"I haven't been brain washed, I've really been given the opportunity to think for myself", after years of researching psychology, biology and the effects of religion on young developing minds, this is a sad thing to hear.

I heard through my brother in law's uncle's poker partner that China is developing mind control technology that is being used to make people scared of backwards Muslims so China is free to take over the world.

I agree completely with Patrick Stewart. My mother was beaten to within an inch of her life by a man who was so governed by jealousy that if she said hello to the milkman he assumed she was having an affair and would beat her for it. She told me once in passing that she left when she did because she was afraid that he was going to be as vicious with me as he was with her. I asked her why she wasn't as important as me, but she never answered.

I spent most of my childhood hungry and alone - mom had to work more than full-time hours to feed and house and clothe me. (This was in the mid to late 60s; back than only sluts got divorced and women certainly weren't paid anything like equal wages. They still aren't, but that's another topic.) I saw her literally once or twice a week. I grew up certain that the abuse, the subsequent divorce, poverty and societal rejection were all my fault. Not because it was proven to me, but because that's the way children think. Developing minds cannot think some things through. Spend some time reading the research about developmental stages of cognition and that will become crystal clear.

My father's abuse showed me a) those you trust most will hurt you, and badly, and that if they haven't yet you should do something so that it happens now and not just sit around, tense as shit waiting for something that you know is inevitably going to happen; b) that love is just a word and fists and feet are the real power; c) men in power are hurtful and therefore are not to be trusted and d) that women in power are not to be trusted because they're never around.

So. Lots of violence and self-destructive behaviour as a young man because of the impossibility of trusting anyone or anything. I couldn't trust the people around me who were more powerful (emotionally, physically or politically) and I couldn't trust those around me who were less powerful because I'd seen what happens to the weak. Even better, I couldn't trust myself because I'd been the one who had done whatever it was that had started the whole thing off. What fun!

Eventually, being an essentially thinking person I figured out that it wasn't my fault, that mom left because dad was a breathtaking asshole and not because I'd done something so horrible that they had to split up. However, understanding something and having it be an essential part of your personality are two very different things. It's roughly akin to the difference between learning a second language as a child and learning one as an adult. The language(s) you learn as a child are part and parcel of your cognition and strongly inform your worldview. Learning a language as an adult means that you need to remember how to speak that language. With practice, you might get to the point that you can think in that language, and you might even be able to carry on a good conversation, but you're never going to fool a native speaker of that language. Fluency comes with practice and intent.

It may seem like I'm whining a bit here, but after reading the comments above, I have to let you folks know something. Abuse fucks up your children for life. The lessons you learn as a kid don't just go away because you want them to. It's like trying to forget a language when it's the only one you know how to speak.

Beating the shit out of an abuser doesn't do anyone any good. Except that the abuser isn't abusing right there and then. Sitting back and saying 'oh where are the cops when you need them' without doing anything is cowardice and doesn't do anyone any good. Stopping it before it happens by teaching children that it is never acceptable is what will prevent it from being the illness that pervades our world. The best way to teach children is to lead by example.

Stopping those who do abuse their partners is no mean feat. I mean, what if they're fine with the language they speak? What if they don't want to learn another language? Do you force them? Put them in institutions or some such crap?

Only those willing to be sufficiently self-aware are going to get past it, and that doesn't happen when there's no overarching societal pressure to stop it. Talking about it is what exposes it, and stops it.

Here we are, having a conversation.

Bye now.

