Who'd have thought that you make iced coffee by cooling coffee down and pouring it over ice. I never would have guessed! I'm looking forward to next week's lesson 'breathing in and out, the basics' but I'm not sure I'm ready for the more advanced stuff like 'Bass drums and telephone boxes; a mystery unravelled' but I did manage to find my ass with both hands the other day though, so there's still hope for me

@shinyblurry

There's some meat on this bone. I think we can make some progress here, you and I.

Clearing the air
In my comments above, I was responding to your question, "Did you miss me?" until the last part where I think I only addressed your arguments about the video, and not very well. To be clear, I don't feel like I was attacking your character rather than your arguments. I was commenting on the way I perceive your arguments to often be illogical, inconsistent, unprovable, or even demonstrably false. That's my opinion of your arguments, not your character. As I said initially, I like you, and think you're probably a really nice person of good character, and I'd probably enjoy having a beer with you. If you mean the bit about your psychotic break, that's because that's what I think happened to you based on what you've told me about your conversion, and I think it's affecting your judgement and perception, honestly and sincerely. Put in my shoes (as you once were), you wouldn't accept your own story at face value either, so I don't know why you expect anyone else to.

Before getting to the video, I also need to challenge one stat you presented, present my experience, describe basis of my opinions about spiritual faith systems at large. I think they mostly flow nicely together, so heregoes.

"90%"
You're conflating at least two groups of people in your "90%", namely people who claim religious faith (whether sincere or not, and to whatever degree of devotion), and those who have actually had numinous experiences. When I say that you can't come to any other conclusion because of your mental condition, I'm only referring to you and other people who have actually had a serious numinous experience like yours, which is an underwhelming minority of religious people, nothing like 90%. This minority, and anybody else who claims to have seen ghosts, or communicated with daemons, or been abducted by aliens, or been levitated, or seen other locations in time/space, or communicated with the dead, I view with equal scepticism. The first reason is that it's very common among holders of all sorts of mystical beliefs to have gained the belief following such an experience, and to have attributed the belief to whichever mystical force is closest at hand, in your case, Jesus. The second is that there's no real reason to choose one mystical explanation for the experience over another explanation, and until there is, it's smartest to reserve judgement, and assume for the moment that they're all wrong, as only one of them, maximum, could possibly be right, no matter how fervently held they are.

My psychological break
And I'm not speaking from a position of complete ignorance here. I had a psychological break myself, one which led me to believe that most people were evil, out to get me, part of a massive conspiracy of some sort that I soon realized was so complex I'd never be able to unravel it. Initially, any real-world inconsistency with my first version of the story I'd invented I was able to fit into it by adding more detail. This too was done unconsciously, faster than I could think. As this story that I was unconsciously weaving in my own head got more and more complicated, more and more sinister, I realized it was too much for my weak mind to solve, and since things were that clandestine, I'd never be allowed to know all of it anyway, so why bother. Instead, I gave up trying, gave up thinking about it, and removed myself from situations that would trigger those thoughts. It was probably a year later that I started to consider it might all be in my head. Believe me, I thought long and hard about that, hoping it was true. I didn't know for sure, of course, but I could live my life as if it weren't true, and face whatever the consequences of it was. Not long after, to my great relief, I determined it much more likely that the whole story was in my head, and had no bearing in real life whatsoever. I still suffered from the effects of it for a year or so, but I got better at reminding myself that it probably wasn't true, and in fact there was no sense in living as if it were. That was nearly twenty years ago, and I'm still not yet at the point where I can laugh at how silly it was, and have just become comfortable enough to talk openly about it.

The "truth" that I received was unquestionably true, impossible to consider denying since to me it was so obviously true, and agonizingly, mindbendingly horrible. Depending on how you look at it, this could be a good thing or a bad thing. If the "truth" that I saw had been fulfilling, hopeful and beautiful like yours was, and not horrible, dark, pessimistic and paranoid as it was, I would have had far less motivation for questioning it, and may have just gone along with it forever, especially if holding that view improved my life in certain ways.

Everybody who has a break like this comes to a slightly different conclusion as to its meaning. Mine was a very, very dark conclusion, which is vastly different from yours, but similar to many other people's, though probably not exactly the same as anybody else's, just like yours probably isn't. Like Double Rainbow Guy was probably experiencing a similar break right at that moment, and concluded neither that Jesus was the saviour, nor that the world was evil, nor that he himself was the new messiah.

