(March 5, 2014 at 6:40 am)enrico Wrote: You forgot few important things.
1) The evidence show that the more meat we eat and the more we get sick.

That is true, the evidence does show this, but is irrelevant to the question if we evolved to be able to eat meat.

(March 5, 2014 at 6:40 am)enrico Wrote: 2) The evidence show that meat in a cold country is not as bad as in a hot country as in a cold county the saturated fat can be used to fight the cold.

What evidence?

(March 5, 2014 at 6:40 am)enrico Wrote: 3) There is no evidence that we have been evolved to eat meat.
As i just write in the previous post i explained how the mind become slave of the body addiction so you come to think that doing something wrong is not really wrong.

Not only did other early hominids eat meat, as the previous evidence shows, archaeological evidence also shows humans have always eaten meat. For example below is a cave painting of humans hunting! Additionally, we have a significantly shorter bowel length than herbivores which allows us to eat both plants and meat. We also cannot synthesize vitamin B12, and while some animals have bacteria in additional stomach compartments to keep bacteria that produce B12, we do not. We require B12 from our diet which can be obtained either by eating meat or by making supplements. Since humans pre-20th century could not make B12 supplements they must have obtained it from meat.


http://www.venamicasa.com/cultural-activ...n-cave-art

(March 5, 2014 at 6:40 am)enrico Wrote: Religions have nothing to do with intuitional science.
All they do is following dogmas or false truth so what they think or do means absolutely nothing.

These religious people claim to be able to practice various forms of intuitional science to be able to perceive some fundamental truth. So it most certainly does have something to do with religion.

(March 5, 2014 at 6:40 am)enrico Wrote: We all have something good and something bad.
Physical science is no exception.

You can't just pick and choose when to apply scientific principles because it undermines the strength of your argument. All you do is make a claim and then completely fail to address any counter argument other than by either appealing to some completely untestable nonsensical "intuitional science", or to attack the people making those arguments by saying they are addicted to meat eating. I think meat eating is morally wrong, unhealthy, and damaging to the environment. It is however something we have evolved to be able to do. BUT whether we evolved to be able to do something is completely irrelevant to whether we should do something or not, and by making idiotic arguments you merely make vegans look crazy and irrational. You merely making it easier for meat eaters to justify their behaviour, and you are therefore causing more animals to be murdered.

(March 5, 2014 at 4:55 am)enrico Wrote:

(March 3, 2014 at 10:41 am)Tonus Wrote: On the contrary, most atheists understand this point very clearly.

That is interesting.
Can you please elaborate?

There isn't much to elaborate. Many theists here have admitted that god cannot be detected by any means that are external to us. They only ever verify god by internal means. Which is why gods often reflect the individual's culture and beliefs and why there are so many different interpretations of what god is and who god is and what he wants from any of us. Since god only exists within, people can and do shape and re-shape him all the time.

Remember, you're not only explaining the existence and qualities of god with people who do not believe that he exists. You are also doing so with people who believe he exists in vastly different forms from what you have experienced, and who claim to have received the same internal verification that you claim. But from a different god, or from the same god yet differently.

When dozens of theists come here and present to us dozens of versions of god (with each version being the only possible version), what do you think we're going to conclude?

Quote: How would you explain the fact that until 50-60 years ago when our grandparents where eating meat once a week (average) they didn't have so many diseases?

See Esquilax, this is why we bother. It comes out with great stuff like this when you poke it.

I'm dying to know how you concluded that people 50-60 years ago didn't have so many diseases. Is this more Intuitional science? Did this little historical gem come to you while meditating?

That must be why people's life expectancy is so much lower now than it was then. And I guess the infant mortality rate must have been lower back then as well!

(March 5, 2014 at 7:36 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote:

Quote: How would you explain the fact that until 50-60 years ago when our grandparents where eating meat once a week (average) they didn't have so many diseases?

See Esquilax, this is why we bother. It comes out with great stuff like this when you poke it.

I'm dying to know how you concluded that people 50-60 years ago didn't have so many diseases. Is this more Intuitional science? Did this little historical gem come to you while meditating?

That must be why people's life expectancy is so much lower now than it was then. And I guess the infant mortality rate must have been lower back then as well!

I think I just realized what's going on. Enrico has got his hands on some old Watchtower magazines-- you know, the ones with happy, healthy young people having picnics with deer and lions-- and he thinks it's history.

No silly, the truth comes to him through meditating. His insides know the statistics for death rates and life expectancy through time so he meditates and the truth comes to him through Intuitional science.
The watchtowers are just corroboration. For the simple logic. There is now disease. There is now meat. Ergo, disease is caused by meat. Ergo when there was less meat there was less disease. The logic is inescapable.

