From the article: "While I drew, Snyder continued his lecture. ''You could call this a creativity-amplifying machine. It's a way of altering our states of mind without taking drugs like mescaline. You can make people see the raw data of the world as it is. As it is actually represented in the unconscious mind of all of us.''"
What I find seriously funny is the fact that while drug use is seriously shunned around most of the so-called "developed" world, there will be no such outcry over such mental manipulati
For me, the reason is more of having a culture rooted in Purantanism than of some industry that we can't kill.
Wait, I'm not clear on what industry you refer to? Are you coming out saying that we refuse to demonize the liquer industry because we need the jobs, but that we should because less people would die? Whoa.
I had more to say, but I am not clear enough about what you had to say to want to say it anymore.
I'm saying that people should be allowed to do to themselves what they want. This is not to suggest that people should be allowed to do things like drive while intoxicated. Then you begin to create a hazard for other people. If you want to do ecstacy, go ahead. And if you want to shower your brain with electromagnetic stimulation, go bonkers.
One might object that drug use creates a burden upon the rest of society. Well, so does a belief in a god yet that isn't made illegal.
Ok. That's more clear now. I agree completely. I have personally come to the conclusion that our current era of prohibition isn't working, and we need to try something, anything, else. But that isn't gonna happen, cause, remember kids, drugs are bad, umm-kay?
As far as the burden to society, it isn't clear to me that drug use creates the burden, it might just be drug prohibition.
Of course if I had a teenager, and I found out somebody supplied them with something, I would probably go kick the assholes ass. A
No. Fuck off. You stay out of my house, I'll stay our of yours. I have an idea of the source of it's popularity. I just don't care. My money, my rules.
Color me offtopic if you will, but the first thing I thought of after reading your post was that of a person driving while intoxicated by their belief in god.
Which in turn reminds me of Mad magazine's "Popes gone bad", with such things as drive-by baptisms. And also those annoying bumper stickers that say something along the lines of "Warning: in case of rapture, this car will be unoccupied".
Please reply with some proof that believe in God, in and of itself, creates a burden on society. I don't get Presbyterian Welfare, last I checked. Religious institutions are supported by their believers. In fact, they draw in money which is used for charitable purposes, thus aiding society. Tithing is part of both Christianity and Islam, and possibly others. It seems like you just threw that in because it's a popular opinion to have around here.
I'm not talking about misguided people who misinterpret their chosen belief system and use that as justification to harm others. That has almost nothing to do with belief; in some cases it's a result of _religion_, but other things could be substituted.
autechre writes: "Please reply with some proof that believe in God, in and of itself, creates a burden on society."
Normally, people with invisible friends are segregated from society to protect the sane ones, not placed in charge of making the laws that all the sane people must follow.
If this is not self-evident I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
Plenty of hostility around towards people who believe in God.
There people who believe it's a great idea to spend tons of money to overclock their CPUs (when they can just buy a faster one). And they don't get as much hostility around here.
Because people who overclock their CPUs do not, generally, demand that I do too.
So, is this a problem with religious people, or people in general? Do (democrats|republicans|insert political group here) not try to persuade you? Do (pro-life|pro-choice) groups not pressure you to believe as they do?
Yes, in U.S. and European history, and still today in other parts of the world, not conforming to a set of religious beliefs means death and torture. However, in western history, and still today in other p
Normally, people with invisible friends are segregated from society to protect the sane ones, not placed in charge of making the laws that all the sane people must follow.
On the other side of the coin, isn't it fortunate for us and the world of science today that all those who initially believed in "invisible to the naked eye" viruses and other microscopic oddities weren't segregated from society to protect the "sane ones" who didn't believe in invisible (or microscopic) things they couldn
An AC writes: "On the other side of the coin, isn't it fortunate for us and the world of science today that all those who initially believed in "invisible to the naked eye" viruses and other microscopic oddities weren't segregated from society to protect the "sane ones" who didn't believe in invisible (or microscopic) things they couldn't see that were causing these visible diseases?
They were hung as witches and described as heretics by religious institutions. You get no reprive.
I have an argument that is EXACTLY as good as yours:
The invisible (to the naked eye) realities we know today as viruses and bacteria point to the visible reality of disease. The invisible reality people have faith in (FAIRIES AND GREMLINS), points to the visible reality we see (the Earth and all it contains). While it is a matter of faith and the ignorant wish to mock the fact, I believe (and modern science tells us) that there is more that is invisible (to the naked eye) that exists than we know, and mu
For one, churches don't pay taxes, for another, there is the immeasurable burden of having to slip innovation past the "If god had wanted us to walk around with no clothes on, we would've been born naked." mentality, which has opposed virtually all new technology since before there was a printing press to record it...
