Allow me to answer.

When you are saying that the universe is controlled by a zombie vampire that demands cannibalize of all his worshipers on Sunday, YOU are under the burden of providing proof of such a silly explanation of how the universe works, not me.

Just as Dawkins says, why not Vishnu, why not Xenu, why not the Magic juju at the bottom of the ocean, why not the Flying Spaghetti Monster? See the problem with you "faithful" people is that you want to put the burden of proving that something by definition magical and unprovable on me the rational person.

Sorry, if you are going to believe that the tooth fairy is real, YOU have to show me the tooth fairy DNA. I don't have to WASTE my time searching for evidence in YOUR particular delusion when the world is FULL of other, funnier ones I'd rather search for if I was forced to.

As for re-inventing the wheel, I'm not saying we need to do that. If you re-read my post you'll see that I have no problem with secularizing the good teaching and removing them from all the mumbo jumbo. Be nice to each other, check. Don't kill people, check. Worship the magic doodaddie or you go to the magical pit of fire for all eternity... sorry, no check for you.

Anything else?

>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^ponceleon:
Sure it is fair to dismiss ALL religion. Just because you are a little crazy in that you believe in magical forces controlling the universe doesn't make it ANY more legitimate.
[edit]
I do good things because it is better for all of us to be good to each other, not because some magical being threatens me if I don't do what he says. Who is a better person, the one who does good deeds because he wants to do good deeds, or the one who does them because he's afraid of the consequences if he doesn't?

I'm only going to address these two parts of your post, so sorry for the edit.
First part. Do you have any legitimate proof that magical forces aren't controlling the universe? I highly doubt it... you would have published said proof and won the Nobel prize by now.
What science has given us are facts about the world we live in, but that collection of facts can be interpreted in multiple ways. Where some people see only random chaos others see intelligent organization. Clearly, your interpretation of the facts is that there cannot possibly be any divine being or beings or any "mystical" forces. And that's fine! But surely you must realize that this is your interpretation? That other interpretations are possible? Were you to demand everyone to believe your interpretation (as Dawkins does) you would be no better than the Fundamentalists that both you and he despise.
Second part. What exactly is "doing good things?" That is precisely the question most religions strive to answer. You feel you can come up with the answers for yourself. I respect that! But others feel: why re-invent the wheel? People have been exploring this question (and many others like, "What is the meaning of life?") through religion and philosophy for centuries. They choose to look to other places for answers and they should be free to do so. In fact, I think we all should do a bit of introspection on questions like this more often and instead of blindly trying to force others to see our opinion, engage others in open and honest dialogue. Most hostility towards religion comes precisely because there are those who refuse to engage in honest dialogue, thereby giving themselves and religion in general a bad name.
In closing, I just want to say that nobody thinks unquestioning belief is a good thing. Faith is not the same thing as unquestioning belief. Faith is trust, and trust comes from experience. You yourself, ponceleon, have faith--faith in yourself and your own moral code that I'm assuming stems from your own personal experiencese. That is exactly the same way it is for the bulk of religious people (with the exception of the radicals and fundamentalists I mentioned earlier). Most religious people believe not because of some threat or because they no longer question things, but because their experiences in life have given them confidence that their interpretation of things is correct.

>> ^ponceleon:

Sure it is fair to dismiss ALL religion. Just because you are a little crazy in that you believe in magical forces controlling the universe doesn't make it ANY more legitimate.

[edit]

I do good things because it is better for all of us to be good to each other, not because some magical being threatens me if I don't do what he says. Who is a better person, the one who does good deeds because he wants to do good deeds, or the one who does them because he's afraid of the consequences if he doesn't?


I'm only going to address these two parts of your post, so sorry for the edit.

First part. Do you have any legitimate proof that magical forces aren't controlling the universe? I highly doubt it... you would have published said proof and won the Nobel prize by now.

What science has given us are facts about the world we live in, but that collection of facts can be interpreted in multiple ways. Where some people see only random chaos others see intelligent organization. Clearly, your interpretation of the facts is that there cannot possibly be any divine being or beings or any "mystical" forces. And that's fine! But surely you must realize that this is your interpretation? That other interpretations are possible? Were you to demand everyone to believe your interpretation (as Dawkins does) you would be no better than the Fundamentalists that both you and he despise.