(March 5, 2014 at 7:36 am)Jacob(smooth) Wrote: I'm dying to know how you concluded that people 50-60 years ago didn't have so many diseases. Is this more Intuitional science? Did this little historical gem come to you while meditating?
That must be why people's life expectancy is so much lower now than it was then. And I guess the infant mortality rate must have been lower back then as well!

I do apologize.
I should not have said that in those times people didn't have so many diseases.
I should instead said that in those times people did not have so many diseases caused by meat eating.
In those times a lot of people die for other reasons like a lack of food, and infections due to poor sanitation so i do agree with you that life expectancy was lower.
However it could have been even lower if they were able to eat meat regularly like rich people.

---

(March 5, 2014 at 7:34 am)Tonus Wrote:

(March 5, 2014 at 4:55 am)enrico Wrote: That is interesting.
Can you please elaborate?

There isn't much to elaborate. Many theists here have admitted that god cannot be detected by any means that are external to us. They only ever verify god by internal means. Which is why gods often reflect the individual's culture and beliefs and why there are so many different interpretations of what god is and who god is and what he wants from any of us. Since god only exists within, people can and do shape and re-shape him all the time.

I don't understand.
Here you are talking about what theist think while i was asking you about atheists.
Don't you remember my post ......... One thing that an atheist will never understand is that God is within and not external so the evidence can only come from within........and you answer?......On the contrary, most atheists understand this point very clearly.

So the question is......what atheists understand very clearly?

Quote:Remember, you're not only explaining the existence and qualities of god with people who do not believe that he exists. You are also doing so with people who believe he exists in vastly different forms from what you have experienced, and who claim to have received the same internal verification that you claim. But from a different god, or from the same god yet differently. When dozens of theists come here and present to us dozens of versions of god (with each version being the only possible version), what do you think we're going to conclude?

I only believe those who are able to reduce the distance that separate the microcosm (humans) from the macrocosm (God) which can be done in different way.
All the rest are theories that lead to nowhere.

(March 5, 2014 at 8:13 am)enrico Wrote: Don't you remember my post ......... One thing that an atheist will never understand is that God is within and not external so the evidence can only come from within........and you answer?......On the contrary, most atheists understand this point very clearly.

So the question is......what atheists understand very clearly?

And I repeat: atheists understand very clearly that god is "within and not external." That, in other words, he is exactly what each believer wants for him to be, because he comes from within and not from without.

Quote:I only believe those who are able to reduce the distance that separate the microcosm (humans) from the macrocosm (God) which can be done in different way.

Yes, I get that. And it's exactly what I expect, as an atheist. That god becomes more clear to us the more we internalize him. In that sense I do think we all believe in "god." I see him in the mirror every morning.

Quote: How would you explain the fact that until 50-60 years ago when our grandparents where eating meat once a week (average) they didn't have so many diseases?

Quote:
I should instead said that in those times people did not have so many diseases caused by meat eating.

So your question is, how would I explain how, when people ate less meat, they had less diseases caused by eating meat.

Is that what you're asking me?!

(March 5, 2014 at 6:40 am)enrico Wrote: Your total ignorance on the subject is unbelievable.
Let me show you how the system works.
Suppose you are a smoker a drinker or a drug addict.
You think that what you are doing is ok.
Now for me that i do not smoke, drink or use drugs if i only take a little bit of those substances i will get sick straight away while you get not sick.
What does it means?
Does it means that you are stronger then me or that these substances are ok?
Not of course.
It only means that your mind has become controlled by your body so it is the addiction that generate that false idea in your mind.
At this stage the mind is not able anymore to control your body and when you reach this stage you are Fu..k.

Still waiting for the actual explanation of how addiction works. I would expect to hear mumbling like this from half mad tramps I pass on the street.

(March 5, 2014 at 6:40 am)enrico Wrote: The meat has the same effect.

Prove it.

(March 5, 2014 at 6:40 am)enrico Wrote: If i put a tiny piece of meat in my mouth i will vomit and if i eat it i will end up in the hospital.

You are either lying or you have an incredibly sensitive allergy to all meat. There is something wrong with you.

(March 5, 2014 at 6:40 am)enrico Wrote: After so much time that you eat meat your body will convince your mind that everything is ok

Prove it.

(March 5, 2014 at 6:40 am)enrico Wrote: but ok is not as we can see from the increase of diseases since the economic progress of the last 50-60 years allow people to buy more meat.

