I would say the point that you are missing is the point which you already made in your quote below: religion does not turn people into mindless slaves; they are quite capable of thinking for themselves. People can choose to be mindless slaves if they so wish--to anything: a political ideal, nationalism, capitalism, etc.--not just religion. You seem to blame religion for people's tendencies to want simple answers and to blindly follow authority, but I blame human nature for that.

Criticizing things that are wrong is fine. No, it is not okay for people to hate homosexuals or deny them equal rights to other people--and it is particularly wrong to do so on the basis of one's religious beliefs. The people that do so claim their religion forbids this, but when you look at the issue closely you find that really this view is at odds with what, for instance, the religion actually preaches. The original message has been twisted to suit the needs of those who want some sort of justification for their hate.

For instance, I'm not a Biblical scholar myself, but I do know that the passages the right-wing Christians quote when they denounce homosexuality are vague at best, and certainly any interpretation that calls for violence against homosexuals flies in the face of the dominant message of the Bible which is summed up by the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you (which I've been fascinated to find exists in one form or another in every single one of the major world religions--including the Far Eastern ones).

But even going beyond the actual messages of the major religions, I think you are unintentionally ignoring the great benefits that religious belief provides to society (and the individual worshipers themselves)--the community building, the volunteer work, the social work, and the spiritual fortitude provided in times of challenge. Religion changes people, and in my experience that change is almost always for the better--a change away from being self-centered to thinking about others. A change away from separating oneself from society to participating in making it better. And most importantly, a change towards happiness. I am not claiming religion is the sole method of bringing about these changes--only that I haven't seen you acknowledge them in any of your posts about religion.

You are free to believe what you like--in no way am I saying you must subscribe to a particular religion. However, I think it is always better to keep an open mind. Several of your posts have come across as degrading to religious people--as if you are somehow smarter than they are or more enlightened or figured out some secret that they haven't yet. I just want to point out that it is probably just as annoying for you when some (misguided) religious person looks at you in pity because you don't subscribe to their particular religion. Such attitudes I think foster only more misunderstandings and division. Approaching things with an open mind and engaging in respectful dialogue, I believe, is the way to bring about peace between the many divisions we see in the world around us. That means acknowledging, and not belittling, others points of view.

So, when I said "I think you're missing out," I meant several things. I think if you talked sincerely with some moderately religious people, you'd find they're not all insane zealots who blindly follow what their religious teacher or text tells them--that religion is indeed a living, breathing, social construct. I think you'd see a lot more of the positive things that religion can bring to both individuals and society. And if you're studying the world's major religions and philosophies and thinking about how you can use the messages they contain to make the world a better place, then in my opinion you are practicing religion. The dominant message I see in the world's major religious traditions is that we should continue to improve ourselves and the world around us (through, for one example, forgiveness). If believing in something supernatural helps people take that message to heart, I'm not convinced it is such a bad thing.

In reply to this comment by BicycleRepairMan:
In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:


I'm guessing they decide the exact same way I decide. By thinking for themselves.

I know I would fall into that category of sifting things of my ideology in that I sift things I enjoy watching. I try to keep an open mind towards different views and ideas out there. But if I don't want to watch certain videos then I find the handiest feature is to scroll past them with my mouse.

Your ideas are fascinating to me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

>> ^Drax:
Take a certain movie and slap a label on it "This is a guy movie.", "This is a chick flick." and you get these arguments. Now I have noticed that movies recently do get made with the idea of what audience they'll appeal to, and I think now a lot of work goes into figuring out the magical androgynous formula to pull both audiences together so everyone can go out after and talk about it over coffee or get laid (which ever just happens to be the most applicable scenario), but call me naive or whatever but I think there was a time where people just made movies and let them fall where they landed.
Here's some of my favorites, I guess most are guy flicks.. I dunno.. I just enjoy them. If a girl likes any of these too that's great, Id hope anyone can just approach a movie as "it's a movie", and keep an open mind.
Die Hard - Only the original. It's a freaking classic, not just a good action movie. So many little details worked out that there's a scene where you can see a whole sub-plot silently occurring based on one of the character's facial expressions. When Gruber puts the coke fiend on the radio to talk to McClane watch all of McClane's facial expressions.
Way of the Gun - This is another movie where entire conversations occur between characters without a word being spoken. The shoot out at the end is incredible and well thought out.
SE7EN - David Fincher at his best.
Aliens - Video games will never stop quoting from this movie (or stealing ideas from it). Can't wait for Avatar (no, not the cartoon).
The Hudsucker Proxy - One of the best comedies no one's seen.
Face / Off - Cheesy over the top in the best possible way. John Woo's best American movie IMO (Hard Boiled being his best period).
Event Horizon - Many don't like this flick, I loved it. The whole scientific concept of hell being this other place of pure chaos that this ship slipped into really drew me in.
I've got a ton more, but I'll stop here. Why do I like these movies? Because they're fun in some form or fashion.
And soon as Hollywood can get back to making movies that aren't based off something from 10-20 years ago I'll get back into being a movie buff.
Oh and PS, I SOOO Want to see Antichrist too. Looks like some really F'ed up horror.

