Troubador

Sure! I began smoking at 17 very infrequently. I attended a boarding school, and we'd sneak out in the small hours. I enjoyed the whole being out at night and breaking the rules. I carried on the habit throughout my university years, however once I finished I definitely wanted to quit. Made a few half-hearted attempts, but I struck up a deep friendship with someone who had had a liver transplant (had happened to him during his teenage years). Unfortunately although eventually the new liver failed and he died. I discovered about 72 hours of chemical addiction the year following and that knowledge plus the impetus provided from seeing a friend die gave me the means and the motivation. Given how some people are not blessed with good health to start with it seems utter madness to throw it away.

They get their drugs delivered by drone. Next question?

I really admire your tenacity in refusing to give up and to push your life forward. You have also done the absolute best thing in asking for help. The human race is a team sport. Add me to list of people happy to chat if you need it.

I'm afraid I'm with dsayers on that one that language is rude. There are not just theists here, but actual anti-theists as well. Read the room, or failing that take a look at Stefan's post titled "To our religious friends" in the welcome section. It will help to gather an idea of the lay of the land without having to re-tread the same cycles that don't go anywhere. I've brought this up before on other threads but I'll repeat myself here for emphasis, being an atheist actually opens up someone to be discriminated against in most modern societies, and in some can see you marked for death. What you are reading as over-sensitivity may well be hostility. Even if that is the case it is a response I can empathise with however I wouldn't like to leave you without a reference so I'd like to point you at an abstract of a study by the University of British Colombia: http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/a0025882 I'm sure you are all lovely and wouldn't discriminate, but keep an eye on the cultural landscape these discussions take place in. Anyway peace out!

Apologies I really didn't make myself clear, the situation is an omnishambles, I don't know this woman enough beyond what you have disclosed. A point I wish to raise which may be entirely down to my own bias (full disclosure here: I dated a single mother who had a child I very much bonded with and well essentially because I didn't pay attention to warning signs on account of not wanting to let the child down. Long story short I'm now a single father!). If you bond with her son it can very much complicate matters beyond what you may initially anticipate. Grand scheme of things you are relevant, very relevant. I have no measure of how strong you are hence my attempt to find out. No reason why you can't be platonic friends with this woman, and be a great support but in general she sounds in a lot of ways like she's adrift and drowning, and people who try to rescue people who are drowning without training and knowing what they are doing can and do get dragged down to drown with them. She may not be a lost cause but she needs professional therapy and a lot of work she needs to do herself. I am sure you can counsel her to and point her at the road she has to walk down, but she will have to do the work and walk it. Best of luck in any case and the offer is still open if you wish to talk further.

I can only say the science of it all helped me quit. Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances known to man, however the thing that helped me quit was when I found out that the nicotine is in your system for 72 hours. Once I framed it in my mind that 72 hours I had to contend with a literal chemical addiction, but after that it was little old me with myself and a psychological addiction it became much easier to take ownership and responsibility and actually that knowledge made it easier.

Forgive me for ignoring the majority of your post but who are you? And what do you want out of life for yourself? These are important questions, just as you are important, in fact you are the most important person in your whole post, and I get so small an idea who that is you say almost nothing about yourself. This woman clearly represents something to you in your mind, but ANY parent who can countenance leaving a one year old without either parent is not right in the head. This should be setting off warning klaxons audible enough to wake up people who happen to be asleep on the international space station!! The $64,000 question is what on earth is possessing you to want to hitch your life to this omnishambles? And is there anything I can at all do to help?

Cheating doesn't require the intent to harm as part of its definition. Of course a betrayal makes it about the betrayed, and that is where my natural compassion and sympathy lies. That ego they are trying to drown out is a sense of self preservation. If you are in a relationship with someone who has such a colossal disrespect for your health or agency that they are willing to risk your health with an unknown extra sexual partner without affording you the opportunity to weigh up the extra risks is not someone who has your interests heart, and sure as hell doesn't love you. If that thought genuinely hasn't occurred to them then they probably aren't smart enough to desire mixing genes with down the line with anyway....

If you are adamant in leaving philosophy (or ignoring it, or whathaveyou), and you happen to have kids with this woman, don't hit em, and don't let her do it either. That is all.

