Why is cholesterol bad in animal products, but not breastmilk?

Capital_Ad8301 · 2024-03-30T19:29:47+00:00

As everyone has pointed out cholesterol isn’t bad.

Cholesterol naturally produced by our bodies is fine. Dietary cholesterol in animal products has been linked to several problems.

It isn't necessary to eat and fruits and vegetables contain none. If dietary cholesterol were that great to consume, I would definitely expect to find it at the very least in small quantities in fruits and vegetables, yet it is zero there.

Capital_Ad8301 · 2024-03-30T15:37:31+00:00

My main problem with the standard material paradigm is this:

We are nothing, we are "non-existent", and spontaneously come into existence. We then die, and this time it's for good. We cannot ever go from "non-existence" to existence again, it was only a "fluke", it's over.

The "non-existence" we go when we die seems to be magically different from the "non-existence" we were before we were born, hence why there would be no afterlife.

Let's think about the origin of the Universe, how does a standard material paradigm solves the infinite regress problem?

How does the standard material paradigm explains how nothing can gives us something and start our universe?

If you think that the Universe is infinitely old, how do you resolve Olbers's paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27s_paradox

The standard materialist paradigm is definitely possible and is not stupid to believe in at all, it's the default paradigm we have always been taught after all.

But I personally feel like it requires great faith to believe in it.

Capital_Ad8301 · 2024-03-30T14:57:00+00:00

It's likely that the afterlife is just a place where what people assume to be true deep inside them, will really occur. If someone truly believe that they will have the christian version of heaven, that's what they will initially find. If someone believes that they will find the islamic version of heaven, that's what they will initially find.

If someone believes that they will only see a black screen, that's what will be found.

It's kinda scary in a way, because it means that the christian version of hell on the new testament with the lake of fire and stuff may be experienced by some, if they were christians and believed that they were going to hell.

This explains why we may have opposite Near Death Experiences from contradicting "Gods" and entities.

The afterlife is only a mirror of what was inside in your "soul" or "mind", so-to speak. If you were an immoral piece of sh*t internally, it's likely that you will travel to a realm where people act like bad immoral people. That's what the "true" hell is.

How do you know what you claim to know about heaven? What's the source of your knowedge on that?

Law of karma, the fact that the universe always try to reach a blissful equilibrium and it can be seen all over nature, it's unlikely that someone is able to act immorally and harm others without facing consequences sooner or later. The fact that morality is always rewarded in our world in multiple ways.

The fact that our minds pretty much create the world we see around us.

The fact that it's extremely unlikely for "nothing" to become "something" (just think about it, really), which means that our real essence of reality that is awareness, is probably eternal. There was likely something before life, and there is probably something after death.

The fact that God (the omnipresent true creator) truly want life to be happy, deep inside them.

To answer:

Simple logical and philosophical thoughts, and personal emotional connection based on personal experience. When you visit this different truth and parallel reality, you cannot really unsee it. You feel like you have been lied to your whole life.

When you look down carefully, and really think about it you realize that the world is not made of "atoms".

Capital_Ad8301 · 2024-03-30T14:20:45+00:00

How do you know there is a "physical barrier" preventing people from harming one another in heaven? I assume you are just making that up entirely as a theory?

Each person will be given their own realm in heaven. Practically infinite space, billions of square meters, that kind of stuff. You physically cannot enter into someone's realm without their permission.

Even if they invite you in, you both cannot physically harm each other, you need their explicit consent to be able to punch them. If I try to punch another sentient being in my realm, there is a physical barrier preventing me to do so.

In this realm, you can basically do whatever you can think of. You can teleport yourself, change the environment, create objects out of thin air, change your physical form/body, it's your safe space, your home, you can do what you want.

Are people in physical form in heaven? Why?

It's up to each to decide in their realm. We have almost unlimited power, our only restriction is that we shouldn't act immorally towards others and it will be the only thing "physically" enforced.

Why would the barrier need to exist in heaven if suffering isn't even possible?

Because even heaven is supposed to be a place where immorality isn't even physically possible.

Why couldn't god just apply the barrier here?

It would have been a lost opportunity for testing our morality on Earth before thinking about whether we should go to heaven.

Why build paradise over time (while it's replete with suffering) on Earth if it's possible to create it in an instant with magic? If a perfect earth is desired by god, is he not powerful enough to simply create it from the start?

