Man, I hate zoos. I've seen so many bears, big cats, apes etc, that show all the signs of psychosis, locked in a fake environment for us to gawk at. This poor animal is no exception.

Feelings come and go..if it was just feelings I wouldn't have the faith in God that I do..there were many times it would have been much easier not to believe..and many feelings that came along that were powerful and should have swept my belief in God away if that's all my faith was about..but God has always been there, eternal and unchanging..providing stability in the midst of the chaos..providing truth that is real and tangibly useful in life.

It depends on what you think the nature of truth is..whether it is relative or absolute to you..because in the relative truth world, feelings are king..you are always running a race you can never win. in the world of absolute truth, feelings are like shifting sand..they aren't a foundation for what is real..you must plant yourself on a rock to be well grounded

In reply to this comment by Crunchy:
>> ^shinyblurry:

Well, if I am psychotic I don't have any symptoms. I don't have hallucinations or hear voices, nor am I at all paranoid. My thoughts and feelings are organized and stable. I obey all laws, those of society and those from God. I have empathy for others, compassion for their plights, and generally love and care for my fellow man. I am emotionally stable and can relate to others and form relationships. If I am psychotic, I am the rare well adjusted empathetic type.
My initial experience opened me to an awareness of the spiritual. It started out as an awareness of energy. That in the moment, one could perceive the energy which was flowing through all things. Through other people, through objects, through the room or space you are in..that there was a tangible vibrational signature to everything. This is somewhat described in much of the new age literature.
After getting used to this, God unequivicably showed me He was there. He did this by instructing me in the Spirit about who He is. He showed me how He had always been there my entire life, and that He loved me. He showed me His omnipresence in the moment, that He was always working behind the scenes to bring all things together to His will..and by all things I mean everything, everywhere. He showed me He was the unifying principle underlying reality.
He also taught me He is the God of the bible. He taught me He is a triune God. He taught me there is a messiash, ie, someone whose job it is to save the world. He taught me about good and evil. He showed me that Satan is real and that he has a host of demons which suborindate people to his will and can even possess them utterly. That and many other things before I even knew anything about Christianity.
I couldn't ignore God if I tried..it would be a joke. I would have to pretend He didn't exist. Even still, all I would have to do is look outside and the illusion would be shattered. It is true what this scripture says:
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
So that's a little bit about it. The most important thing I learned is that God loves us and wants to give us a real future, ie eternal life. All he requires is that we turn from our evil and acknowledge our responsibility to Him to live a moral life. Two things make someone a Christian and saves you..believing in your heart that Jesus rose from the dead, and confessing that He is your Lord and Savior. He died for our sins so that we could be redeemed, and because of that, is worthy of all praise.

<em>>> <a rel="nofollow" href='http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry#comment-1231303'>^Crunchy</a>:<br />Hi, big fan... Ive seen your comments on some sifts and well... they've been interesting and when reading your profile i came across this <BR><BR>"10 years ago I was where you are now. I've was agnostic for the majority of my life. I thought truth was relative, humanism was superior, and was a strict materialist who saw no evidence for spirit or God. Then God woke me up and showed me He is there. God is more real to me than my own reflection in a mirror. I'm here because God commanded me to preach the gospel, and because I care about my fellow man. I am here out of love for God and love for people, and that alone. "<BR><BR>What scared me is that you say that you've been "one of us" and then god appeared and gave commands directly to you, point being you experienced something supernatural.<BR><BR>Now my first reaction was, oh god i hope i dont become bat shit and experience "supernatural" things one day, which seemd plausible since you said you've been one of us.<BR><BR>But then i remembered what i know about the human mind and psychosis. When a person is in a psychosis he/she is deemd mentally insane and has lost contact with reality. "Funny" thing is though, that the person is not aware of it, and so does not feel that there is anything wrong with him/her and might get frustrated about why people think he/she is insane.<BR><BR>Now there are alot of things that can create a psychosis but im not gonna start listing, if youre interested you can google it.<BR><BR>There are no hard lines when it comes to the human mind, theres no 100% insane or 100% sane, everyone have most of the mental illneses to some small extent. And we can witness symptoms of these diseases in most people to some extent. (Denial<BR><BR>The mind is a tricky thing, it has lots of funny defence mechanisms (you guessed it, psychosis), and if you dont know enough of your brain and how it functions, it can royally screw you over one day.<BR><BR>So... to me it sounds like you've experienced something traumatic and suffer from a psychosis, I am however interested in hearing about what turned you religious, how did god wake you up and show you that he is there, and i notice you write he with a capital H so why is he a he <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/tongue.gif"><BR><BR>Im sorry to say but if you dont tell me more about your experience, in other words convince me that what you experienced wasnt a mental brakedown, im gonna continue believing that youre bat shit and ignore you<BR><BR>You can always argue that im the one who is psychotic, but then you cant convince my because im in denial<BR></em>


