This was amazing!

Many mental 'illnesses' can lead to sensory hallucinations, and it's likely that everyone knows someone with some such condition. There are neuroscientific reasons for these hallucinations, where sensory information is cross-linking with different portions of the brain. A person experiencing this is certainly abnormal, though the result can be harnessed as advantageous for a person to gain superhuman powers. A person who hallucinates halos of color around numbers gains an extra pneumonic for remembering them, a person who perceives a halo of color around people gains insight towards some of their own hidden feelings toward that person.

Many of us have problems dealing with traumatic events, or finding a healthy way to emotionally cope with problems. Some of us find healthy ways, and many of us don't, though it's an internal struggle for all of us. In her case, her condition let's her have an EXTERNAL struggle with her problems, which she uses as a tool to help her cope with otherwise unmanageable emotional issues.

Kudos to her for helping to remove some of the stigma for some of these mental disorders! I wish she could expand her horizon to people with other disorders, to help them achieve the same level of understanding and benefit.

Or to summarize in fewer words: Don't do drugs.

If you do drugs, you'll start to think maybe drugs are the path to having telepathic powers and superhuman abilities...


Drugs aren't inherently good or bad, they just change our bodies in different ways and as we study those affects we can see the good and bad. But any drugs that mess with the way you think and the way you perceive the world require extreme care. You really are running the risk of waking up one morning and discovering that you are a tiger and everything you do is winning.

I would love to see that. I think most writers/directors had no clue what the philosophical/ethical questions are that a character with the power of superman has to confront. It's basically not the bad guy/ Kryptonite / magic which could destroy superman, that makes superman interesting. What the hell, NO superhero movie should be interesting because of the part where the hero could get hurt. In the end there is one thing we all know when we go to a superhero movie, the hero survives in the end, maybe we're cheering for the bad guy or hope the world will get what it deserves but deep down we know that the hero will find a way to stop the crisis. It's just the way these movies work. On the other hand what I find interesting, is to see what the hero has to sacrifice in order to save the world. Sure Superman will still be super tomorrow, but what about the rest of the world?

Did you see Watchmen? Great movie (ok against what i said earlier, in the end one of the heroes dies) but besides that, it shows brilliantly how to work with a unstoppable superhuman being and how to create a crisis that doesn't need something like Kryptonite/Magic to work as a movie. You don't even know/see the bad guy until the last quarter of the movie. And one of the Heroes (Dr. Manhatten) is literally unstoppable, I mean he can change reality with his will as far as I know. But even he is of no help at all in the given circumstances. You can say the biggest enemy of Dr. Manhatten is himself, I would also say this applies to superman. And I think that is what makes it great.

On the other side you can make a movie like "The Avengers" which is great as a action movie but I don't think it's a good superhero movie. I mean when i watched this movie, all i did was waiting for the grand finale. The final super fight where the avengers fight together. And what was it? Just a group of super dudes/dudesses killing one exchangeable alien thingy after another... wow great tension you achieved there... I mean in the end what is the great crisis they fight? That their own Bosses try to nuke them, because everything else was under control at that moment.

It does make great action material, but what I want to see (and sadly that doesn't seem what "the people" want to see) is a superhero movie (especially speaking of superman) where the hero has to fight more than just interchangeable aliens in a big CGI fuckfest.

The biggest problem I see with a Supeman movie is finding a believable villain that can stand up to superman without it looking campy.
Marvel has done a great job redefining the franchise with the look of modern reality. Bat Man is believable because he's just a regular man with gadgets.

With Superman, he's invincible in so many ways. If they ignore half his powers and don't use them when he should be, then it's a hard sell.

So then how do you take a guy with the utmost strength, incredible smarts, who flies, has heat laser and cold breath, Doesn't need oxygen to breath, is impervious to the elements and disease, accelerated healing, kick-ass fighting skills, superhuman speed, X-ray vision, superhuman hearing and vision and an eidetic memory, and create a believable conflict using today's reality?

Other than Kryptonite, he has no other weaknesses. Lex is the one who discovers the weakness. So how do you sell that in a new movie. Once you introduce Kryptonite with today's technologies, the weapons against Superman can mostly make him obsolete in quite a matter of fact way.

