A Chance for Atheists to Recover

[Magic Man]

I was only trying to illustrate how being vegetarian is beneficial, and how eating meat is harmful. But if you still want the benefit of the meditation, there is another method called the Convenient method. It only requires that you be vegetarain for 10 days out of the month, and the meditation is only 30 minutes a day.

IT can be beneficial, sure, but isn't inherently. Eating some meat can be good for you. OF course too much of anything can be bad, meat included. You might have the opinion that eating meat hinders your meditation, but that doesn't make it more beneficial for anybody else, just you. I'm not looking for your meditation, so I'll pass on the "Convenient method", as it is even titles arrogantly. I'll find my own way to meditate, when I feel ilke it, as should be the case with everybody.

As has been said here, you can only give a good way of meditating for you. You can maybe give some guidelines for others to try to see whether they work for them, but you can't give specific instructions and claim that they will work for everyone.

I'm afraid I am serious, I have posted referenced links in a previous post.

I'm not even going to bother reading those links. If they say anything that could support your claim, then the links happen to be of the same opinion as you, and probably have an agenda. It's your opinion that vegetarianism is beneficial, and it might well be to you, but it is simply not universally beneficial.

 

[McBell]

I never meant to say that vegetarianism is morally superior, only that it is required to learn the meditation, and is more beneficial to mankind, and the world as a whole. These are facts, not opinion.

What exactly is your source for these "facts"?

 

[Ant0nio]

IT can be beneficial, sure, but isn't inherently. Eating some meat can be good for you. OF course too much of anything can be bad, meat included. You might have the opinion that eating meat hinders your meditation, but that doesn't make it more beneficial for anybody else, just you. I'm not looking for your meditation, so I'll pass on the "Convenient method", as it is even titles arrogantly. I'll find my own way to meditate, when I feel ilke it, as should be the case with everybody.

But it is inherently beneficial lol. Eating meat can be replaced. It isn't necessary. Eating meat hinders the Quan Yin method of meditation. If you'll pass on the meditation i'm talking about that's fine.

As has been said here, you can only give a good way of meditating for you. You can maybe give some guidelines for others to try to see whether they work for them, but you can't give specific instructions and claim that they will work for everyone.

That isn't true. This method works for everyone. This is 100% the truth. If you do the work, you get the results. It's that simple. It works for everyone, because everyone already has the inner light and inner sound within them, this method simply shows you how to see and hear it.

It works for everyone. This I can garauntee.

I'm not even going to bother reading those links. If they say anything that could support your claim, then the links happen to be of the same opinion as you, and probably have an agenda. It's your opinion that vegetarianism is beneficial, and it might well be to you, but it is simply not universally beneficial.

My links are to United Nations reports about vegetarianism and the meat industry and the effects it has on the environment. Are the United Nations a shoddy organization? Do they have an agenda to make the world be vegetarian? Are they trying to take away your meat?! lol, rofl. I thought the United Nations was an organization formed to bring peace, prosperity, and equality to the world. I thought they were a reputable source of information. Forgive me if I am mistaken for putting my trust in their reports. I linked to the actual report itself by the FAO department of the United Nations. It is not biased, strictly factual. There is no opinion. Only facts.

I don't know what else to say. If you don't want to read the reports then that's fine, but the meditation works. That I can assure you. If you don't want to learn it, then that's fine. But don't think it won't work just because you don't believe in it. You haven' t tried it. How would you know?

 

[Ant0nio]

What exactly is your source for these "facts"?

The facts about vegetarianism comes from the United Nations.

 

[McBell]

The facts about vegetarianism comes from the United Nations.

You needs be more specific than that.

Do you have a link?
the title to a speech?
an article to refer to?
A name perhaps?

 

[Magic Man]

But it is inherently beneficial lol. Eating meat can be replaced. It isn't necessary. Eating meat hinders the Quan Yin method of meditation. If you'll pass on the meditation i'm talking about that's fine.

So, just because something can be replaced means it's bad for you? My wife can be replaced, but I can guarantee you I wouldn't be as happy with a different one.

That isn't true. This method works for everyone. This is 100% the truth. If you do the work, you get the results. It's that simple. It works for everyone, because everyone already has the inner light and inner sound within them, this method simply shows you how to see and hear it.

It works for everyone. This I can garauntee.