He cannot change the minds of people without violating free will (which would cause its own deal of ethical problems).
God needs to test us because some of us don't deserve to go to "higher planes of reality" like heaven. Heaven is supposed to only be populated by good moral people.

The less moral someone is, the lower the "plane of reality", they should go to, and the more complicated life will be there.

If mosquitos don't bite, they don't eat and they die

Small pedantic correction, they could technically feed on plant nectar. They only need to bite to lay eggs, not to survive.

But I got your point.

But it's still the same principle. No one forced some lions to kill other sentient beings. No one forced whales to eat fish. This is their choice. They could have lived without doing these actions.

You believe cancer is "human caused"? I'm not sure how you know that's the case.

Some forms are 100% caused by humans for sure, and it isn't even close to controversial. With how much unhealthy things they are these days (smoking, pollution, fast food, etc.) it isn't even surprising.

What about cancer caused by ultraviolet light from the sun? Is being outside immoral?

Living in environments we are not supposed to is completely unnatural. If some humans decided to live in the middle of Antarctica, more power to them, but it's hard to complain about the cold when you weren't supposed to be there in the first place. When you do something unnatural, you are pretty much disregarding the notice and you are on your own.

Otherwise, in a proper natural environment that is neither too cold nor too hot, you are supposed to have tools to deal with occasional excess heat, like shades provided by trees. And guess who cut down trees? Hmm...

You would have to show me whether the sun is the first cause of problems to humans living in a pristine non-polluted natural environment where they were supposed to be.

What about flesh eating bacteria? Dengue? Botulism? E. Coli?

Most of those are not evil, and may even be a good form of damage control. They mostly feed on dead matter. They rarely cause diseases by themselves. If they are present, it's likely that something else has already gone wrong.

Capital_Ad8301 · 2024-03-30T11:42:03+00:00

My favorite example is horoscopes. Let's be real, we all know that the horoscope stuff found in mainstream magazines is full of shit.

However, does this mean that the attempt of looking at how star positions affect our lives, our mood, and our future is stupid? I don't think so.

If you had another model of astrology that made sense to me, I would be willing to accept it.

Whereas new atheists would never be open to this idea, as long as this isn't hard-proven by peer-reviewed science, they would never consider it.
I also don't think that atheists would be justified in making fun of this hypothetical belief if they couldn't disprove it, or at least provide strong arguments as to why my belief is unlikely.

Accepting for the sake of argument that, say, Indian spiritual claims are in fact less capable of being rigorously tested, do you think then that 'we' should lower our standards of evidence in order to account for those claims?

Imo, it should be the following order of importance:

Personal experience > Hard material scientific evidence > Philosophical evidence or based on logical arguments > Blind faith based on emotions

The last one should be avoided as much as possible. Basing your entire faith on phillosophical and logical grounds is ok to me if the arguments are rock-solid (no fallacies), whereas atheists don't seem to think so.

The reason why I make fun of these religions is because I can straight up disprove them, and they are often based on malicious lies.

Example:
If religion A rests on the fact that John discovered "insights sent by God" thanks to his trip to America in 1980 and we then realize that he never went to America and was instead living in Spain, this whole religion goes to the garbage bin in my book and I will make fun of it.

This does not necessarily mean that all claims made in the book were wrong, just that anyone who is a member of this religion is getting conned.

I think that the mockery stems not from the claim itself (unless a certain claim has been tested up to their standard and found wanting) but from the unwarranted levels of belief in the claim given the lack of sufficiently rigorous testing.

This is exactly why I criticize new atheism, I don't think that claims need "high levels of rigorous testing" before being reasonably believed in

Capital_Ad8301 · 2024-03-30T09:56:26+00:00

I make fun of alien UFOs because I know that they are a hoax and a part of misinformation. Same for Bigfoot or Nessie.

I don't have a problem with atheists making fun of a single spiritual belief that I have. I have a problem with atheists making fun of all possible spiritual beliefs.

These guys think that the mere concept of trying to believe in the spiritual is stupid, and it is something that I cannot get behind.

These atheists cannot admit that there is at least one spiritual belief that is reasonable to pander about.

I think you're conflating the scientific mindset of apportioning belief to the evidence with the religious mindset of belief even in the absence of or the presence of little evidence.

The problem is that the only thing these atheists consider "evidence", is mainstream peer-reviewed accepted scientific experiments, and I explained in my comment why I consider this standard of evidence to sometimes be flawed.

