Nutmisc, if evolution is true how do you explain obesity?

[imccarthy]

Why to Jihadists also? That makes no sense. Not everyone that claims to be following God is actually following God. Some people just do what they want to do and use their religion as a cover for their true intentions. Spirituality is closely connected to our own personal emotions/feelings and the two can easily be confused.

It makes perfect sense. Either you accept "revelation" as valid across the board, or you don't.

Responding to your previous post:

People like their illusions. We're a pattern-seeking mammalian species (a function of evolution by the way); we find patterns everywhere, some of which don't actually exist (also a function of evolution, albeit an unfortunate one). We also have a rather infantile tendency to be afraid of death, so we lie to ourselves and to our children based on the ridiculous belief that one's consciousness can somehow rise away from one's brain at death so we can live an eternal life praising our celestial Dear Leader.

If religion made people behave better I'd be all for it - but on a whole its effects on human behavior are hugely negative.



Edit: Nobody has to use religion as a "cover" for immoral actions. The justification and expectation for immorality is built in to the texts themselves.

[sawoobley]

It makes perfect sense. Either you accept "revelation" as valid across the board, or you don't.

Responding to your previous post:

People like their illusions. We're a pattern-seeking mammalian species (a function of evolution by the way); we find patterns everywhere, some of which don't actually exist (also a function of evolution, albeit an unfortunate one). We also have a rather infantile tendency to be afraid of death, so we lie to ourselves and to our children based on the ridiculous belief that one's consciousness can somehow rise away from one's brain at death so we can live an eternal life praising our celestial Dear Leader.

If religion made people behave better I'd be all for it - but on a whole its effects on human behavior are hugely negative.

Revelation is God communicating with man. Whether it is through an impression, feeling, thought, or whatever. (In B4 I heard voices in my head from God telling me to kill someone). What makes you think God has to communicate with a terrorist? Even if he did, do you really think he would be telling him to murder innocent people?

Just because we are a pattern-seeking people doesn't mean that all patterns are non-sense.

Christianity and religion in general have been overwhelming positive IMO. Especially when you look at periods in time when the common man had access to his own personal bible so he could read and interpret the writings for himself. Times in the earths history when religion has been removed from society haven't produced any better results. Your also grouping all religions together. There might be some that you particularly don't like.

[sawoobley]

Edit: Nobody has to use religion as a "cover" for immoral actions. The justification and expectation for immorality is built in to the texts themselves.

You must be talking about a particular non-Christian religion where the text can be taken two different ways depending on the reader. Although, it seems pretty harsh to me. I don't see the same thing coming from Christianity.

[imccarthy]

I need to sleep, but I'll leave you with the following challenge - a sort of corollary to Hitchens's:

Can you, sir, name an Abrahamic religion that does NOT condone or command genocide, condone or command slavery, condone or command the genital mutilation of children, condone or command the (typically incredibly brutal) oppression of homosexuals, condone or command violence against those of other faiths, condone or command the oppression of women - shall I go on, or is the point made?

[RugbyTank]

But of course this makes sense in you far fetched stories of early men who lived millions of years ago going days without food.. storing fat would be very beneficial and sweet foods would be the preferred source because of its caloric density(even though the world didn't exist millions of years ago *genesis). The millions of years since than.. since the "cave men" or whatever you claim there was is when this stories starts making absolutely no sense what so ever.

You say man evolved, and sweet food and caloric surpluses were beneficial for survival, this, in theory, is plausible. However, food now has been available for "millions of years" according to evolution conspirators (only a couple of thousands of year imo *genesis). The major flaw is this logic is this; if evolution was true then the body over these "millions of years" would of evolved to the point at which it realized a large caloric surplus and sweets foods were unhealthy and dangerous for survival.

Clearly large amounts of calories and sweets are anything but beneficial to survival. Caloric surpluses in the US have been causing major health pandemics. Obesity, diabetes, heart disease, I could go on. Your counter argument will be that "we developed these instincts millions of years ago" yet you can provide no evidence to show why the body hasn't "evolved" over millions of years or realized food is widely available now.