I think his premise hardware > operating system > software and biology > culture > ideology analogies require closer examination. Quite aside from the fact software can and does effect hardware. The stuxnet virus scuppered many of Irans centrifuges used in their nuclear program as one example. Ideologies can and have effected biology, the culture/ideologies of slavery and white supremacy have had a demonstrable effect of the genetic (biology) make up of the modern US population. His whole thesis is predicated on an inexorable and one way cause and effect string following from biology to create culture which in turn generates ideology with the conclusion that meaningful change can only come from altering biology. Whilst he makes a compelling and entertaining case for quite how important biology is, I think unless one agrees with the suppositions outlined above his thesis falls down. After all it can essentially go in circles, his biological "patch" in the pill could only come about from a scientific ideology and culture, which in turn can only come about with the fantastic brains we posses (biological) so it comes down where wants to put your start line. Chickens and eggs and all that...

@RoseCodex Gnosticism is one of those fancy classical words for knowledge, in much the same way they had different words to define love phile being a love between friends that you see tacked on with things like audiophile, you even see it with the word philosophy meaning "friend or lover of wisdom". Agape being a divine love gnosis is a form of divine knowledge. In a historical context the gnostic sect of Christianity the cathars believed the abrahamic God was in fact more akin to the devil and had control of the material world, but there was some sort of benign and compassionate divinity outside of creation that sought to pierce people's delusions and illusions to achieve liberation, which is almost eastern in it's approach to spirituality. I see you are talking about an individual's personal direct experience of the divine, which is of course a qualification of gnosis. That is also coincidentally the vector I experience my own beliefs from, I believe because I have experiences that have led me there, not because an old book tells me or a supposed holy man tells me it is so. Two additional things it is worth pointing out at this stage 1. I have form for being wrong about things. 2. There is the very real problem that I may very well be balls to the wall apeshit spaceman insane. Therefore I'd say anything I say on the subject of spiritually should be taken with a massive dose of scepticism. I am personally quite irreligious, we have all seen how bad things can get when blind faith is used by the powerful to hoodwink the impressionable, perhaps counter intuitively the best reaction to people like me should be to view us as the archetypal fools/madmen spouting nonsense on hilltops...

Just as a point of inquiry for my own benefit how is morality digital and not analog as you put it? I get the following statement about an action either being moral, immoral or morally neutral. In that sense I understand what is being said. Where I get lost however is surely acts do not have equal moral equivalence. What I mean is surely murder is objectively worse than physical assault for example? Viewed like that could it not be said moral and immoral acts do in fact exist on a scale? I would like to share the op's frustration as I think the words "a step in the right direction" are often used in place of "well that's good enough." The end of slavery was a step in the right direction for example and I tentatively suggest objectively so, but conversely it was also on its own not good enough. It's also worth noting that on the other hand sometimes will never be "good enough". Sometimes people will use the obvious evil like slavery is bad which we can all see clearly and rightly condemn, but then sally forth off in a negative direction ie with affirmative action et al. The beauty of "a step in the right direction" is it invites the question "that's great, so what's the next step?"

I'm a theist who when coming here noticed a stickied thread "For our religious friends" which I think outlines a lot of important things. Aside from the fact it uses the word friends which leads me to believe I am not implicitly unwelcome. I get the feeling not a lot of theists coming here bother to read it. Which is a shame as I think it heads off a lot of conflict. I think it's also worth pointing out the wider world is actively setup against and discriminates against atheists. Which is quite frankly not on. I can quite see why the accusation of religious people being taken out in the street and shot raised some ire (which I suspect it was meant to). As 1. It's weapons grade bullshit and 2. That's precisely what happens in some parts of the world to atheists, by religious people. I am not aware of a single instance of a religious person coming to harm at the hands of a atheists. I know some would point at Stalin and those like him, but that is a gross oversimplification as the ideology he espoused didn't tolerate any deviation, if one was an athiest and a capitalist in Stalinist Russia you're in the crosshairs regardless.

I did something roughly similar with my little one, particularly when he had trapped wind. Only I did it sat down, one handed so the other hand was free to rub and massage his back. He always seemed to like it there. Although I'm 6ft tall with big hands so yeah not sure that would work for smaller, slighter folk. When he cried a cuddle smuggled into my neck whilst I walked around singing always chilled him out. That was my main strategy. Bear in mind babies cry for a reason, figure out the reason ameliorate the cause, be that hunger, filled nappy etc. The only real bugger is when they cry because they are tired, they can actually work themselves up into a paddy and thus be completely unable to sleep, even though this what they need. I'd also be a little skeptical of a one size fits all strategy as I've seen different things work for different infants. Mine worked with walking/singing. Others a push around in a pram in the fresh air. In short I think if you pay attention to tune into your baby it mostly sorts itself out. There are also situational caveats like if mine was congested upright in a pushchair helps keep the nasal passages clearer and better quality naps. Sometimes there is an issue presenting a barrier to good sleep, my niece had a tongue tie and then a constipation problem which meant often quite a grumpy and fractious baby. So keep in contact with medical health professionals and stay on top of things, but I think it's true babies can be massively different and some are simply easier than others.