The thing is that emotions are much stronger in controlling trains of thought than logic, why is why depressesion is so common and when in a depression you think of only sad things, which is why medication is prescribed, its not to make people numb (which alot of people seem to think) but to ease the pain temporarily so the person can think logically and not in the same trains of thoughts. And from my point of view it seems like you've confused emotions and mechanisms of your brain with the presence of a god (stephen fry talked a bit about this in the infamous stephen fry on god and gods video didn't he ?)

Now that is my opinion, ive created that from the experience and "knowledge" ive gathered in my lifetime regarding the human mind, philosophy and religion etc. Its gonna take alot to change my view on this, and I think it might be even harder to change your view of what really happend and what is going on, with the god and what not.

So, I guess we can just agree to disagree?

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^rottenseed:
So she gets high twice, has 1 good trip and 1 bad trip, and now they're reached an ultimate conclusion. Wow...science sure is easy.

Well i don't understand exactly what's going on with the separate experiments. I assume the cannabinoid is what you typically get from weed, and the pure THC is the extracted drug from the weed without anything else.
.


Maybe you are confused because they tried to dumb down the terminology. They are testing the interaction between two cannabinoids found in Cannabis, THC and cannabidiol. The idea is that new varieties of Cannabis have been selected from higher THC content, and that this throws off the ratio between THC and other canabinoids in the plant. The question is, "does the ratio of THC to other cannabinoids affect the frequency of psychosis in Cannabis users?" They are testing this by giving people either synthetic THC alone, or synthetic THC in conjunction with synthetic cannabidiol.

Their sample size is small, but the results appear to support the prediction that the effects of THC are altered by the presence of an additional cannabinoid that naturally co-occurs in Cannabis.

This appears to be the research they are reporting on:
http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v35/n3/full/npp2009184a.html

I don't see why the marijuana users have their hackles up about this. Wouldn't it make sense to push the breeding community to develop strains with smoother, or a wider variety, of highs, rather than constantly pushing for greater potency? Maybe they are already doing this?

>> ^blankfist:

statism


I'm your regular statist normally coming in and defending the police. This is completely indefensible, the cop murdered this guy with zero cause, plain and simple. There is no self-defense angle or explanation for this.

The only defense I'd add is for the dozen officers showing up after the fact. The seem to be under the mistaken impression their fellow officer actually shot the guy in self defense, which I can forgive them for assuming. I'm with everyone else though on not forgiving the killer. Even if you can accept for some reason he'd been under great stress, was confused and really did feel threatened, this is still manslaughter. You don't get away with killing someone who isn't threatening anyone because of your personal psychosis just because your cop. Well, maybe you do... Need to get on fixing this crap.

>> ^shinyblurry:

The devil could convince someone to kill their own mother and wear their head like a hat. His ways are supernatural, and he has every advantage. He is the ruler of this world and has a supernatural dominion. It's easy for him though, because there simply isn't any limit to human depravity. The bible says no one knows how wicked the human heart really is, but the devil probably has an idea.
People think that the devils main appearance is that of a red faced grotesque..but that isn't the truth. He can appear however he wants. He can even make himself appear as an angel of light. He could have been whispering all of this into her ear appearing as a messanger of God, and she would have believed every word. "The great tribulation is coming..it's time to go..you need to get your daughters to heaven now so they dont suffer any pain"
I've seen it in action..I have dealt with people possessed by evil spirits who basically told me that..they hate humans to the utmost, and that they spend every hour of every day creating elaborate fantasies (they even compare their "business" to disneyland) which are designed to mislead humans away from God so they can ruin Creation as much as possible before they are cast out forever. As a final middle finger to God, basically.
Everyone is a target, but if you don't believe in God, he will probably leave you alone. You're right where he wants you to be.






