I used my experience as perhaps a poor example on alcohol. Particularly since I don't drink enough of it to be considered a reliable sample. The last time I drank anything with alcohol was 2 1/2 years ago at a work conference, and then only to be part of co-workers group. The time before that would have been around 4 years prior at my bachelor party. The reality is that alcohol lowers peoples inhibitions and enables people to engage socially and in activities they are uncomfortable with sober. I do not think this is skewed, however I'll admit to making a bad example. Some people like and want this affect.

I am in full agreement with your rant on addiction. My point was that the "This is your brain on drugs" idea was just as misguided as my using "This is your brain on religion" which was meant as a play on the concept. Regardless, I made no such claim that drugs were healthy. My claim was that despite the negative impacts that they have on some people, particularly those that use them excessively or become addicted, that they can produce positive results for people who use them. By the same token, being involved in a spiritual group often provides positive rewards for the participants. The down side of drugs is that they can also create mental and health issues as well as behavior patterns that destabilized their and their families lives. The downside of religion without critical thinking produces robots parroting the pulpit and perpetuate ignorant attitudes about those outside the 'group'.

I think Whistler answered the faith question better than I could. I honestly don't think we are in disagreement with the rest of what you had to say. I am certainly not anti church of your choice because they are filled with imperfect people and so periodically act imperfectly. I spent 4 1/2 years studying to be a missionary at a Christian college. I was 11 credits from graduating when I left. It was one of the toughest decisions I've ever made and took me over 2 years to make it. Ultimately I came to the conclusion that I honestly did not believe and could not live a lie by pretending I did. I hold no animosity towards that denomination or college, nor towards any other faith save those that do not encourage deliberate thought.

I do regret that Professor Chaos and probably a number of silent lurkers found my usage of 'religion' offensive. My intention was not to bash peoples faith but to provide a link to something I thought people would get a laugh out of.

Regarding the video: If one is such a huge perv that a frontal hug is too stimulating, I think surgery is a better solution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4

'Nuff said.

"The pleasure centers of the brain are hijacked to equate the addictive substance/behavior with survival, making it the number one priority in that person's life, making them seek it out despite obvious and visible negative consequences in their life (loss of job, family, friends, health, etc.). At the same time, the frontal lobe, which is a balance to the pleasure centers of the brain and serves to regulate compulsive behavior with reason, physically shrinks and becomes inconsequential with regards to behavior. This was discovered when it was found that patients with head trauma (such as automotive accident victims) began to exhibit impulsive/compulsive behavior that had previously been absent and resembled the impaired judgment of addicts."

PC, from where are you getting this data?

Well said, Lecter

Superior:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7yfISlGLNU&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=ED9441CFC963F147

Ugh, Shadoen. That one blows. But, it was not entirely useless:

<Leebs, Momerath, Incarnate, Andy, Ray (and Dr. Lecter off camera) having breakfast cereal in Guild SW HQ. Leebs (who of course has eschewed cereal for his usual tequila liquid breakfast) shaking tequila bottle, free prize inside rolls out of it.>

"Whoa, free Behemoth ride for three! Now... Who should I take?"

<Leebs Thinks>

Momerath.

Momerath: "Yesss!"

Aaaannnnnd.... Dr. Lecter.

<Inc, Andy, Ray all obviously disappointed.>

Lecter: "Kewl."

Aww shit, get your cargo ready it's about to go down (shorty, yeah)
Everybody in the dock hit the fucking deck (shorty, yeah)
But stay on your motherfucking toes
We running this, let's go

I'm on a moth (I'm on a moth)
I'm on a moth (I'm on a moth)
Everybody look at me 'cause I'm trading in a moth (trading in a moth)
I'm on a moth (I'm on a moth)
I'm on a moth
Take a good hard look at the motherfucking moth (moth, yeah)

I'm on a moth motherfucker don't you ask me why
Straight cruising in a moth in the starry sky
Busting fifty mps, don't you try to scoff
You can't stop me motherfucker cause I'm on a moth

Take a picture, trick (trick)
I'm in a moth, bitch (bitch)
We drinking all my tequila,
Cause we're so rich (rich)
All you itani monks
and all you Serco copies
I'm making bank, you newbies
straight tradin' sloppy

We abbreviate it "moth" cause we're lazy as shit
Officially it's a behemoth, don't you fuckin fret
'cause this is grayspace, this is real as it gets
I own a moth, motherfucker, don't you ever forget

I'm in a moth and
It's going slow and
all these pirates were comin'
before we began
I'm the king of space
dodging flares like Neo
If you're trying to pirate,
then you won't catch me-oh

Get the fuck up, this moth is REAL!!!

Fuck cents, I'm in a moth, motherfucker (motherfucker)
Fuck combat, I mine roids, motherfucker (motherfucker)
I'm in the moth with my toys, motherfucker (yeah)
This moth engine make noise, motherfucker

Hey PA, if you could see me now (see me now)
Since I have a moth you can't disavow (disavow)
Gonna fly this moth through the storm somehow (storm somehow)
With enough tequila, anything is possible!

Yeah, use a moth to deliver your load
It's got a big wide cargo hold (yeah)
Incarnate
Look at me, oh (all hands on deck)

Never thought I'd see the day
When a big moth coming my way
Believe me when I say
I fucked a hive queen!

I'm on a moth
I'm on a moth
Everybody look at me 'cause I'm cruising in a moth (woaah)
I'm on a moth
I'm on a moth
Take a good hard look at the mothafuckin' moth (sha-sha-shorty, shorty, yeah)

<FADE OUT>

Shadoen, I didn't look anything up to write that, but took it from my knowledge of the subject which is based on some personal research (if you want, after the semester ends this week, I'll dig up some actual sources for you), in particular a seminar given by Dr. Donald J. Hilton, MD, in my town, where he focused on the effects of various addictions. It was very interesting. Most of the research done on behavioral addictions have to do with compulsive eating, I believe, though a lot has been done in the areas of compulsive gambling and sexual addiction.

Lecter: Best Lonely Island video ever. Awesome.

Fluffy: Which is a better idea, growing character by stepping outside your comfort zone, or stripping away inhibitions with alcohol? If you're uncomfortable with something sober, maybe it deserves some consideration. If you shouldn't be uncomfortable with it, then maybe working on confidence issues is necessary; but sometimes there's good reason to be uncomfortable with something. If it takes alcohol to get the guts to do something, something is wrong, either with the action or the person too hesitant to act. That said, I support your right to drink, as long as you don't endanger me by driving. Feel free to operate heavy machinery under the influence if no one is around, Darwin could use some more victims.

The downside of religion without critical thinking produces robots parroting the pulpit and perpetuate ignorant attitudes about those outside the 'group'.

Do you really think this is limited to religion? What about academia? Many elitists who praise themselves for avoiding the brainwashing that comes with religion are blind to the fact that they have been brainwashed by another system. Additionally, atheism requires just as devout a faith as any other religion, and can have similar adverse effects.

My point is that the responsibility for behavior does not lie in an organization such as a religion, but on the individual. The trick is to decide what it is you believe while always being open to the beliefs and opinions of others, but not simply accepting anything but deciding for yourself. I align myself with the doctrines of my church of my own free will, and therefore am not threatened by it. I can be an independent thinker without having to disagree with everything out of principle (though that can be fun, too, just to mess with people....). It is possible to make it through an education system, in a political system, or a religion, and still be yourself. You just have to keep a clear head, and question everything. Note that questioning everything doesn't mean rejecting everything.

I don't think Whistler answered the faith question well at all. "Information which is not tested is faith"? That is a poor, and very cynical definition of faith. My faith is tested daily, and is not nearly as strong as my knowledge-based testimony of doctrines. If God actually appeared to me today and laid it all out for me, the facts about everything, he would not have given me faith, but knowledge. I wouldn't have any doubt whether there was a god, or of his nature. But only faith would motivate me to act on that knowledge. As I said before, one thing I do appreciate about my church is that the doctrines do encourage tests of faith. We are told to act on what we believe, and if the results of these actions are good, we know our faith is well-placed. Similarly, we are not to accept scriptural knowledge blindly, but are told to consider it, come to our own personal opinion of it, pray about it, and act on it. If members of any religion are acting blindly, then they don't understand their own religion. The responsibility always lies on the individual.

If your intention all along was just a laugh, you failed at that as well as trolling, by posting a not-funny (merely annoying) video with a thread topic that implied more than it should have.

I almost missed your comment, toshiro...

The age to which the inventor of LSD lived is a poor argument. More than a few heavy smokers and drinkers have lived exceptionally long lives, and many who live healthy lifestyles die relatively young.

I'm no LSD expert, but from what I understand the substance itself is non-toxic with few lasting effects (mostly due to interactions with other substances or pre-existing conditions), but that it can cause what they call "behavioral toxicity". This means that with such a strong disconnect from reality, a person under the influence of LSD may do something stupid like jump off a balcony or try to stop a train bare-handed and die that way. In my personal opinion, anything that causes your perception of reality to become that completely distorted, no matter how temporarily, is a bad idea.

On a side note, any guesses as to what the favorite line from a Star Trek movie might be of your typical Mormon "Trekkie"?

...Stuff about alcohol...

You drank the cool-aid pretty hard there, didn't you?

Alcohol is good for humanity precisely because it lowers inhibitions. Humans evolved over a time when we had to be much, much more cautious about the world around us than we do now. Stepping outside at the wrong time could lead to being eaten by bears; having sex with the wrong woman could lead to a war between your respective tribes. These things are no longer the case, but we still suffer their vestigial effects on our behavior. Anyone who does not drink socially does themselves and society a disservice.

However, I respect your right to not drink, and would never in a million years suggest that you should be forced to do so. Fortunately, in a million years, non-drinkers will likely have been bred out of the gene pool.

I don't think Whistler answered the faith question well at all. "Information which is not tested is faith"? That is a poor, and very cynical definition of faith. My faith is tested daily

You're using the wrong definition of 'tested'. Whistler meant the word in the scientific sense; that is, faith has not been verified. You use the word tested to mean 'quizzed', as though faith is a yes-no question that God asks you each day.

A common fallacy of the religious is to presume equivalence of these two definitions.

Thus, in Whistler's definition of faith, he states that faith is 'information which has not been verified'. That is essentially the definition of 'assumption'. Faith is a set of assumptions which are presumed to be unverifiable (either due to limited resources or simply the nature of the information). Thus, Whistler's definition, while not incredibly enlightening, is certainly a correct one.

Yes, in this context "tested" was not a good choice of words as it naturally leads down the rabbit hole we've just visited. As for enlightenment, well I never promised that. I can tolerate a difference of opinion about spiritual matters, but don't mess with facts (defining faith vs. knowledge).

To avoid all alcohol is to deprive yourself of what has come out of thousands of years of human tradition, culture, and art. To never know what a fine vintage of d'Yquem or Petrus tastes like, or how a dram of Laphroaig reminds you of rambling the Scottish hills, because of an accidental collision between some religious founder and the tea-totaling moment of American culture in which he lived and formulated his teachings... strikes me as simple-minded barbarism.

But everyone must go to Hell in their own good way. /me toasts PC's chosen path with a fine drink

ladron.... what?

I certainly drank no cool-aid... inhibitions are still important. Just because bears don't lurk outside my door doesn't mean I can't go do something stupid with lasting consequences! Your statement is very foolish. Having sex with the wrong woman isn't going to start a war, but it can certainly make life more complicated, and having just a bit of inhibition there may give you time to consider your action, where as lack of inhibition can lead to reckless behavior in that regard and possibly result in disease or unwanted pregnancy, or breaking up of families.

Anyone who does not drink socially does themselves and society a disservice.

I dare you to justify this statement. I survive just fine socially, thank you very much, and have often been in situations where I am the only one in a group not drinking alcohol, and it has never had an adverse effect on the situation. Also, would you say that if a designated driver refuses to drink, he is doing society a disservice? I've seen how stupid people can get under the influence, and I do stupid enough stuff sober to want to lower my inhibitions any further. Besides, alcoholism runs in my family, and after a lot of careful thought, I'm fairly certain if I ever started drinking I wouldn't stop and would be an alcoholic myself. I err on the side of caution, here.

Fortunately, in a million years, non-drinkers will likely have been bred out of the gene pool.

Wow. Just wow. If it were drinkers or non-drinkers who are more likely to be bred out of existence, my money is on non-drinkers outlasting the drinkers, considering how detrimental to overall health alcohol is. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "From 2001–2005, there were approximately 79,000 deaths annually attributable to excessive alcohol use. In fact, excessive alcohol use is the 3rd leading lifestyle-related cause of death for people in the United States each year." That doesn't bode well for drinkers outlasting non-drinkers if one or the other will be "bred out of existence" as you say. Not to mention the dozens of health risks associated with long-term use of alcohol.

I'm glad you'd never suggest I be forced to drink, and I'd never suggest you be forced not to. Your natural selection statement is absurd on every level, however.

As far as our "test of faith" side discussion, we're entering shaky ground where we are applying scientific theory to faith. Science and faith are both exercises in finding truth, and I believe that at the end of it all, they will be reconciled; but as of now, both are incomplete. Science cannot prove the existence of God, nor should it. On the other hand, it would be inappropriate to cite faith as a source in a scientific paper. Science and faith are not incompatible, but complement each other. The ridiculous evolution vs. creation debate can be pretty intense within any church, and the LDS church is no exception. I've been told by other Mormons that I am going to Hell for believing that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old and that mankind evolved from simpler life, as if this somehow denies Jesus Christ. Whatever. I figure God's pretty smart, and knows what he's doing, and he gave us brains and wants us to figure it out as best we can and he'll straighten us out later. My response to my fellow Mormons who tell me I'm going to Hell for believing in evolution is to ask what does the method of creation of the Earth have to do with my eternal salvation, so long as I don't take God out of it? Does not believing in evolution make it impossible for me to do good to my fellow man? The church officially takes no position on evolution for exactly this reason. To paraphrase I forget which church leader from before I was born, leave scientifical things to scientists to sort out, and religious things to religion; there's no reason they can't coexist. You don't discuss plate tectonics in Sunday School, and there's no scientific experiment that can prove the existence or non-existence of God.

Whistler, take my hypothetical scenario for the sake of argument. Assuming God is real and actually came down and says "here are the answers to everything ever", would it not be factual knowledge I have obtained? I'm saying it doesn't matter. It's how you act on what you believe that matters, and if that faith is challenged (challenged may be the best word for this here, really), how you respond. Even with that kind of perfect knowledge, how I act on it shows my faith. That's the difference between faith and knowledge. I think it is important when faith is challenged to carefully (prayerfully if you believe in God) consider the situation, weigh the options, and either adapt to new knowledge or stick with what you had before if that is the better option. It is when you don't allow your faith to be challenged that you end up a blind follower and poor example of true faith.

[EDIT]: Thanks for the toast, Lecter. I appreciate it. And if you ever need a designated driver, I'm there for ya. (Not really, 'cause that would be a long commute just to be a DD, but yeah.)

Having sex with the wrong woman isn't going to start a war, but it can certainly make life a lot more interesting!

Fixed that for ya. Trust me on this one.

Besides, alcoholism runs in my family, and after a lot of careful thought, I'm fairly certain if I ever started drinking I wouldn't stop and would be an alcoholic myself. I err on the side of caution, here.

Mine, too. Both parents, one of which made it, one of which not so much. But I don't let other people's lack of self-discipline deprive me of life's pleasures -- the AA creed of "I am powerless over alcohol" is one of the most pathetic statements that I've ever heard a supposedly autonomous being say, much less mindlessly chant like a daily catechism. There was a time, though, during first semester of law school where I caught myself using scotch like coffee, fueling my work on about a bottle a day. I recognized, dialed back, and drove on through: I did not throw up my hands and say 'awww, gee, I guess that's something I can never do!'

And I most assuredly cannot conceive of a God troubling Himself about my alcohol-related choices on a binary level.

Just saying, Chaos. Naturally, it is poor logic to say that LSD is healthy because of once case. But prolonged use does not tax the body as much as alcohol, nicotine, cocaine or heroin. I'm not an expert on LSD, either, of course.

On CH₃-CH₂-OH:
I drink alcohol purely for entertainment purposes, not to intentionally intoxicate myself (at least, not yet. I won't rule it out, because that would be pretty silly). As such, I agree with Lecter's assessment. You don't do yourself a favor by avoiding alcoholic beverages altogether. The really good ones are too expensive (usually) to just gulp them down by the gallon, anyway. Kind of a self-controlling mechanism.

As for alcohol necessarily being bad for your health... not so. Especially red wine, in sensible doses, can be beneficient to your health.

As for religion... as long as nobody tries to tell me they're better because they believe in this or that, and I should give up my agnostic atheism, or cuts off women's labia because they think it'd be better from god's POV (and other such nonsense), I'm cool with anything.

I agree with you that faith is not irreconcilable with science, on the contrary. Like you say, faith is even a necessary component (although not necessarily in a specific construct like a god). But I do not agree that there cannot possibly ever be a positive or negative proof regarding the existence of one god or a multitude thereof.

I distrust people who say they don't drink, not even socially. Its as if they were trying to hide something bad that would come out if they got drunk.

Also, many people who don't drink have this condescending patronizing attitude. Sorta like: "Nah, I don't drink, I find it very unnecessary and stupid, yall lower life forms can do it though, Ill just stand around enjoying the party lololol."

I know there's an xkcd coming about this but I cant find it, there´s too many of them and search function isnt helping :(

Crap. I am going to exercise self-control and finish a paper I have due this afternoon before responding fully, because there's good stuff to be said here. I'll come back to this thread this evening. Really quick though, let me emphasize something:

I am not criticizing anyone's choice to drink, whether in moderation or excess. Everyone is free to choose that. I am merely defending my choice and the choice of others to not drink against irrational arguments that not drinking is a bad idea, and the absolutely stupid argument that "non-drinkers" will be "bred out of the gene pool".

Keep commenting, if nothing else I find this conversation interesting.

it is interesting

the only people who don't drink that are annoying are straight edge douche bags. I've met cool people who don't drink and lame people that drink, but I have never met a straight edge that wasn't a douche.

I honestly did not anticipate the direction this thread has taken. While I regret offending people, I cannot in good conscience back down.

Alcohol stuff: Both are equally valid and each performs better based on circumstance. In some cases, they may actually enhance one another. I would be apprehensive about going mountain climbing or sky diving. Things that given the time and opportunity, I would love to do. I would have to step outside my normal cautious nature to engage in them and I certainly wouldn't want to attempt either intoxicated. I am by nature non social, I do not do well at meeting strangers or interacting with people I do know socially. So at the conference I mentioned or Christmas parties I might have a drink or two because 1) I am participating in the group activity and 2) more importantly I am better able to engage in the general banter because the drinks help me feel more at ease with the people I'm with. In this case, alcohol becomes a tool I can use to integrate myself rather than hang out on the fringes wishing I was elsewhere. As far as dancing (which if nothing else is great exercise), maybe when I said pissed drunk I exaggerated a bit, but I certainly need a good buzz going because I have all the moves of a chimpanzee fending off a case of diarrhea. On the other hand, if I am needing to give an important presentation I am going to be sober and spend a fair amount of time doing visualization- which I also used to do while interviewing for employment.

Critical thinking stuff: I don't believe I said anything that suggests that religion is exclusive in this. If you want to throw in academia, atheism, feminism, liberalism bent (pick your fetish) my favorite is environmentalism or whatever, fine. Your arguing with yourself not me. Religion was the subject being discussed and as such I did not see a need to expand it. You are absolutely correct that such applies to any doctrine. Being an independent thinker as you put it does not require you to inevitably come to the same conclusions that I have. I believe it does require that you look at a reasonable amount of relevant evidence honestly. I may get hammered for this, but I don't think its realistic to expect people to analyze every shred of available evidence on a subject unless they are a researcher. I think it also behooves you to at least make an honest attempt at understanding the subject from other viewpoints. If we both look at a rose, you may see the genius of god in its creation, where I might see the genius of evolution. At Niagara Falls, you might see the majesty of god, while I see the power of plate tectonics, weather patterns and erosion. I'm certainly not going to fault you for the power of your experience in those moments, nor should you fault me mine. On the other hand you may oppose homosexuality because it is condemned in a couple of places in the bible. It is your right to believe that homosexual behavior is wrong. For myself I'm going to be practical and think cool, less competition and who doesn't love lesbian porn? Liar. :P However if you start talking about banning gays from public places or torturing them, I'm going to expect you to offer more valid reasons than just "God says so" or "because its filthy and immoral." If you start saying that African Americans are sub human and should be stoned or eradicated because they are filth, I'm going to bait and goad you on until you look absolutely ridiculous unless you can provide me with a rational supportable explanation of why people should be throwing rocks. I'm not trying to assume your position on these topics and am using them as examples only.

Faith issue: I'm having difficulty understanding the conflict here. Perhaps I am not expressing myself effectively or am not correctly understanding what you are saying. You say:

"We are told to act on what we believe, and if the results of these actions are good, we know our faith is well-placed. Similarly, we are not to accept scriptural knowledge blindly, but are told to consider it, come to our own personal opinion of it, pray about it, and act on it. If members of any religion are acting blindly, then they don't understand their own religion. The responsibility always lies on the individual."

And again:

"I think it is important when faith is challenged to carefully (prayerfully if you believe in God) consider the situation, weigh the options, and either adapt to new knowledge or stick with what you had before if that is the better option. It is when you don't allow your faith to be challenged that you end up a blind follower and poor example of true faith."

If you do not know the point from which you make that leap of faith, you may misjudge the distance to the other side. We all live by faith. Think of the investors and employees that held faith in Enron. It is possible to misplace our faith. It is my opinion that the best we can do is make the best choices based on the options and evidence we have available.

" I support homosexuality because it means less competition because i am a basement dwelling loser"

fixed!