Second part. What exactly is "doing good things?" That is precisely the question most religions strive to answer. You feel you can come up with the answers for yourself. I respect that! But others feel: why re-invent the wheel? People have been exploring this question (and many others like, "What is the meaning of life?") through religion and philosophy for centuries. They choose to look to other places for answers and they should be free to do so. In fact, I think we all should do a bit of introspection on questions like this more often and instead of blindly trying to force others to see our opinion, engage others in open and honest dialogue. Most hostility towards religion comes precisely because there are those who refuse to engage in honest dialogue, thereby giving themselves and religion in general a bad name.

In closing, I just want to say that nobody thinks unquestioning belief is a good thing. Faith is not the same thing as unquestioning belief. Faith is trust, and trust comes from experience. You yourself, ponceleon, have faith--faith in yourself and your own moral code that I'm assuming stems from your own personal experiencese. That is exactly the same way it is for the bulk of religious people (with the exception of the radicals and fundamentalists I mentioned earlier). Most religious people believe not because of some threat or because they no longer question things, but because their experiences in life have given them confidence that their interpretation of things is correct.

There's nothing wrong with being introspective and criticizing your own beliefs, admitting your faults and the faults of the people you associate with.

Alcohol, which is legal, makes me easily agitated and quick to initiate violence. Marijuana, which is illegal, makes me introspective, creative, hungry, and empathetic to those around me. Though I guess some of that depends on the strain, I've never once had anything negative happen to me other than getting a citation from a cop to go to court and attend a drug awareness class at a community college in Costa Mesa, CA -- where, oddly enough, the ex-cop teaching the class told us it didn't matter if we smoke it as long as we're behind closed doors on our own private property and not visible to pedestrians outside the enclosure. Obviously it DOES matter, but the sentiment of the ex-cop represents the "spirit" of most law enforcement (in California) towards the average user. Needless to say, the community college parking lot smelled delicious. Drug awareness, fah!

If you're as ignorant as I was, the definition of a dermoid cyst is according to wikipedia:

A dermoid cyst is a cystic teratoma that contains developmentally mature skin complete with hair follicles and sweat glands, sometimes luxuriant clumps of long hair, and often pockets of sebum, blood, fat, bone, nails, teeth, eyes, cartilage, and thyroid tissue. Because it contains mature tissue, a dermoid cyst is almost always benign.



An introspective third eye... Dunno if I want one though.

>> ^dannym3141:
Forget it longde - i'm metaphorically moving to the front of the bus.
I couldn't disagree more really with you dystopian. I am glad this idiot got his ass kicked for initiating a physical fight with someone.
I know i'm not a racist, i have absolutely no racism in my body, i have never let slip a racist epithet in anger or anything else. I can watch this video and form my opinions without questioning myself or vetting myself for racism - because i'm flat out not racist.
I think if you are worried that you formed an opinion based on race, you're contributing to problems with racism. Think about it - if you have to stop yourself and question yourself before you form an opinion about this dispute between 2 differently coloured people, are you really treating people different to you as an equal? Because you wouldn't do that if you were talking to say, your father. If you change how you act to someone because they're different, it isn't a good thing.
I've said it before, i'll say it again:
Challenging ourselves to stop our racism is OF COURSE a good thing, but racism will not be truly gone until it's not even an issue to consider to us anymore. For me, there is no issue to consider - i watch this video as one PERSON starting a fight with another PERSON and getting ass-kicked. The colour of their skin is just an identifying feature to me, like hair colour.
I actually feel slightly sorry for anyone that has to vet themselves for fear of accidentally being racist. I can't imagine how difficult it must be, i've never had to even remotely consider it. It stems right back to my primary school upbringing when i was about 4 or 5 years old. Back then, having someone with a different skin colour in your class was rare, but we had the only jamaican girl in the entire school in our class. 15 years later, i discovered that there was some racism that took place, and i was absolutely horrified and amazed - not only did i never see it, but it never even occured to me that she was in any way different to me.


