It's emotionally jarring to hear the Allah Akbar phrase used in a truly happy sense.

What if I said that much of what we consider advanced human society is simply a network of selfish people individually interested in maximizing pleasure and avoiding displeasure?

What if I said that, other than hugely displeasurable experiences (disease, war, famine, etc., all displeasure) there are few other driving factors to advance modern human society outside of selfish desire for more pleasure?

The success of capitalism is the recognition that a society can be built around this with some rules that keep everyone from trampling everyone else.

We exist in a society built upon selfishness, where products beget products in an endless stream. Have you seen the new 'retina display' ipads? And the new Batman movie? And the new coffee brand that the local store is carrying that you heard is good? And the new treatment for that disorder you have? This is the current state of human society. Bernays and others recognized that tweaking things here and there for their own selfish gain was not only successful, but successful beyond their expectations. Bernays and people like him don't see themselves as 'taking advantage of' or 'cheating' others, though they will readily admit that marketing is manipulation.

Many of us look around now and say, 'this marketing and consumerism has gone to far!'. Why? I suggest this is because aggressive, constant barrages of these marketing tactics is leading your typical person to feel displeasure due to constantly being pitched to, and displeasure at recognizing the unending attempts at manipulation. This displeasure is outweighing the pleasure of participating in some areas of our society.

What will this lead to? Maybe a happy medium, maybe a swing the other direction, maybe an incredible swing to a 'matrix'-like dystopia where we are happily asleep in our minds, maximally pleased with the state of things.

>> ^Dread:

I'm of the opinion that these methods of massive crowd manipulation are unfortunately a blight... I do instead see a few very wealthy individuals throughout society whom most assuredly endorse and utilize these systems... I wonder if they are truly happy?

I'm of the opinion that these methods of massive crowd manipulation are unfortunately a blight on psychologies contribution to humankind & far form beneficial for the advancement of our species as an evolved society.

I do not see much good that has come from Bernays' philosophies and how they have been used to increase the average persons delusion that happiness is brought forth via external material acquisition.

I do instead see a few very wealthy individuals throughout society whom most assuredly endorse and utilize these systems... I wonder if they are truly happy?

@SDGundamX

On the So-Called Benifits of Religious Belief

First, I'm going to assume that you simply googled "religion+health+studies" or stg like that, and did not read before posting; frankly, I don't blame you. I can only hope you are not as intellectually (and downright) dishonest as the second link you posted: the very first study cited is completely misinterpreted; basically, since kissing multiple partners can increase probability of meningococcal disease, and strict religious tradition would prevent that, religion prevents meningococcal disease. Yeah, really strong science in favour of faith right there. Some of the studies cited actually prove the opposite of what the site is peddling, but they excuse this by accusing the meddling of "Jews and Buddhists" in the prayer groups. I'm actually surprised at some of the studies the website cites, one of which concludes that "Certain forms of religiousness may increase the risk of death." Some of the studies make no mention of religion whatsoever. I could go on, but the point is made.

As for the studies - and they exist - that show positive correlation between health and religion, they concern only the social benefits of religion as community*. The so-called "New Atheists" are the first to point out this positive role, although the uniting and socially reinforcing factor of religion is the same force that fosters and reinforces hate, prejudice and discrimination against the self (guilt) and the "Other" (non-members of the ingroup, "heathens", gays, blacks, "Westerners", you name it). When people use the socially unifying and reinforcing benefits of religious organisations to defend religious beliefs, a certain comparison quickly comes to mind, which Godwin's law prohibits me from making...

As for faith itself, a recent study suggests that it can actually have negative effects on health, because of the stress and guilt believers put upon themselves when prayed for (link). Regardless, even if a positive placebo effect could/can be attributed to faith/rel. belief, it does not make it any less idiotic or objectionable than the belief in homeopathy or vaudou.
_{(if interested in what I think of the "faith is comforting" argument, pm me, I'm filling this thread enough as is)}

Your "two-sides of same coin" analogy fails entirely: telling a believer they're delusional is not denying their perception of their own happiness. A child happy at the prospect of Santa delivering presents is delusional, but truly happy. The idea that there is the same amount of evidence against and for religious belief is pure ludicrous. The Abrahamic God (let's not bring in the thousand and one others for now) has been logically disproven, even before el Jeebs showed up with his promise of hellfire. There is also substantial evidence that he is man-made, as are the book(s) describing him, which are full of inconsistencies (and outright fallacies) themselves.

Your comment about John Smith suggests that the only evidence that could convict a fraudster is confession; good thing you aren't a judge! Seriously though, your doubt probably stems from your lack of acquaintance with the evidence. You can start by reading his brief biography on Wikipedia; his con trick of "glass-seeing" (looking at shiny stones in a hat and pretending to see the location of treasure), for which he was arrested several times, is eerily familiar to the birth of the Book of Mormon (looking into a hat and "transcribing" gold plates that probably did not exist). He even had to change a passage after losing some pages of the transcript He received a divine revelation that the exact pages of the transcript that he lost needed to be changed, and that God had foreseen the loss of those papers (link).

The further one goes back in history, the harder it is to get historical evidence against religious beliefs, but there are always logical arguments that count as evidence as well (in arguing the idiocy of certain beliefs). Since my Santa analogy above seems not to have appealed to you, here's a different one. Imagine Kate were to have said "I do not believe in witchcraft/vampires because I'm not an idiot." Audience response? "Duh!" or stg similar. And yet there is the same amount of evidence for witches and vampires as there is for deities and afterlife**. The only difference between these three once highly common delusions is that one of them persists, even demanding respect, when it deserves at best critical scrutiny, at worst nothing but scorn.