She always succeeds in putting a smile on my face.

Yes, cold soup sounds a little intimidating, but I wouldn't let that stop me from trying it. Keep an open mind!

Take a certain movie and slap a label on it "This is a guy movie.", "This is a chick flick." and you get these arguments. Now I have noticed that movies recently do get made with the idea of what audience they'll appeal to, and I think now a lot of work goes into figuring out the magical androgynous formula to pull both audiences together so everyone can go out after and talk about it over coffee or get laid (which ever just happens to be the most applicable scenario), but call me naive or whatever but I think there was a time where people just made movies and let them fall where they landed.

Here's some of my favorites, I guess most are guy flicks.. I dunno.. I just enjoy them. If a girl likes any of these too that's great, Id hope anyone can just approach a movie as "it's a movie", and keep an open mind.

Die Hard - Only the original. It's a freaking classic, not just a good action movie. So many little details worked out that there's a scene where you can see a whole sub-plot silently occurring based on one of the character's facial expressions. When Gruber puts the coke fiend on the radio to talk to McClane watch all of McClane's facial expressions.

Way of the Gun - This is another movie where entire conversations occur between characters without a word being spoken. The shoot out at the end is incredible and well thought out.

SE7EN - David Fincher at his best.

Aliens - Video games will never stop quoting from this movie (or stealing ideas from it). Can't wait for Avatar (no, not the cartoon).

The Hudsucker Proxy - One of the best comedies no one's seen.

Face / Off - Cheesy over the top in the best possible way. John Woo's best American movie IMO (Hard Boiled being his best period).

Event Horizon - Many don't like this flick, I loved it. The whole scientific concept of hell being this other place of pure chaos that this ship slipped into really drew me in.

I've got a ton more, but I'll stop here. Why do I like these movies? Because they're fun in some form or fashion.

And soon as Hollywood can get back to making movies that aren't based off something from 10-20 years ago I'll get back into being a movie buff.

Oh and PS, I SOOO Want to see Antichrist too. Looks like some really F'ed up horror.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
No, that had to be intentional. "drive" is two gears away from "reverse" and he never took his foot off the gas. It would take a lot of power to put the car up like that. He had to have floored it. Hell, the blinker may have been accidental.


It's hard to believe someone would do something like this intentionally, though it does seem to look suspicious. Still, MG, have you never had one of those automatics with the crappy shifters that appears to be in drive but is still in neutral? I have. In plenty of automatic cars. And to think it's outside the realm of possibility that maybe, just maybe, if an automatic gear shift can appear to be in drive and still be in neutral, then maybe, just maybe, it can also be mistakenly placed in reverse instead of drive if the driver is incredibly agitated or nervous.

Keep an open mind, copper.

There are few Republicans I like now, but I try to keep an open mind. I have great respect for Ron Paul, more popular than Obama on this site IMO, and I really like Richard Nixon for some bizarre reasons.

There is no fairness doctrine that governs the sift. Probably, the best way to get anti-Democrat videos would be to recruit a lot of Republicans to join. And murder most of our current users.

I enjoyed the Silent Hill movie, though I never played the game. I'll keep an open mind on this one, I've ruined a lot of movies with high expectations.

"I think it's important to keep an open mind, and you won't convince me otherwise no matter what you say, so don't even try."

Love this guy!

Actually he was already in jail awaiting trial when a mob of 200 men stormed his jail cell, shot his brother in the face, and shot Joseph Smith several times.

That's hardly resisting arrest.

...and I can't believe you just compared Joseph Smith to Saddam Hussein. I mean, c'mon.

It seems to me like 95% of people I talk to have heard wild stories about what we believe and the only motive I have here is to ensure that everyone understands our beliefs 100%. Take them or leave them. I don't want to convert the whole world, I know that's impossible. Everyone is going to make their own mind up. It would just be nice if everyone could make their mind up about accurate information rather than false accusations and exaggerations.