Note: I downvoted your comment when it was just a lame response to longe, before you tacked on your response to my comment.

I know little about you, other than the fact that you don't seem very smart, so I'm not going to 'prejudge' your internal racial attitudes.

However, there are some clues here.

Your responses to other people on this subject have been highly emotional.
You are generally very defensive on the subject of race.
In your comment to longe, you self identify with the white combatant.
You've admitted that you think personal introspection on the subject of race is 'part of the problem'.

I'm no psychologist, but it doesn't take Sigmund Freud to tell you that there are probably some issues here.

Thinking is ALWAYS a good thing, regardless of the subject, and whomever taught you to turn off your brain when it comes to matters of race did you a grave disservice. As I said above in my comment to chilaxe, our minds are subjective by nature, which means that many of the things we understand to be true in this world just flat out aren't. Without critical thought, those misconceptions just stay up there, building strength with each new year of rationalization and self-deception.

In short: Your brain is your friend, so use it.

I'm sorry to put you in a metaphorical amberlamps, but you did fuck with me. (just kidding)

I think there are some people here misinterpreting what she is saying.

Inspiration, or whatever you want to call the peak of the creative mind, is not under conscious control. A person can't just *decide* to write (or paint, or dance, or sculpt) their best piece ever on a particular day. She is saying that artists are going crazy trying to pin down something that cannot be held. However you want to make peace with that fact, with metaphors like external supernatural beings or whatever else may work for you, to continue being a mentally healthy person that peace must be made. This is not to say that the artist should actually believe in faeries or geniuses or muses in the literal sense, merely as a metaphor for the subconscious realm from which inspiration springs. One might even choose to simply address the subconscious mind directly. ("Ok, subconscious, today would be a really great day to write a new song!") The important part is acknowledging that it is not under direct control, and that we shouldn't think of uninspired work as failure. Merely as practice.

The best an artist can do consciously is lay the groundwork for that creative inspiration to appear, and translate from idea to some realized form. What she calls "showing up" is laying that groundwork. Training, introspection, research, anything else that you can *choose* to do in your chosen art will make it easier to act on inspiration. Since nothing can force it to happen, the artist must accept that their only true job is to prepare and encourage creativity, but never expect it or rely on it.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
baaah.i tried editing my previous comment but it still came up in your text bubble.
any suggestions?
oh...and i responded.please understand i am not coming from a banal and myopic view.
nor a confrontational viewpoint.i just tried to clarify my point is all.
and i didnt downvote anything.


Hey man.. I believe all quotes should contain, in order, (left bracket) a href=...(right bracket)text(left bracket)/a(right bracket):(left bracket)em(right bracket) text(left bracket)/em(right bracket)

No worries, I'm not trying to offend either. I get worried when people hold viewpoints that they try to convince themselves they'll never change. I change my perspective on life nearly every day based off of experiences and introspection... the "right" place is probably somewhere in-between, but I worry that there is a sort of purposeful "dumbing-down" of our culture right now, and complete trust in anything can be dangerous.

That being said, it's his(her?) choice. I'll never argue that a person can't have their choice, just that they should ensure they've made it for themselves. Perhaps he has. I'm stereotyping that he hasn't. Perhaps I'm taking out some frustration on people I've talked to in the past that speak in certain terms like that that haven't. That is my bad. I knew it wasn't you who downvoted, but thx anyhow. :-D

I think it would help if people understood their own biological and psychological triggers. Evolution has given us some pretty simple criteria that, when met, inspire profound lust. On the other hand, when we think of long-term companionship, that is generally modeled on the relationships we saw around us growing up (for better or worse). The two can be reconciled, especially with a little introspection and self-analysis.

For me the argument starts and ends here: There is no god-damn reason it should be criminal to grow, sell, or smoke pot. I fucking roll my eyes these days whenever I hear people talking about how "free" we are. Sure we might be relatively free compared to many places on the planet. But loose chains are still chains.

There are two reasons pot is illegal: bass-ackwards thinking based on all the misinformation that's out there. And because if people were allowed to freely consume pot, they would in large numbers do so to the exclusion of drinking alcohol, which is one of the main ways in which the common man is held down and controlled. Keep drinking beer that tastes like piss and watching football and reality TV, you stupid fucks. Whatever you do, don't take a moment to introspect and establish a core kernel of truth.