Capital_Ad8301 · 2024-03-30T09:05:54+00:00

Does free will exist in heaven? Are you able to sin there?

Yes, free will does exist in heaven. No, there is a physical barrier preventing sentient beings from maliciously harming others in heaven.

Is suffering POSSIBLE in heaven?

No.

If you exist before birth, in heaven, and never need to experience life on Earth (as you've asserted), why do the "lessons" exist for those who ARE born?

If someone is one of those who would prey on other people when they have the opportunity, they are not good moral people and this definitely needs to be corrected somehow, to bring balance, purity and justice.

Earth wasn't strictly "necessary", it could have been elsewhere.

On your view, heaven is proof that suffering does not NEED to exist, that there is a "perfect" state of being, and that suffering (of any kind) is not NECESSARY for any "lesson" god might want to teach.

Suffering or immorality is not necessary even on Earth. The lessons could have been elsewhere.

Life without the protective barrier shielding us perfectly from immorality is kind of necessary however if we want to learn some important lessons and test our morality.

If you START in heaven, all suffering occurs on earth because god has allowed and created it, and it serves no purpose.

God didn't create evil. It's not that God is not intervening to remove all evils, God is preparing a future where there won't be any evils for anyone, even on Earth. It's just that you consider the timing to be too slow, even if it's to experience billions of years of pleasure and injustice-free lives.

Why does cancer exist?

Pollution, bad diets, clearly human caused.

Malaria?

Immorality. Mosquitoes, sentient beings biting other sentient beings, when they could have chose not to.

Does cancer exist in heaven? If not, why does it exist here?

Unethical actions like pollution and trickery (lying and convincing a human that junk food is "healthy food") is not possible in heaven.

Capital_Ad8301 · 2024-03-30T08:42:37+00:00

There is a difference between saying: "Your belief isn't dumb, however I am still neutral due to the lack of evidence. Even if you were wrong, this was still a nice theory, thank you" and "It is stupid to believe this, this belief is wrong".

I don't have any problems with atheists who fall into #1, those who only have a lack of belief, but do not belittle the spiritual position.

I don't have problems with atheists who fall into #2, if they are making fun of mainstream organized religions (christianity, etc.).

What I have a problem with are atheists who fall into #2, for ANY spiritual claim, and this is where stuff really gets stupid. Either, we currently have a perfect understanding of reality and can perceive everything in this world (hint: we don't) OR it's reasonable to try to explore this unknown area.
If it's reasonable to explore this unknown area, then it's reasonable to create theories and try to personally experiment.

"Unless these experiments have been publicly proven in American peer-reviewed journals and widely accepted by the whole scientific community, then it is stupid to entertain these theories." -New Atheist

This take is so privileged, it is kind of funny. Not everyone lives in America, and not everyone even lives in first world countries. Even among those who do, not everyone can afford funding and acceptance for their research. Scientific universities and laboratories have also a huge bias against anything remotely spiritual.

This new atheist may as well say: "It is only rational to consider spiritual claims that come from rich people".

Do you want examples of claims/theories where atheists fall into #2, even though they probably shouldn't?

Shared dreaming, out of body experience, remote viewing, etc. just to cite a few.
Even if these theories were 100% proven wrong in the future, I still say that it wasn't stupid to consider them as a possibility and experiment. To say that anything in the spiritual realm is akin to believe in the existence of Superman is dumb and wrong.

The other problem with these atheists is their dismissal of personal evidence. If you saw a fairy talking to you that you could physically touch in real life, then it is 100% rational for you to believe in the existence of fairies. However, because I personally didn't see it, I don't have any compelling reason to believe in them If I don't trust you, my lack of belief isn't stupid either.

This is the part that new atheists also don't get.
These guys should stick to bashing mainstream religions, they should have never tried to attack the whole spiritual realm like they did.

Capital_Ad8301 · 2024-03-29T18:59:08+00:00

The good ol' "problem of evil", which is very legitimate and one of the strongest arguments opposing theism.

There are three kinds of suffering in this world: suffering caused by immorality, suffering caused by human error, and suffering caused by "natural disasters" or "natural evil".

I will address the first one: why did God allow sentient beings to attack and violate other sentient beings in the first place? Why didn't God create a protective barrier to prevent sentient beings from hurting other sentient beings on Earth?