And this is the problem. I absolutely guarantee this method does not work for everyone. There is no method that does. This is the kind of thing that shows us the falsity of your claims.

My links are to United Nations reports about vegetarianism and the meat industry and the effects it has on the environment. Are the United Nations a shoddy organization? Do they have an agenda to make the world be vegetarian? Are they trying to take away your meat?! lol, rofl. I thought the United Nations was an organization formed to bring peace, prosperity, and equality to the world. I thought they were a reputable source of information. Forgive me if I am mistaken for putting my trust in their reports. I linked to the actual report itself by the FAO department of the United Nations. It is not biased, strictly factual. There is no opinion. Only facts.

I don't know what else to say. If you don't want to read the reports then that's fine, but the meditation works. That I can assure you. If you don't want to learn it, then that's fine. But don't think it won't work just because you don't believe in it. You haven' t tried it. How would you know?

Then the reports don't say what you want them to. I can say with certainty that no credible reports would claim that eating meat is bad for you, and that we should all just become vegetarians. That was the other option, but I didn't think I'd have to say it. I am quite sure that you are misinterpreting what the reports say, if they are from a credible source such as the UN.

 

[Ant0nio]

So, just because something can be replaced means it's bad for you? My wife can be replaced, but I can guarantee you I wouldn't be as happy with a different one.

It's not that because it's replaceable that it's bad for you. One simple reason why it is bad, is because the animal has to be killed for you to eat the meat. Killing is inherently wrong. Would you agree? Taking of life is inherently wrong. Would you not agree? Animals instinctually flee from harm, and want to live. This is God given, and the desire for life is also inherently good.

And this is the problem. I absolutely guarantee this method does not work for everyone. There is no method that does. This is the kind of thing that shows us the falsity of your claims.

How would you know if you haven't tried it? Thousands of people have been initiated into this method. It most assuredly works, as long as someone is physically able to do the meditation, it will work for them.

You say that there is no method that does, I'm telling you that this method does. If you haven't tried it, how would you know?

Then the reports don't say what you want them to. I can say with certainty that no credible reports would claim that eating meat is bad for you, and that we should all just become vegetarians. That was the other option, but I didn't think I'd have to say it. I am quite sure that you are misinterpreting what the reports say, if they are from a credible source such as the UN.

They explain the destructive repercussions on the environment and the world due to the meat industry. The natural solution is to at least scale down the meat industry. That would naturally involve people to at least eat less meat. At least.

Just by looking, these conclusions are obvious. I understand if you are not willing to give up meat because of the taste, but please don't think that the meat industry is not harmful to the environment and the world. It is. It is a fact.

 

[Ant0nio]

You needs be more specific than that.

Do you have a link?
the title to a speech?
an article to refer to?
A name perhaps?

here is a link to my earlier post that has links to the report, and articles on the report.

 

[gnomon]

Question.

If an individual must do x in order to attain y but they are constitutionally incapable of doing x....then what?

Are they doomed?

edit: I had to double check that this was the thread about herding atheists.

 

[McBell]

I never meant to say that vegetarianism is morally superior, only that it is required to learn the meditation, and is more beneficial to mankind, and the world as a whole. These are facts, not opinion.

What exactly is your source for these "facts"?

The facts about vegetarianism comes from the United Nations.

here is a link to my earlier post that has links to the report, and articles on the report.

followed the link to this post:

They are facts. Click Here and Here for articles about the Food and Agriculture Organization department of the United Nations explaining the detriment of raising animals for meat.

Here is the actual report from the FAO.

Also, here is an article explaining how raising animals for meat causes world hunger.

This is just scratching the surface.

I hope this helps to illustrate why being vegetarian is required to learn the meditation. It is in no way harmful to anyone, it is very beneficial to everyone.

If you have any more questions about why vegetarianism is required for the method, please feel free to ask.

If the above links are all you got, I have to say that I need much more than Henning Steinfeld's word for it.
Especially given the controversy over global warming as it is.

 

[Ant0nio]

followed the link to this post:
If the above links are all you got, I have to say that I need much more than Henning Steinfeld's word for it.
Especially given the controversy over global warming as it is.

Here is a research paper from botswana explaining the effect of raising cattle on climate change.

recently released in April of this year.

 

[McBell]

Here is a research paper from botswana explaining the effect of raising cattle on climate change.

recently released in April of this year.