Empathy is the worst thing for capitalism.

The argument that pot would bring in revenue pisses me off just much as the argument for legalization based on the benefits of medical marijuana. Fuck revenue. Fuck benefits. How's about just lifting the destructive, arbitrary laws against it because they represent the cocksucking lie that is the concept of freedom in our world? You know, because it's the right thing to do? No? I should go to jail because I like to get a natural, non-destructive high instead of getting drunk, stupid, and violent? Okay I'll just continue my descent into schizophrenia then.

>> ^ReverendTed:
>> ^gwiz665:
but one thing is fairly evident, there is no ethereal element to it.
How is this "evident"? The physical model does not accommodate unified experience. Just as you suggested, the body and the brain are simply organic machines. They should only "do" - impulse in, algorithm run, impulse out, and there is no reason for them to "be aware" of it. There is no step in the prescribed process where a cell does anything more than pass along an electrical stimulus to some other cells. (Which, again, I'm fine with - it's just that awareness remains completely unaccounted for.)


It is evident, because we cannot observe it directly OR indirectly. You'll agree with me, I presume, that we cannot observe something that is not material or physical, yes? Much like we cannot observe dark matter/energy (if that exists), but we can see the influence it has on the physical world.

We cannot see any influence on the physical brain from the consciousness, it goes the other way around . the physical brain determines the conscious thought.

And the consciousness is not aware of how the input/output works either, like I said, we have no introspective knowledge other than what the brain presents to "us". A car's speedometer does not know how much CO² the car releases into the world either. (Obviously there are some differences between a static closed thing like a speedometer and a dynamic, changing system like a brain, but it's a metaphor. )

There is no step in a computer either, which would account for how we can perceive programs on it - we just can, because we use certain filters and tables, which determines what that particular 1 or 0 means. You cannot see whether you run word, firefox or world of warcraft on a computer very easily, by looking at the electrical impulses, but that's the only way we have to analyze the brain right now.

Imagine having to reverse engineer a program on a computer, with only the hardware available? It's possible, but fuuck, it's hard. That's what neuroscience is trying to do (I think).

The only dualistic aspect between body and mind is that of hardware and software.

The brain is full of chemical reactions and electrical impulses, in the same manner as a computer is composed of silicon and electrical impulses. in the computer the electrical impulses are interpreted to be programs and processes forming a higher level "language" in several stages. The brain seem to interpret some of ours as consciousness, memories, thoughts. We, obviously, have no special insight introspectively into how our brain works, since we are limited by its own interpretation of itself. By studying neuroscience, we might be able to decipher how this interpretation happens, but one thing is fairly evident, there is no ethereal element to it. There is no connection from the material to the immaterial. If there is something immaterial, and I doubt it, it has no dicernable influence on the material world and in the end, is not really important (though it would be interesting).

I'd say religion is selected for evolutionarily, but not in the genetic sense - in the memetic sense. It's popular because it works, and tends to propagate itself as a result. (Yes, there are plenty of other reasons major religions propagate, but I do believe their success at raising an individual's perceived quality of life is the most important.)

I've argued this point before, but I think there are aspects of most major religions that are incredibly beneficial to personal and community well-being, regardless of whether there is truth to the "deity" behind it. I like to use prayer as an example.

If the deity exists, then prayer is a no-brainer and "works" as advertised.
However, let's look at prayer from a rational perspective.
Praying allows an individual a moment of quiet introspection, and facilitates setting priorities and gaining perspective, like setting aside time for quiet meditation.
When deciding what to pray for, we evaluate what's important to us. I do believe that acknowledging your priorities on a regular basis does help in working toward them. (Essentially, answering your own prayers.) In some cases, when thinking "do I really want to ask God for that?" we may recognize misplaced or trivial desires - realizing that perhaps we should focus our attentions elsewhere.
Most religious that incorporate prayer place a significant emphasis on giving thanks, and this portion of prayer can help someone recognize their blessings, or more objectively evaluate the positive aspects of their life, which can help encourage us when things seem bleak, and uplift us when things are going well.

