TheRev said:That's how I see it at least.
Thank you for the detailed reply. Your point about fear resonates with my experiences. An antidote for that would be helpful.
TheRev said:That's how I see it at least.
Thank you for the detailed reply. Your point about fear resonates with my experiences. An antidote for that would be helpful.
Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) said:Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to TheRev :
That same religious right sponsored so many BS justifications. Dan White murdered Harvey Milk and was acquitted because he was "troubled" due to the chemicals present in all the twinkies he ate. He wasn't labeled for what he was - an amoral homophobic shiny happy person, he just ate too many twinkies. He was a Christian, Milk was gay, it was totally justified because Jesus.I was in High School in that area when the Milk/Moscone murders went down. There was a lot more to that than White's support from the religious right. Dan White was old school San Francisco, Irish, grew up in an Irish Neighborhood and went to work in the San Francisco Fire Department that was filled with other old school Irishmen. When he was elected to the Board of Supervisors he represented an old school Irish neighborhood of people who had lived there forever, and all of the people in that neighborhood were hostile towards the newly forming gay community that was just starting to form down the road in the Castro. Harvey Milk was an outsider. A Jewish guy from New York who had worked on Wall Street, came out of the closet and decided to move to San Francisco and buy a Camera Shop in the Castro District. Most of the people the San Francisco's gay community at the time had moved to San Francisco from somewhere else. A large number of gay men who had been stationed in San Francisco had been expelled from the military and stayed there instead of going back home to be ostracized. Milk became politically active when the San Francisco Police Department literally went to war against the gay bars. Dan White, a fireman, was on the other side of that war.
This was beyond homophobia. There was a fear of all of the new people coming in from other places and taking over the old neighborhoods. Most of the people at that time happened to be gay. Now, strangely enough, the established LBGQ community is actually getting pushed out by the Silicon Valley bunch because of the high rents and there is resentment about that. Things are always changing and people are always afraid of change.
This is kind of exactly my point, though. Milk was killed because "gay," and White walked because "fireman, war vet, irish, Christian"
Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) said:TheRev said:That's how I see it at least.
Thank you for the detailed reply. Your point about fear resonates with my experiences. An antidote for that would be helpful.
I'm trying to find the study but my googles are failing me.
There was a study done maybe a decade ago that involved a survey and a brain scan. The survey asked questions like Republican/Democrat, Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Other, etc. Then they were shown a series of images ranging from graphic depictions of violence and death all the way to beautiful things like a smiling baby, a flower, or two people hugging.
In nearly every case, the more conservative/religious brains' fear centers lit up like a Christmas tree at the graphic imagery and there was a certain level of brain activity during the pleasant images. The more liberal/non-religious brains had far less fear activity during the graphic stuff and the same brain activity as the others during the pleasing images.
The net result of the study was basically that we all have the capacity to experience and see joy equally, but some brains (either by genetics or experience) are programmed to be more fearful, and those brains tend to be more conservative/religious.
I'm thinking that the next study should be to just give religious people LSD and see what happens 
ddavidv said:The last time the JW's came a-calling, I (finally) told them I was an atheist. They told me to have a nice day and departed.
JW's stop by my house often. I've told them (politely) I am an atheist. We still have some interesting discussions. When I have the time I like to chat with them. Its funny because the lead guy will often read a verse and tell me how Jesus or Jehovah said X or Y and I'm nodding my head in agreement because the underlying principle is what should be standard moral practice.
I think deeply religious people are often surprised at how much their views overlap with mine at the core (Be excellent to each other).
In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :
White walked because he had the whole community behind him. The fire department. The police department. Most of the jury that let him walk were people like him from his community. Milk's supporters were from a different community and they took to the streets after the verdict. They actually changed the way that County Supervisors were elected after the shootings. It was the start of serious political change in the city. The gay community became more mainstream. The police harassment in the gay bars stopped. A year after White got out of prison, he committed suicide. His hatred consumed him. Nothing in his religion supported anything that he did from killing Milk to killing himself. He might have disliked Milk for religious reasons, but he also broke the first commandment of his religion. He went way off track from anything that Christianity teaches.
In reply to Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) :
"An antidote for that would be helpful."
There is a very famous verse in the book of 1 John that says, "Perfect love casts out fear." That is the only antidote I know of. The more I (we) sacrifice out time, money, and energy to serve others - especially those less fortunate, the poor, the oppressed, the suffering - the less we will struggle with fear. I've seen that proven often in my own life and in the lives of others. If for some reason all the Christians in our country turned to me and asked, "What should we do to be less afraid?" I would tell them to turn off the damn cable news and sign up to build houses with Habitat for Humanity, distribute food with the Food Bank, man the 211 service (free local phone-based resource to connect people with charitable and gov't services), or even join our charity's volunteer team (finding, fixing, donating cars as well as caring for and praying for clients).
Slightly topical, for those who are of the "nothing happens after death" philosophy. Here's your ticket to eternal existence:
In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :
I'm familiar with a study that found a correlation between people with low base-line adrenaline levels and high risk behaviors (free climbing, etc.). This suggests a reasonable theory that "thrill seekers" are trying to get the adrenaline rush that comes more easily to others.
I'd be curious to see if the study you're referring to measured base-line adrenaline levels, prior traumatic experiences, family history of high risk behavior, etc.. If it was just religion and politics being correlated to a fear response, I'd be suspicious the researchers knew in advance what they were going to find which leads to conformation bias.
I mean, religion and politics are the two most contentious subjects in existence...I don't know why somebody would go out of their way to open that can of worms unless they had an agenda.
I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm just asking what the point is...what benefit are we getting in exchange for upsetting a huge percent of the population?
I guess it's to one day, hopefully, find a cure for being religious and/or conservative.
In reply to RX Reven' :
I'm sure the study was valid. As I recall it involved big names like Johns Hopkins and UCLA Med, it was peer-reviewed, and appeared in several medical journals. It wasn't like BuzzFeed posted it on Facebook or anything. As far as what the survey involved, I have no idea, but it was more than "do you like Obama, check yes or no." The study included hundreds of people, and if it didn't include a baseline, it would never have made it past the first review. I do know that the survey was many questions. Not just a few about your political/religious leaning. It likely included things like mental health history, income bracket (surprisingly relevant to indications of trauma), life experience, etc. The point of blind studies like that are to present the test as innocuous and without bias. They wouldn't have told the subjects what the test was, only to answer these questions, then look at some photos while we scan your brain.
One of the roadblocks I'm hitting is that I no longer have subscriptions to the medical journals I used to which is why I'm having trouble locating it again. I was pursuing my Master's in Clinical Counseling for a while and subscribed to several for research which is where I encountered the study. The study's primary intent was not to test the fear response of Republicans vs Democrats, that was simply an ancillary data set that emerged from the study.
In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :
Hi Curtis,
You know how much respect I have for you and I don't want to flounder this thread so I'll be quick to leave this alone.
I'm not so much questioning the scientific validity of the study as I am asking "why" the study was done.
It seems to just make the case that if you're fearful you're more likely to be religious and/or conservative...what do we do with that information...how do we harness it for good?
We've offended a big percent of the population and yet, I don't see the point...do we put religious and/or conservative people on courage meds to "cure" them?
Anyway, take care my friend.
In reply to RX Reven' :
"How do we harness it for good"?
The paradigm is "How do we harness it for profit?"
I can't even say it is a new paradigm (people gonna try to make money after all) but computers make everything faster and easier...
This, I feel, is where a lot of people get soured, they see men in positions of power become the kind of people Jesus would flip tables over.
I like the "use words if necessary" idea, myself.
yupididit said:In reply to 1988RedT2 :
So it's part of being a Christian to try to bring people to Christ?
Why are some so aggressive about it and why do some seem not to care or try?
Side note about this and my personal experiences.
I've been on the receiving end of some of this. Even though I am a believer. Usually it's people trying to get me to their church. I don't particularly like those discussions and I shut them down quickly but I've never been angry over it.
On the other hand I've had a few going the other way. Atheists that approach and then get angry when I tell them I believe. I had one nearly turn physical because he wouldn't leave me alone (Austin is a weird town).
From my point of view angry athiests are much more annoying than evangelical Christians.
As I said previously I generally don't discuss religion. Especially with someone I don't know. But if I'm asked I'll say I do believe. I don't judge anyone else for their beliefs or non beliefs. It simply doesn't matter that much to me. But I've had worse experiences with atheists than theists thus far in my life.
Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:Yes, Christianity is a missionary religion. The gospel of Mark in chapter 10 speaks specifically of (paraphrasing) For even the Son of Man didn't come to be served, but so that he may serve and give his life for the benefit of (or 'to serve as ransom for) many" Matthew ch28 says "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." The scriptures are pretty clear about making everyone believers.
I have zero issue with any of your statements, nor am I interested in turning this thread into a study of theology. I am just adding a correction to your paraphrase since your paraphase implies (at least to me) a different grammatical subject than the words you are paraphrasing. The "Son of Man" is a term Jesus used multiple times to refer to himself, specifically. So that quote from Mark (much closer than just a paraphrase) is not talking about either Christians or people in general, but Jesus talking about himself. Neither here nor there in the grand scheme of this thread, just a clarification for those not familiar with the passage you were referencing.
Thanks for the intelligent discourse.
RX Reven' said:I am asking "why" the study was done.
Someone probably had to turn in a paper. Or substantiate their tenureship with another publication.
Steve_Jones said:In reply to Beer Baron :
Lol, that's pretty ironic. I've never been on this side of that :)
[in response to the "don't feed the troll" meme]
LOL. Who knew Mister Jones is so self aware?
In reply to OHSCrifle :
Very self aware, I also know I'm not the only one that thinks some of the stuff I post here, I'm just one of the few that will say it out loud :)
RX Reven' said:In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :
Hi Curtis,
You know how much respect I have for you and I don't want to flounder this thread so I'll be quick to leave this alone.
I'm not so much questioning the scientific validity of the study as I am asking "why" the study was done.
It seems to just make the case that if you're fearful you're more likely to be religious and/or conservative...what do we do with that information...how do we harness it for good?
We've offended a big percent of the population and yet, I don't see the point...do we put religious and/or conservative people on courage meds to "cure" them?
Anyway, take care my friend.
No worries, man, but you may have misinterpreted my post because I was too brief and didn't want to bore anyone. (too late) The study had nothing to do with religion or left/right politics. That was simply a couple of the data points collected. The purpose of the study was twofold: 1) further understanding of how/where the brain processes up and down emotions and 2) how the locus and amplitude of the brain activity correlates to life experiences. In the simplest of terms, they were basically trying to determine if how we experience emotion was Nature or Nurture. Does someone who has experienced a nearly fatal car accident respond to fear differently than someone who hasn't? Does someone with a silky-smooth road behind them process happiness differently? Does someone with lots of debt process ups and downs differently from someone who is wealthy? From that data set, there were hundreds of correlating data points that were simply extrapolated as in any study. The study IN NO WAY was just asking what your religion was and scanning your brain. The net result of a study on brain mapping revealed a correlation. Not the other way around.
An extremely obscure metaphor: If you were doing a study about how testicular cancer patients may have acquired the disease and you ask if they ate paint chips, lived under a power line, coke or pepsi, tighty whiteys or boxers, and the state you live in. All of those are valid questions about your diet, your environment, and how your testicles are suspended in your underwear. From that data set, you might discover that 7 out of 10 pepsi drinkers prefer boxers. The survey wasn't trying to discover that correlation, but it did.
What do we do with that information? Nothing. There is nothing that needs to be fixed. Just like there isn't a problem with Pepsi drinkers prefering boxers. Let them drink pepsi and enjoy their swingin balls. In the case of the study I was describing, it can be great piece of info to add to the toolkit of (for instance) a therapist, or a hostage negotiator, or in dealing with how to communicate with terrorists, or how to lobby for [insert bill] when speaking to an [insert political party] legislator. It's just info. Let religious people be religious and let non-religious peeps be non-religious. Let Dems be Dems and let GOPs be GOPs.
It's just information. It's great if it does some good, but just because we know pepsi drinkers love boxers doesn't mean something has to be done with the information.... although Pepsi might want to include more boxers in their marketing
matthewmcl said:Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:Yes, Christianity is a missionary religion. The gospel of Mark in chapter 10 speaks specifically of (paraphrasing) For even the Son of Man didn't come to be served, but so that he may serve and give his life for the benefit of (or 'to serve as ransom for) many" Matthew ch28 says "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." The scriptures are pretty clear about making everyone believers.
I have zero issue with any of your statements, nor am I interested in turning this thread into a study of theology. I am just adding a correction to your paraphrase since your paraphase implies (at least to me) a different grammatical subject than the words you are paraphrasing. The "Son of Man" is a term Jesus used multiple times to refer to himself, specifically. So that quote from Mark (much closer than just a paraphrase) is not talking about either Christians or people in general, but Jesus talking about himself. Neither here nor there in the grand scheme of this thread, just a clarification for those not familiar with the passage you were referencing.
Thanks for the intelligent discourse.
Thank YOU for the polite correction. Good catch.
RX Reven' said:In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :
It seems to just make the case that if you're fearful you're more likely to be religious and/or conservative...what do we do with that information...how do we harness it for good?
I'm somewhat familiar with these studies and analysis of them.
First off, it's not *really* measuring political Conservative/Liberal in a R/D sense. It's measuring socially and behaviorally conservative and liberal - lower case. In this case, conservative behavior is caution with novel ideas and outsiders from the group, and being liberal is seeking to exchange and trade new items and ideas with outsiders.
The dominant theory is that these are traits that conflict with and balance against each other for the survival and thriving of the species. It is important for members of a tribe to be conservative, because outsiders can threaten violence, or bring diseases that can seriously harm a population. (Liberal trade in Europe brought the plagues.) Reacting with fear to threats or unfamiliar things has helped keep the species alive. It is important to have members of the tribe who are liberal, because outside ideas, art, technology, etc. are valuable resources that a community needs in order to better itself. Being excited to seek out new things and interact with other cultures has helped our species grow, thrive, and survive.
If you want society to improve and advance, you want change, but you want it to be metered and controlled. It's not that one philosophy or trait is good, and the other is bad. Both are necessary, and it's important to find the balance.
How do we harness that for good? I think working to accept and recognize the value both perspectives bring. Recognizing that it's actually really good for society to have people who think differently. Disagreement isn't a problem, but is actually beneficial. Understanding that other people literally think differently than you do, so you can recognize that you need to shift your communication style to speak to *their* values and fears instead of your own.
To bring it to points that have come up in this discussion - I think these discussions often turn to arguments because people bring up and hammer on the points that THEY find compelling or obvious to THEMSELVES. However, if you want to actually speak with someone different from you, you need to understand what the OTHER PERSON finds compelling and persuasive. Any time you feel you have to say, "It's obvious that..." it is almost never obvious.
1988RedT2 said:We are not to re-write the immutable Word of God and make it politically correct.
Part of the issue with this is that the immutable word of god was written by people, and was selected from a wider array of immutable words of god in the Council of Nicea by people. It's been translated multiple times, edited, rewritten and so on. It contradicts itself.
An example of a contradiction: The word of god via Jesus said to throw out the Old Testament (which is presented in an incomplete manner in the Christian Bible) but that hasn't happened. However, this quote gave rise to a divergence that is why Christians don't eat Kosher and are allowed to wear clothes of different fabrics. However, any time it is expedient, the Old Testament is trotted out as justification for a wide range of things related to behavior and belief. The various Churches are doing exactly what you said they should not: "Okay, God. We'll do this, this, and this, but not this or that."
To answer the original question in this thread, I was raised Jewish in a small town in the deep south, surrounded by southern Baptists and Pentecostals. I grew up believing in god and whatnot, but I was always the type of person that questioned things, and when they answered with "because god did it" I would ask why or how. I think deep down I was afraid to listen to the arguments of atheists due to some level of cognitive dissonance; learning that you're wrong is never easy. In my mid-20s (around 2007 or so) I was watching videos on youtube and came across I believe Richard Dawkins, and I was shocked by the things he said. They made sense but my brain didn't want to believe it. Around the same time I read Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time, which is still my favorite book to this day. That book had so many answers! Around that time I finally came to be an atheist, as I realized religions were just things created many years ago (often stolen from other religions) to provide answers. I've happily been an atheist since then, and my wife is one as well.
This leads to an interesting situation that I'm currently in. I do like being Jewish, I just never got to experience a Jewish childhood or living in a Jewish community when I was a kid. When my wife and I moved to Cleveland, we found ourselves renting right in the heart of an ultra orthodox Jewish neighborhood, which has been...interesting. The Jewish community is great and close-knit and supportive, but we simply don't fit in. Not only are we both atheists, but we have *gasp* a few tattoos and don't dress like orthodox jews, so they look at us like we're complete foreigners. And we look around and see an entire community that's brainwashed, the women oppressed, an entire people held back by their beliefs. Of course, we're talking very, very religious people here. We have since made some other Jewish friends that aren't as extremely religious as those. It's an interesting push/pull kind of feeling though, wanting to be close to my people yet I'm very different and will never be fully accepted.
"And we look around and see an entire community that's brainwashed, the women oppressed, an entire people held back by their beliefs."
Welcome to my neighborhood: Amish country.
I just wanted to post a thank you to everyone sharing their stories, and this thread staying fairly civil. I have to assume many people saw who started it and clicked to see "what is this shiny happy person up to now" expecting it to be the latest E36 M3 show. I really appreciate the insight to how others came to have similar beliefs to mine, and it really seems like many are pretty much the same journey.
ddavidv said:"And we look around and see an entire community that's brainwashed, the women oppressed, an entire people held back by their beliefs."
Welcome to my neighborhood: Amish country.
And I was called judgemental in the other tread.
Brett_Murphy (Agent of Chaos) said:
An example of a contradiction: The word of god via Jesus said to throw out the Old Testament (which is presented in an incomplete manner in the Christian Bible)
Not trying to debate, but always interested in learning. Can you cite that first claim so that I can go look at it?
You'll need to log in to post.
