Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science

Discuss anything here

Moderator: Moderators

Locked
User avatar
zaseo
Posts: 1583
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:10 pm

Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science

Post by zaseo »

Leviticus 11 explains what we should, and shouldn't eat. We can infer if Eve was never deceived we would all be vegans.
Last edited by zaseo on Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Azure Knight
The Sasquatch King
The Sasquatch King
Posts: 2447
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 6:29 pm
Location: The Old Country

Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science

Post by Azure Knight »

zaseo wrote:Leviticus 11 explains what we should, and shouldn't eat. We can infer if Adam was never deceived we would all be vegans.
What? When was Adam "decieved"?
User avatar
AuraTwilight
IT WAS OVER 9000!
IT WAS OVER 9000!
Posts: 8032
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 5:03 pm

Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science

Post by AuraTwilight »

He's referencing the Fall of Man. Forbidden Fruit and whatnot.
Leviticus 11 explains what we should, and shouldn't eat. We can infer if Eve was never deceived we would all be vegans.
Technically, these rules only apply to the people of Moses, if you actually bothered to read all of Leviticus. No one else is morally obligated to follow these rules by God, as they were rules designed for the safety and community stability of the chosen people who would found Israel. Back in those days, things like shellfish and pork carried diseases mankind didn't have the ability to resist or remove, and so not eating them was actually a safety measure against disease.

So it really doesn't matter what the hell Leviticus says about damn well anything.
User avatar
zaseo
Posts: 1583
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:10 pm

Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science

Post by zaseo »

On the subject of food I don't understand why so many people in America gets fat. I know meat is good, but have people consider they get more energy when eating any vegetables, fruits, herbs, etc. Do they pay any attention to the nutritional facts? Have people been taught the trophies lvls? I know some people are big due to genes, but it is too many obese people in the USA. People can be gluttons in this country.
User avatar
Kuukai
The Prophet
The Prophet
Posts: 5278
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 4:02 am

Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science

Post by Kuukai »

Uh, calorie is a unit of energy. You can eat your weight in lettuce but it's essentially the food version of water, you'll get less energy to do anything than you would from a steak. It's fine to eat a lot of "bad food" as long as you actually use the energy it gives you. This is what Michael Phelps eats every day:
Breakfast: Three fried-egg sandwiches loaded with cheese, lettuce, tomatoes, fried onions and mayonnaise. Two cups of coffee. One five-egg omelet. One bowl of grits. Three slices of French toast topped with powdered sugar. Three chocolate-chip pancakes.

Lunch: One pound of enriched pasta. Two large ham and cheese sandwiches with mayo on white bread. Energy drinks packing 1,000 calories.

Dinner: One pound of pasta. An entire pizza. More energy drinks.
The reason Americans are fat is because we're rich. We don't have to do any physical activity ever unless we want to, and we have access to anything we feel like eating at any time. It's natural to want to consume a lot and store fat, since for most of our genetic history food was a rare commodity (on a global scale it still is). Though I guess culturally there's something going on as well, Japan's rich too and they don't have things like this...
User avatar
AuraTwilight
IT WAS OVER 9000!
IT WAS OVER 9000!
Posts: 8032
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 5:03 pm

Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science

Post by AuraTwilight »

Yea, it's pretty much not what we eat, but how much of it we eat and how we prepare it.
I know meat is good, but have people consider they get more energy when eating any vegetables, fruits, herbs, etc. Do they pay any attention to the nutritional facts?
Do you? Because that's complete and utter bullsh!t.
Have people been taught the trophies lvls?
I may just be ignorant since I'm a skinny bastard, but what the hell are "trophies lvls?"
I know some people are big due to genes, but it is too many obese people in the USA. People can be gluttons in this country.
It's genetic history. Humanity is genetically compelled to eat as much as it can because the only form of conservation and saving the body really understands is consuming it. Our entire evolutionary history has required us to seek food constantly because it was always so hard to get it, and to consume it instantly since there was no other way to store and protect it.
User avatar
zaseo
Posts: 1583
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:10 pm

Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science

Post by zaseo »

AuraTwilight wrote:Yea, it's pretty much not what we eat, but how much of it we eat and how we prepare it.
I know meat is good, but have people consider they get more energy when eating any vegetables, fruits, herbs, etc. Do they pay any attention to the nutritional facts?
Do you? Because that's complete and utter bullsh!t.
Have people been taught the trophies lvls?
I may just be ignorant since I'm a skinny bastard, but what the hell are "trophies lvls?"
I know some people are big due to genes, but it is too many obese people in the USA. People can be gluttons in this country.
It's genetic history. Humanity is genetically compelled to eat as much as it can because the only form of conservation and saving the body really understands is consuming it. Our entire evolutionary history has required us to seek food constantly because it was always so hard to get it, and to consume it instantly since there was no other way to store and protect it.
Trophies lvls are the amount on of energy in the food web. At the bottom are the producers which have 100% of the energy. Next are the primary consumers which gets 10%, then the secondary consumers gets 1%, and so on. There has to be more producers in the food web, or animals in an area would die off. The producers make their energy from the sun so they have it all. When the consumers come they won't get as much as the energy would have bent converted already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level