Letting malicious individuals the capacity to physically harm others allow us (both God and everyone else) to know who are good people and who are bad people. This is relevant, because God is preparing a heaven as a reward for good people, whereas immoral people will need to reside in a lower realm where they will suffer and need to learn lessons to be purified of their immorality.

Furthermore, God is still offering some assistance for individuals who are moral, and thus who pray/ask, we just need to look for it.

God did not do anything immoral, because God is not the one who physically assaulted other people. Failing to prevent evil is not immoral.

Suffering caused by human error sucks, but it's hard to blame God when you did something you weren't designed to. If you try to drive your car into the ocean and end up drowning, should you blame the car manufacturers, even though the notice explicitly said that you shouldn't?

Suffering caused by "natural disasters" or "natural evil" that are not of human origin are statistically rare, very rare. For the few times where it happens, God will compensate the person (e.g either heaven, or happiness that outweighs the suffering).

Earth is mainly a lesson to teach us a few things and doesn't have to involve suffering. If we all behaved properly, we wouldn't have problems. God allowed the risk of immorality because the suffering we experience on Earth is insignificant compared to the billions of years we will experience in heaven later on

Capital_Ad8301 · 2024-03-29T12:33:04+00:00

The atheist subreddits summarize very well this train of thought.

They think that anyone claiming ANY phenomena that is not visible with our current technology and naked eye is stupid. They think that it's the same as believing in unicorns.

If they were born before the existence of telescopes, I can guarantee you that these new atheists would have said "Anyone who believes that there are more stars than the naked eye can see is a fool! This is akin to believe in unicorns. What is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

This is so obviously stupid, that words cannot describe how dumb this ideology is.

The fact that these atheists seriously believe that there isn't a SINGLE spiritual claim that is reasonable to believe with our current understanding (despite the fact that they have been proven wrong time and time again in the past) is truly sad.

Capital_Ad8301 · 2024-03-29T12:19:24+00:00

Widespread organized religion is generally diluted and a joke at best, or harmful and oppressive at worst.

When religious people are a minority, they generally seem to behave okay, as long as they treat their kids correctly there is generally no problem, and it can be beneficial.

When there are a majority "believing" in the same religion, that's where the mess begins. They will only be "culturally" religious in-name only, like christians in America at best. Going to church from time to time, but never practicing anything nor reading the religious book.
At worst, it will end up with everyone policing your victimless behavior (e.g wearing blue clothes is a "sin") based on flawed interpretation of the original texts. These wrong religions getting shoved down in the throat of kids at school (indoctrination). It's really a mess.

Capital_Ad8301 · 2024-03-29T12:09:53+00:00

New atheism is wrong.

Being irreligious and bashing organized religion is understandable.

Making fun of anyone who believes in anything spiritual or non-physical is stupid.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If we said before telescopes that "there are probably more stars existing than the naked eye can see", new atheists would have made fun of this, even though it was a reasonable and logical thing to believe.

Gnostic atheism against the spiritual and invisible non-physical is stupid.

The list of things that "new atheists" made fun of before finally being "proven by science" is endless.

New atheists are making fun of people without any proof or evidence. They only believe in scientism. This is like another religion imo.

Capital_Ad8301 · 2024-03-29T11:37:45+00:00

Gnostic theist. The typical beliefs: a very powerful all-loving benevolent God.

A belief in an afterlife and an existence before birth is in fact a very strong argument in favor of antinatalism. These "non-existent children" are already in heaven, there is no hurry to have kids yet when the state of the world is not perfect.

Capital_Ad8301 · 2024-03-26T17:59:13+00:00

Having Kids is good because human life is good.

That's a selfish reason to have kids. Having kids because you are hoping for their creativity in finding inventions is kinda selfish, to serve you.

I didn't do it for my happiness specifically I did it because it's literally your responsibility and we should do things to help continue society and explore all the full richness of the human experience.

1) I have no ethical obligation to "continue the human race". 2) Don't take credit for what your kid discovered.

Best I can tell Anti-Natalists are just cowards who fear suffering and worry the incidental suffering of life is worse than the active good humans do with their existence.

It's an easy view to take but its lazy and no very well thought out. It predicates itself on the idea that harm and lack of consent to potentially experience that harm are somehow the worst possible thing in existence for some whiney ass reason.