To the op I'm religious like you and I haven't once felt anyone here advocating taking me out into the street and shooting me. I think that's a tad hyperbolic. If you want to live among people and get along with them, well just do that. If someone doesn't particularly want to associate with you (or me for that matter) that's up to them. Nobody comes to any harm, it's also a fact of life whatever system we live under not everyone will like you. You want an obvious way around it? Provide such a collosal value to those around you and a lot of people will overlook as eccentricity that which would be a deal breaker in lesser people. One of my closest friends is an atheist, and we've had each other's backs through significant shared and individual crisis, that what we both personally believe is an irrelevance. Your best bet is put a pin in your religious beliefs, by all means admit to having them as doing otherwise would be dishonest, but if I have a friend that hates 60's Classic Rock music I'm not going to be constantly espousing my love of Jimi Hendrix. They aren't going to be interested and it would actually be pretty rude.

On the topic of narcissism it has struck me as the cleverest variation of "whoever smelt it dealt it" I think I have ever seen... I did an IQ test whilst I was at university, but it was one that tested various categories, and there were several. My lowest was in the 130 range and highest was 140something. However to be honest I felt something was a bit bizarre, from my overall aptitude the psychologist seemed taken aback and asked what I was studying I answered English lit and said I should be doing some kind of advanced physics. However I sucked at science in the main at school so go figure. I gather 130 is quite high, but still I can't help but be a little skeptical of the whole enterprise. Besides I hadn't slept the night before the test so I think I broke my brain a bit beforehand from tiredness. The other test I did that day pinpointed I was dyslexic however, which again was a bit strange as I had a reading age of 12-13 when I was 7-8.

Donnadogsoth bearing in mind I, like you have belief in the Divine what specifically should make me subscribe to the particular religion you espouse? As far as religious institutions go whenever people congregate in such a manner that centralises power and influence it attracts the corrupt. A religion of peace should be peaceful. If it's not then it's not a religion of peace. I also think conflating every Christian denominations and cherry picking all the good things whilst ignoring the bad is being intellectually dishonest. Quakers for example campaigned to end slavery in the British Empire, but on the other hand slavery was justified by many others predicated on the story of Noah. In short I am of the conviction that religious institutions more often than not actually get in the way of unity with all that monad stuff you were talking about earlier. If you have faith have it by all means, but not at the expense of anyone else's freedom. If you cannot find unity with your fellow human beings you are hardly going to be able to find it with God.

War will actually lower IQ across a population. Environment plays a much greater role in brain development than your original post would allow. If smacking has a negative result on IQ, what do you propose growing up in a full blown war zone will do? War and violence perpetuates itsel ad nauseum until enough right thinking people decide enough is enough, and are listened to. The solution to war is not more war, that is quite frankly an absurdist position. Also in the brains of present and developed people fear has an affect on iq. Whilst it's true that short acute periods of stress can increase your capacity for creative thought and productivity, labouring under constant and chronic fear and uncertainty actually has the reverse result.

I'll leave the nuances of the counsel you are getting to wiser heads who have a better understanding of your situation, but kudos on your aspirations and the work you have done so far. It's no easy thing. Many people have tried and failed to reach where you have struggled to get to today, and take heart in the fact that many people have gone on to greater heights. No reason why you can't be one of them!

I'm in the U.K. and we don't have many guns, and yet the sun manages to rise and set each day. Life goes on much as it always does. I remember looking at U.S. gun law several years ago back when I was dating an American, and the conclusion I drew from what what I saw was could America model its firearm legislation on Canada? At the time I looked at it gun ownership per head of the population was comparable between the U.S. and Canada? Yet Canada doesn't have anything like the gun related crime America does. Could a Canadian model work? What differences exist between the two nations that could account for this? Believe me it makes no odds to me wether Americans decide en masse wether they want guns or not, but speaking as an outside observer who happens to like America and its people it is always saddening to turn on the TV to yet another mass shooting. I would imagine those big shootings are anomalous in that more people are probably killed that never make the news, and the media is usually atrocious at tackling the bigger problem. One thing that terrifies me from the presentation are black lives still so inconsequential in American society that nobody in the media cares to draw attention to it? If the biggest demographic of both victims and perpetrators are from within the black community and nobody cares to even name it I'd more worried about being racist for not holding black lives as sacred as any others, than for being accused of racism for casting a critical eye over the culture that perpetuates it...

