Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Topic: Spiritual but not religious? Posted: June 11 2010 at 04:38
^ seriously, try fasting 1-2 days a week, but never longer than 1 day at a time. Many studies show that 24-36 hours of fasting do not slow down the metabolism. And you don't even need to totally fast in order to see results - you can have some snacks on fasting days, provided they don't contain carbs (they interfere with fasting because they amplify your hunger). This is essentially the Eat, Stop, Eat approach, and it's something that you can keep doing for months in order to lose fat and improve body composition. Ideally you'll eat protein snacks on fasting days, to preserve muscle.
Joined: June 09 2004
Location: Front Range
Status: Offline
Points: 7028
Posted: June 11 2010 at 04:00
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ You fasted three days in a row? From a nutritional standpoint I wouldn't recommend that, since it would probably slow down the metabolism ... but I agree that fasting can result in a surge of energy, which is kind of counter-intuitive, since people usually expect to experience fatigue.
Actually I fasted for for 14 days about 11 years ago to initiate a diet. Once a week I would drink half a litre of pure fresh orange juice, the rest was water. Absolutely insane I know but like I said it was a personal/spiritual initiation I put myself through to get the ball rolling. After the two week period I then fasted for three days a week for a two year period. Only ate fish from a meat perspective but enjoyed the luxury of cheese sometimes too. Hey it worked and I got really fit and healthy for a few years but you know what... even at my lowest weight of 92KG's I was still too high on the BMI----Go figure!!
Naturally my body went into starvation mode and anyone reading this please understand that these were dangerous methods carried out by a radical individual and not to be tried
<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian
...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: June 11 2010 at 00:46
^ You should eat low-carb for a while before you try fasting. If you're used to eating carbs, depriving your body of them usually results in withdrawal symptoms, and your blood sugar goes out of whack. Once your body has learned how to compensate for the missing dietary carbs (by optimizing protein/fat metabolism), you'll find that you can indeed go a day or longer without feeling the kind of intense hunger that people on high-carb diets feel every 3 hours (it takes about that long to digest a high-carb meal).
BTW: I think that during fasting people simply perceive an increase of energy - it may have something to do with endorphins released by the body in order to make you feel better. I think that this is perfectly natural, and a state that should be the norm rather than the exception. I doubt that humans evolved in an environment when they had access to food all the time.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: June 11 2010 at 00:31
^ You fasted three days in a row? From a nutritional standpoint I wouldn't recommend that, since it would probably slow down the metabolism ... but I agree that fasting can result in a surge of energy, which is kind of counter-intuitive, since people usually expect to experience fatigue.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: June 10 2010 at 15:36
The T wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^^ Most Christians are never given all the information that scholars today for the most part agree on. Some even think that the Gospels (Mark, Luke, Matthew, John) were written by the actual disciples - and thus, eyewitnesses - of Jesus. I'm pretty sure that most of them think that all the Gospels agree that Jesus Christ actually was/is God (Catholics have to). Some even assume that the whole Bible is the inerrant word of God.
If it was proven that Jesus was not God (I believe he wasn't, of course, but it will never be proven anyway), maybe some people who have that conviction will falter. But most will persevere in their beliefs. For science will never be able to prove anything that has to do with god, precisely because it can't be proven. Again, about the authenticity of the source of the message, I just say, what's the point? Even if it was proven that Luke wrote it (not skywalker of course), will it make it a lesser message? Yes, some people will stop believing in catholicism and atheists of the Dawkins-school will score a big point. So what? It is just a matter of trying to win the argument?
Well, basically only the Gospel of John says that Jesus is God. The others - which were written earlier - don't mention it. They describe Jesus as a human (born by a virgin according to two of the three Gospels, I think), but in John Jesus is a divine being, incarnated in a human shell.
For me this is not a game - religious people are about to take us back to the dark ages (Muslims currently much more than Christians, but it's the same underlying problem). I don't think I can do much about it here in this forum, but still it's simply a topic that I'm really passionate about.
Showing that all of that is wrong is IMO no small thing for a believer. It's what most Atheists probably suspect, based on the simple observation that not all religions can be correct. Even if one of them was correct, why should it be Catholicism ... or any particular one of the others? I don't disagree.