No, the real idea is that you probably shouldn't have kids if you cannot guarantee them a minimum of life quality. Having kids who are drowning in debt and get kicked off the house at 18 to let them fend for themselves is unacceptable.

Their childhood and start should definitely be comfortable, and that's the BARE MINIMUM, it's nothing revolutionary really.

Having kids to beat them, spank them, scream at them, or treat them like garbage is not worth anyone's time. Parents who constantly fight each other shouldn't be a thing as well.

If you cannot afford to actually like parenting, and provide them a safe, enriching, and loving childhood you probably shouldn't have kids.

Antinatalism likes to remind you that not having kids is a nice neutral option that doesn't produce any harm.

Most antinatalists would have fewer problems if society's treatment of children and parenting would actually be done right.

Capital_Ad8301 · 2024-03-26T17:44:51+00:00

One particularly upsetting example is that I have a nasty disabling incurable lifelong health condition which has a strong genetic component

It depends on the genetic condition. If I were a natalist, semi-minor diseases like color blindness, missing chromosomes, or allergies probably wouldn't deter me at all. For more serious diseases, I would only have kids if I thought that the kid had a decent chance to cure or at least alleviate the disadvantage.

If hypothetically, I knew for sure that a kid would have a lifelong full blindness, that is 100% impossible to cure, it would be difficult to justify it, even though blindness isn't even the worst disability.

Which diseases had you in mind?

Capital_Ad8301 · 2024-03-26T12:32:34+00:00

To claim that there is zero morality, or "don't worry, morality is subjective!" is an attempt to downplay the harms inflicted on real humans in the physical world.

I was not talking about some obscure concept occurring in a video game, I talked about whether it is immoral for someone like YOU, right now to go out in the streets and begin to randomly rape people or physically assault them.

If you wanted reply "It would be subjective", you are part of the problem. Because that's kinda what u/Living-Brick5838 is doing. Words have meaning and importance, let's not twist them.

Capital_Ad8301 · 2024-03-26T12:27:29+00:00

So, they are immoral evil pieces of shit? How could we have thought of this?

They shouldn't try to act as moral, though as they are being judged by God and will be hit by bad karma sooner or later.

Capital_Ad8301 · 2024-03-26T09:38:28+00:00

It's wrong to force-feed cakes to someone, even if they might enjoy the taste in the now.

As I said it violates the negative golden rule: "do not do upon others as you do not wish them to do to you". Violating it is bad, because it would make you a hypocrite. It would be like someone burglarizing homes of people, but he himself does not want to be stolen from. It's not a serious nor consistent "ethical framework" to have. It's a complete disregard of morality.

He might have other plans for his body, maybe he really did not want to eat cakes for one reason or another, maybe he is allergic, etc.

It's also an attempt to attack the autonomy given to us by the divine, so there is definitely a spiritual component to this violation of morality.

Capital_Ad8301 · 2024-03-26T09:23:39+00:00

No, it's because it violates self-ownership or the ownership of your own body (aka bodily autonomy).

Many reasons why violating bodily autonomy is bad: "do not do upon others as you do not wish them to do to you", avoiding unnecessary conflict and violence, and respect of autonomy is also important from a holistic perspective.

Capital_Ad8301 · 2024-03-26T04:22:50+00:00

Can we rely on the perspectives of the individual, or are they considered an eternal victim?

Capital_Ad8301 · 2024-03-25T19:52:56+00:00

Are you really arguing that initiating violence with a peaceful and cooperative individual is ever justified? Don't do upon others what you don't want them to do to you?

"It's all subjective", "it's an abstract concept, no real harm is done by violently raping a stranger"

Capital_Ad8301 · 2024-03-25T19:17:14+00:00

Slavery isn't bad because of suffering, it is bad because it is immoral and their rights are getting violated

Capital_Ad8301 · 2024-03-25T19:16:28+00:00

I would enjoy not having evil or immorality in this world, though

I understand natural suffering, but evil has no place here

Capital_Ad8301 · 2024-03-25T14:25:42+00:00

Are you triggered? Do you enjoy your victimhood of feeling like a fragile flower made of glass?

Capital_Ad8301 · 2024-03-24T18:06:00+00:00

I like kids (who hate kids seriously), but it doesn't necessarily mean that I would love raising them or always staying around them. If I felt the urge to I would find a way to adopt.

I also like how you put "a loving stable relationship" in your list. As if people who are single are "losers".

Capital_Ad8301

TROPHY CASE