Well put. Especially the non-productive class part. Although you have to admit that some of them have been generating a lot of work for the LAWYERS lately. Religion as an institution is a parasite on society. Religion as a personal belief system my actually be a good thing if a shapes a persons moral system in positive way. Religion isn't bad, organized religion IS. Some people are gullable and stay, independent thinkers walk away with a REALLY bad taste in their mouth.
Ah, I guess you haven't heard of the "tentmaker" philosophy, followed by several ministers I've known. This basically means that a pastor should not be dependant on his congregation for a livelihood (in the beginning, they would make tents, though in modern times we get people who are, to use a real-world example, elevator repairmen).
You waste time posting on Slashdot. People waste time watching TV. I don't consider worship to be a waste of time.
Proselytizing is unique to several sects of Christianity,
Well, you can make the freedom to do drugs argument, but history is not kind on you if you do that. Historically, about 10% of the population of Britain were addicted to heroin; before this substance was outlawed. That's a lot of smack heads. I don't really think we want that many in any country.
If it turns out that electromagnetic stimulation causes similar social problems, then it too will be banned I suspect.
Well, you can make the freedom to do drugs argument, but history is not kind on you if you do that. Historically, about 10% of the population of Britain were addicted to heroin; before this substance was outlawed. That's a lot of smack heads. I don't really think we want that many in any country.
Way back when the British had an empire, you mean?;-)
fferrers writes: "Religious people do a lot more for society than you probably do."
fferrers then writes in the next sentence: "They are not a burden in general and you can't generalize."
So you generalized all of society without knowing all of society, generalized me without knowing anything at all about what I do, then claimed that I cannot generalize.
Err yeah, Dark Ages, 911, book burnings, and it only took the Catholic Church how long to admit Galileo was right? Prior to WWII, more people were killed in the name of Christianity than in all of the known wars combined. Buddhists monks having gang wars to secure monies from funeral services? Jonestown. These are not generalizations.
Of course, it is always put forth that these are fringe elements; mentally unstable people and in no uncertain terms should the religion be held accountable for the actions of
Has nothing to do with religion. If you read the evangelium, you will not find what you think it's writen there. ItÂs just an example.
What some stupid dudes, including some popes, did in the name of religion, has absolutelly nothing to do with what religion is supposed to be. Granted, stupid people do dumb thing thing in the name of religion, as well as some atheist do in the name of... whatever. That doesn't change th reality: there might be god, and as long as it doesn't fuck up your right to do wh
I disagree completely. Yeah, atheist do stupid things for stupid reasons, but the body count isn't nearly as high. Nor is the loss of knowledge as severe. And when people fail to act because they belive their god will save them, or end all discussions with "you're wrong, god told me so"... These are definite tolls on a society. God may work fine and well on some astral plane. Down here on Earth, it sucks ass.
And yeah, it may not be what religon was intended to be, but that can be said about nearly anything
I belive in god, but at no point do I put that belief above my fellow man.
That's the key. Don't try to impose your point of view by force, and don't think you know it all. It's a firm belief. Now, when they try to ban your religion, is it ok?
In any case, religion can be good or bad for society, as well as atheism. I don't know about Nazism much, so I couldn't really tell. Only thing that I can say is that it was really sad and unforgibable. Let's not forget also how the modern Israel was born. History is
Brain Wars (Score:5, Interesting)
"While I drew, Snyder continued his lecture. ''You could call this a creativity-amplifying machine. It's a way of altering our states of mind without taking drugs like mescaline. You can make people see the raw data of the world as it is. As it is actually represented in the unconscious mind of all of us.''"
What I find seriously funny is the fact that while drug use is seriously shunned around most of the so-called "developed" world, there will be no such outcry over such mental manipulati
Re:Brain Wars (Score:1)
Wait, I'm not clear on what industry you refer to? Are you coming out saying that we refuse to demonize the liquer industry because we need the jobs, but that we should because less people would die? Whoa.
I had more to say, but I am not clear enough about what you had to say to want to say it anymore.
Re:Brain Wars (Score:5, Insightful)
One might object that drug use creates a burden upon the rest of society. Well, so does a belief in a god yet that isn't made illegal.
Re:Brain Wars (Score:2)
As far as the burden to society, it isn't clear to me that drug use creates the burden, it might just be drug prohibition.
Of course if I had a teenager, and I found out somebody supplied them with something, I would probably go kick the assholes ass. A
Re:Brain Wars (Score:1)
Re:Brain Wars (Score:2)
Made me laugh.
Re:Brain Wars (Score:1)
Re:Brain Wars (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not talking about misguided people who misinterpret their chosen belief system and use that as justification to harm others. That has almost nothing to do with belief; in some cases it's a result of _religion_, but other things could be substituted.