Please explain to me how the cattle caused the drought.
The paper forgot to mention that.

 

[Magic Man]

It's not that because it's replaceable that it's bad for you. One simple reason why it is bad, is because the animal has to be killed for you to eat the meat. Killing is inherently wrong. Would you agree? Taking of life is inherently wrong. Would you not agree? Animals instinctually flee from harm, and want to live. This is God given, and the desire for life is also inherently good.

Again, now your challenge is to explain why taking life, when it is an animal, is bad or unacceptable, and taking a life, when it is a plant, is good or acceptable. I know you've said that killing plants doesn't have the level of karmic repercussions that killing animals does, but that still doesn't mean that killing plants is good or not bad. And if that's the case, then why would we need to kill at all to survive? Wouldn't you agree that, if we shouldn't kill at all, then we should be able to survive without killing?

How would you know if you haven't tried it? Thousands of people have been initiated into this method. It most assuredly works, as long as someone is physically able to do the meditation, it will work for them.

You say that there is no method that does, I'm telling you that this method does. If you haven't tried it, how would you know?

Because there is nothing that works for everyone. There is no music that appeals to every single person. There is no movie that appeals to every single person, no religion, no house, no job, nothing. Everyone is different, and everyone finds their own way through life. Nothing universally works for humanity.

They explain the destructive repercussions on the environment and the world due to the meat industry. The natural solution is to at least scale down the meat industry. That would naturally involve people to at least eat less meat. At least.

There's a big difference between eating less meat, and eating no meat. As I said before, moderation is teh key to everything. Eating some meat can be good, but too much of it, as with too much of anything, can be bad. I wouldn't argue against scaling down the meat industry, but I am arguing against getting rid of it entirely, which is what the idea of eating meat being bad and being a vegetarian being good would imply.

Just by looking, these conclusions are obvious. I understand if you are not willing to give up meat because of the taste, but please don't think that the meat industry is not harmful to the environment and the world. It is. It is a fact.

No, the meat industry, as you have just said, is not harmful to the environment or the world. Possibly the size and current state of it is, but not just the meat industry. See, you started off well in this section, but you took it too far here. You went from facts that support a scaled-down version of the meat industry to the conclusion that the meat industry is just bad and is harmful to the environment and so should be abolished altogether. That is not at all the logical conclusion form the premise. The logical conclusion would be that the meat industry needs to change in some ways to stop negatively affecting the environment so much.

 

[Ant0nio]

Please explain to me how the cattle caused the drought.
The paper forgot to mention that.

I never said the cattle caused the droughts, but I wasn't as clear as I should have been. They do however, exacerbate the problem.

In a nutshell, 20% of land used for agriculture is to grow food. 80% is to grow cattle. Drought severely effects both growing food and raising cattle in Botswana.

Cattle farmers have, to try to make up for this, simply raised more cattle, hoping they would lose less cattle during periods of drought.

However, the cattle sector is totally dependent on "biomass", or forage to feed their cattle. The forage is already scarce, and raising more cattle causes overgrazing, which has depleted even more the scarce biomass.

This has weakened the ecosystem. Forage doesn't have time to recover due to drought and overgrazing. This has caused droughts to occur more frequently with less time in between droughts.

With biomass being depleted, and droughts occuring more frequently, the cattle sector in Botswana suffers even more, because of the lack of biomass, the stress that comes with drought is increased, which in turn worsens the problem even further, by reducing rainfall, and in turn shortening the time between droughts.

This all came from page 6 of the report. Under the section titled "Conclusions".

 

[Smoke]

Can you please provide a reference for this last quoted statement?

The cultivation and harvesting of vegetables, especially using modern methods, necessarily involves the crushing and killing of countless insects who meet your criterion of being animals that breathe oxygen.

 

[Ant0nio]

The cultivation and harvesting of vegetables, especially using modern methods, necessarily involves the crushing and killing of countless insects who meet your criterion of being animals that breathe oxygen.

Could you provide a source for your statement please?

 

[Ant0nio]

Again, now your challenge is to explain why taking life, when it is an animal, is bad or unacceptable, and taking a life, when it is a plant, is good or acceptable. I know you've said that killing plants doesn't have the level of karmic repercussions that killing animals does, but that still doesn't mean that killing plants is good or not bad. And if that's the case, then why would we need to kill at all to survive? Wouldn't you agree that, if we shouldn't kill at all, then we should be able to survive without killing?