So it's either he's too powerful or he's quickly dealt with. So which is it?
Oh and not make it look campy, don't forget that part.

No it's not stupid (and you are not stupid for thinking that it is stupid). Social anxiety is a spectrum, and it is a normal, healthy reaction to be careful around strangers. Most humans are especially anxious around people we know only a little, since we think the first impression is important and the relationship is fragile and new. Total strangers don't matter as much and people we know well we often trust not to judge or hurt us.

That said I do not mean to come of as condescending and to belittle your fear (I know from personal experience how crippling it can be), but rather that nothing constructive comes from judging yourself and adding self-criticism to your anxiety and shame. You can not control your emotions directly, since they are a basic, instinctual, almost immediate reaction to a perceived (potentially deadly) threat. What you can do is try to change how you react to them afterwards, what you see as a potential threat, what you assume are truths about yourself and others in social situations and a whole bunch of other stuff.

Being shy or having social anxiety is not inherently good or bad, it just is the way it is.

A lot of text to answer a few words, but it's just that I hear a lot of people call themselves stupid because they can't do what is more or less superhuman feats (in this case to directly control emotions). Try to be kind to yourself, and to forgive yourself when you fail to be kind to yourself.

Sorry if I assumed too much and interpreted what you wrote in a wrong way, since a lot of what I wrote assumes a whole bunch of stuff about you.

Personally I'm a mix depending on mood and need both social situations and solitude to recharge. I don't much like bars, but I love to be on a sparsely populated dance floor when I'm drunk enough.

>> ^nach0s:

I was wondering why he was out in the open too. Then I read the video description... did you guys?


His post-hoc rationalization of what he was doing doesn't help matters. He acted in a really dumb way. If he's so heroic, then why did he get himself shot, then hole up in a position where the cavalry would have to run through the same hail of bullets to rescue him, shouting "Medic! I'm hit!" over and over.

No, what he says after the fact simply ain't true. He panicked, he thought he was superhuman, he just wasn't thinking straight, he suffered from a lack of training.

And no, I'm not getting this from my FPS experience, but from my Army experience and Veteran status. What he did was wrong, it endangered his life and the lives of his squad-mates. First off, they weren't pinned down by machine-gun fire, I only heard single shots and short bursts incoming. Secondly, fighting a hit-and-fade enemy like the Taliban, being "pinned down" is not a bad place to be. If you wait them out they'll take to the hills. They don't want to wait for the airstrike they know is coming. Third, by running down the hill and getting shot he forced some of his guys to come get him, endangering their lives. Lastly, he said in his blurb he was under the command of an Lt. yet he didn't wait for an order, nor did he appear to be acting on an order, he just ran off with his cock in his hand and a big "shoot me" sign on his chest and left it to his allies to come clean up the mess.

*hugs akwardly*
>> ^hpqp:

Oh boy, where to start...
Religion: Belief in or acknowledgement of some superhuman power or powers (esp. a god or gods) which is typically manifested in obedience, reverence, and worship; such a belief as part of a system defining a code of living, esp. as a means of achieving spiritual or material improvement. (OED)
Yes, there is something (actually several things) inherently wrong with religion, and it is naive (or disingenuous) to trot out the argument that religion has been "used" as "a social lever to inflict harm" without recognising that the reason it works so well for that is because of its particular negative aspects (most notably: blind submission to authority and the notion of "higher auth." trumping basic human values).
For one: supernatural belief, instilled/indoctrinated before critical thought can balance it out. Other than what I (and many others, including Hitchens) would call "state religions" such as communism, what set of beliefs is instilled uncritically into young minds, without any evidence to back it up? And I'm not talking about "don't put your fingers in the socket" either, which a) is for the child's good (contrary to religious beliefs) and b) can be tested/understood empirically as the child learns about electricity. No, supernatural beliefs, the staple (and one of the definitive aspects) of religion cannot be empirically tested, and thus rely on blind obedience to authority, which is a negative in and of itself. Moreover, it often brings into play a dictatorial reward/punishment system that the child (and adult) cannot discount/disprove with evidence; it is kept out of reach of experience, and thus is much harder to leave behind, while playing with humankind's deep-set fears (of death, eternity, pain, etc) in order to keep them under control. Can you tell me of another social organisation of beliefs/morals that does this? And while the "moderates" are less guilty of indoctrination and fear-mongering, they still give credence and the weight of majority (not to mention their influence as parental figures) to a set of supernatural beliefs which are detrimental to humankind. That they use these to justify positive moral codes only makes it worse, because it makes the latter seem dependent (or at least a result of) the former. As @PostalBlowfish rightly suggests, human morality is only impoverished by the supernatural beliefs religion attaches to it.
I could go on, but I have work to do. I will conclude by saying that as long as well-intentioned people like yourself continue to divorce the inherently negative aspects of religion/religious belief and the sociocultural evils it has often enshrined (backing them with an indefeasible authority) such as homophobia, tribalism, antisemitism, etc, society remains a long ways from being "fixed".
>> ^jonny:
[...]You make the point that the philosophical beliefs, particularly moral codes, are not intrinsically dependent upon religion. Even if that is true, it doesn't negate all other aspects of religion. Religion is more than a source of moral and ethical codes and rituals. I gave a tentative definition of it being a collectively held set of beliefs. The collective nature of that belief is very important. As social animals, humans need to feel connected to those around them, and religion provides what has been historically the most successful locus of connection in human societies. The social aspect of religion is probably its greatest function. It connects members of a community throughout every aspect of life, cradle to grave.
Now, you might say that a properly constructed set of philosophical beliefs based purely on rationality and science can accomplish the same thing. And I would say that if you did accomplish such a feat, you'd basically have a religion on your hands, regardless of its lack of theistic doctrine.
The point I was trying to make with my first comment was that any sufficiently powerful set of beliefs can be used as a social lever to inflict great harm on humanity. Various religions have been used such, as have the works of some great non-theistic philosophers. I was trying to point out that the "evils of religion" are not a problem with religion per se, but with things like demagoguery and xenophobic tribalism. I believe this distinction is of paramount importance, because it more accurately points us towards what needs fixing in our societies.

Oh boy, where to start...
Religion: Belief in or acknowledgement of some superhuman power or powers (esp. a god or gods) which is typically manifested in obedience, reverence, and worship; such a belief as part of a system defining a code of living, esp. as a means of achieving spiritual or material improvement. (OED)

Yes, there is something (actually several things) inherently wrong with religion, and it is naive (or disingenuous) to trot out the argument that religion has been "used" as "a social lever to inflict harm" without recognising that the reason it works so well for that is because of its particular negative aspects (most notably: blind submission to authority and the notion of "higher auth." trumping basic human values).

For one: supernatural belief, instilled/indoctrinated before critical thought can balance it out. Other than what I (and many others, including Hitchens) would call "state religions" such as communism, what set of beliefs is instilled uncritically into young minds, without any evidence to back it up? And I'm not talking about "don't put your fingers in the socket" either, which a) is for the child's good (contrary to religious beliefs) and b) can be tested/understood empirically as the child learns about electricity. No, supernatural beliefs, the staple (and one of the definitive aspects) of religion cannot be empirically tested, and thus rely on blind obedience to authority, which is a negative in and of itself. Moreover, it often brings into play a dictatorial reward/punishment system that the child (and adult) cannot discount/disprove with evidence; it is kept out of reach of experience, and thus is much harder to leave behind, while playing with humankind's deep-set fears (of death, eternity, pain, etc) in order to keep them under control. Can you tell me of another social organisation of beliefs/morals that does this? And while the "moderates" are less guilty of indoctrination and fear-mongering, they still give credence and the weight of majority (not to mention their influence as parental figures) to a set of supernatural beliefs which are detrimental to humankind. That they use these to justify positive moral codes only makes it worse, because it makes the latter seem dependent (or at least a result of) the former. As @PostalBlowfish rightly suggests, human morality is only impoverished by the supernatural beliefs religion attaches to it.

I could go on, but I have work to do. I will conclude by saying that as long as well-intentioned people like yourself continue to divorce the inherently negative aspects of religion/religious belief and the sociocultural evils it has often enshrined (backing them with an indefeasible authority) such as homophobia, tribalism, antisemitism, etc, society remains a long ways from being "fixed".

>> ^jonny:

[...]You make the point that the philosophical beliefs, particularly moral codes, are not intrinsically dependent upon religion. Even if that is true, it doesn't negate all other aspects of religion. Religion is more than a source of moral and ethical codes and rituals. I gave a tentative definition of it being a collectively held set of beliefs. The collective nature of that belief is very important. As social animals, humans need to feel connected to those around them, and religion provides what has been historically the most successful locus of connection in human societies. The social aspect of religion is probably its greatest function. It connects members of a community throughout every aspect of life, cradle to grave.
Now, you might say that a properly constructed set of philosophical beliefs based purely on rationality and science can accomplish the same thing. And I would say that if you did accomplish such a feat, you'd basically have a religion on your hands, regardless of its lack of theistic doctrine.

The point I was trying to make with my first comment was that any sufficiently powerful set of beliefs can be used as a social lever to inflict great harm on humanity. Various religions have been used such, as have the works of some great non-theistic philosophers. I was trying to point out that the "evils of religion" are not a problem with religion per se, but with things like demagoguery and xenophobic tribalism. I believe this distinction is of paramount importance, because it more accurately points us towards what needs fixing in our societies.

How bloody fast were they driving? To flip and end up in the woods like that, they were obviously going far faster than anyone should have in such conditions.

Expensive cars do not make you a superhuman driver.

@shveddy

""Oh yea, and I'm sick and tired of Christians always excusing themselves from the need for behavioral and moral superiority by saying that only Jesus is perfect, thinking that it will alleviate all of my complaints about Christianity.

I have no more problem with the hypocracy of Christians than I do with anyone else who makes mistakes and does bad things while generally saying that he or she is a good person. Which is to say that I don't stress over it very much because we all do it.""

Christians, in general, should stand out from the rest of the world if they are living according to what Christ taught. If they are indistinguishable from everyone else, they are definitely not following His teachings. I wasn't excusing anyone however, I was simply stating that Christians are still human and will make mistakes.

""What drew me away from religion is that the Father, Jesus and particularly the Holy Spirit are especially vile concepts that are in no way deserving of my respect. So stop trying to defend Christians when I don't care to condemn their behavior very much.

Explain to me how a just god can create a world that, upon close examination of its workings, clearly disagrees with nearly all of the specifics claimed by that god's supposed divine revelation.""

When God created the world, it was "very good". It had no death, and no pain. It was a paradise and humans enjoyed direct fellowship with God. The reason that the world is embroiled in evil today is because God gave human beings free will, to obey or disobey His commands. It is because of our disobedience towards God that sin and death entered the world. Creation fell because of the sin of man, and we became spiritually separated from God.

""Tell me then, how a good god can come up with a rather ambiguous way to save his sinning inhabitants (that he created) that can be summarized in an arbitrary phrase that does nothing but allow people to shirk responsibility for actions. And then, despite having the power to move everyone to accept this gift, decides to give it only to a select few based mostly on geography.""

God hasn't chosen a select few to be saved. He desires all to come to repentence and receive eternal life. God gives everyone the opportunity to be saved, but people choose to suppress the truth God has revealed to them because of wickedness. When you look at someone across the world, locked into false religion, what you don't see are all the choices that God has offered that person to draw near to His Son. You don't see what could have been, you only see what is. The gospel is preached in every country in the world, and where it hasn't reached, people receive dreams and visions. God can reach anyone.

Neither is salvation based on an "arbitrary phrase". You say you left religion..so were you a Christian? If so, how is it that you don't know how people are saved? Do you understand the gospel?

You are saved when you accept Jesus Christ into your life as Lord and Savior, when you believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, and confess Him as Lord. It has nothing to do with words, it has to do with the sincere intent of your heart.

Neither is an effort to shirk personal responsibility. On the contrary, we are personally responsible to God for all of the sins we have committed. God has commanded that all people everywhere *repent* of their sins, and trust in His Son. That is a total fulfillment of personal responsibility, as we are accountable to God and not men.

God does not force anyone to come to Him; He gives you a choice. Neither is it a bunch of words, where you simply believe what the bible says. The gospel comes by the *power* of the Holy Spirit. When you believe, you are born again as a new person, and you receive the Holy Spirit, who lives within you. It is a supernatural transformation of your entire being.

""Oh, and by the way. Christianity is a religion by definition. According to the Oxford dictionary, a religion is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."

For you to claim that Christianity is not a religion than in order to not qualify under the accepted definition, you would have to deny the following:

1. That you believe in God and Jesus
2. That you worship God and Jesus
3. That God is superhuman and capable of controlling
4. and that God or Jesus are personal to you

Somehow I doubt that you deny those. If you feel like denying the authority of the oxford dictionary, then feel free to look ridiculous.""

Under that definition, it is technically a religion, but not as you understand it. When you think of religion, you think of dogma and rituals. That isn't what Christianity is; at its foundation, it is nothing more or less than a personal relationship with the Creator of the Universe. That is not religion as how an atheist understands the word.

Oh yea, and I'm sick and tired of Christians always excusing themselves from the need for behavioral and moral superiority by saying that only Jesus is perfect, thinking that it will alleviate all of my complaints about Christianity.

I have no more problem with the hypocracy of Christians than I do with anyone else who makes mistakes and does bad things while generally saying that he or she is a good person. Which is to say that I don't stress over it very much because we all do it.

What drew me away from religion is that the Father, Jesus and particularly the Holy Spirit are especially vile concepts that are in no way deserving of my respect. So stop trying to defend Christians when I don't care to condemn their behavior very much.

Explain to me how a just god can create a world that, upon close examination of its workings, clearly disagrees with nearly all of the specifics claimed by that god's supposed divine revelation. Tell me then, how a good god can come up with a rather ambiguous way to save his sinning inhabitants (that he created) that can be summarized in an arbitrary phrase that does nothing but allow people to shirk responsibility for actions. And then, despite having the power to move everyone to accept this gift, decides to give it only to a select few based mostly on geography.

Oh, and by the way. Christianity is a religion by definition. According to the Oxford dictionary, a religion is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."

For you to claim that Christianity is not a religion than in order to not qualify under the accepted definition, you would have to deny the following:

1. That you believe in God and Jesus
2. That you worship God and Jesus
3. That God is superhuman and capable of controlling
4. and that God or Jesus are personal to you

Somehow I doubt that you deny those. If you feel like denying the authority of the oxford dictionary, then feel free to look ridiculous.

That was downright superhuman.

>> ^Zawash:

>> ^kceaton1:
So I would ask her this question concerning .9999~ not equaling one. If we take two pinballs and start to count all the electrons--but, midway through we strip ONE electron from one pin; essentially making this our .9999~ pinball.
Too late, MonkeySpank already tried that one.
The number "missing", the number between .9999~ and 1, could be stated as x, where x -> 0 (x goes towards zero).


I know, but sometimes it helps people to hear the SAME explanation in none mathematical terms. That was the only reason I made it. Essentially, the number that is the difference between .999~ and 1 equaling each other eventually becomes SO SMALL that it essentially doesn't exist anymore--for all intent and purposes.

I could have have 100 pinballs and it's unlikely that they all have the same amount of atoms, let alone electrons. BUT, the point is that to me each one of those objects are still pinballs (unless we change the definition of what a pinball is, which would require superhuman measurement...).

BTW - You might think me on the wrong side of the street, maybe. To me .999~ does indeed equal 1 in every-way; how we've defined the very principles that describe so many of its different definitions are agreed upon by the very nature of the laws and mechanics that Math is built upon. I just thought it would be fun to play around with the definitions a bit and see that we still end up at the same place. Math describes something intrinsic about the nature of the Universe and reality.

>> ^Pantalones:

religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Interesting. Since the second part is an example, Atheism would seem to fit into this definition.

Do you believe a unicorn created the universe? Not believing would seem to fit into your interpretation of the definition of religion.
>> ^shinyblurry:

of all choices, atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God.
francis collins human genome project

This makes faith sound cheap, not to mention a lousy tool for assessing truth.

Indeed they do, but Atheism does not make any such claims. It's correlation, not causation.
>> ^Pantalones:


Also false. Although not universally, atheists often believe in scientifically supported theories concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe.
>> ^gwiz665:
False.
Atheism makes no claims about cause, nature, purpose of the universe, or any superhuman agencies, or any moral code. Atheism is lack of belief in god, that's it.