Re:Brain Wars (Score:3, Interesting)
"Please reply with some proof that believe in God, in and of itself, creates a burden on society."
Normally, people with invisible friends are segregated from society to protect the sane ones, not placed in charge of making the laws that all the sane people must follow.
If this is not self-evident I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
Re:Brain Wars (Score:5, Insightful)
There people who believe it's a great idea to spend tons of money to overclock their CPUs (when they can just buy a faster one). And they don't get as much hostility around here.
And why is that?
Re:Brain Wars (Score:3, Insightful)
So, is this a problem with religious people, or people in general? Do (democrats|republicans|insert political group here) not try to persuade you? Do (pro-life|pro-choice) groups not pressure you to believe as they do?
Yes, in U.S. and European history, and still today in other parts of the world, not conforming to a set of religious beliefs means death and torture. However, in western history, and still today in other p
Re:Brain Wars (Score:1)
Brain Farts = Those without faith (Score:1)
Normally, people with invisible friends are segregated from society to protect the sane ones, not placed in charge of making the laws that all the sane people must follow.
On the other side of the coin, isn't it fortunate for us and the world of science today that all those who initially believed in "invisible to the naked eye" viruses and other microscopic oddities weren't segregated from society to protect the "sane ones" who didn't believe in invisible (or microscopic) things they couldn
Re:Brain Farts = Those without faith (Score:2)
"On the other side of the coin, isn't it fortunate for us and the world of science today that all those who initially believed in "invisible to the naked eye" viruses and other microscopic oddities weren't segregated from society to protect the "sane ones" who didn't believe in invisible (or microscopic) things they couldn't see that were causing these visible diseases?
They were hung as witches and described as heretics by religious institutions. You get no reprive.
"We have not discovered e
Re:Brain Farts = Those without faith (Score:2)
The invisible (to the naked eye) realities we know today as viruses and bacteria point to the visible reality of disease. The invisible reality people have faith in ( FAIRIES AND GREMLINS ), points to the visible reality we see (the Earth and all it contains). While it is a matter of faith and the ignorant wish to mock the fact, I believe (and modern science tells us) that there is more that is invisible (to the naked eye) that exists than we know, and mu
Re:Brain Wars (Score:1)
Re:Brain Wars (Score:1)
Promote the existence of a non/anti-productive class (the clergy).
Waste the time consumed in worship.
Promote irrationality and gullibilty.
Give tyrants another excuse for war.
Obstruct science (anti-Darwinism, for example).
Create an irritating class of people who proselytize.
Christianity bears a large part of the responsibilty for the roughly 1000 years of no advancement of civilization prior to the renaissance.
Re:Brain Wars (Score:2)
Re:Brain Wars (Score:2)
You waste time posting on Slashdot. People waste time watching TV. I don't consider worship to be a waste of time.
Proselytizing is unique to several sects of Christianity,
Re:Brain Wars (Score:2)
Re:Brain Wars (Score:2)
If it turns out that electromagnetic stimulation causes similar social problems, then it too will be banned I suspect.
Re:Brain Wars (Score:2)
Way back when the British had an empire, you mean?
Re:Brain Wars (Score:2)
Religious people do a lot more for society than you probably do. They are not a burden in general and you can't generalize.
Re:Brain Wars (Score:2)
"Religious people do a lot more for society than you probably do."
fferrers then writes in the next sentence:
"They are not a burden in general and you can't generalize."
So you generalized all of society without knowing all of society, generalized me without knowing anything at all about what I do, then claimed that I cannot generalize.
That is just
Re:Brain Wars (Score:1)
Of course, it is always put forth that these are fringe elements; mentally unstable people and in no uncertain terms should the religion be held accountable for the actions of
Re:Brain Wars (Score:2)
What some stupid dudes, including some popes, did in the name of religion, has absolutelly nothing to do with what religion is supposed to be. Granted, stupid people do dumb thing thing in the name of religion, as well as some atheist do in the name of
Re:Brain Wars (Score:1)
And yeah, it may not be what religon was intended to be, but that can be said about nearly anything
Re:Brain Wars (Score:2)
That's the key. Don't try to impose your point of view by force, and don't think you know it all. It's a firm belief. Now, when they try to ban your religion, is it ok?
In any case, religion can be good or bad for society, as well as atheism. I don't know about Nazism much, so I couldn't really tell. Only thing that I can say is that it was really sad and unforgibable. Let's not forget also how the modern Israel was born. History is
Oblig. Simpson's Quote (Score:2)
Homer: "No TV and no beer make Homer something something..."
Marge (reading the walls): "Go crazy?"
Homer: "Don't mind if I do..." (Makes crazy sounds)
Ah, a classic.