I totally disagree with you. If someone can be convinced to mutilate their own child (by an angel or a demon, if there were such things) they are highly disturbed. It's not a devil that convinces people, it's their belief that a devil has that power. And it's all in their head. (See also: Psychosis)

>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^probie:
Businesses attempting to capitalize on a tragedy (and therefore increase their profits - they are capitalists, remember?) does not a conspiracy make. Until they're able to do an approximate re-creation, ie. build another tower using the same grade steel and materials made in the 70's, age it for 30+ years, reproduce the same weight load on said structure, and then fly a plane into it, all of this is moot. There are so many factors in reproducing what happened on 9/11, attempting only one part of it to support an entire conspiracy is ludicrous.
Where's all the conspiracy nuts talking about how the US govt. took out Pearl Harbor? It happened, right? Right?

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pearl_harbor.htm
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=445
http://historyrat.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/conspiracy-theory
-fdr-and-pearl-harbor/
Not that I subscribe to this, but you asked.... I think there's some for and against the theory, I didn't really take the time to read them since I'm at work.
The theory is not that they "took it out", but that they had foreknowledge it was going to occur, and let it.



Oy vey. The psychosis runs deep in those who can't accept that shit just does happen. It must suck to live life in constant state of self-induced victimization and the need for validation. I wonder what conspiracy theories they come up with when they drop a coffee cup, or stub their toe?

Batshiat! There is a reason that word exists.

It sounds to me that he has literally caused a type of psychosis. The drugs have facilitated the change via memory and neuron construction. This doesn't sound like bi-polar (all though it seems like it's cyclical, I think it's the drugs--since he views them as a joke with no negatives), this sounds like a drug induced semi-delusion, schizophrenia, or literally a psychotic break.

This is what happens to you when you take too much--your brain finds a way to sustain itself in every fashion. The drugs were in the way so it cut around the useless area and reconnected. Simple stuff.

It made Charlie believe he's more than mortal, "in touch" with something "else", rampant rambling that's almost incoherent. This is ALL textbook; hell you don't need to be a doctor (one second he asks her if she's a doctor as though that brings qualification; the next he thinks the doctors have got it all wrong; rambling, psychotic...). Charlie needs to take a Human Anatomy 101, Psychology 101, and then either a Psychology +102, Neuroscience 101+, and then a Philosophy 101.

He might find out that his experience is: A-Not unique or special. B-VERY common to people to OD or take heavy doses of psychoactive drugs (or really any neurotransmitter/neurochemical based drug such as Xanax, Phenegran, or the common choice of an Opioid) C-Surprisingly he'll most likely end up like a statistic. Especially, because he thinks he's doing the right thing (psychosis).

I highly doubt Charlie will stop himself, it's up to the people around him that are close enough to affect a change (good luck with that; I know how hard that is to pull off).

Charlie Sheen is only human.

OK, I think I have watched the entire (today) set of videos [last one was 3.3.3 A History of God (Part 1)?]. I thought they were excellently done, and present a path to atheism that was, frankly, more arduous than my own.

I think that by the time I was mature enough to really consider things and run the logic for myself, I had already mostly rejected my Christian upbringing. Having been brought up in it at all made that process of rejecting it slightly difficult, but it seems almost beyond imagining how difficult it would be to be a (functionally) mature yet indoctrinated human being and then to have all of this rushing at you over a short period of time as he did.

At first I was almost offended by his account of the "Professor" trying to delay his further investigation. I have tended to think considering that a key tenet of the religious process seems to be "hook 'em while they're young", any atheist that has even mild "evangelical" tendencies or would like to see atheism or even just greater acceptance of atheists spread to people other than themselves should consider no age "too early" to begin planting seeds of speculation, doubt, and rational thought.

The Professor telling this guy to hold on, live his life and be happy, and don't sweat the details until you are older goes very contrary to that. However, I can see that the sudden vacuum that resulted in this guy's world view from the abrupt loss of his faith could actually have been dangerous; might have pushed him into suicidal depression or even cult-of-personality psychosis resulting from his brief decision that he was the second coming of Christ.

