it Tonnington, according to sparky even this forum is a religion, thus his definition is utterly useless for describing anything specific. Pretty much everything would count as a religion to him unless it's something he does himself, in which case it's just common sense.

 

[Cannuck]

Eating none is less risk of heart disease/cancer than eating 3 servings a week.

No.

Informed decision making is not the same as blind faith about spiritual issues.

No argument there. When do you plan on getting informed?

 

[Cannuck]

Somebody should speak to these lions about their unethical treatment of their furry friends.

YouTube - Two Male lions kills Hyena

 

[JLM]

"And eating none is less than eating 3 servings a week. Eating none is less risk of heart disease/cancer than eating 3 servings a week."- I'd like to see figures to back up that statement, actually there is very little of ANYTHING that used in moderation will cause cancer and to think otherwise is just sheer paranoia. A lot of cancer is in the genes, and I believe (no figures to back it up) that a lot of cancer is caused by oxygen deprivation.

 

[Tonington]

No.

Yes, don't be denying science now. That makes you appear like the religious one.:roll:

For starters, read this study Mortality in vegetarians and nonvegetarians: detailed findings froma collaborative analysis of 5 prospective studieshttp://www.direct-ms.org/pdf/NutritionNonAuto/Veg vs non veg mortality.pdf.

The particular finding of interest here is:
Further categorization of diets showed that, in comparison with regular meat eaters, mortality from ischemic heart disease was 20% lower in occasional meat eaters, 34% lower in people who ate fish but not meat, 34% lower in lactoovovegetarians, and 26% lower in vegans.

So, as you can see, even eliminating meat completely is still better for decreasing the risk of heart disease than occasionally eating meat.

No argument there. When do you plan on getting informed?

I am informed, and I'm trying to inform you. What's your excuse? Is it your religious dogma that blinds you?:lol:

 

[Cannuck]

For starters, read this study Mortality in vegetarians and nonvegetarians: detailed findings froma collaborative analysis of 5 prospective studies.

You'll have to do a lot better than that. Studies that point out the difference between vegetarians and non-vegetarians are meaningless. Most vegetarians are concerned about their diet and watch what they eat. The general population does not.

I am informed...

No you're not. I've been down this road more times than I can count. You'll have to do more than post the same old crap that I've seen a hundred times before. I've already collected a lot of these studies. I'm going to put them in a book and sell it as "The New Vegetarians Bible". Would you like an autographed first edition?

 

[Tonington]

You'll have to do a lot better than that.

How so? This confirms exactly what I said.

It's as expected, you are the closed minded religious one in here...

 

[Said1]

From dictionary.com

religion - a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....

This too

Dictionary.com

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

I can cherry pick too. :lol:

 

[Cannuck]

How so? This confirms exactly what I said.

No it doesn't.

 

[Cannuck]

Dictionary.com

Quote: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
​

Yes, that is another possible definition. Do you have a point?

 

[Tonington]

"And eating none is less than eating 3 servings a week. Eating none is less risk of heart disease/cancer than eating 3 servings a week."- I'd like to see figures to back up that statement, actually there is very little of ANYTHING that used in moderation will cause cancer and to think otherwise is just sheer paranoia. A lot of cancer is in the genes, and I believe (no figures to back it up) that a lot of cancer is caused by oxygen deprivation.

See my reply in #105 to Cannuck.

 

[Tonington]

No it doesn't.

Yes.. it does. Are you touched in the head?

You've maintained since the beginning of this thread that there is no scientific argument for being a vegetarian, and it therefore is some how equivalent to religion.

I've now shown you, with an actual scientific study, that scientific arguments exist.

You deny it, with unfounded assertions. Do you even know what a scientific argument is? Do you have any training in this field, or is it a word you use to lend some authority to your twisted view of reality?

You're the close minded religious one here. Most people will admit mistakes, or at least say "I could be wrong".

Not you.

Carry on Friar Cannuck.

 

[Cannuck]

Yes.. it does. Are you touched in the head?

No it doesn't. Are you touched in the head?

You've maintained since the beginning of this thread that there is no scientific argument for being a vegetarian, and it therefore is some how equivalent to religion.

In the OP, I asked "is this a type of cult or religion?" Not sure of your schooling level but that little squiggly line with the dot at the bottom is a question mark. That means I was asking a question. Your responses as well as Said1's responses and mabudon's responses have kind of made it obvious as far as the religion aspect goes. As for the scientific argument in favour of a vegetarian diet...well...I'm still waiting. I understand that you feel you have delivered but what the hell, eanassir feels he's provided proof of the existence of gawd. You have to excuse me if I don't accept your dogma.

I've now shown you, with an actual scientific study, that scientific arguments exist.

You deny it, with unfounded assertions.

I deny your scientific study shows what you claim it shows. That is because it doesn't.

Do you even know what a scientific argument is? Do you have any training in this field, ...

Uh...I is a idjit!

You should really run along and leave this thread for those of us without the scientific background that you have. It is, afterall, a thread about religion and science has no place in religion.

You're the close minded religious one here. Most people will admit mistakes, or at least say "I could be wrong".

I change my mind like I change my socks. I've flip-flopped numerous times on a multitude of issues. I've switched from pro-life to pro-choice and back again so many times I've lost count. I would switch to a vegetarian diet tomorrow if somebody could give me a scientific reason to do so. You have failed to do so. You can blame my "closed mind" if it helps you cope.