O.K. I'll say it, killing plants to survive is the lesser of two evils. It's comparable to keeping your house clean to keep bugs out versus cleaning less and calling the exterminator to kill the bugs when you get bugs in your home.

Keeping your house clean you kill the germs. Calling the exterminator, you kill the bugs.

We must eat to live.

But my point, is that eating plants causes far less suffering than eating meat. Fruit falls to the ground for you to eat it. Animals are butchered for you to eat them, with no painkillers whatsoever. Which is less painful? Keep in mind the the law of Karma. The term "As you sow, so shall ye reap", or the Christian way of referring to karma. There is also the well know saying, "what goes around comes around.

When you butcher animals, they suffer. If you sow suffering, somewhere down the line this suffering must be reaped. If you could kill without any repercussions, why would we even need to try to do the right thing? What difference would it make? If there were no consequences to our actions, why would Jesus have taught us to "Treat others as you would have them treat you"? He said these things so that we are protected, so that we can live peacefully and abide by the spiritual law of karma.

After fruit falls from a tree, more fruit grows on the same tree. Cut the leg off an animal, it doesn't grow back. More suffering is caused. Kill an animal and you can't give it's life back. The consequences are just much more severe with killing animals versus raising crops. Plants are designed to provide us with food. Animals are designed to live. There is a big difference. A huge difference.

Food is designed for us to eat it. Animals are designed to live. Do these statements make sense?

Eat fruit and it grows back. Kill an animal and it is dead forever.

This killing karma is very heavy. You can't unkill something, but you can regrow fruit, and vegetables, from the same root even, the same tree will keep producing.

You can't keep killing an animal over and over. Once you kill it, it is gone.

That is why there is a commandment "Thou shall not kill". Once you kill something, it's over for them, there is no second chance, or regrowing. Unless you believe in the resurrection of Christ, and even then, he went thru immense suffering, and is a special case.

Are my statements helping you to understand the severity of killing? Does this help you to see the vast difference between eating plants and eating meat?

That is the point I am trying to make. Please tell me what you think about these statements.

Because there is nothing that works for everyone. There is no music that appeals to every single person. There is no movie that appeals to every single person, no religion, no house, no job, nothing. Everyone is different, and everyone finds their own way through life. Nothing universally works for humanity.

Why not? The law of gravity works all around the world. Throught the universe. It is universal law. The law of cause and effect works all around the world, and the universe. It is universal law. It works for everybody, and humanity.

If you believe in God, would you not agree that God is within all of us? That God created all of us at least?

Jesus said that we are all Children of God, and he said that the things he had done, we may also do, and even greater. Jesus said the Kingdom of Heaven is within you. Within all of us. Buddha said that everyone possesses the Buddha nature, and that everyone can become Buddha.

If a method will allow you to recognize the creator, to recognize this Buddha nature within yourself, allow you to recognize the Kingdom of heaven within yourself, help you to realize that you are a child of God, why wouldn't it work for everyone that is able to do it?

Everyone has these things within them, would you agree? So if the method allows one to realize these things within them, wouldn't it work for everyone?

The master promises that the method will allow you to recognize the Buddha nature within you, to see the Kingdom of Heaven within you, so if the method does what is promised, and everyone has these things within them like the Buddha and Jesus said, wouldn't this work for everyone?

It is similar to the laws of the universe, like karma, and gravity. Does this sound logical? Please let me know.

There's a big difference between eating less meat, and eating no meat. As I said before, moderation is teh key to everything. Eating some meat can be good, but too much of it, as with too much of anything, can be bad. I wouldn't argue against scaling down the meat industry, but I am arguing against getting rid of it entirely, which is what the idea of eating meat being bad and being a vegetarian being good would imply.

Ok, I will come to terms with you on this statement partially. There is a big difference between eating less meat and eating no meat. You may think that eating some meat can be good, but it is always bad for the animal that was killed for you to eat it. Would you agree? Fruits and vegetables regrow on the same root, from the same tree, but a killed animal is gone forever, and experienced suffering before it was killed. It is bad for the animal. Would you agree with this statement? Much worse in comparison to the dropping of fruit, or the harvesting of vegetables.

