Comments on: The True Nature of Religion: The Search for Self-Empowerment

By: monange

monange — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 01:05:36 +0000

Indeed, the last straw *

By: the art of war

the art of war — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 03:21:47 +0000

the art of war…

…He wrote that . . ….

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:58:27 +0000

I was told that by a vetrinarian actually, and even though the dog may think that it's throat has been cut, it is actually healthier for them; however … People just need to learn to adjust their energy intake, according to their lifestyle. And onto your point about obesity; would an obese person survive longer in a survival situation than someone that has very little body fat, and is generally fit by nature? I personally think the answer is no. So being obese doesn't really coincide with one of the basic laws of nature. The survival instinct. We know as a civilization that we have abundant food reserves, we know that we have stocks, and those stocks should be rationed proportionately according to the amount of energy we expend. And that is where self control comes in. A dog probably does not understand this self control, because they do not know we have this stock; so it is up to us as humans to ration it for them. Now as a human being we should be able to fathom this, and regulate our own intake. We don't need a church or an institution to tell us when we should eat or when we should not, we should know better than a dog.

By: LeaT

LeaT — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 12:22:49 +0000

Well, I think you contradicted my own conclusion pretty much, but I am not going to go into that now, only the part about dogs. Dogs don't starve naturally, in fact, any dog owner will know that dogs will tend to eat basically anything which can be considered edible and then some. If the food is tasty enough, they will eat until they throw up, then eat some more and their puke, and if they cannot absolutely manage to eat more, they will try to hide it somewhere by digging it into the ground to save it when they become hungry again. The only reason why a dog may refuse to eat is because the food isn't tasty enough, which is the case with humans too. But they will eat, just like we will, once they become hungry enough. I think your reasoning around dogs is contradictional to what we know about dogs and evolution in general. Before dogs became domestic animals, it was natural to starve because food wasn't as abundant as before. But this didn't mean that starvation as a behavior got carried over once they became tame, in fact, it's quite the opposite. It's the idea to eat as much as possible because you don't know when you might starve again that was, and this is true for humans too, and this is the reason why we see a wave of obesity spreading in the Western world.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 19:51:26 +0000

To start with I don't really give a flying fuck about typo's. I may have said this before, but we all make mistakes. The message comes across quite clear though. People fast because they think that they are dogs. It is healthy for a dog to be starved one day out of seven. It's something about how when they were once in the wild, before they became domesticated, that they are used to starvation, and it's just how their metabolism works. It makes a dog healthier. Now that being said, people are not dogs. People just have to watch what they eat. If you eat to much you become a fat fucker; if you don't eat enough, you become anorexic. We just need to watch our energy input, and our lifestyle. I think that through science we have worked this out, although, it's really not that fucking hard to work out… you don't need to be a biological engineer to work that out.

But religion always likes to put it's ugly head in… between logic and reason. They wish to tell us when we can eat, and when we can't. I'll just say, use your own fucking brain, are you able to think? Are you able to reason? Can you tell when you are hungry? Can you tell if someone is trying to control you?

Do not believe the bullshit.

Eat to live

By: LeaT

LeaT — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:34:42 +0000

Nevermind that the plural of typo is typos is without an apostrophe Obviously what I wrote is too hard for him to comprehend, so it's easier for him to attack my grammatical and/or structural errors. On the other hand, only making 5 or so errors I suppose should be flattering, considering that English is not my mothertongue and I didn't even bother to check the text before I published it, and the article itself must contain at least 500 or so words. Haha, after finishing my home exam which was whorish when it came to how many words your answers should contain, I just had to check the actual length, and whole article is actually just a bit above 900, meaning that my error rate is just a bit over 5%. *flex*

By: Waldheri

Waldheri — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:37:37 +0000

Hello TypoMan.

"Also, please don't take this the wrong way. This is intended to be helpfull." –> Helpful has only one l in it.

Other than typos, do you have anything worthwhile to comment on?

By: TypoMan

TypoMan — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:35:44 +0000

TypoMan here, pointing out your typo’s:

Also, please don’t take this the wrong way. This is intended to be helpfull.

1) “although religious leaders put great emphasis that fasting should only be performed.” -> Should only be performed… what?

2) “what goes and and what comes out.” -> Probably “what goes in and what comes out.”

3) “Once again, by discarding such things as religion” -> “Once again, only by discarding such things as religion”

4) “why some people may turn to religion in the light of being an excuse” -> “why some people may turn to religion in the light of having an excuse”

5) “our own prsonal freedom” -> “our own personal freedom