>> ^crillep:
I don't think this discussion is about the definition of fear but, I will try to clarify. If you do not pay your taxes, then you will most likely fear the IRS, or if you will, feel anxiety. Which is good, because this emotion tells you that you should've payed your taxes. Now if you are a man of faith, this same anxiety might help you to obey the rules of that particular faith. [1]
You say that cannot be, because you cannot prove these rules to be moral/right/whatever (at least thats how I read it). My response is, that that is besides the point, whether or not you agree with it, you have the same motivation to follow those rules. Let's just assume that people aren't following religions that they fundamentally disagree with. I certainly wouldn't. [2]
Moving on to your comment about right and wrong, you chose a good example when you mentioned murder. If your wife is murdered, and you want to strangle the SOB that did it, there are certainly a number of fears that could prevent you from doing so, including your faith. Take away these fears, and I don't think your response will be what is considered rational today. Again you can call it fear or anxiety or conscious intimidation, but there is a motivation there.
This is only one example, and certainly an atheist doesn't have to be a murderer in the above situation. Either way you are following a code of morals. So whether or not you are afraid of what you will become in your own eyes, or in Gods eyes, you still have a fear motivated response. Now obviously you can't say that your set of morals is better than some religion, because we agree there is no proving right and wrong. And hopefully this wall of text shows that fear can also be a good motivator for moral issues. NOT ALWAYS, BUT SOMETIMES. [3]
I think that people are having so much fun pointing out the flaws in various religions, that they have forgotten some very basic facts. Like the fact that freedom of religion is something that we are incredibly lucky to have. And the fact that so many people have some form of belief system (80% of the world in some polls) shows that it's not just bogus. It's a dominating force in our world that matters to alot of people and they should be treated with the same respect as everyone else. [4]

Finally, what I would like to stress the most is that it is EASY to be a religious person who also believes in science, evolution, the works. One does not cancel out the other. I'm neither religious nor atheist, but I respect everybodies beliefs. When it comes to atheists I think there should be less focus on bickering with with various religions and more focus on getting religion out of the schools and out of the goverment, that's a cause I can support. [5]
Finally I should mention that you didn't deserve the comment about me lecturing you earlier gwiz, but it pisses me off that dbarry3 gets a -6 rating for critizing the video, and you get +10 for saying that fear isn't a factor when it comes to gay marriage. Thankyou captain obvious. [6]

I'm gonna cut as much to the chase as I can, so I don't make too much of a wall of text too (as I usually do).

[1] I suppose I have separated fear from this feeling, since my definition of fear is more basic than that, which is why my "fear of tiger/government" is vastly different, in my opinion. One is a personal, emotional response, the other is a conscious decision, weighing your actions vs. the consequences, thinking it through. If we must use the term fear, then I think the distinction between "basic fear" and "conscious fear" is a good one to make.

[2] I don't say that it cannot be, but that it should not be. I feel I need to make another distinction here, because there are different types of actions and associated motivators.

Now, I don't think that an action can be inherently good or bad, any judgment can only come from someone's point of view. However, actions are deemed good/bad by yourself, from your own perspective, of course, and that's what I mean when I talk about good/bad actions now.

If you avoid an action that is bad, purely for the reason that you fear what might happen if you do the action, then you are indeed working from fear, and I think this is a bad thing; a bad motivator. It is far more rewarding if you make a conscious deliberation of the action, instead of responding to fear. To drop my own sci-fi quote, fear is the mind-killer (if you know where it's from, I instantly like you more). In the same vein, a good action should be done because you deem it to be good, not because you are told to do it by whatever external medium - you should have some sort of moral center that you use to weigh your options, not just act out of fear of repercussions.

[3] Anger and passion, like fear, kills the mind and make you do irrational things. The example indeed show that, and there are instances where the mind is disabled and you more basic instincts kick in, in these instances it's a good thing that we do have some fear of what will happen to us, if we do an action. You are indeed correct that here, the fear is a good de-motivator to avoid an action. But, like I said, it shouldn't be - the mind should not be disabled, the conscious decision to not do the action is a far better motivator, since you will know not to do it, because it is a bad thing to do, both from your own perspective and many others'. The developed mind should not look to external judgments for its actions, it should be able to decide it for itself. Of course, we do not have any a priori knowledge of morals, but we do have critical thinking, and we can weigh options without consulting gods, laws or rules. Thrusting the judgment away from yourself to some higher power is in the end a form of moral cowardice, in my eyes. That's not to say that you should say that your way is the right way always, and everyone else is wrong - but if you are critical of your own reasoning too, you will be able to weigh the options justly. Many people have tremendous troubles with this and are blind of their own faults and shortcomings (myself included).