I pay heavy attention to what I eat. I'm 16, and about 5'2'', and 91 lbs.
User avatar
Keyaki
Posts: 2683
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:40 pm
Location: Delta: Setting Eternity's Night Moon

Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science

Post by Keyaki »

I pay heavy attention to what I eat. I'm 16, and about 5'2'', and 91 lbs.
I doubt it, I'm probably being ignorant here as well, but I'm the same age as you and I weight WAY more than you, plus I'm taller.

What I'm saying is, being 16 years and only weighting 91 lbs seems alittle bit odd...
User avatar
Kuukai
The Prophet
The Prophet
Posts: 5278
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 4:02 am

Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science

Post by Kuukai »

zaseo wrote:Trophies lvls are the amount on of energy in the food web. At the bottom are the producers which have 100% of the energy. Next are the primary consumers which gets 10%, then the secondary consumers gets 1%, and so on. There has to be more producers in the food web, or animals in an area would die off. The producers make their energy from the sun so they have it all. When the consumers come they won't get as much as the energy would have bent converted already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level

I pay heavy attention to what I eat. I'm 16, and about 5'2'', and 91 lbs.
You're talking about two different things... (also it's trophic level)
-Energy density: the amount of energy is in a given piece of food
-Sunlight efficiency: what percentage of the original energy from the sunlight that hit the plants in the first place has been lost

What you're missing is that a piece of meat is usually made out of several hundred plants. If some of them are lost in the conversion process, it really doesn't affect the fact that the end result is calorie city (plants are more like a calorie house). Trophic level matters for some environmental concerns, but they have nothing at all to do with the nutritional of something you eat.

Plants as a whole get more energy, yes, but have you seen Earth from space? We're covered in plants. Cows spend 8 hours a day eating 90 pounds of plants, and they still only gain about enough energy to feed a family of four/five humans in the same day. In other words, on the cow diet you would need to cram more than 20 pounds of food into your stomach. That isn't even possible. It is possible to live off some higher-sugar plants (some of which evolved specifically to be nutritional and turn animals into seed carriers) and condensed plant and mineral products, but not because they're "higher energy" than meat.
User avatar
zaseo
Posts: 1583
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:10 pm

Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science

Post by zaseo »

Keyaki wrote:
I pay heavy attention to what I eat. I'm 16, and about 5'2'', and 91 lbs.
I doubt it, I'm probably being ignorant here as well, but I'm the same age as you and I weight WAY more than you, plus I'm taller.

What I'm saying is, being 16 years and only weighting 91 lbs seems alittle bit odd...
I'm just small. I'm not anorexic, but I'm a little under weight to be a male. I eat grains, and vegetables more than the others on the food guide pyramid. I'm not a vegetarian, but I watch what I eat.

I don't see how some people can eat things like the baconator, double quarter pounder, etc. Maybe every now, and then, but if it is a few time a month talk about a lot of calories. Also exercising helps a lot as well. What, and how much anyone eats determines so many factories in their life.
User avatar
Azure Knight
The Sasquatch King
The Sasquatch King
Posts: 2447
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 6:29 pm
Location: The Old Country

Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science

Post by Azure Knight »

zaseo wrote:I don't see how some people can eat things like the baconator, double quarter pounder, etc. Maybe every now, and then, but if it is a few time a month talk about a lot of calories. Also exercising helps a lot as well. What, and how much anyone eats determines so many factories in their life.
They eat it because it tastes good. We're wired to want to eat things that our bodies can store as a lot energy (in this case, fat), so that when there's a lack of food the body can use this stored energy to power itself. However, that instinct was around when food was scarce, and hasn't changed ever since we domesticated and decided to build 12 KFCs within one city block. The body WANTS itself to get fat so it has a backup store of energy when food is hard to obtain. However, people just can't resist not eating food that's unhealthy, because the body wants to eat it and turn it into fat to store.
User avatar
Smitts
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 7:02 pm
Location: Earth.

Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science

Post by Smitts »

I think genetics plays a role in the weight due to what you eat. Not just what you eat alone.