And once again you have left out any extraneous variables that could render these conclusions invalid. Just off the top of my head: in the last 50-60, human beings have led progressively sedentary lifestyles. Production of very unhealthy processed foods has increased dramatically. How did you rule these out as possible causes for the increase in diseases? Oh wait, you didn't.

(March 5, 2014 at 6:40 am)enrico Wrote: You forgot few important things.
1) The evidence show that the more meat we eat and the more we get sick.

What evidence? I don't remember you producing any.

(March 5, 2014 at 6:40 am)enrico Wrote: 3) There is no evidence that we have been evolved to eat meat.
As i just write in the previous post i explained how the mind become slave of the body addiction so you come to think that doing something wrong is not really wrong.

You are wrong.

(March 5, 2014 at 7:33 am)jg2014 Wrote:

(March 5, 2014 at 6:40 am)enrico Wrote: You forgot few important things.
1) The evidence show that the more meat we eat and the more we get sick.

That is true, the evidence does show this, but is irrelevant to the question if we evolved to be able to eat meat.

That is a silly statement indeed.
We are able to eat meat and not die as a junkie is able to use drugs and not die.
This does not means that people could be a lot better without meat or drugs.
The fact that our ancestors evolve despite the fact that they were eating meat here and there does not means that they evolve and survive because they eat meat.

(March 5, 2014 at 6:40 am)enrico Wrote: 2) The evidence show that meat in a cold country is not as bad as in a hot country as in a cold county the saturated fat can be used to fight the cold.

Quote:What evidence?

I guess you never been in the hospitals in some pacific island.
They are full of people with diabetes.
Diabetes usually come when people eat rich food and do little or no exercise.
Before the white man introduce beef these people only eat a bit of pork, chicken and some seafood but not everyday.
The everyday diet was cassava, taro, fruit, nuts and vegies.
Today they go mad for beef but especially for corned beef in the tin.
The quantity of meat that they eat is not any more that the quantity that people eat in the cold countries but the fact is that in the cold countries people get less sick that is why i said that saturated fat can be used to fight the cold to a certain extend.

Quote:Not only did other early hominids eat meat, as the previous evidence shows, archaeological evidence also shows humans have always eaten meat. For example below is a cave painting of humans hunting!

Here and there when people did not have enough natural food they restored to eat meat or some of them eat meat as they become addicted but the fact that our body is totally different from carnivore or omnivore means that we evolve as frugivores.

Quote:Additionally, we have a significantly shorter bowel length than herbivores which allows us to eat both plants and meat.

Rubbish.
We do have shorter bowel length than herbivores but not as short as carnivores or omnivore.

Quote:We also cannot synthesize vitamin B12, and while some animals have bacteria in additional stomach compartments to keep bacteria that produce B12, we do not. We require B12 from our diet which can be obtained either by eating meat or by making supplements. Since humans pre-20th century could not make B12 supplements they must have obtained it from meat.

You haven't got the right information about the b12.

Objection 2: Vitamin B12 is only obtained from meat, dairy, and eggs.
B12 isn’t made by animals, it’s made by bacteria. It’s found where things are unclean (and rotting flesh is dirty). This easily explains why historically it’s been easy to get B12, because until recently we didn’t live in a sanitized environment. Pull a carrot out of the ground and don’t wash it properly, and there’s almost certainly some B12 there. Vegans should take a B12 supplement, not because veganism is unnatural, but because the modern diet is too clean to contain reliable natural sources of dirty B12.
Incidentally, our need for B12 is tiny: 3 micograms a day (not milligrams, micrograms). The amount of B12 you need for your entire life is smaller than four grains of rice.
http://www.powered-by-produce.com/2010/0.../#comments

Quote:You can't just pick and choose when to apply scientific principles because it undermines the strength of your argument. All you do is make a claim and then completely fail to address any counter argument other than by either appealing to some completely untestable nonsensical "intuitional science", or to attack the people making those arguments by saying they are addicted to meat eating. I think meat eating is morally wrong, unhealthy, and damaging to the environment. It is however something we have evolved to be able to do. BUT whether we evolved to be able to do something is completely irrelevant to whether we should do something or not, and by making idiotic arguments you merely make vegans look crazy and irrational. You merely making it easier for meat eaters to justify their behaviour, and you are therefore causing more animals to be murdered.

Sorry but i have been through this sort of argument before when i was dealing with smokers.
Many non-smokers were telling me that i should take it easy but the fight was not won by these pacifists.
It was won by a small group of people like me who went to court several times until the politicians realized that there was no way that the law could stay as it was.