Other aspects - things like gathering together regularly, codified rules like the Ten Commandments, et cetera - work to foster healthy communities.

Personally, I think the worst thing that happened to religion was the invention of written language, because the message is set, and is much more difficult to evolve along with us as it could in the age of a purely oral tradition. Obviously, we've all seen individuals take from the texts only those portions that suit their purposes, so Religion can still evolve, but much of it is unbending.

The world's religions did not spring fully-formed into the populace. Religion was (and I believe to a degree is still) an observational science - people observed the world around them and formulated theories as to its operation, in both the physical and social sense. As our knowledge of the world around us changed, so did those theories, tinted through the lense of the individual who spread the word. Even if people treated these theories as absolutes, people change and people die, and new generations were free to reinterpret. Unfortunately, once it was written down, the various religions were no longer free to adapt to advances in social and physical sciences, and I think that's dangerous.

However, this tendency towards grouping isn't something to be reinforced and encouraged, or accepted as inescapable, or even good. In-group morality is one of the biggest flaws of the modern human mind, despite being a great benefit of the ancient mind. And at it's core, the problem begins with forming alliances to groups of "like" humans, and excluding those who are different.

Ah – rational discussion… I have so missed it here on the sift… I would take issue with some of your language. You say grouping is not to be encouraged and that it isn’t even ‘good’. I heartily disagree. Social groups are one of the best, most positive aspects of humanity. What you are attempting to describe (I think) is the tendency for some of these groups to foster NEGATIVE characteristics, which is something very different.

Groups can be positive or negative, just like human beings can have both positive and negative characteristics when viewed individually. To say that grouping should not be encouraged simply because “some” groups are negative is not wise. Groups can provide comfort, support, happiness, service, and learning – the best of humanity.

What you are trying to say I deem is that humans should avoid NEGATIVE groups, and foster positive ones. I can support that sentiment, but I cannot agree with blanket judgments that ‘all groups’ are bad & should not be encouraged.

I don't think she was saying that all college students are racist or guilty of that form of in-group morality. Rather, she was challenging people to step back and really observe their behavior.

What behavior? The tendency to sit, talk, and walk together in groups? It is a real stretch to believe that she is encouraging people to ‘step back and observe their behavior’ for no other reason than because they move around in generic, inoffensive groups. College is a time where you are supposed to do exactly that kind of stuff. To me is it plain that she is criticizing these kids regarding what KIND of group they are in. She thinks they are associating in groups based on ‘fear’ – I.E. she thinks (in your parleyance) that they are in ‘negative’ groups. I wonder on what exact value system she arrived at this conclusion…

In the end, you can either decide to get offended and come up with rationalizations as to why her message was inappropriate, or you can get introspective and make yourself a better human being.

I’m aware of no stories of rampant racism on the USC campus. Therefore her commentary is pointless. If she wanted to encourage people to ‘celebrate diversity’ and to ‘use the time on campus to expand your world’ then that’s what she should have said. But to say, “you people are livin’ in fear… I see you walkin’ round in groups & sittin’ at different tables & livin’ in different dorms…” That’s when I dismiss her as a judgmental buffoon. There is no cause for her backhanded insinuation of racism. To impugn an entire audience like that based on absolutely zero data? Shame on her. You would think someone who was trained in sociology would know better.

Neolib-skip

It is as valid a term as neocon. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again… When people on the sift all collectively agree to stop using the term ‘neocon’ to generically describe any and all Republicans, conservatives, or anything else they disagree with then I will stop using my self-created term ‘neolib’. Until that happy day… Regardless, Mobama's ACTIONS are what make her a neolib. It isn't a bad thing to group people based on their actual behavior and record.

*sigh*

dudes and dudettes we all fucking stereotype. That's how our ancestors knew to run from a tiger instead of thinking about whether or not the tiger might be a happy cuddly tiger.

Making split decisions is what we start training for since the day we are born.

Her explaining that quality of human nature could be either considered exploitative, or introspective. The thing that determines how you interpret it, is your personal signature of stereotyping.