Forums » Off-Topic
Actually that was fixed when I got married. Damned marital doctrine yokes.
Couldn't resist dropping in to see new comments between working on homework (finals week, I've got no tests but final projects are killing me)...
Real quick, Fluffy, on your dancing. Rather than let alcohol give you the courage to dance like a retard in front of others, why not instead stay sober and get good at dancing? I can't dance for shit and I know I can't, so instead I just don't. Doesn't get in the way of me socializing. Not everyone has to be able to dance.
Real quick, Fluffy, on your dancing. Rather than let alcohol give you the courage to dance like a retard in front of others, why not instead stay sober and get good at dancing? I can't dance for shit and I know I can't, so instead I just don't. Doesn't get in the way of me socializing. Not everyone has to be able to dance.
Best wishes on the projects :)
First off, I don't drink much or dance anymore. I never did a significant amount of either, usually only when I went to a club.
Second, knowing myself, if I had not had a few drinks, I would have been hiding out in a corner of the bar wanting to leave (I usually went with friends). As I said, I am by nature not a social person. Having those drinks enabled me to interact more effectively socially and do stuff like dancing that my inhibitions (I here have to blame the brand of Christianity I was a part of for much of this) that prohibited me from exposing myself by dancing. I still remember as a young teenager going contra dancing (a form of square dance iirc that was popular at the time) and being bewildered at the prospect of touching a woman, much less dancing with her. Hell the college I went to during the time I was their went from a ban on holding hands to such a promiscuous level of permitting a 'brief discrete goodnight kiss'. F-ing liberals subverting our wholesome moral characters like that. ;-)
Since you ask though, I wanted to dance. It looked like everyone on the floor was having a blast and I wanted to enjoy it too. I can't speak for what is normal- and to forestall Pey- because obviously I'm not, but for me I think of it as sort of an intoxicating experience in itself. Just being out there feeling the music and moving to and with it. I think in retrospect my internal critic was overly harsh regarding my abilities since no one ever pointed at me laughing like I was jizzing in my pants or something nor did my partners ever file restraining orders.
Edit: I can honestly see the the kind of youth ministries that serviced the church I was a part of latching on to something like the Christian Side Hug. After all 'god' had a specific plan for each of our lives... all we had to do was listen to his 'voice'.
First off, I don't drink much or dance anymore. I never did a significant amount of either, usually only when I went to a club.
Second, knowing myself, if I had not had a few drinks, I would have been hiding out in a corner of the bar wanting to leave (I usually went with friends). As I said, I am by nature not a social person. Having those drinks enabled me to interact more effectively socially and do stuff like dancing that my inhibitions (I here have to blame the brand of Christianity I was a part of for much of this) that prohibited me from exposing myself by dancing. I still remember as a young teenager going contra dancing (a form of square dance iirc that was popular at the time) and being bewildered at the prospect of touching a woman, much less dancing with her. Hell the college I went to during the time I was their went from a ban on holding hands to such a promiscuous level of permitting a 'brief discrete goodnight kiss'. F-ing liberals subverting our wholesome moral characters like that. ;-)
Since you ask though, I wanted to dance. It looked like everyone on the floor was having a blast and I wanted to enjoy it too. I can't speak for what is normal- and to forestall Pey- because obviously I'm not, but for me I think of it as sort of an intoxicating experience in itself. Just being out there feeling the music and moving to and with it. I think in retrospect my internal critic was overly harsh regarding my abilities since no one ever pointed at me laughing like I was jizzing in my pants or something nor did my partners ever file restraining orders.
Edit: I can honestly see the the kind of youth ministries that serviced the church I was a part of latching on to something like the Christian Side Hug. After all 'god' had a specific plan for each of our lives... all we had to do was listen to his 'voice'.
Translation from Fluffer to English: "I'm a huge pussy who has no game whatsoever. I will limp through life constantly blaming my upbringing for this shortcoming."
Nota bene: I now realize that Fluffer might not, given his upbringing, grasp the import of his nickname. Fluffer, please use www.urbandictionary.com and enlighten yerself. Thank you.
Nota bene: I now realize that Fluffer might not, given his upbringing, grasp the import of his nickname. Fluffer, please use www.urbandictionary.com and enlighten yerself. Thank you.