If evolution were true,
1.the body would not encourage a large caloric surplus due to it decreasing chances of survival
2. vegetables are more available now than ever and maybe the most healthy food we can eat as far as decreasing diseases and disorders yet a majority of people prefer a donut over celery sticks.
3. if we evolved our bodies would realize we no longer required large amounts of calories and recognize large amounts are detrimental to health, in theory if evolution was true we'd actually prefer eating leafs to chocolate, overwhelmingly. If fact if evolution were true it would of prepared us to resist caloric surpluses by making sweet caloric dense foods taste undesirable

Conclusion

Evolution logic doesn't really seem so clear or make a lot of sense when you really think about it deeply.

Explanation, as it says in the bible, it mentions gluttony many times, one example follows.

1 Corinthians 3:16-17 ESV / 64 helpful votes

Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple.

Gluttony.. and in a more pure form "sin" gets the blame here. As any lust is sinful, gluttony is certainly a underrated one.

God is everything and nothing, It must be so.

Maybe because people confuse ideas trying to create a super ! moment, normally what it comes down to is an arithmetic error.
Q:"Would of evolved to the point at which it realized a large caloric surplus and sweets foods were unhealthy and dangerous for survival."
A: People often and clearly forget the simple things and enforce the IIFYM confusion.
1. Sweets will always be a leading step to Negative effects within the body, if abused.
By Negative, I could go on a listing rant but not needed in my eyes.

2. If I had the money, my caloric surplus would be gained mainly through vegetables and my protein moderately from beans and minimally through meats.

3. Sweets are unhealthy and dangerous for survival, the problem is people have never been in that situation to identify it properly.
Go ahead survive a month in the wilderness and then take a sugary food in abundance and you'll understand what happens is not necessarily in your favorite to be used as a great nutrient source.
Your water(valuable) intake will increase needlessly.
A desire to rest will increase.
Temporary Mental Increase will result in a general decrease in alertness(more valuable)

Sweeter tasting carbs(fruits) should be used as a delivery nutrient, to aid you in intake for nutrients when it seems difficult(Sickness in particular)

As soon as you let pleasure guide your nutrition it can be a rocky road to abuse and mal-nutrition.

God would not make a single person without the capacity of temptation without fortitude.

[ArchangelEST]

If there is a "God", I think it would be insulting to call the human race the best this Omnipotent being could come up with. And if he created us in his image, he is one seriously fuked up Dude up there.

I very much agree that if there is a "God", his greatest creation is Evolution itself. Gravity, science in general. If anything, we should worship God as a being who created the rule-set of the Universe that we occupy. Not as some ridiculously thought-up Deity who meticulously meddles in every little detail - screwing up way often than doing any good.


But as Jason, I keep an extremely open mind and am very much in the belief that there is some sort of higher power out there beyond my current perception. But due to the lack of evidence, I see no point dedicating any part of my life to worship of such things.


And I also see Evolution as a very sound Theory, a theory where we do not have all the facts yet and perhaps never will as far as the past is concerned. But still, It is a very sound, highly factual theory.

[RugbyTank]

...
I very much agree that if there is a "God", his greatest creation is Evolution itself. ..

His one and only creation is creation.

[ArchangelEST]

His one and only creation is creation.

Deep.

[Xfaxtor]

LoL. Arguing religion, that should turn out well....

[vitornoob]

[RugbyTank]

LoL. Arguing religion, that should turn out well....

People Confuse religion, just like fanboys confuse supplements.

You can only have so much about it, the rest is based on you and what you do with it.

[vitornoob]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/sc...in&oref=slogin

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0417112433.htm

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/conten....full.pdf+html

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/c.bkgrnd.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

[rnacdaley]

Watch the movie Dogma. That should clear up all doubt for everyone.

[axxlef]

If a god actually existed i think Dogma would be pretty close to the mark.Would certainly explain why the world is so messed up.