I'm not one to argue that the things I believe, everyone has to agree with. Neither do I attempt to sugar coat anything, or hide anything about my religion because I'm ashamed of it. I'm not ashamed of what I know to be true. I want to tell it straight so that everyone has an accurate picture in their mind of who I am and what makes me a Latter Day Saint.

If you're honestly open to discussing my beliefs, than I welcome the comments. If you're just out to prove how crazy I am. Don't bother.

Time and time again throughout my life I've questioned my own faith in various ways and under various circumstances. Time and time again I prayed and received answers to those prayers that my faith was, and is, well founded.

I try to be a kind, loving, responsible, respectful, sensitive, and successful man. I hold myself to a high standard because I know that God wants me to. All I ask of others when discussing faith and religion is to respect my motives and keep an open mind.

>> ^MINK:
And Smith died how? Resisting arrest with gunfire? Isn't that a bit weird for a Christian?

I still think they dodged the issue at the end there, and they didn't help their case by shutting him off. Granted I'm not a scientist, so I don't know that there are monkeys - some people say there are monkeys, other people say there aren't, so I'm willing to keep an open mind on that. I think that's the least we can do, keep an open mind. But if (and this is for the sake of argument) there are monkeys, and obviously there are people, then you can't just go around that fact - you have to build a worldview that's strong enough to accept or explain these unpleasant contradictions. Otherwise you're just as bad as the fundamentalists, and what's worse, if science can prove monkeys then the entire evolutionary theory falls apart, together with their worldview. They pretty much dropped the ball here, IMO.

I was recently turned on to MOND theory(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOND), but I think I will keep an open mind until the collider thingy experiments have concluded.

I'm going to China next year to watch the F1 race in Shanghai. I try to keep an open mind, but I'm apprehensive as hell.

Rembar, thanks for the document. It's quite substantive. Some things I wanted to restate, because I don't seem to be expressing myself clearly enough:

* I am not a scientist, nor have I ever claimed to be a scientist. But you don't have to be a designer to recognize good and bad design and you don't have to be a writer to recognize good and bad writing. I have no interest in being a scientist because I have a good idea of what that involves: mainly, keeping an open mind to seemingly crazy ideas. If we always listened to the naysayers, major scientific discoveries would never have happened. (For the record, I'm not a creationist.)
* I am NOT claiming that remote viewing *definitively* exists, just that there "may be" some scientific evidence to support it, as I said in the post's original description. I leave the final judgement to the scientists.
* I am only disputing the close-minded attitude that remote viewing is nonsense, bullshit, bunk, etc. Anyone can shout out an opinion, but to categorically state that remote viewing is nonsense would imply a complete knowledge of what's possible and what's not in the universe (for today, and for all time). I don't have that kind of sweeping insight, and does anyone?

While reading the document you provided, I would tend to agree with their conclusion that remote viewing, if it even exists, is too imprecise to be of value to the intelligence community. (Honestly, I've always wondered what methods they could use to separate the wheat from the chaff.)

However, and I really want to emphasize this point:

== They do NOT claim that remote viewing is total nonsense.==

On page 5-3, they even say, "This is not to say definitively that paranormal phenomena do not exist. At some point in time, adequate evidence might be provided for the existence of remote viewing."

This is the ONLY point I have been trying to make: remote viewing *MIGHT* exist. Is that so hard to envision? Perhaps because it sounds too much like hokey science? If so, I would agree—anything to do with psychic research sets me on edge, too. But this? I find it really hard to believe that so many people have been hoodwinked for so many years. It's possible, sure, but I'm unwilling to pass judgement so swiftly.

Now:

IF there's a chance some sort of psychic power does exist—no matter how small—then it's worth investigating further. A talent like that, augmented and refined, could have staggeringly useful applications.

But again, that's IF it exists.

hmm, I keep an open mind on religion and dont really identify with any of them but I am getting tired of the guys like Pat who pour scorn on any who see things differently, and who are as intolerant of others beliefs as the worst religious nutters I encountered during my schooling.

Sometimes I find him interesting but I think Pat has too much time on his hands to be getting so upset about what other people believe, to record a weekly rant.

Beware of people who want everyone thinking the same, whatever message they are spreading.

[Edit] Having watched it again I forgot to say that he is a perfect example of a smug git, I would guess hes one of those knobs who annoy you in work or the pub by insisting they know everything about everything.