So I don't like the word "crazy" because of its negative connotations, and wouldn't have appreciated it being flung at me during that time nor now (and if I've ever used it about you, it was probably when I thought you were a real troll, Poe's Law being what it is, and definitely before I knew about your numinous experience). That said, I have no issue pointing out to people that I don't believe they are applying critical thought to their assertions, and that they don't seem capable of doing so because of a story in their head that is so powerful it renders contradictory input trivial. I've been there. I get it. And if the story in your mind from your experience is the truth, then so is mine, and so are millions of other people's, but they can't all be the truth, and probably none are.

If nothing else, please take from this story that I'm not looking down on you for having a mental injury. I'm identifying with you, and that seems more important to me than debating the merits of any argument.

Back to "90%"
People who cleave to a religion despite never having had any numinous experiences are just following what everyone else is doing without questioning it because they were raised to do so from birth. I don't deride these people for it because it's natural for humans to accept whatever they see being done all around them as normal. That's how we socialise and learn. It is not evidence that what they're doing is "correct" any more than shaking hands is the "correct" way to greet people, and bowing is "incorrect". Children in Muslim environments tend to grow up Muslim. Children of the Amazonian Pirahã tribe believe their fellow villagers sometimes are spirits who are visiting them with messages from other realms. Children of atheists tend to grow up atheist. Children raised around racists tend to grow up racist. Victims of childhood abuse tend to believe they are worthless pieces of shit, deserving abuse. All this indicates that people tend to believe what they're brought up to believe, not that what people believe en masse is true.

An emergent question with (at least) two answers
This raises the question of why so many people believe in god/s/mystic beings/supernatural events in the first place, and why it is such a universal human trait. It's a good question. One answer is that there is some kind of non-physical "force" we can't detect (yet) except in numinous experiences, during which it somehow has an effect on our physical bodies and causes us to know and wonder about its existence. That's totally possible, even scientifically, and I'm open to it. The problem is that there are thousands and thousands of systems of belief which all claim to be the true one, the one that best or most authoritatively explains the phenomenon of numinous experience. Worse is that there's virtually nothing to choose between them in terms of which one seems the best. They all have lore and deities, explanations for natural phenomena, numinous experience, extremely fervent adherents, and internal references and contradictions in number and greatness in rough proportion to the number and greatness of the claims they make about the universe. So, please don't call me arrogant for saying that your strain of faith, among a long list of mutually exclusive strains stretching back through human history is probably not correct, nor any of the others, probably. There's a 1 in n chance that any of them is correct, where n is the number of mutually exclusive faith systems that have ever existed. From the point of view of someone with no specific belief about any particular faith system, deciding on one seems a fool's errand. Especially when you consider the other possible answer.

Another answer to the good question about why so many people believe in gods, etc. -and my best guess- is that it is part of human nature to fear and mistrust the unknown, and be endlessly curious about it too. Anything we don't know presents a threat, so we have to go and examine it. If we can't examine it, then our imaginations are left to wander unconstrained. This is quite taxing, and we yearn for answers. It can also lead to dissent among communities. One very simple way to solve both problems is to assert a god or a pantheon of gods who control all things. For example, storm clouds are dark and scary and change shape of their own will and look heavy, yet are way high up in the sky, and they can send rain and lightning down and make some of the loudest noises you've ever heard. Someone without any climatology knowledge might be very scared by these things, and unable to investigate or explain them. But if they were told they're controlled by a god named Zeus who can be appeased by building a white marble temple and killing goats there (or whatever they did), then it's much more comforting, so much so, that people feel an incredible sense of relief from the burden of having to know and understand everything. From that point on, no matter what mysterious natural phenomenon presents itself, they have merely to ascribe it to some god, and the matter is solved. So the short answer is that mental and social peace is the reason I believe so many people believe in gods. And again, numbers of people believing similar things is no evidence that some kind of god is real, just that believing in supernatural beings makes humans feel good. Whether you believe in anything or not, that last part is an objective fact that we both agree on, I think.