I'm 6ft and weigh 120 lbs.
Either I'm just stressed out, which as of now, not too much. (which also doesn't have relation to genes).
or, I have a high metabolism or hyperthyroidism (which is a disease).

I eat meats and tons and tons of junk foods with little exercise.
Yeah, I know. Say hello to diabetes but I've been working out a lot more lately, haha.

Also, commenting back on AuraTwilight's march post.
There is another unforgivable sin according to biblical terms.
Denying the Holy Spirit/ghost is one.
User avatar
AuraTwilight
IT WAS OVER 9000!
IT WAS OVER 9000!
Posts: 8032
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 5:03 pm

Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science

Post by AuraTwilight »

Actually, that's not necessarily true, that's only an interpretation in some Christian sects, but it generally doesn't account for people who have denied the Holy Ghost accepting it later in life, whereupon the sin is forgiven. Not to mention the whole thing is way too vaguely defined anyway, since for some reason, "denying the Holy Spirit" isn't the same as "Not believing in/accepting Jesus/God."
User avatar
zaseo
Posts: 1583
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:10 pm

Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science

Post by zaseo »

Who is accurate about Jesus? Christians, or the Muslims? Christians consider Jesus to be the savior, and Muslims consider him to be another prophet of God.

I'm with the Christians of course. Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
User avatar
Azure Knight
The Sasquatch King
The Sasquatch King
Posts: 2447
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 6:29 pm
Location: The Old Country

Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science

Post by Azure Knight »

Well, now you're just kinda asking "Which religion is right?" And there's no way to answer that; if everyone knew which religion was right, everyone would be following it. Also, trying to debate which religion is more right, or better, always ends up in nothing but fights that don't contribute to the debate.
User avatar
zaseo
Posts: 1583
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:10 pm

Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science

Post by zaseo »

Well I kind of did there, but not all Christians believe in Jesus dying on the cross, or the Trinity. It would be better to say what are your views on Jesus?
User avatar
Azure Knight
The Sasquatch King
The Sasquatch King
Posts: 2447
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 6:29 pm
Location: The Old Country

Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science

Post by Azure Knight »

Well, that's more or less just asking what religion people are, but okay. For me, I'm not very religious, but I don't believe in Jesus, because I'm Jewish. While Christians believe that Jesus was the Messiah and are waiting for the Second Coming, Jews believe that the Messiah hasn't come yet.

Also, I wasn't aware that there were Christians that don't believe that Jesus died on the cross. Is it like a certain sect that doesn't believe that?
User avatar
AuraTwilight
IT WAS OVER 9000!
IT WAS OVER 9000!
Posts: 8032
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 5:03 pm

Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science

Post by AuraTwilight »

Neither are right, obviously.
User avatar
zaseo
Posts: 1583
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:10 pm

Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science

Post by zaseo »

What do you think about baptism? Does it matter if it water is poured over someone head, or if they or submerse in water? A few years back when I was baptize my I got water poured over my head. I would have been submerse in a water pool, but it was raining outside. My grand mom will have me baptize again for that reason.

I have choice most of the time whether to go to church on Sunday. These days I rarely go now because I felt the Sabbath is Saturday. I worship God everyday, but I will keep the Sabbath holy. It is believed that Resurrection day is Sunday. That doesn't mean the Sabbath is Sunday. It sucks having little say so with many of my family members about this. In situations like this I will just have to agree with what they say.

I don't necessarily believe this book, but The Great Controversy will make you think.

I learn not to take what someone says for granted. I may not agree with it, but things about religion, and science tends to stick to my mind.
User avatar
Smitts
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 7:02 pm
Location: Earth.

Re: Philosophy debate of Religion, and Science

Post by Smitts »

zaseo wrote:What do you think about baptism? Does it matter if it water is poured over someone head, or if they or submerse in water? A few years back when I was baptize my I got water poured over my head. I would have been submerse in a water pool, but it was raining outside. My grand mom will have me baptize again for that reason.

I have choice most of the time whether to go to church on Sunday. These days I rarely go now because I felt the Sabbath is Saturday. I worship God everyday, but I will keep the Sabbath holy. It is believed that Resurrection day is Sunday. That doesn't mean the Sabbath is Sunday. It sucks having little say so with many of my family members about this. In situations like this I will just have to agree with what they say.

I don't necessarily believe this book, but The Great Controversy will make you think.

I learn not to take what someone says for granted. I may not agree with it, but things about religion, and science tends to stick to my mind.
Well coming from someone who isn't baptist my opinion probably wont account for much credit to you, or it might.
If I was christian I don't think it would matter. Nothing, no matter what anyone says to me, I still believe that nothing on earth is holy. Water is water.
I've never been baptized and I never will be.
Locked