Personaly though i believe religion is nothing more than a creation designed to keep us all in line.

[rnacdaley]

If a god actually existed i think Dogma would be pretty close to the mark.Would certainly explain why the world is so messed up.

Personaly though i believe religion is nothing more than a creation designed to keep us all in line.

I agree. I have believed for a long time that religion is socially contructed in order to provide a 'guideline.' The interpretations of how to follow the guidelines is why people are so combative vs. one another.

[ArchangelEST]

Religion as a whole is definitely something that has been the basis for countless conspiracy theories. Some which are extremely plausible.

People are sheep. People want freedom, yet know very little what to do with it and almost beg for guidance. People are weak-willed and are more often than not incapable of independent original thought and action.
Religion while fundamentally being a "normal" sideproduct of the development of sentient thought has morphed into a product of Civilization. More of a business and method of hearding the sheep - rather than a free willed loosely organized belief in a higher power.


Ah, it's fuking complex to even talk about it.

[ven33]

Strong retardation in this thread.

[rnacdaley]

Religion as a whole is definitely something that has been the basis for countless conspiracy theories. Some which are extremely plausible.

People are sheep. People want freedom, yet know very little what to do with it and almost beg for guidance. People are weak-willed and are more often than not incapable of independent original thought and action.
Religion while fundamentally being a "normal" sideproduct of the development of sentient thought has morphed into a product of Civilization. More of a business and method of hearding the sheep - rather than a free willed loosely organized belief in a higher power.


Ah, it's fuking complex to even talk about it.

Exactly. People need direction for virtually anything. Which is why there are so few that have had a legit impact on society and that are universally known. People that can think and make decisions for themselves are few and far between.

And yes, it is indeed complex.

[JasonDB]

Religion as a whole is definitely something that has been the basis for countless conspiracy theories. Some which are extremely plausible.

People are sheep. People want freedom, yet know very little what to do with it and almost beg for guidance. People are weak-willed and are more often than not incapable of independent original thought and action.
Religion while fundamentally being a "normal" sideproduct of the development of sentient thought has morphed into a product of Civilization. More of a business and method of hearding the sheep - rather than a free willed loosely organized belief in a higher power.


Ah, it's fuking complex to even talk about it.

Good post.

[HunterCML]

I need to sleep, but I'll leave you with the following challenge - a sort of corollary to Hitchens's:

Can you, sir, name an Abrahamic religion that does NOT condone or command genocide, condone or command slavery, condone or command the genital mutilation of children, condone or command the (typically incredibly brutal) oppression of homosexuals, condone or command violence against those of other faiths, condone or command the oppression of women - shall I go on, or is the point made?

I fear you're creating your own morality and ethics aside from God's. Who are you to tell Him what is acceptable anyway, Ian?

[NegatronPrime]

I'm 12, taking a dump reading the nutmisc and what is this?

[XinApoK]

But of course this makes sense in you far fetched stories of early men who lived millions of years ago going days without food.. storing fat would be very beneficial and sweet foods would be the preferred source because of its caloric density(even though the world didn't exist millions of years ago *genesis). The millions of years since than.. since the "cave men" or whatever you claim there was is when this stories starts making absolutely no sense what so ever.

You say man evolved, and sweet food and caloric surpluses were beneficial for survival, this, in theory, is plausible. However, food now has been available for "millions of years" according to evolution conspirators (only a couple of thousands of year imo *genesis). The major flaw is this logic is this; if evolution was true then the body over these "millions of years" would of evolved to the point at which it realized a large caloric surplus and sweets foods were unhealthy and dangerous for survival.

Clearly large amounts of calories and sweets are anything but beneficial to survival. Caloric surpluses in the US have been causing major health pandemics. Obesity, diabetes, heart disease, I could go on. Your counter argument will be that "we developed these instincts millions of years ago" yet you can provide no evidence to show why the body hasn't "evolved" over millions of years or realized food is widely available now.