Another part of the attraction to faith, I believe, is that many people also have a hard time taking responsibility for their own actions, and would prefer some parental guidance, but from perfect parents, not their own. Belief that there is a father-like god watching everything you do and communicating with you and telling you what to do if you'll only listen is also a great relief from the burden of being responsible yourself for all the important decisions you make. Most people, I believe, know what the right thing to do is, but don't always want to do it because it doesn't always meet what they consider their best interests or motivations. So instead, they invoke God (which I think is an impartial metaphysical moral version of yourself), and know what God would think is the right thing to do, and they do that, believing that it wasn't their conscious choice, but God directing them.

As someone who did believe in God as a child, I can do it any time, and often do when I have to really think about the right path in a difficult situation. The difference is I don't believe I'm receiving wisdom from another being anymore; I believe I'm putting my ego out of the way and accessing my true "moral" self. This theory accounts for the different interpretations of faith systems, since different people even within the exact same strain of faith seem to have different ideas of moral actions.

Your arguments, in general
As to your inconsistencies, at least once on the Sift you claimed that other people have the wrong faith. You appealed to reason and logic to conclude that Muslims have it wrong by pointing out inconsistencies in their faith. I can't remember the details, but you probably know what I'm talking about. You can imagine how a devout Muslim might react to your logical arguments. Well, you react the same way when presented with equivalent logical arguments about your own faith. Again, I haven't searched up any examples, but I will, if you like, or I can point out some logical contradictions that I come up with. I'd also appreciate it, as a gesture of good faith (ha ha), if you'd agree to renounce the theology of your strain of Christianity if I can come up with even one thing we both agree is a clear, undeniable logical contradiction from it.

My ego
So you raised the issue of my ego. I can see why you did, and hopefully you see from the above why I consider that a misinterpretation of my position. But while we're here, I openly claim to know nothing for absolute truth. I hold that the nature of the universe is probably not knowable, that all I can do is look at what evidence is before me and decide how it all fits best together, reject claims that don't make sense, follow ones that seem to bear out, and plod on as well as my time- and capacity-limited mind and body allow. I make no absolute metaphysical claims, nor do I think my knowledge is that much superior or inferior to anybody's. I think you and I are equal human beings, neither of us more special as humans in any way. In contrast, if I'm not mistaken, you claim to have direct personal communication with the single creator and director of the entire universe; to know his nature, his will, and the "truth"; that he specially chose you unsolicited to receive this intimate contact rather than me; and that you will live forever by His side in heaven in the afterlife. You also believe that if I humble myself to your god, of whom you are a chosen favourite, he will tell me the "truth", and if I don't, your god will send me to suffer eternally. Between the two of us, in terms of faith, it's not me who's puffing himself up. Seriously, go back and read this paragraph if you don't know what I'm saying.

Religious people claim to "know" that they're right, that their God exists, that their experiences prove it, that believers in any other faith are wrong, and believers in no faith are also wrong. Believers in no faith, however, are ready to believe whatever presents itself as likely to be true, including the existence of gods, or whatever. Just because claims from your particular faith don't stand up to critical thinking doesn't make non-believers arrogant or deluded.

Jesus
I'm sure if I sincerely and humbly gave myself up and prayed to my conception of Jesus, I would feel God moving in me. Sure. But the same holds for every single religion on Earth. If it didn't, the religions wouldn't succeed. They all have roughly the same effect. I could worship Allah, or the Roman Pantheon, or Kim Jong Il, and as long as it was done sincerely and humbly, it would work. I know this, so I wouldn't trust the feeling was anything but me deluding myself, no matter how strong it was.

This video
I wrote down your comments on a piece of paper so I could refer to them as I watch the video carefully through. I intend to do so, and I'm game to talk about all the issues you brought up point by point. Just not now. This is possibly the longest comment ever written on the sift, and I'm tired of typing for now. And I'm definitely busy tomorrow. Tuesday looks good. Hope you're not pissed.

I won't be offended if you don't answer all of this in one sitting.

I have no problem feeling sympathy for him, and I think Craig makes a good point. I laughed at him, but I've stopped laughing now and realised his life may be genuinely unravelling. I watched an excerpt of his ustream video, where he started by sending his love to his five kids (!), before it quickly degenerated into sadness.

This shit must be pretty scary for those kids.

