Any Vegetarians/Vegans here?

[James2014]

You missed my other link
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2724493/

No I didn't, here is what I wrote again

Here's another link for ya

In that firstly the comparison was not with a vegan diet, which has shown to also produce a significant benefit to diabetics.



Secondly the study also notes that the "Paleolithic diet was markedly lower in cereals and dairy products, and lower in potatoes, beans and bakery, and much higher in fruits, vegetables, meat and eggs"
As the study goes on to explain, many of the benefits were likely due to increased consumption of fruit and veg, decreased consumption of things like sugary sweets, increased protein intake and decreased calorie consumption overall. All these things can be better achieved with a vegan diet without the risks high meat consumption brings over time (ie longer than the 3 months looked at in the trial)

Yet you do make the assumption.

No the mortality study I quoted makes a direct comparison between meat eating and vegan diets, it is therefore not an assumption to say that vegan diets reduce mortality

You see it depends on the kind of meat,like processed meat
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2885952/

See you have to look at the whole picture here

You see the thing about science is that when a study finds that a relationship cannot be found between two things (e.g. cardiovascular disease and meat eating) it does not mean that a link does not exist. It may mean that, or there were confounding factors that introduced an increased amount of variability, or that the sample size was too small. That's why people do new and better controlled studies, such as one ...

"Both unprocessed and processed red meat intakes were associated with an increased risk of total, CVD and cancer mortality in both men and women in the age-adjusted and fully-adjusted models "

---

@jg2014
Where do you get your morals and ethics from?

That is a good question, where do we as atheists get our ethics from if we live in fundamentally amoral universe, with no god or nature to guide us?

The first question we could ask is "is there such a thing as an objectively true set of ethics?"

And secondly "is there such a thing as an objectively false set of ethics?"


For me I would argue ethics only have meaning in reference to the basic values we choose to hold. So I would say no to the first question. However, we must be logical, and if we apply a ethics in an illogical or have ethics that contain a contradiction then they must be false. So I would say yes to the second quest above.

What does this mean for where ethics come from? They come from my choice to value the reduction in suffering and an increase in happiness. All ethics start with an assumption, and this is mine. No other justification is required or even possible, other than not to contradict one's self. When ever I say meat eating is wrong, I mean with reference to these utilitarian values.