[4] Freedom of religion is indeed a good thing to have. If we didn't have that, we would not be nearly as technologically and sociologically advanced as we are now, but the fact that many people believe in a thing shows nothing. Many people used to believe that the Earth was the center of the universe. In itself the belief in something is worthless as even circumstantial evidence. Faith is, regrettably, a powerful force in our world still, but science and enlightenment is steadily pushing it away. And thank goodness for that. Beliefs should only be respected if they can be justified; politics are not very respected either, but I think politics deserve more respect than religion still. Just because you see your own faith as a holy cow, doesn't mean that we should not question it. If it can withstand it, then good for you and it, but if it cannot then it's not worth believing.

[5] No. This is just plain false. You have to make incredible leaps of logic to believe in both religion and science, because they do cancel each other out on many, many points. I will go so far as to say, that if you are an intellectually honest person it is not at all possible to be a religious scientist. You will not be looking at your religion with the same skeptical eyes as science and the world around you, or it would be discarded. It does not stand up to challenge and is in the end a waste of your time. Faith is always blind, or it wouldn't be faith.

I am also not convinced that you can make a third separation of religious/atheist/other. You're either religious or you are not, if you are not, then you are by definition an atheist (or non-religious). The word Atheist has gotten a stigma when the religions have tried to strike back through places like Fox News, where Atheism is upheld as a belief-system of its own, which it is not. Whatever word you put on it, you can either believe in God or not, there is really no middle-ground, other than not having an opinion at all, and then I would clump you with the non-religious as well, like we do with fairies. You may not have considered the actual existence of fairies, but not having an opinion is far close to disbelief than belief. One is active, the other is passive. I respect people, with as much respect as they deserve, but I do not respect their beliefs, and we damn well shouldn't either. Tolerance goes both ways, and they don't tolerate us - turning the other cheek isn't my bag, I'll punch back if they slap me. This is the exact place where your quote entirely applicable:

"The first duty of every person is to the truth, whether it's scientific truth or historical truth or personal truth! It is the guiding principle on which our society is based. Now, if you can't find it within yourself to stand up and tell the truth about what happened, you don't deserve to have the freedoms provided by our society!"



http://www.videosift.com/video/Dr-House-on-Religion-016

If anyone, I exert myself as much as possible in the name of truth, more people should. I present the truth from my perspective, but as objectively as I can.

[6] I think debarry3's downvotes are as much directed at his form as his substance. It is a passive-aggressive attack on everyone who upvoted this video, and that is not appreciated. His argument for god-fearing is not really a good one either, so combined the downvotes were inevitable.
Making an obvious observation is not always a bad thing, like the 9 votes indicate. Like earlier, I didn't say that fear was not a factor, but that it should not be a factor. I'm certain some pious people fear the gays and their merry ways.

[7] I fail at not making a wall of text...

yeah i watched it after i commented on it; this documentary focuses on the fact that it's a dangerous and illegal drug that could be useful as a medicinal substance without psychedelic effects. Seriously, wtf? I want them to study the actual psychedelic effects and really figure this chemical out so us humans can further develop mind expansion, haha. But, of course the government wouldn't want that - then you'd have a bunch of liberal scum protesting illegal wars and reading books and shit and that would just be real... retarded.

Children don't have fully developed minds, the chimps do. You're comparing green apples to fully ripe oranges and telling us how it relates to fully ripe apples to oranges, it's just dumb.

This is why telling people that animals are the equivalent of a ___ old child or a developmentally chalenged person is just dumb. We need to see the experiment done with an immature ie. equally mentally developed chimp to say anything about the differences between chimps and people.

>> ^deputydog:
also, probably not the best example as most people seem to dislike the site but i didn't realise for a long time that you could click on 'replies' on twitter and see people responding to you. when i found the button i sat there on my own and literally blushed.
you should start a seperate talk post, get some confessions from people.