How long have you been itching to point that out Dr?
No need to look it up. Such was pointed out long ago on a forum far far away. A time when I was much younger and idealistic. A time when the Internet was pure ascii and muds while not quite cool, amounted to what would have been considered mmorg of the day.
I do apologize if I'm not appropriately offended. I just think it shows off your clever sense of humor.
The correct translation from Fluffy to English: "I'm a huge pussy who has no game whatsoever. I will limp through life constantly using intoxicants of various forms to compensate for this shortcoming."
No need to look it up. Such was pointed out long ago on a forum far far away. A time when I was much younger and idealistic. A time when the Internet was pure ascii and muds while not quite cool, amounted to what would have been considered mmorg of the day.
I do apologize if I'm not appropriately offended. I just think it shows off your clever sense of humor.
The correct translation from Fluffy to English: "I'm a huge pussy who has no game whatsoever. I will limp through life constantly using intoxicants of various forms to compensate for this shortcoming."
Eeeexcellent. Now make a rap video and we've come full circle.
Nope, just wanted to make sure you got it. Carry on.
I haven't forgotten this thread, but finals are done! and I'm going to get some sleep, and tomorrow I'm going to Barnes & Noble in Idaho Falls to get a book signed by Brandon Sanderson. Then I'll organize the thoughts I've got going on this thread into something coherent, because if I type now it'll all be about stratigraphy, and that's no good.
finals are done!
Drink. Drink now.
Drink. Drink now.
Haha, I should have known someone would say that... no, my brain needs recovery, not further damage! I went home and played Perfect Dark for an hour on my old N64. Haven't done that in forever. Very cathartic.
Bah, hope you got repeatedly raped with the farsight gun.
No, usually I play pistols only with one-shot kills. I still call it "License to Kill" mode, since the only reason to play Perfect Dark over GoldenEye is the more customizable multiplayer and the AI. License to Kill, pistols, and a full compliment of skilled AI make for an exciting game.
I'm back, with two books signed by Brandon Sanderson... awesome.
One thing at a time. Lecter said:
...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.
The problem is not the phrase, but how it is applied. I was cynical at one point as well. I recall a hilarious South Park where Randy Marsh used the "helplessness" and "disease" aspects as excuses to indulge in his alcoholism. If the powerlessness is used as an enabling attitude, it makes things worse. But if a person can recognize that their addiction is stronger then them and seek help, that's another matter. I've seen people for whom the 12 step program is enough, and some for whom it is not. Even if you ascribe it to the placebo effect, for some the belief that a higher power is supporting them is enough motivation to work through it themselves, but usually more is required.
My personal belief (and that taught by the LDS church) is that God will only step in to help after you have done all in your ability to help yourself. Otherwise, what would we learn from our difficulties? Too many religious types (this runs rampant among Mormons, sadly) are afraid of scientific answers, thinking that science denies God's power. I say that science is part of God's power. Seriously, if he created us, he's pretty much an expert on human biology, right? So why be afraid of science? It makes no sense to me, especially when it's something the church doesn't teach but too many of the members believe (mostly regarding creationism vs. evolution, which I don't see a conflict between).
The LDS church also teaches that the "soul" is the combined body and spirit together (though sometimes the word can be used for just a spirit, it depends on the context). Both aspects need to be recognized. If you do believe in Heaven and Hell, and that you can be guided by God or tempted by the Devil, then you must address the spiritual aspect of addiction, which is the temptation. Praying helps that. But then there's the chemical aspect. Just because you can label endogenous drugs like dopamine, serotonin, epinephrine, oxytocin, vasopressin, etc. as agents of addiction (all addiction, whether it be cocaine or gambling or overeating), doesn't deny the spiritual side, because if you believe all people have a spirit, then obviously the brain is the connection between the body and the spirit. Damage the brain, and you damage your spirit. So for most (such as myself, not for alcohol, but this forum isn't a confessional, but a place for constructive dialogue), the 12 steps are an aid, but not the sole solution. Education about how the brain works, why there's an addiction, recognizing patterns and triggers, and specific plans to break those patterns and reprogram those triggers is necessary. The 12 step program helps a lot with that by providing support, examples of people who have made progress, a "safe" environment for speaking about things that others wouldn't understand, and very important is the idea of a "sponsor" whom the addict can call for support in tough times. That's invaluable.