Maybe there are some instances where throttling down and just giving people enough so that they can start down the path of skepticism on their own would be better -- although I bet that this guy is overall glad that he got thrown in to the deep end to sink or swim.

Props to JS for keeping it classy. Slops to the rest who just can't keep their partisan bias in their pants. People here should be following JS's example, rather than diving headfirst into the sewer of partisan hate speech.

Those complaining about poisonous rhetoric are exhibiting a very curious case of blindness. On the one hand they are able to make the most distant, tenuous, tangental links to supposed right wing hate and tie it boldly to this tragedy. On the other hand, they stubbornly refuse to acknoweldge the left wing hate that permeates the political world, news media, blogosphere, and themselves. To these kinds of specimens, when a right wing guy says something provocative then they are blasted as a hatemonger - but when a left wing guy says something provocative they are cheered.

I find such hypocrisy to be odious in the extreme, and those who are a prisoner to such a mental outlook can only be said to be complicit in perpetrating the very hate they supposedly condemn. Its practicioners are literal buzzards, feasting on tragedy to fatten themselves. There is no evidence of any kind that Loughner was motivated by anything except his own psychosis. For slimy opportunists to wrest this terrible event so they can cackle like demons while pointing fingers at only ONE side bespeaks the same kind of evil that motivates the worst examples of humanity.

I reject utterly the accusation that it is only the right wing that contains angry, violent rhetoric. The left also inundates the national discourse at equal levels of angry, violent rhetoric. You can condemn them both or you can exhonorate them both and be fair. But if you only condemn one while exhonorating the other then you disqualify yourself from any and all intellectual validity - to your shame.

@ gwiz665 - Someone that is able to cut off a baby's head and then eat parts of it's body has no concept whatsoever of "responsibility". You might not believe in god or the devil but, to her, obviously, they are very real. I think you're on the outside looking in. Her world is most likely very different from yours (I hope).

@ brycewi19 - I think your man with a shattered pelvis analogy is wrong because gwiz665 said: "this is symptomatic of people that cannot accept responsibility for their own actions." This woman committed an act and said someone else made her do it (out of psychosis or lack of responsibility is beside the point). So, your shattered pelvis man would have had to jump off a building and then say the devil made him do it. Not saying I disagree, just saying I don't think your analogy works.

Probably post-partum psychosis. Not that uncommon really, although the severity of this case is.

that's right. psychopathy is a disorder of the personality (e.g., grandiosity, lying, callousness, lack of empathy, etc.), and psychosis is a constellation of mental disorders (e.g., delusions, hallucinations, flat affect, etc.). Thanks.

>> ^ambivalens:

>> ^Trancecoach:
As a trained psychologist, I learned to spot the symptoms of psychopathy, which includes, among other things, the presence of schizophasia, also known as "word salad," (which is not to be confused with glossolalia, which is more akin to the Pentacostalist "speaking in tongues").

Ehm. You wrote psychopathy, but you must surely mean psychosis?

>> ^Trancecoach:

As a trained psychologist, I learned to spot the symptoms of psychopathy, which includes, among other things, the presence of schizophasia, also known as "word salad," (which is not to be confused with glossolalia, which is more akin to the Pentacostalist "speaking in tongues").


Ehm. You wrote psychopathy, but you must surely mean psychosis?

http://drugs.videosift.com/talk/Drugs-Channel-Manifesto

What this doesn't include:
- People doing stupid shit that you'd like to cleverly "blame" on drugs

This could be a non-drug induced psychosis from a wide range of psychiatric or physical afflictions.

Very sad. I hope they called the emergency services and they arrived on time.

*nochannel

*wtf

>> ^dag:

Some people hate cats. I know, my Internet friends, this is hard to believe - but I have met them. Usually they are people with allergies, a sand box in their backyard or with a phobia of toxoplasmosis.


Some people hate a kind of animal. These people are usually referred to as idiots or morons. Hate, seriously? I mean I don't like rats, but I'm not gonna go out of my way to harm one if it means no harm to me. I certainly don't hate rats, why would I? The actions of this woman were more likely motivated by her psychosis and not by a dislike for cats. Look at how she pets the cat before she throws it into the bin. If I didn't know any better I'd say she's a late blooming serial killer in the making.