<sub>*(and sometimes those benefits stemming from certain rules, like no alcohol/extra-marital sex etc... still nothing to do with belief.)

**Actually, there is relatively more evidence in favour of vampirism than of deities and afterlife</sub>


tl;dr: faith/rel. belief has no health benefits (check sources b4 posting); argument of religion's social role is double-edged; delusions are still delusions if they make you happy (try drugs); Joseph Smith Jr was a (convicted) fraud; idiotic beliefs are still idiotic when shared by the majority, just more socially unacceptable to mock.

>> ^SDGundamX:


See my answer to @BicycleRepairMan--what people accept as evidence in this matter and how much evidence is required for people to believe (or not believe) in a religion varies from person to person. Further complicating matters is that belief is not binary--it's a very wide continuum that includes people who aren't sure but practice the religion anyway.
My point about the New Atheists is that they feel the evidence against religion is sufficient. They are entitled to that opinion--but at the end of the day it is only an opinion. They should be free to express that opinion and tell people their reasons why they came to that conclusion. But they shouldn't pretend that their opinion is "fact" or belittle those who haven't come to the same conclusion.
About the "faith improving lives" bit--there is a fair bit of empirical evidence for the benefits of religious faith (in terms of both physical and psychological health: see here and here for more info) so I can't see how you can argue it is "delusional." Unless you meant that religion isn't the only way to obtain the same benefits, in which case I absolutely agree. But I find an interesting parallel in your thinking the New Atheists can tell a religious person that he/she is delusional if that religious person believes religion has a positive effect on their life with Christians who claim that atheists think they are happy but in reality suffering because they aren't one with Christ. Seems like two sides of the same coin to me.
I'm glad I amused you with my reference to Scientology. But this is a very rare case where we have a "smoking gun" so to speak. While I agree with you that there is a some suspicious stuff going on with Mormonism (how some passages in the Book of Mormon are very similar to other books available at the time John Smith lived), I'm unaware of any hard evidence that John Smith actually admitted to making it all up. Again with Mormonism, we're back to people having to personally decide for themselves what to believe (and all the issues that entails). [...]

I think part of the issue is we live in a world that is so image driven people can't distinguish between image and happiness or fun. I think if people just thought about what would make them truly happy instead of how to produce the image of happiness weddings and stag parties etc would be a lot more simple. plus there'd be a lot more pre nuptials orgies

Gooooddamnit. I was truly happy for a second.

Ayn Rands philosophy might actually work if every human being on the planet was an only child and both parents were either dead or emotionally removed. Once you get a call from your sister and she tells you to come over so she can cry on your shoulder, you realize the key to happiness in life: You can never be truly happy while those around you suffer. Ever.

Sorry Ayn, thems the rules.

Edit: Wrote this drunk. To clarify, I find her work suspiciously lacking in siblings and family dynamic. It's telling to me because a large part of my personal barometer is based on my family in which I find great joy. I've always found her characters treating the natural desire to belong with contempt, treating it as a weakness that should be fought against and using isolation like a self imposed punishment, (or indulgence if you like), to steel their resolve. It's ok to do that, I guess, but even with your own family?? Seems like repression to me, and that smacks of religion.

Great comment — I like your insight!

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
I like it when people are truly happy about something and they are asked how they felt, you usually get the same kind of response, they start shaking their head like a "no" or some other negative thing. I think this is a cool reaction, it is like your rational mind saying no, you can't possibly think rationally about how happy this made you, it is bigger than that. It isn't some casual memory that is suitable for habitual recall, it is cherished.

I like it when people are truly happy about something and they are asked how they felt, you usually get the same kind of response, they start shaking their head like a "no" or some other negative thing. I think this is a cool reaction, it is like your rational mind saying no, you can't possibly think rationally about how happy this made you, it is bigger than that. It isn't some casual memory that is suitable for habitual recall, it is cherished.

You can totally get some of those fish at your local fish store, I see them all the time, and know someone who has a bunch of them... they are modified zebra danios... and are available quite inexpensively as far as tropical fish go. I've kept the regular natural variety at several different times over the years, they too are actually quite beautiful, and I find them to be an enjoyable little species.

Just do the fish a favor and get a school of them, not just one, as they like friends, also, keep them in a somewhat largish tank, no less than 20 gallons (you could have 15-20 of these guys in a tank that size so its worth it). If you want them to be truly happy, they need the room to swim about freely and like a strong current so get a power filter as they come from fast moving hill streams in India and its best to replicate this... please please, whatever you do don't keep them in one of those cheap desktop aquariums (even if the pet store tries to sell you one, saying that it will be just fine, this is a sales tactic and they don't know what they are talking about- these fish like to dart about and need the space to do so, otherwise, its quite sad to see them just turning in little circles all day), the fish will be healthier and more successful in a larger tank. Do these things and you will have very happy little danios that may even spawn for you, as they reproduce quite readily (which is why they are used in laboratory settings)... I think it would be interesting to see how strong the glow is in successive generations.

wow, what a great prank... gosh those crazy american kids... life for them is just one long party.. and what a great use for paper.. I'm sure the 100s of trees that were felled for 15000 post-its were truly happy at the *great* reaction their roommate gave them.

This looks great. The problem is that at this point in time. That video card can probably render only a couple of those at the same time without shitting itself.
When they can create whole cities with people on them, and everything looks as good as this.... then I'll be truly happy with the state of graphic power. Because after that the next step will be truly photo-realistic graphics.