Unfortunately, and this is a very big problem in the LDS church, because so many local leaders and members don't have that kind of understanding, there's a lot of failure and frustration regarding addiction. One of the number one problems is pornography addiction, and high school and college age kids (and older) go to their bishops about it, and the bishop just tells them to pray harder. They do that, but it doesn't overcome the dopamine deficiency and the strong bond that has been created by oxytocin/vasopressin in the brain. They pray, fail to overcome the addiction, pray harder, fail, pray harder, fail, and give up overcome by guilt, thinking they are a bad person. Religion is not responsible for this, but the lack of understanding of well-meaning individuals is to blame. Religious leaders are rightly wary of psychiatric counselors who deny the role of spirituality in treatment, but then they deny the role of psychiatry, including medications. It's interesting to note that often people struggling with addiction lose their spirituality, and then through recovery gain it back stronger than before.
This is getting long, and wandering off topic.... I'm going to play more Perfect Dark.
I'm back, with two books signed by Brandon Sanderson... awesome.
One thing at a time. Lecter said:
...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.
The problem is not the phrase, but how it is applied. I was cynical at one point as well. I recall a hilarious South Park where Randy Marsh used the "helplessness" and "disease" aspects as excuses to indulge in his alcoholism. If the powerlessness is used as an enabling attitude, it makes things worse. But if a person can recognize that their addiction is stronger then them and seek help, that's another matter. I've seen people for whom the 12 step program is enough, and some for whom it is not. Even if you ascribe it to the placebo effect, for some the belief that a higher power is supporting them is enough motivation to work through it themselves, but usually more is required.
My personal belief (and that taught by the LDS church) is that God will only step in to help after you have done all in your ability to help yourself. Otherwise, what would we learn from our difficulties? Too many religious types (this runs rampant among Mormons, sadly) are afraid of scientific answers, thinking that science denies God's power. I say that science is part of God's power. Seriously, if he created us, he's pretty much an expert on human biology, right? So why be afraid of science? It makes no sense to me, especially when it's something the church doesn't teach but too many of the members believe (mostly regarding creationism vs. evolution, which I don't see a conflict between).
The LDS church also teaches that the "soul" is the combined body and spirit together (though sometimes the word can be used for just a spirit, it depends on the context). Both aspects need to be recognized. If you do believe in Heaven and Hell, and that you can be guided by God or tempted by the Devil, then you must address the spiritual aspect of addiction, which is the temptation. Praying helps that. But then there's the chemical aspect. Just because you can label endogenous drugs like dopamine, serotonin, epinephrine, oxytocin, vasopressin, etc. as agents of addiction (all addiction, whether it be cocaine or gambling or overeating), doesn't deny the spiritual side, because if you believe all people have a spirit, then obviously the brain is the connection between the body and the spirit. Damage the brain, and you damage your spirit. So for most (such as myself, not for alcohol, but this forum isn't a confessional, but a place for constructive dialogue), the 12 steps are an aid, but not the sole solution. Education about how the brain works, why there's an addiction, recognizing patterns and triggers, and specific plans to break those patterns and reprogram those triggers is necessary. The 12 step program helps a lot with that by providing support, examples of people who have made progress, a "safe" environment for speaking about things that others wouldn't understand, and very important is the idea of a "sponsor" whom the addict can call for support in tough times. That's invaluable.
Unfortunately, and this is a very big problem in the LDS church, because so many local leaders and members don't have that kind of understanding, there's a lot of failure and frustration regarding addiction. One of the number one problems is pornography addiction, and high school and college age kids (and older) go to their bishops about it, and the bishop just tells them to pray harder. They do that, but it doesn't overcome the dopamine deficiency and the strong bond that has been created by oxytocin/vasopressin in the brain. They pray, fail to overcome the addiction, pray harder, fail, pray harder, fail, and give up overcome by guilt, thinking they are a bad person. Religion is not responsible for this, but the lack of understanding of well-meaning individuals is to blame. Religious leaders are rightly wary of psychiatric counselors who deny the role of spirituality in treatment, but then they deny the role of psychiatry, including medications. It's interesting to note that often people struggling with addiction lose their spirituality, and then through recovery gain it back stronger than before.
This is getting long, and wandering off topic.... I'm going to play more Perfect Dark.
You appear to have defined any and all use as "addiction." Failing to control one's self in such a way as to enjoy all pleasures in moderation is sad and weak, but believing one's self incapable of ever doing so is pathetic.
if a person can recognize that their addiction is stronger then them and seek help, that's another matter
No, it's a personal weakness masquerading as an inability.
if a person can recognize that their addiction is stronger then them and seek help, that's another matter
No, it's a personal weakness masquerading as an inability.
Yeah, I wasn't clear.... no, not all use is addiction. It is when a person persists in a self-destructive behavior despite serious personal consequences, and is unable to stop a habit through sheer willpower that it is an addiction. This comes from significant chemical restructuring of the brain like I mentioned earlier. Once the dopamine receptors in the nucleus accumbens are accustomed to a higher than normal baseline because of overuse of a substance/action that floods the brain with dopamine, the brain begins more and more to prioritize that substance/action and equate it with survival. People who occasionally drink socially or for the very minor positive health benefits are not addicted; people who will go to any trouble to obtain alcohol or whatever, at great personal cost to themselves and their friends and family, are addicted. It is by their own actions that they became addicted, but once they are bound to that, often it takes more than sheer willpower to break free. It takes time for the brain to heal, for the hypofrontality to reverse itself and the dopamine transmitters and receptors to regain proper balance. Most addicts don't even know why they crave their addiction so much, and it takes getting to the point that the pain of recovery is less than the pain of remaining addicted before they will seek help. If you are one prone to addiction as I am, staying away from substances such as alcohol entirely is not sad, it is self control. If you know your brakes aren't working, you don't get behind the wheel and carefully drive down a long hill, because then the only way to stop is to crash. Crashing because of addictive behavior is not fun.
Nobody is unable, and I make no allowances for the unwilling. You don't actually know you've lost your battle with an "addiction" until the physical complications caused by withdrawal kill you. Everything up to that point is your choice.
I agree that nobody is unable. The problem is when they don't know how, and this is exacerbated by poor interpretation of religious teachings by many religious leaders. Take someone who recognizes how deeply they are addicted to something, and takes the appropriate steps (including therapy, 12-step programs, support from and accountability to trusted friends, even spiritual support if you believe in that) to overcome it and is successful. Was that person unable? No, obviously they were able. As far as unwilling, many are willing but don't know how to do it, are afraid to get help or get "toxic" help (such as the religious leader who just says "pray harder" and that's it), or have tried and failed to overcome so often that they give up and become unwilling because they don't believe success is possible. Addicts often attempt suicide at this point.
A good friend of mine at BYU in Provo, UT, who is finishing up her master's degree in social work, set up a program (with some fellow students) that has just applied for non-profit status, to combat exactly this kind of disconnect seen with religious leaders who are either skeptical of secular help for issues like addiction or depression, or don't know who to trust to help members of their congregation. I suggest you check it out: http://clergybridge.org/
A good friend of mine at BYU in Provo, UT, who is finishing up her master's degree in social work, set up a program (with some fellow students) that has just applied for non-profit status, to combat exactly this kind of disconnect seen with religious leaders who are either skeptical of secular help for issues like addiction or depression, or don't know who to trust to help members of their congregation. I suggest you check it out: http://clergybridge.org/
While training for a marathon, the best advice I received was this: you want to know how to run a marathon? It's easy: step one, start running; there is no step two.
Similarly, there's no "taking the appropriate steps" when dealing with a problem sounding in personal willpower. Step one: you don't drink more than you should, and you don't swerve mindlessly off into tea-totalling.
There is no step two.
Similarly, there's no "taking the appropriate steps" when dealing with a problem sounding in personal willpower. Step one: you don't drink more than you should, and you don't swerve mindlessly off into tea-totalling.
There is no step two.
I used to fully believe that, until I talked to some of my friends who tried it that way, and tried myself. What I've found is that the steps don't necessarily go in order. They would more properly be described as tools, and the "12-step" tools, as I said, aren't enough. Simple will-power, for most, is not nearly enough. Like I said, it takes introspection, awareness of triggers and patterns, and support from friends is essential. I think, Lecter, that you both over- and under-estimate the human brain. You assume that it is powerful enough to heal itself by pure willpower, yet you don't realize how powerful deep conditioning over time can be. It takes powerful, patient, re-conditioning. And for the majority of addicts, regardless of the addiction, recovery doesn't happen without outside help. I think we can both agree, though, that personal responsibility is the most important, and it is when personal responsibility is given up that the "12 steps" become a crutch instead of a tool. This is why I brought up the LDS belief that it is by grace that we are saved after all that we can do, meaning it starts at home. God's not going to magically take my addiction away, I have to do all in my power to heal myself, and he will only do what I am truly incapable of, not what I convince myself I am incapable of as an excuse to not put forth effort.
Meanwhile, this entire discussion of addiction, while interesting, is beside the main point. Not bothering to read back through every post here, I believe we got on this tangent discussing whether the LDS health code (which is completely voluntary, and any Mormon who looks down his nose at a non-Mormon who drinks needs to get his head out of his ass because that person obviously didn't make the same promise to God and is therefore not the sinner many Mormons like to think he is) was groupthink or not. I insist that the policy is not, and that if groupthink exists it is the fault of each individual. A quote I like in the new Wheel of Time book (which I had Brandon Sanderson write in the cover as he signed it!) is "The choice isn't always about what you do, but why you do it." I nearly left the church because I was sick of the groupthink mentality. I believed the doctrines, but hated feeling stifled, so I stopped going. I started back again because I realized that the "why" was more important than the "what", and while I have always believed "what" my church taught, I am finally trying to find my own reason "why" I should follow it. The trick is to always, always question what you are told. Questioning doesn't mean rejecting, though. It means processing the information and making a decision, to accept or to reject. If you don't question, you don't have faith, you are going with the flow. If you question, then accept, then it is faith. I don't think God gets offended when we question his existence, because the whole point of this life is to see what kind of decisions we make when left to ourselves to think for ourselves. That is why the original post title, "This is your brain on [religion]", is offensive. Religion is not the problem. The individuals who follow blindly are the problem.
Now we're back on track.
Meanwhile, this entire discussion of addiction, while interesting, is beside the main point. Not bothering to read back through every post here, I believe we got on this tangent discussing whether the LDS health code (which is completely voluntary, and any Mormon who looks down his nose at a non-Mormon who drinks needs to get his head out of his ass because that person obviously didn't make the same promise to God and is therefore not the sinner many Mormons like to think he is) was groupthink or not. I insist that the policy is not, and that if groupthink exists it is the fault of each individual. A quote I like in the new Wheel of Time book (which I had Brandon Sanderson write in the cover as he signed it!) is "The choice isn't always about what you do, but why you do it." I nearly left the church because I was sick of the groupthink mentality. I believed the doctrines, but hated feeling stifled, so I stopped going. I started back again because I realized that the "why" was more important than the "what", and while I have always believed "what" my church taught, I am finally trying to find my own reason "why" I should follow it. The trick is to always, always question what you are told. Questioning doesn't mean rejecting, though. It means processing the information and making a decision, to accept or to reject. If you don't question, you don't have faith, you are going with the flow. If you question, then accept, then it is faith. I don't think God gets offended when we question his existence, because the whole point of this life is to see what kind of decisions we make when left to ourselves to think for ourselves. That is why the original post title, "This is your brain on [religion]", is offensive. Religion is not the problem. The individuals who follow blindly are the problem.
Now we're back on track.
From the Merriam Webster online dictionary.
Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈli-jən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back — more at rely
Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
If I had to guess, I would think that the first definition and possibly "a personal set...." of the second most closely reflects the usage of the word 'religion' for your purposes. Feel free to correct me or clarify your view. I am basing my assumption on my interpretation of your posts and since I don't have the luxury of instant clarification, I have little else to go on.
For my purposes "institutionalized system..." of definition 2 as well as 3 & 4 are the basis of my understanding of the word. It is my opinion based on my limited knowledge of history and observation that Abrahamic religion tends to discourage independent thought. When I say Abrahamic I am limiting myself because I have piss poor knowledge of Eastern or tribal religions.
I honestly do not believe that these faiths seriously encourage their memberships to engage in serious thought regarding the validity of their faith or doctrines. From my own experience, I was exposed to other ideologies from the perspective of 'this is why they are wrong and why if we don't bring them the story of jesus, that they will burn in hell for all eternity'. Oh, they may say that they want people to truly understand why they believe and 'encourage' them to question their faith. However, they already have the hook of 'hell' or whatever fully set in most people who grow up in 'religious' families. So a person may be willing to go only so far in questioning what they've been taught because maybe just maybe they will be wrong and have 'hell' to pay for their lack of devotion. If you don't believe me about the hooks, just look at the bitterness and resentment that people who break away completely tend to harbor against the religious establishment they were raised in.
This is the same concept used by the pagan religions of the late Roman empire as the population turned increasingly to Christianity. Preaching disaster would follow for failing to honor the old gods. They had their hooks in so well, that eradicating any reference to the old beliefs were only briefly attempted, as well as attempted revivals of the pagan rites by non Christian emperors. Also look at how Christianity used pagan rites like solstice and equinox celebrations by overlaying them with Christian mythology. And just for the record, looking back at the Roman empires collapse suggests that the Pagans were right.
But lets look at what happens in the family of the break away. The parents tend to be devastated, particularly the mother, who pray relentlessly for their offspring return to the fold. This in turn creates a division between family members in a lot of cases. The break away individual typically harbors unnecessary stress and angst because of their choices. Does this mean that deep down in their 'heart of hearts' they know that they are wrong and have left the path of god? No, it means they have serious issues with their social bonds being strained.
You mentioned earlier:
"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?"
I think this makes a decent example of the difference between what I'm ascribing to you as your definition and my own. Personally I think our divergent world views are at the root of this conflict over our respective interpretations of the word 'religion'. As I said elsewhere, I regret that you and probably others were offended by my usage. I do not however, see any reason to modify my usage or definition at this point.
Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈli-jən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back — more at rely
Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
If I had to guess, I would think that the first definition and possibly "a personal set...." of the second most closely reflects the usage of the word 'religion' for your purposes. Feel free to correct me or clarify your view. I am basing my assumption on my interpretation of your posts and since I don't have the luxury of instant clarification, I have little else to go on.
For my purposes "institutionalized system..." of definition 2 as well as 3 & 4 are the basis of my understanding of the word. It is my opinion based on my limited knowledge of history and observation that Abrahamic religion tends to discourage independent thought. When I say Abrahamic I am limiting myself because I have piss poor knowledge of Eastern or tribal religions.
I honestly do not believe that these faiths seriously encourage their memberships to engage in serious thought regarding the validity of their faith or doctrines. From my own experience, I was exposed to other ideologies from the perspective of 'this is why they are wrong and why if we don't bring them the story of jesus, that they will burn in hell for all eternity'. Oh, they may say that they want people to truly understand why they believe and 'encourage' them to question their faith. However, they already have the hook of 'hell' or whatever fully set in most people who grow up in 'religious' families. So a person may be willing to go only so far in questioning what they've been taught because maybe just maybe they will be wrong and have 'hell' to pay for their lack of devotion. If you don't believe me about the hooks, just look at the bitterness and resentment that people who break away completely tend to harbor against the religious establishment they were raised in.
This is the same concept used by the pagan religions of the late Roman empire as the population turned increasingly to Christianity. Preaching disaster would follow for failing to honor the old gods. They had their hooks in so well, that eradicating any reference to the old beliefs were only briefly attempted, as well as attempted revivals of the pagan rites by non Christian emperors. Also look at how Christianity used pagan rites like solstice and equinox celebrations by overlaying them with Christian mythology. And just for the record, looking back at the Roman empires collapse suggests that the Pagans were right.
But lets look at what happens in the family of the break away. The parents tend to be devastated, particularly the mother, who pray relentlessly for their offspring return to the fold. This in turn creates a division between family members in a lot of cases. The break away individual typically harbors unnecessary stress and angst because of their choices. Does this mean that deep down in their 'heart of hearts' they know that they are wrong and have left the path of god? No, it means they have serious issues with their social bonds being strained.
You mentioned earlier:
"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?"
I think this makes a decent example of the difference between what I'm ascribing to you as your definition and my own. Personally I think our divergent world views are at the root of this conflict over our respective interpretations of the word 'religion'. As I said elsewhere, I regret that you and probably others were offended by my usage. I do not however, see any reason to modify my usage or definition at this point.
So I've skipped most of this last page... but just a few points from everything earlier cause it's all so interesting...
1) Chaos said something along the lines of "Atheism is faith too." Not so. In fact it is defined as the absence of faith. There might be people who "believe in not believing," but I (and many other atheists I know) have taken the time to consider the arguments for/against a god, and decided that there is not one. The difference between that and believing in disbelief might be hard for those of faith to understand, but trust me there is a difference.
Basically, an absence of faith is not the same as opposite-faith
2) "Drugs are unhealthy" ... I think that phrase (might not be word for word, but the concept) was used somewhere earlier. Please don't lump everything together. Obviously heroin and cocaine aren't going to do you any favors. But most drugs (alcohol, pot, LSD, mushrooms, ecstasy, the list goes on) won't kill you or do any serious lasting damage. To say they're unhealthy because in excess they will hurt you, or because people continually abuse them and make bad (hurtful) choices on them is wrong. But pot especially does not deserve the rap it gets.... cigarettes and alcohol are infinitely worse (and are actually, chemically, addicting). Discussions like this always remind me of two studies we learned about in 9th grade. In the first, scientists proved that "dimes cause cancer" by opening up a mouse's skull and inserting a dime next to its brain. In the second, they showed that "Dr. Pepper causes cancer" by feeding mice what would translate to 40 gallons a day for a human. Obviously all the concern about cancer and the concern about drugs is different, but the point is, anything in excess will cause harm.
3) Chaos, have you seen the South Park on Mormonism? My knowledge of the history of the Mormon faith is based about 85% on that episode, so I would love to see some counter arguments. Obviously the ideas were simplified and satirized, but I'm sure there is some amount of truth in it.
4) To any religious folk who would like to comment: If you were born in Iran and raised by a Muslim family, do you honestly think you would reject Islam for whatever faith you follow now? If not, how can you trust your decisions about religion in this life?
1) Chaos said something along the lines of "Atheism is faith too." Not so. In fact it is defined as the absence of faith. There might be people who "believe in not believing," but I (and many other atheists I know) have taken the time to consider the arguments for/against a god, and decided that there is not one. The difference between that and believing in disbelief might be hard for those of faith to understand, but trust me there is a difference.
Basically, an absence of faith is not the same as opposite-faith
2) "Drugs are unhealthy" ... I think that phrase (might not be word for word, but the concept) was used somewhere earlier. Please don't lump everything together. Obviously heroin and cocaine aren't going to do you any favors. But most drugs (alcohol, pot, LSD, mushrooms, ecstasy, the list goes on) won't kill you or do any serious lasting damage. To say they're unhealthy because in excess they will hurt you, or because people continually abuse them and make bad (hurtful) choices on them is wrong. But pot especially does not deserve the rap it gets.... cigarettes and alcohol are infinitely worse (and are actually, chemically, addicting). Discussions like this always remind me of two studies we learned about in 9th grade. In the first, scientists proved that "dimes cause cancer" by opening up a mouse's skull and inserting a dime next to its brain. In the second, they showed that "Dr. Pepper causes cancer" by feeding mice what would translate to 40 gallons a day for a human. Obviously all the concern about cancer and the concern about drugs is different, but the point is, anything in excess will cause harm.
3) Chaos, have you seen the South Park on Mormonism? My knowledge of the history of the Mormon faith is based about 85% on that episode, so I would love to see some counter arguments. Obviously the ideas were simplified and satirized, but I'm sure there is some amount of truth in it.
4) To any religious folk who would like to comment: If you were born in Iran and raised by a Muslim family, do you honestly think you would reject Islam for whatever faith you follow now? If not, how can you trust your decisions about religion in this life?