So: If you pick one of the aphorisms that are commonly attributed to Jesus and you like it - fine. But if you think that this brings you closer to Jesus ... think again, because Jesus probably did not say it. I haven't tried to get closer to Jesus so I can't respond to this, but it's obvious that the message is one I like.
"Have no thought for tomorrow" is also part of the message. Depending on which flavor of Christianity you prefer, you'll get lots of other stuff along with peace and love.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: June 10 2010 at 15:27
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^^ Most Christians are never given all the information that scholars today for the most part agree on. Some even think that the Gospels (Mark, Luke, Matthew, John) were written by the actual disciples - and thus, eyewitnesses - of Jesus. I'm pretty sure that most of them think that all the Gospels agree that Jesus Christ actually was/is God (Catholics have to). Some even assume that the whole Bible is the inerrant word of God.
If it was proven that Jesus was not God (I believe he wasn't, of course, but it will never be proven anyway), maybe some people who have that conviction will falter. But most will persevere in their beliefs. For science will never be able to prove anything that has to do with god, precisely because it can't be proven. Again, about the authenticity of the source of the message, I just say, what's the point? Even if it was proven that Luke wrote it (not skywalker of course), will it make it a lesser message? Yes, some people will stop believing in catholicism and atheists of the Dawkins-school will score a big point. So what? It is just a matter of trying to win the argument?
Showing that all of that is wrong is IMO no small thing for a believer. It's what most Atheists probably suspect, based on the simple observation that not all religions can be correct. Even if one of them was correct, why should it be Catholicism ... or any particular one of the others? I don't disagree.
So: If you pick one of the aphorisms that are commonly attributed to Jesus and you like it - fine. But if you think that this brings you closer to Jesus ... think again, because Jesus probably did not say it. I haven't tried to get closer to Jesus so I can't respond to this, but it's obvious that the message is one I like.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: June 10 2010 at 15:27
The T wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
The T wrote:
To say something as broad as "all children are born good" (or evil) no scientific study or medical finding can have the answer but just be a support for elaborating theories, and those theories will have to rely for their validity on very large samples, hence, statistics.
I could have also said "Humans are born with a capacity for empathy". If you don't accept studies, I advise against a medical career btw. Whoever calls psychology a medical career is then a little lost (psyCHIATRY is the medical section Mike).
I've read multiple research papers and studies on many subjects and you know what? They start with theory, obviously, but they invariably end with statistics. An idea has to be subject to tests to see if it applies to a big segment of the population -whatever population and sample we're talking about- or it it's just an isolated case.
The T wrote:
I really have no time to sit through a one-hour (or so) youtube video. I'm majoring on psychology anyway so I have to read on the subject when the semester starts again and when a video starts with Dawkins (your god, and whose "God Delusion" I read and enjoyed) I'm immediately turned off. Give me someone more neutral.
Maybe some day you'll overcome your preconceptions. If you decide that I'm not a completely horrible person and my recommending the video might be worth checking it out, you can skip to about 17:00. Discredit Atheism all you want, but at some point you'll have to acknowledge that most scientists and many medical doctors are ... Atheists.
You forget Mike that I tend to believe more or less like you, I just don't feel the need to prove all others wrong. But I understand you: it happens to me with politics I know most scientists are atheists. So??? And you're not horrible Mike, I never said that.
Ok - at least in my country even psychologists sometimes treat people or at least participate in medical processes, so maybe you'll forgive me for this mistake.
It's not about proving someone wrong for me ... it's about exposing weak arguments. Which is not to say that every one of my arguments has been strong ... I make plenty of mistakes, we all do. Still, I think that the scientific position is much less contradictory. Except for when it comes to nutrition (I talked about that in the thread about low-carb).
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: June 10 2010 at 15:21
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
The T wrote:
To say something as broad as "all children are born good" (or evil) no scientific study or medical finding can have the answer but just be a support for elaborating theories, and those theories will have to rely for their validity on very large samples, hence, statistics.