 

[Hazmart]

There is no scientific reason to give up meat in ones diet. There is a lot of misinformation put out by the proponents of vegetarianism/veganism. The only real reason to embrace this eating choice is on a philosophical level. Therefore, is this a type of cult or religion?

Cannuck, I wouldn't say that the only reason to give up meat is because of a philosophical choice. I have been a vegetarian for a large part of my life and it had nothing to do with religion. It was the way I was raised. A decision my mother made that was based on scientific evidence. Her sons medical condition.

My brother was born with a condition called Phenylketonuria (PKU). He is missing an enzyme that is used to break down phenylalanine. Because of this he is unable to eat foods high in phenylalanine such as meat, fish, dairy, and nuts. He is in such a vegan, and has never had any meat and extremely limited dairy, only butter. His diet is very strict as every piece of food that he ingests has to be calculated into his total daily equivalents.

My mother decided early on that she was not going to make one meal for us and a separate meal for him. She was not going to have her youngest wondering why he didn't get to eat what everyone else did, so it was one meal for everyone. No meat, and very litter dairy (there was no way I was giving up cheese:lol:!)

Now obviously I can eat what I want, I am able to shop and cook for myself but I still don't eat much meat. I wouldn't call myself vegetarian anymore but really only eat meat 2 or 3 times a month. Eating some meat, especially red meat, doesn't seem to agree with my stomach at all and same with a lot of dairy products.

So for some there is scientific reasons for why they don't eat meat, and some it is just preference. I wouldn't doubt that there are people out there that base it on religious beliefs. That is their choice, just like eating meat is yours.

 

[JLM]

Cannuck, I wouldn't say that the only reason to give up meat is because of a philosophical choice. I have been a vegetarian for a large part of my life and it had nothing to do with religion. It was the way I was raised. A decision my mother made that was based on scientific evidence. Her sons medical condition.

My brother was born with a condition called Phenylketonuria (PKU). He is missing an enzyme that is used to break down phenylalanine. Because of this he is unable to eat foods high in phenylalanine such as meat, fish, dairy, and nuts. He is in such a vegan, and has never had any meat and extremely limited dairy, only butter. His diet is very strict as every piece of food that he ingests has to be calculated into his total daily equivalents.

My mother decided early on that she was not going to make one meal for us and a separate meal for him. She was not going to have her youngest wondering why he didn't get to eat what everyone else did, so it was one meal for everyone. No meat, and very litter dairy (there was no way I was giving up cheese:lol:!)

Now obviously I can eat what I want, I am able to shop and cook for myself but I still don't eat much meat. I wouldn't call myself vegetarian anymore but really only eat meat 2 or 3 times a month. Eating some meat, especially red meat, doesn't seem to agree with my stomach at all and same with a lot of dairy products.

So for some there is scientific reasons for why they don't eat meat, and some it is just preference. I wouldn't doubt that there are people out there that base it on religious beliefs. That is their choice, just like eating meat is yours.

Of course it would make sense to change one's diet if the standard diet interferes with a medical condition- a no brainer- for people with normal health a balanced diet is the best. Like another poster pointed out we have a variety of kinds of teeth like the grinders, the choppers the rippers etc. Eating 3 oz. of meat 4 times a week isn't going to GIVE you cancer- that's bullsh*t. What might give you cancer, an ulcer and a heart attack is being obsessed about diet and worrying about it.

 

[Tonington]

Eating 3 oz. of meat 4 times a week isn't going to GIVE you cancer- that's bullsh*t.

I said decreased risk in vegetarians, which isn't the same thing at all as saying eating meat will give you heart disease or cancer...

 

[JLM]

I said decreased risk in vegetarians, which isn't the same thing at all as saying eating meat will give you heart disease or cancer...

This is a subject that is way too much discussed. Dr. Art Hister summed it up nicely on the news this morning. Eating a reasonable amount of fruits and vegetables is good for you and eating an over abundance of transfats is bad for you and as far as anything in between goes there is just NO SUBSTANTIATING EVIDENCE. So as far as I'm concerned the rule for healthy eating is EVERYTHING IN MODERATION. (and eat cabbage once or twice a week in case it does stave off colon cancer and a couple of tomatoes won't hurt you either).

 

[Tonington]

So, apparently you didn't read the study I linked above? It's not a single study, it is the combined data from five different studies. Mortality from heart disease was 24% lower in vegetarians than in non-vegetarians. Subjects were selected with similar lifestyles to the vegetarians. Analysis was adjusted for the confounding variables of body mass index, alcohol consumption, education level, and level of fitness. The total number of subjects was ~75,000.

That is substantial evidence. Deny it all you want. It's science, and it refutes Cannuck's premise in the opening post.

By the way, nice appeal to authority...has Dr. Hister any published results of his own that would contradict these findings?

 

[captain morgan]

Many studies have pointed to flatulence from herbivores as a measurable culprit in global warming.. Any correlation to the vegetarians and their gassy lifestyle?

 

[Tonington]

Many studies have pointed to flatulence from herbivores as a measurable culprit in global warming.. Any correlation to the vegetarians and their gassy lifestyle?

Vegetarians don't have a rumen. :lol: