my thoughts exactly

Hmmm, I was thinking...Im sure this guy is some massive intellectual, artist type charading as one of the plebs to get traction...

Then he said, movies about the devil really freak him out. And if he means, he got freaked out cos he skipped to cans in the movie "The Devils Advocate" (Youtube it, its decent) - and then felt freaked out, I knew what he meant. And I realized he was just a regular guy.

One of his points really struck me and reminded me of a conversation I had with a Jesus Freak.

His point about how it is probably better to be a good person because you want to be rather than because you want to go to heaven reminded me about a time I was discussing the priest molestations with another Boston native who was rather upset that I was an atheist and thought the church should be disbanded/criminalized because of the whole molestation scandal.

At one point this guy started in on the whole "baby killer" bullshit and mentioned that he "was a better person" because his religion taught that everyone "even you" should have the right to live.

Think about that for a moment. He basically came out and said that his base reaction to me was that I should be killed (or at least die) because of what I believe, but that the ONLY thing holding him back is the threat his religion teaches him about killing others.

Yeah, Jesus is love people.

Oh and *promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Monday, December 14th, 2009 5:05pm PST - promote requested by ponceleon.

Thank you for adding another 3:09 of random, disorganized thoughts to an already noisy debate. And thank you to everyone who upholds this dribble as Socratic rational and a high watermark of intellectualism. All this consists of is a series of emphasized negative interactions strung together by his uneducated hypothesis and passed off as truth.

And just one quick comment about his argument against the concept of God-fearing. First, there is a sharp distinction between fear and paranoia. Second, there are countless examples in everyday daily life that represent how a healthy dose of fear serves us quite well. I have a healthy fear of the heat that comes from my stove top when it's on, and thanks to that fear I take appropriate caution. His misunderstanding of the benefits of fear struck me as particularly asinine.

^I think you are making assumptions that are not right. "Healthy fear" does not apply to morality; you can only apply the term to something you can demonstrably show. Your fear of the stove, is because you know it's hot, and you get burned. We can easily show that this is so; not so with moral choices - how do I know that gay marriage is morally right/wrong? Fear of god, government etc. is not a good motivator in that instance.

^ My thoughts exactly...

... I hardly consider it "healthy" when someone tells me that I will spend an eternity in pain and suffering just because I don't believe what they believe. I don't fear god. I fear the idiots who want to tell me what to do with my life (or worse) in his name.

>> ^gwiz665:
^I think you are making assumptions that are not right. "Healthy fear" does not apply to morality; you can only apply the term to something you can demonstrably show. Your fear of the stove, is because you know it's hot, and you get burned. We can easily show that this is so; not so with moral choices - how do I know that gay marriage is morally right/wrong? Fear of god, government etc. is not a good motivator in that instance.


So it is not possible to "demonstrably show" the differences from morality and immorality? You sure about that? And please tell me which government in the history of the world has not warranted some level of fear, respectful fear or hysterical fear? Any entity with such authority should be respectfully feared.

^Well then, good sir, show your work. How would you show good/bad in morality? Some issues are certainly more easy than others, murder is always* wrong, and such, but other issues are not something to be decided out of any kind of fear, because fear is inherently a personal, egoistical thing. I recoil from flames, because I don't want to get burned. My empathy with others (relate their responses to my own) leads me to help others away from flames as well. As soon as a subject reaches a certain complexity, fear stops (should stop) being a motivator and something else should take over, such as weighing pro/con, looking at something from different angles and so on.

I am not afraid of my government, but I am afraid of a tiger.

*or is it?

edit: quote fail.

God would be disappointed in us? Maybe after he gets around to fixing Harlequin babies (NSFW), mixed-sex babies, and childhood brain cancer he'll have some ground to stand on.

There is nothing more annoying than being preached at.

Some ex-con who used to do drugs / beat his wife / rape / murder / steal - "Born again". Stops me, a complete stranger, and tells me how I'm wicked evil and going to hell becaue i don't have jesus in my heart?

No mate I've always lived a good forgiving life because i belive in being good.

I'm going to hell for being decent and good but you're forgiven for doing some street marketing? I doubt it... you're fucked.

>> ^gwiz665:
^Well then, good sir, show your work. How would you show good/bad in morality? Some issues are certainly more easy than others, murder is always wrong, and such, but other issues are not something to be decided out of any kind of fear, because fear is inherently a personal, egoistical thing. I recoil from flames, because I don't want to get burned. My empathy with others (relate their responses to my own) leads me to help others away from flames as well. As soon as a subject reaches a certain complexity, fear stops (should stop) being a motivator and something else should take over, such as weighing pro/con, looking at something from different angles and so on.
I am not afraid of my government, but I am afraid of a tiger.
or is it?


You are more afraid of a tiger than your government? At least the tiger gets it over with quickly and simply.

When I speak of fear I am not talking about a lunatic paranoia (e.g. Glenn Beck). The concept of a "fearing" man does not fit well in our society's image of what a man should be. There is nothing wrong with the values of courage and bravery, but only a fool claims to live by the popular slogan "No Fear." Fear serves a purpose, but the fool regards it as nothing more than an antiquated response that should not be considered. Same can be said for pain. I remember hearing about a book that spoke on the benefits of pain (if anyone knows of this book please post it). The author spoke about a rare disorder in which individuals do not experience physical pain, and how this can cause for grave difficulties in life (e.g. a person chewing off their own tongue because they could without feeling the pain associated with it). You are completely right in stating that wise consider life by accounting for various factors at play. But without fear we are likely to miscalculate ourselves in relation to the risk associated with the item in question. For instance, Neville Chamberlain demonstrated a lack of appropriate fear for what Nazi Germany was capable of when he promoted a policy of appeasement. So all this to point out that fear is not a response that should be disregarded and labeled as being entirely useless. To do so is to throw the baby out with the bathwater and completely misunderstand the human condition.

I think the joke about stealing a bicycle and asking for forgiveness was by Emo Philips.

He also wrote a joke considered the best religious joke in the world (can't remember by who) that has probably been sifted.

>> ^rougy:
I think the joke about stealing a bicycle and asking for forgiveness was by Emo Philips.
He also wrote a joke considered the best religious joke in the world (can't remember by who) that has probably been sifted.


* I was walking across a bridge one day and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said,

"Stop! Don't do it!"
"Why shouldn't I?" he said.
"Well, there is so much to live for."
"Like what?"
"Well, are you religious?"
He said yes.
I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?"
"Christian."
"Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"
"Protestant."
"Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"
"Baptist."
"Wow, me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"
"Baptist Church of God."
"Me too! Are you Original Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"
"Reformed Baptist Church of God."
"Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?"
He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915."
I said, "Die, heretic," and pushed him off.

Hmm, if I had to share a room with either my government or a tiger, I'd fear the tiger more, but my government is pretty docile. There are certain governments whose rooms I wouldn't want to be in though, and I don't even how many of them use tigers too. However, I'm far too rational, logical, and think and ask questions too much to share a room with a religion and just sit back and be preached at. Religions are for those who don't mind being served everything on a plate without asking where it came from.

>> ^dbarry3:
>> ^gwiz665:
^Well then, good sir, show your work. How would you show good/bad in morality? Some issues are certainly more easy than others, murder is always wrong, and such, but other issues are not something to be decided out of any kind of fear, because fear is inherently a personal, egoistical thing. I recoil from flames, because I don't want to get burned. My empathy with others (relate their responses to my own) leads me to help others away from flames as well. As soon as a subject reaches a certain complexity, fear stops (should stop) being a motivator and something else should take over, such as weighing pro/con, looking at something from different angles and so on.
I am not afraid of my government, but I am afraid of a tiger.
or is it?

You are more afraid of a tiger than your government? At least the tiger gets it over with quickly and simply.
When I speak of fear I am not talking about a lunatic paranoia (e.g. Glenn Beck). The concept of a "fearing" man does not fit well in our society's image of what a man should be. There is nothing wrong with the values of courage and bravery, but only a fool claims to live by the popular slogan "No Fear." Fear serves a purpose, but the fool regards it as nothing more than an antiquated response that should not be considered. Same can be said for pain. I remember hearing about a book that spoke on the benefits of pain (if anyone knows of this book please post it). The author spoke about a rare disorder in which individuals do not experience physical pain, and how this can cause for grave difficulties in life (e.g. a person chewing off their own tongue because they could without feeling the pain associated with it). You are completely right in stating that wise consider life by accounting for various factors at play. But without fear we are likely to miscalculate ourselves in relation to the risk associated with the item in question. For instance, Neville Chamberlain demonstrated a lack of appropriate fear for what Nazi Germany was capable of when he promoted a policy of appeasement. So all this to point out that fear is not a response that should be disregarded and labeled as being entirely useless. To do so is to throw the baby out with the bathwater and completely misunderstand the human condition.


I think you are missing my point. Fear is a factor in life, certainly, like pain it is a gut response to something, like a loud noise, fire, tigers. Fear is evolutionarily lodged deep within is, because it has helped the individuals survive. The "feel no pain" disorder is a terrible one, and people usually die young because of it. A life without fear, might not be so great either.

I would make a distinction between "fear", as in terror, scared of, something that involves a real present danger to your person, and the more loose intimidation of governments, of being a social outcast, of one nation invading another. This is not fear, this is a rational response. You think about it, you don't feel it.

And in general, doing something for fear of the consequences if you don't, is a bad reason, in my opinion. I don't do my homework, because otherwise my teacher will be mad at me, I do them because I've made a conscious decision to learn. My reason for not killing a person is certainly not just fear of the police killing me right back, it's because I don't think killing is good in and of itself. And so on.

I would fear a tiger damn well more than any government.

>> ^gwiz665:
And in general, doing something for fear of the consequences if you don't, is a bad reason, in my opinion. I don't do my homework, because otherwise my teacher will be mad at me, I do them because I've made a conscious decision to learn. My reason for not killing a person is certainly not just fear of the police killing me right back, it's because I don't think killing is good in and of itself. And so on.


What a load of bull. You inherently want to learn alegebra and not kill people? You must be more religious than the rest of us. Consequences don't factor into the choices you make? I can't believe your comment got upvoted just so you could ramble on like this.

"The first duty of every videosift user is to the truth, whether it's scientific truth or historical truth or personal truth! It is the guiding principle on which videosift 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 wear that avatar!"

A video NOT good just because it shares the same views that you do. I think this video is exactly how dbarry described it. Keeping in mind he never said that fearing hell is a good thing, he just correctly pointed out that fear in general can be good a good thing. So I suggest you read the comment you are quoting before you reply, and then you should read your own reply before posting so I don't have to lecture you again.

It's not possible to demonstrably show that some being is watching over us toting up everything we do with a fiery torment in store for us if we don't meet his arbitrary rules (belief/good life/forgiveness for sins, check, go to heaven).

Morality is an interesting thing, it mutates depending on your point of view. So while priests can sodomise altar boys and pray for forgiveness (and apparently be assured of their place in the sweet hereafter), aetheist doctors can spend their entire lives giving sight to those who cannot see (a true miracle in my opinion) will go to hell (case in point, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hollows).

Using fear of an invisible being and a hypothetical 'lake of fire' to force people to be good is not moral, it's putting a spiritual gun to your souls head to coerce you. Whether you're respectfully fearful of that or shit scared is irrelevant.

>> ^dbarry3:
So it is not possible to "demonstrably show" the differences from morality and immorality? You sure about that? And please tell me which government in the history of the world has not warranted some level of fear, respectful fear or hysterical fear? Any entity with such authority should be respectfully feared

I like the Star Trek quote. Very nice. Not applicable at all, but nice. Aside from that, "lecture me"? Puh-lease. Go back to the wow forums if you're that self-righteous.

Consequences are of course a factor, as I also pointed out, but it's not my fear of consequences that does; as in the direct consequences that will happen if I do/don't do something. I made the distinction between real fear and conscious consideration earlier; you're afraid of a tiger, because you fear the direct consequence that you might get eaten/mauled/hurt (self preservation), but you have a conscious intimidation of something like your government, because when you think about it, it has the means to make your life miserable, difficult etc. The two types of "fear" shouldn't be clumped together, since they are very different.

Did I not also say that fear is a good thing in some situations? Did you not read my comments, but just wanted to open your mouth instead? Fear of a tiger, again with the tiger, is a damn good thing to have. It's a "healthy fear" as he said, but he seemed to apply it to fearing a god as well, and this is not a healthy fear.


>> ^crillep:
>> ^gwiz665:
And in general, doing something for fear of the consequences if you don't, is a bad reason, in my opinion. I don't do my homework, because otherwise my teacher will be mad at me, I do them because I've made a conscious decision to learn. My reason for not killing a person is certainly not just fear of the police killing me right back, it's because I don't think killing is good in and of itself. And so on.

What a load of bull. You inherently want to learn alegebra and not kill people? You must be more religious than the rest of us. Consequences don't factor into the choices you make? I can't believe your comment got upvoted just so you could ramble on like this.
"The first duty of every videosift user is to the truth, whether it's scientific truth or historical truth or personal truth! It is the guiding principle on which videosift 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 wear that avatar!"
A video NOT good just because it shares the same views that you do. I think this video is exactly how dbarry described it. Keeping in mind he never said that fearing hell is a good thing, he just correctly pointed out that fear in general can be good a good thing. So I suggest you read the comment you are quoting before you reply, and then you should read your own reply before posting so I don't have to lecture you again.

Thanks for knowing star trek references. I changed my comment several times before I posted it, rendering Picard useless, but I couldn't bring myself to delete it.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

>> ^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...

As a little appendix, I agree whole-heartedly that the first thing that non-believers should focus on is the separation of church and state. The philosophical debate is less important than the political one.

I somehow pushed the back button in my browser and lost my reply I'll get back to you later.

I don't think He/She is disappointed in us. I think He/She is constantly amazed by us, especially over the last 200 odd years. If He/She exists I guess, any moments of shame would be directed inwards as a contemplation of the failing of His/Her creative ideal. If He/She exists at least. I hope it does. But if not I'm ready to pass into the darkness simply gracious of the great joy and pleasure I have experienced over the 84 years preceding my time.

excellent
I have had the same thoughts myself