>> ^alien_concept:

I just can't feel sorry for someone who's mental health issues are most likely through excessive drug taking. People usually know what they're risking when they go down that road, he's now completely fucked in the head from it.
I don't judge people with addiction at all, some of my closest friends have been or are and my brother in law died from it in the end, but to pity them to the point of not laughing at their crazy antics? Nahhhh, he's done it to himself, there's no turning back and now he's enjoying himself before he kills himself. Good for Charlie Sheen


It's just there's a pretty strong correlation between some mental illnesses and drug use. You can probably ask your doctor about it next time you go. That's to say all the mentally ill will be drug abusers, but certain mental illnesses have higher than normal correlations. I guess the real problem is, does the illness cause the abuse, or does the abuse cause the illness. A lot of them start at puberty and worsen with age. So the drugs mask the symptoms and then you have to unravel everything to get to the root of the cause..if you can.

Sheen wouldn't be acting like this if he were properly medicated or drugged out his mind. But he's off both things and now his untreated self is coming forth.

>> ^quantumushroom:

What did Bush gain from 9-11? This is the question every troofer should be asking.
My answer to them: not much. If it's a conspiracy it had no goals.
Despite the usual ravings of leftist lunatics, there's no police state. Government got bigger but under a Gore (or now Obama) that's gonna happen anyway. We seized no Iraqi oil and spent a lot of treasure and blood restoring Iraqis to power, leaving them the freedom to turn their backs on us.
We're still fighting rock to rock in Af-fag-istan when we should've flattened every last hill and mountain.
Bush didn't censor a single news source. He should've shut down the New York Slimes after they blabbed to the terrorists how we were tracking their funds on its front page. He didn't.
Bush executed no one at Gitmo and even spared "Jihad Johnny" Walker Lind, a spoiled American retard who shot at our troops.
Now Bush is gone and his near-polar opposite has the reigns. So much for "empire".
The government can't deliver the mail and troofers think a conspiracy that would involve not thousands but tens of thousands keeping silent was pulled off. Too much credit to government and not enough to common sense.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
I don't think troofers are dumb; their willful resistance to the mountain of evidence debunking their theories, IS.


Not really that it had no goals or that they didn't have much to gain but for me it's that they had WAY too much to lose if it failed. Imagine if some people involved in this massive conspiracy came forward and this plot unraveled, there wouldn't be a Republican party anymore...their would be tons of public executions. Bush probably wouldn't even be tried people would murder him before he got to stand trial. There'd be a sort of outrage this country has never seen before. To me that's much to much to lose, especially considering they were going to invade Iraq anyways regardless if they had a 9-11 or not.

I got a feeling his discussion was unravelling around 2m30s into the video

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Given your bullet reply I will do likewise...


I) I agree that culture may influence hypotheses that have a strong influence on popular ideas of the day. When considering your example, it was the church that was the main player on the opposing side, and ideas that go against the church doctrine, well... we all know what happens then. Climate change has similar implications, as it is rooted in politics and lifestyle - it may be influenced by culture. However, the supporting hypotheses are not largely influenced by culture because they are largely scientific in nature and do not have a direct influence on laymen. For example, the ecological hypothesis to which I eluded earlier concerning altitude and species' ranges is not debated on CNN or FOX. It's fairly obvious why. MOST (I'd wager 99%) scientific ideas are similar to this latter example.

a) I can agree with your point somewhat.. I agree that most people (including scientists) are subject to culture and view their world through the influence of it. However, just because this may be true, does not invalidate peer review. This is linked to my former point, if strong contrary data were to arise, it would greatly behoove a scientist to publish those data, not bow to the pressure of culture and hide it. Reviewers would be forced to view the evidence as it stands, in its raw naked truth, regardless of culture or influence - the editors, co-editors, and colleagues of the authors would demand it.
To your point about trends in science, I can also agree, yet climate change has more to do with the pressing nature of the matter then to a trend. This contrasts greatly with your example of Einstein and Newtonian theory. Climate change is "trending" at the moment, because we are forced to confront it - much like we were forced to confront the depletion of the ozone layer, we are confronting the loss of biodiversity in rainforests, the endangered species act, etc.

b) Indeed, I agree with you that it would not necessarily be "bad". However, you questioned if climate change would even be environmental in its effect. With the examples I provided, I hoped to show you that, indeed, it would be. Some ranges would increase, some would decrease, of course. However, as you surely know, evolution of unique taxonomic macroorganisms can take millions upon millions of years. It is not the increasing ranges with which we are concerned, it is the decreasing ones. Once they are gone, biodiversity decreases, even though it may increase for others. The health and environmental ramifications of that I surely do not need to explain.

c1) See my first point (I) - same argument, really.

c2) You're right and that is my fault - I misspoke (mistyped?). I meant that nobody has yet developed any strong evidence to the contrary. However, you have also committed a scientific falsity, which is one never "proves" anything in science. Therefore, a naysayer would never have to 'prove' that climate change is not occurring, but merely present his/her evidence of such to the contrary. He/She would then address the current models and present opposing ones (as many have done). The theory would quickly unravel, as many theories have done (e.g. Clemons vs. Gleason over the forest climax / succession model is a classic ecological theoretical battle that occurred in the early to mid 1900s. Clemons' theory was accepted for decades until a new hypothesis emerged from Gleason. The latter eventually racked up more evidence and is not generally accepted by the scientific community. [one more theory we never heard about in the papers, with practically no cultural influence]).

>> ^bananafone:

I feel bad for men. Your expression of sexuality is so limited.


I agree. I'd like to be like Captain Jack, who can happily have sex with anything. But that just isn't the way most of us are built. And society's expectations unfortunately reflect that.

But on the subject of three-ways, I think they're a great way to destroy a relationship. I've never heard a story of a three-way happening during a healthy, happy relationship without it causing that relationship to completely unravel. Jealousy is not easily predicted, and trust is not easily regained. If your relationship is not, and never has been about monogamy, then maybe it will be ok. Otherwise the fact that you are so willing to bring another person into your bed is probably a sign that things are ending anyway.

Thy connection with the universe, all beings, all matter, all non-matter is a fact. Everything is part of one thing-The whole-As all addicted to science should become more fully aware of as the next 20-50 years begin to re-write the history of a symbol-addicted world of infants. GOD, as most twits still fumble about with the concept, is a symbol for this mystery that only now, quantum physics is beginning to unravel. Two things to log into the data base forfuture reference are
A. The technology to construct much of what we have not seen as civilians (the applications being highly classified), is a mixed bag that may or may not be of our own design.
B. The dark aspects of our government would like nothing more than for people to be as predictableas insects,and pooh-pooh the facts before them, as bullshit.

According to some on the inside (and like enoch says correctly,many many people from the intelligence community, high ranking military officials,civilians employed with security clearances in the N2K/above top realm, and others of note and with a background that can't be denied), the sightings many have seen have been terrestrial applications whose technology came from off-planet.

We have free-energy, it has been witheld from humanity. Period. The political and corporate structure of the prison the pouppeteers have create3d for humanity is apalling. Sickens me to the core that still, with the data available to so many, that so-called and self-labled, intelligent people continue to play the game created by a pathetic,dying few. The pardigm is in retrograde and the next will scare the shit outof those sop ill-prepared to face the truth. Weaklings,mental, spiritual,self deluded weaklings.

Future generations will look back on the 20th-21st century with anger nad joy. The fact that most of the people on tis site have their heads so firmly planted in their asses regrding the true nature of the world around them is testimony to such a future sentiment and to our current dilemma-

I suggest you catch up with the world around you,and get your heads out of the televison,and out of the box-Here's a good start

I want to make sure I understand. The polar ice caps are melting, the sea level is rising, permafrost is melting in effect releasing more carbon dioxide, methane is being released from fresh water bodies all over the world, species are losing habitat, the food web is unraveling, biota is being effected, 50 years of research from tens of thousands of scientists all points to one thing. But never mind that. It's all a corporate conspiracy.

A politician talking about science has about as much validity as a homeless man touting about the apocalypse. I urge anyone that finds truth in this man's words to please, for the love of humanity, kill yourself.

Thanks. I've been somewhat disappointed how much the pretty little animations I found have NOT hit the sift in any way.

Glad you liked it.


In reply to this comment by fissionchips:
Lovely, thanks for posting. *quality

That's your opinion coming from a pro capitalistic viewpoint, almost all these industries themselves pressed for government intervention and consequentially benefited massively from protectionist policies (see big 3 auto industry case vs Japan auto industry in the 70s oil crisis), the government representatives benefit because the states where these firms are based would vote with their jobs and lively hood. So on a economic standpoint you can argue its wrong, but not from a social one, an economist would allow GM to fail but we live in a society that needs to support its workers.

Such collusion is not the fault of the government, because they way you phrase it you make it sound like its a government initiative, when in reality its the industries themselves that consistently press for protectionist policies to distort the market for their own benefits and profit. The EU farming fiasco right now taking place in France is a clear example, the agricultural sector is pressing for a return to a quota system to allow prices to rise artificially, Brussels has stated it will take no such action as right now agro prices are completely out of sync with world prices and this only benefits the minority agricultural sector.

Am sorry but your opinions fail to ever encompass reality of the situation. Rather you simply have a pro-right beef with what you call government growth, because its a buzz word of the republican right wing. You rail against taxes and government spending without ever thinking that government spending in the 40s and 50s has built up the very infrastructure right that connects America with roads and telecom systems, government subsidies in cases like Canada have allowed the sprouting of a telecom network in its early years because no profit orientated firm would ever dream to lay down telecom networks because its a cost loss.

Its just like when I watch C-SPAN and see republicans complain about stimulus and subsidy packages when i know full well their state presses for the same stimulus and subsidy packages year on year to support their state industries.

Is there hope? Yes? Does it take years? yes Smoot hawley put into effect one of the largest protectionist drives in the world post great depression it has taken 80yrs for GATT, WTO and other international incentives to return to a trade freedom that comes somewhere close to pre-1930 levels. The system of protectionism and industry subsidization takes years to unravel because industries influence government policy more then government policy influences industries.

agreed. made for people who like to experience a game not just play it

been into the prodigy and rusko myself lately

In reply to this comment by Drax:
In reply to this comment by yourhydra:
have u read this? http://www.members.shaw.ca/halflifestory/index.htm

Having looked at it, I'm pretty sure I read this very site about 2 - 3 years back when it looked more like a standard web page. I remember having read at the same time that Mark Laidlaw had reviewed it and he stated that they nailed most of the details, but not quite 100%.

It's one of my favorite elements of the half-life games - that the narrative happens mostly around you, not spoon fed to you. You experience it as if it's actually you caught up in the events, never cutting away to something you wouldn't be able to perceive. They cheat a little bit with the introduction of Alyx as she tends to point things out and go, 'Hey, that's happening because of this!', but not overly so.

It's like with some of the electronic music I listen to, there's more layers you can attempt to unravel each time you play/listen to it.

Thank you for the link. : )

In reply to this comment by yourhydra:
have u read this? http://www.members.shaw.ca/halflifestory/index.htm

Having looked at it, I'm pretty sure I read this very site about 2 - 3 years back when it looked more like a standard web page. I remember having read at the same time that Mark Laidlaw had reviewed it and he stated that they nailed most of the details, but not quite 100%.

It's one of my favorite elements of the half-life games - that the narrative happens mostly around you, not spoon fed to you. You experience it as if it's actually you caught up in the events, never cutting away to something you wouldn't be able to perceive. They cheat a little bit with the introduction of Alyx as she tends to point things out and go, 'Hey, that's happening because of this!', but not overly so.

It's like with some of the electronic music I listen to, there's more layers you can attempt to unravel each time you play/listen to it.

Thank you for the link. : )

THIS is DEMOCRACY? If violence erupts, they should call out the riot police, and do to these people what right wing governments in the past have done to peaceful protests, bean bag guns, batons, pepper spray, and tear gas. By allowing people to show up at these events, and challenge the whole nations democratic foundation right to it's very core, tolerating the shut down of political discussion through anger and violence, then they should be treated like any other person would be at any political event, and should be dragged out by police, possibly arrested, or even tazed. How is it fair that when someone shouts at a politician at one event, that one person gets electrocuted, but when you're in an angry mob literally unraveling all the progress that the American nation has made in terms of a representative democracy, they are left alone, or, worse, allowed to continue to disrupt these meetings in a non inclusive, and nonconstructive fashion.

This is Nazi Germany before the concentration camps, before the war. except the "protesters" are the ones stifling dissent. She says that it's better for this group or that, and buddy stands up and yells "BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT!"