Also don't forget hashtags and doing twitter searches. Else you miss out on liveblogging and group conversations. Twitter is great, needs alot of development mind but it's still great.

I absolutely agree that life does not trump every other concern. And this is why I asked this question, because I think it is very interesting the way our opinions seem to change depending on the life or the quality of the life.

For example, I think that if Terri Shiavo wished to be allowed to die, that wish should have trumped the fact that she was still alive without discussion.

I do not put the life of a fetus on the same level as an adult life. I still think it is worth preserving, but not at all costs. If the quality of life of a pregnant woman is in danger of being destroyed because of a pregnancy, the choice should be hers. Still, the decision to abort should be made very carefully. I don't really want to go into that now.

Another example for the crazy people who get mad about abortion examples:

A suicidal person who has deemed her life unworthy of living. Is it our place to decide whether her life is worth protecting? What are we protecting? Life? The quality of life?

The death penalty is a tricky subject. Some think it is unethical because it is not a perfect system. If even one innocent life is destroyed, the death penalty is wrong. But the EDIT: innocent person might have rotted in jail for the rest of her life, anyway, and that is unethical as well. We would not abolish prisons because sometimes an inmate is innocent. The death penalty has been proved to improve the quality of life for the friends and family of the victim. So what is the right thing to do? Is it about life of quality of life?

>> ^gwiz665:
Life does not trump every other concern.
If that were the case we would be killers every time we swatted a fly. A young fetus is even less thinking and complex than a housefly, so I don't see much of a difference. To consider something holy, such that it commands total respect is an error, because you must be able to question everything.
If we talk about an adult developed mind then the value of its life is greater than that of an unthinking being. This is why there must be some limit as to when an abortion - or rather the destruction of life - should be allowed. I also think that a person can forfeit their life, if they commit a heinous crime. There is no reason for such a criminal to live, because they cannot contribute to society, so they should be put down like a rabid dog.

Trying to catch up. Rottenseed, you're next. I am moving back to school tomorrow but I will try. Don't know why I started a silly discussion when I'm so busy.

Life does not trump every other concern.

If that were the case we would be killers every time we swatted a fly. A young fetus is even less thinking and complex than a housefly, so I don't see much of a difference. To consider something holy, such that it commands total respect is an error, because you must be able to question everything.

If we talk about an adult developed mind then the value of its life is greater than that of an unthinking being. This is why there must be some limit as to when an abortion - or rather the destruction of life - should be allowed. I also think that a person can forfeit their life, if they commit a heinous crime. There is no reason for such a criminal to live, because they cannot contribute to society, so they should be put down like a rabid dog.

TO CATHOLICPRIEST
Excellent post.

Julian Jaynes proposed in his controversial 1977 book 'The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind' that in pre-Homeric times (before the historian Homer) people did not have the highly developed minds that we take for granted today.

What we call the 'ego' today was for these ancient people what they called a 'god'.

When danger threatened suddenly the god's voice was heard in the individual's mind. This function of the mind has since evolved and become integrated into what Jung called the 'ego'.

Science has nothing to say about the origin of consciousness, aside from Daniel Dennett's reductionist ideas which I don't accept. Religion on the other hand SHOULD have something to say about origin of spirit/consciousness but it has become so sidetracked over the millenia with social control that it has completely lost its way.

Religion in the ancient, shamanic, spiritual, natural sense would be very welcome in the world right now, and would be welcomed by every individual on this planet.

Religion gets a bad rap because it has tended over the last 3-4000 years toward social control, no matter which of the religions you choose to look at. This is why the seperation of church and state is VITAL.

If any one of us were to go back in time and go into Jesus's church, we would be going in there to LEARN, to learn about ourselves, our minds, our consciousness, our spiritual centre. When we 'graduated' we would not need to go back, and we would be informed and learned enough to teach others.

Science teaches. Religion controls.