I could have also said "Humans are born with a capacity for empathy". If you don't accept studies, I advise against a medical career btw. Whoever calls psychology a medical career is then a little lost (psyCHIATRY is the medical section Mike).
I've read multiple research papers and studies on many subjects and you know what? They start with theory, obviously, but they invariably end with statistics. An idea has to be subject to tests to see if it applies to a big segment of the population -whatever population and sample we're talking about- or it it's just an isolated case.
The T wrote:
I really have no time to sit through a one-hour (or so) youtube video. I'm majoring on psychology anyway so I have to read on the subject when the semester starts again and when a video starts with Dawkins (your god, and whose "God Delusion" I read and enjoyed) I'm immediately turned off. Give me someone more neutral.
Maybe some day you'll overcome your preconceptions. If you decide that I'm not a completely horrible person and my recommending the video might be worth checking it out, you can skip to about 17:00. Discredit Atheism all you want, but at some point you'll have to acknowledge that most scientists and many medical doctors are ... Atheists.
You forget Mike that I tend to believe more or less like you, I just don't feel the need to prove all others wrong. But I understand you: it happens to me with politics I know most scientists are atheists. So??? And you're not horrible Mike, I never said that.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: June 10 2010 at 15:20
^^ Most Christians are never given all the information that scholars today for the most part agree on. Some even think that the Gospels (Mark, Luke, Matthew, John) were written by the actual disciples - and thus, eyewitnesses - of Jesus. I'm pretty sure that most of them think that all the Gospels agree that Jesus Christ actually was/is God (Catholics have to). Some even assume that the whole Bible is the inerrant word of God.
Showing that all of that is wrong is IMO no small thing for a believer. It's what most Atheists probably suspect, based on the simple observation that not all religions can be correct. Even if one of them was correct, why should it be Catholicism ... or any particular one of the others?
So: If you pick one of the aphorisms that are commonly attributed to Jesus and you like it - fine. But if you think that this brings you closer to Jesus ... think again, because Jesus probably did not say it.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: June 10 2010 at 15:13
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ I didn't ask whether his message was good or bad - I merely mentioned that even the Pope has no way of knowing what the message was. So even those people who firmly believe in Jesus don't even really know what it is that they believe in. We don't know whether Jesus preached peace and love.
Ok. Let's assume Jesus never even said those words. So? How does that affect the people that follow his -supposed- words and act accordingly? (I'm not talking about those who use this for power a.k.a. churches) Maybe the actual Jesus guy never preached nothing else but good farming skills. People today believe he preached about love. People follow this message. What's the need for proving that this message was actually said by him? (it will never be proven anyway).
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: June 10 2010 at 15:11
The T wrote:
To say something as broad as "all children are born good" (or evil) no scientific study or medical finding can have the answer but just be a support for elaborating theories, and those theories will have to rely for their validity on very large samples, hence, statistics.
I could have also said "Humans are born with a capacity for empathy". If you don't accept studies, I advise against a medical career btw.
The T wrote:
I really have no time to sit through a one-hour (or so) youtube video. I'm majoring on psychology anyway so I have to read on the subject when the semester starts again and when a video starts with Dawkins (your god, and whose "God Delusion" I read and enjoyed) I'm immediately turned off. Give me someone more neutral.
Maybe some day you'll overcome your preconceptions. If you decide that I'm not a completely horrible person and my recommending the video might be worth checking it out, you can skip to about 17:00. Discredit Atheism all you want, but at some point you'll have to acknowledge that most scientists and many medical doctors are ... Atheists.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: June 10 2010 at 15:08
^ I didn't ask whether his message was good or bad - I merely mentioned that even the Pope has no way of knowing what the message was. So even those people who firmly believe in Jesus don't even really know what it is that they believe in. We don't know whether Jesus preached peace and love.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.316 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Spiritual but not religious?
Topic Options
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
). I guess othe requirements have to be fulfilled.
), will it make it a lesser message? Yes, some people will stop believing in catholicism and atheists of the Dawkins-school will score a big point. So what? It is just a matter of trying to win the argument? 
Whoever calls psychology a medical career is then a little lost (psyCHIATRY is the medical section Mike). 