If evolution were true,
1.the body would not encourage a large caloric surplus due to it decreasing chances of survival
2. vegetables are more available now than ever and maybe the most healthy food we can eat as far as decreasing diseases and disorders yet a majority of people prefer a donut over celery sticks.
3. if we evolved our bodies would realize we no longer required large amounts of calories and recognize large amounts are detrimental to health, in theory if evolution was true we'd actually prefer eating leafs to chocolate, overwhelmingly. If fact if evolution were true it would of prepared us to resist caloric surpluses by making sweet caloric dense foods taste undesirable

Conclusion

Evolution logic doesn't really seem so clear or make a lot of sense when you really think about it deeply.

Explanation, as it says in the bible, it mentions gluttony many times, one example follows.

1 Corinthians 3:16-17 ESV / 64 helpful votes

Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple.

Gluttony.. and in a more pure form "sin" gets the blame here. As any lust is sinful, gluttony is certainly a underrated one.

[Kahldris]

[mattypoole]

This is always such a pointless discussion, and usually ends up becoming the same kind of sh!tstorm when brought up.

For the record I am Catholic and a subscriber to science.

The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, it would be asinine to assume it's always that black and white.

[imccarthy]

I fear you're creating your own morality and ethics aside from God's. Who are you to tell Him what is acceptable anyway, Ian?

No intellectually and morally serious person derives their morality from any sacred text. I've yet to met a professional moral ethicist that doesn't laugh at the so-called Divine Command Theory. Human morality is intrinsic - it doesn't come from the divine.

[Leprechauns1021]

Thread has made the inevitable switch from arguing FOR evolution, and now AGAINST religion. And with that, im out.

[imccarthy]

It's the more important of the two.

[Andrew_S]

[sawoobley]

I need to sleep, but I'll leave you with the following challenge - a sort of corollary to Hitchens's:

Can you, sir, name an Abrahamic religion that does NOT condone or command genocide, condone or command slavery, condone or command the genital mutilation of children, condone or command the (typically incredibly brutal) oppression of homosexuals, condone or command violence against those of other faiths, condone or command the oppression of women - shall I go on, or is the point made?

Christianity does not condone or command genocide, slavery, genocide, slavery, violence or oppression of homosexuals and women. Although you might find some sect somewhere who does or someone who claims to be Christian who does these things. As for the oppression part that depends on your definition. If you think Christians have to fully embrace homosexuality to not oppress them then by that definition maybe. They might hurt their feelings by saying their ACTIONS are not in line with God's will but at most all it does is hurt their feelings. Even then if that person does not believe in God then what the believer believes should be irrelevant to him.

If you want to cite some story in the bible where this occurs then we can deal with that but you'll have to look at it in context of the times in which it was written. If you look at Christianity today you don't see these problems. At least not in free nations where people can exercise their religion as they see fit.

In B4 citing the problems within radical Islam.

No intellectually and morally serious person derives their morality from any sacred text. I've yet to met a professional moral ethicist that doesn't laugh at the so-called Divine Command Theory. Human morality is intrinsic - it doesn't come from the divine.

The only difference between what your saying and a religious person is who he quotes as an authority figure. You point to "professional" moral ethicists as the authority figure on morality. The man who understands morality. While the religious person quotes the words of God through his prophets who claim to know his word and many who said they have seen him. The morality found in Judeo-Christian texts have served us well for centuries. The writings of the bible have lasted for thousands of years. I doubt the ideas of contemporary ethicists will last more than a few decades

[mattypoole]

No intellectually and morally serious person derives their morality from any sacred text.

That's an absurd, all sweeping type statement Ian. There have been some amazing intellectuals who also happen to have been religious and derived a great deal of their morality from the bible (I'm certainly not close to being one of them). My below response to put that into the appropriate context.

Human morality is intrinsic - it doesn't come from the divine.

Not sure I'd consider human morality to be even close to intrinsic, it give us way too much credit as a species. It's not to say we need the bible/koran/etc to be moral either, at least in the context of 'modern society'.