I explained in great detail the difference between harvesting plants to eat and killing animals, so I won't go any further with that.

Eating meat is a much greater evil than eating plants, in reference to the degree of suffering.

No, the meat industry, as you have just said, is not harmful to the environment or the world. Possibly the size and current state of it is, but not just the meat industry. See, you started off well in this section, but you took it too far here. You went from facts that support a scaled-down version of the meat industry to the conclusion that the meat industry is just bad and is harmful to the environment and so should be abolished altogether. That is not at all the logical conclusion form the premise. The logical conclusion would be that the meat industry needs to change in some ways to stop negatively affecting the environment so much.

Did you read the reports? Do you outright reject reading them simply because you refuse to look at anything that may change your opinion on meat? The meat industry is wasteful, in terms of food. The amount of food fed to livestock is enough to feed all of the U.S. and to help end world hunger. This is stated in this link. Please at least take the time to read it, and then let me know if you think it's propaganda, or has some agenda, then you can decide.

The meat industry definitely needs to be changed, and scaling back would definitely help reduce the negative effects of the meat industry. But still would you not agree that there is a big difference also in harvesting plants versus killing an animal? The karmic repercussions of the meat industry also don't simply affect us individually, but they effect us as a nation, and as a planet. Does this make sense? Karmic law is universal, would you agree? If billions of animals are killed in the U.S. every year, wouldn't that killing karma have to materialize in some form? What do you think about these statements?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Milk and cheese is acceptable. Me personally, I limit my intake of dairy. I don't drink milk. I do eat cheese products every now and then. The master doesn't consume dairy products in the U.S. herself as far as I know, specifically because of how dairy cows are treated in the U.S.

The practice I mentioned was something I saw in Canada.

I personally avoid milk in the US because I'm somewhat worried about the long-term effects of BGH, and I don't drink a whole lot of milk anyway.

Vegetables are not cultivated and harvested without causing the deaths of animals -- countless animals.

Can you please provide a reference for this last quoted statement?

In some places, wildlife habitat is destroyed to create farmland.

In some places, toxic runoff from agricultural herbicides, pesticides and other sprayed chemicals kills fish, other marine life, and the birds and mammals that feed on them. For example, the peregrine falcon was almost rendered extinct by the spraying of DDT (a pesticide used for insect control on crops).

Agricultural fertilizer runoff can encourage algae growth in lakes and ponds, which consumes all the oxygen in the water, causing fish to suffocate. This can also have negative effects for animals that rely on these fish for food.

 

[Ant0nio]

The practice I mentioned was something I saw in Canada.

I personally avoid milk in the US because I'm somewhat worried about the long-term effects of BGH, and I don't drink a whole lot of milk anyway.





In some places, wildlife habitat is destroyed to create farmland.

In some places, toxic runoff from agricultural herbicides, pesticides and other sprayed chemicals kills fish, other marine life, and the birds and mammals that feed on them. For example, the peregrine falcon was almost rendered extinct by the spraying of DDT (a pesticide used for insect control on crops).

Agricultural fertilizer runoff can encourage algae growth in lakes and ponds, which consumes all the oxygen in the water, causing fish to suffocate. This can also have negative effects for animals that rely on these fish for food.

This practice is saddening, and wrong, I do agree. This too needs to be addressed, and something needs to change so that the habitat and the animals in and around them are not harmed. The best thing would be to instead choose different land to cultivate crops on, other than wild habitats.

But two wrongs don't make a right do they? Because harm is being caused to animals to plant crops doesn't make it ok to raise animals to be killed does it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This practice is saddening, and wrong, I do agree. This too needs to be addressed, and something needs to change so that the habitat and the animals in and around them are not harmed. The best thing would be to instead choose different land to cultivate crops on, other than wild habitats.

Not all the impacts I mentioned dealt with farmland claimed from wildlife habitat; in some cases, the farming just has to take place in the same watershed, which can be thousands of square kilometers.

But two wrongs don't make a right do they? Because harm is being caused to animals to plant crops doesn't make it ok to raise animals to be killed does it?

I don't think it makes a difference, but I don't think it's wrong to raise animals to be killed for food in the first place.

I do think, though, that recognizing the facts involved makes us realize the issue for what it is: a spectrum of grey, rather than pure black and white.