There is a lot of sound philosophy in certain poetry.

The gold standard here has got to be secularism. When you strip everything down the most common reason people have this or that religion is down to the culture they grew up in and were exposed to. Now granted there are some people who convert later in life, but I'd be willing to guess that a majority of athiests have arrived at their conclusions in spite of cultural conditioning not because of them. In other words they have put a lot more thought into the buisness than the average theist. I'll state up front I am religous, and have no imminent plans to change from that position, but having studied several religions, there is literaly no case I can make using reasoning and logic that anyone should practice, and hold the same beliefs as I do, as opposed to any other of the myriad religions that exist. In fact the only case I can make is that having faith does seem to have a measurable positive effect on health, but I would be being intellectually dishonest if I tagged that to any one religion in particular. I am happy to discuss religion to all and sundry, but in discussions relating to how we structure society then we have to be grounded in the secular. There is absolutely no other way to slice it that I can see. I get where this god outside of time question comes from, but the moment one asserts the divine is unknowable, you've effectively made the divine untalkable aboutable in any meaningful sense, unless you are talking with people who agree with the premise that divinity is real in the first place. I am also of the firmly held view that religious organisations have been given a free pass way too many times, like child abuse in the catholic church, radical islamists to name but two. Whilst I am in favour of freedom of religion, that should never obsfucate the importance of the secularism that even allows that in the first place. Whatever I personally believe without secularism humanity is doomed to be in a state of perpetual warfare over what is the right thing to believe.

The fundemental and underlying principles of the universe and all manifest reality will not change. What is possible is that our knowledge is flawed/incomplete. Physics I believe cannot even make it to double figures in terms of the percentage of the universe we have categorised and understood. There are stars too big to exist based on our current models, so too are there galaxies too colossal for our current understanding to account for. Yet these things can and do exist, so therefore our understanding is not quite there yet. As I've said before classical logic fails to incorporate quantum behaviour within its purview, and such we look to new forms of logic to account for this. As far as thought and thinking goes we as a species are still very much out in the frontier. Personally I think this exciting and inspiring, we shouldn't close off avenues of thought for discussion and analysis. Such would be distinctly anti-philosophical.

Logic is a fantastic tool for formalising thought, and effectively communicating ideas, as long as everyone is using the same logic form. However I have always struggled with the idea that logic by itself produces or arrives at truth in isolation. I'm currently wading through Wittgenstien myself and I am often surprised how rarely I see his work come up here considering how much a benchmark his work was. I am a long way from diving into quantum logic although I'd like to once my mathematics is strong enough, but if a form of logic fails to be able to accurately encompass the properties of systems that exist in reality we have to accept that form of logic whilst still useful as a tool has limitations. It seems to me people often use forms of logic interchangeably whereby they will communicate their ideas using informal logic, and decry challenges to the validity of their beliefs as nitpicking. Yet when they wish to take apart a view they don't like they switch to a more formal form and take apart the whole idea so it can be safely rejected. Being able to challenge your own cherished beliefs and ideas is Central to the notion of moving thought forwards both as an individual and as a species. I like the idea of taking opposing views and making them as strong as possible when comparing them with your own, the very act of which will make you more knowledgeable and wiser. Although I can concede that approach may not not be the most efficient methodology. I guess it all comes down to how much time do you have, and your inclination.

Thanks for your reply! I'm not sure I would go quite as far as never loaning/borrowing a book or refusing to go over to a friends house because he/she might be playing a movie I don't own, but you're being consistent. I respect that. I suppose a quick word by way of response would be any game with local co-op is surely by definition supposed to be enjoyed with friends you have around? I mean if I go down the park to kick a ball around with some mates I don't feel the need to toss a buck in the direction of the football manufacturer for the use of their product. Maybe the resolution is a sticker or label on something, say I write a novel and there is a label on it denoting I'm cool with you loaning it out to people, and such. Yet if you write one and it has a different mark representing your wish that everyone buys their own damn copy! If we're all being ethical, and people are by and large doing the right thing everybody wins! On a separate note the only thing that would tempt me to pirate a game, (not that I've actually done so yet, but the thought has occured!), is if the game installs some particularly draconian drm that takes away some of the utility of my PC. I remember way back (last 10 years or so) there was a game that installed something godawful that stopped my DVD burner from working for some reason. If I recall correctly it caused me to do a complete reinstall, and I did toy with the idea I could avoid future problems by buying my games, but running cracked drm free versions. I didn't end up doing so because of the faff and attendant risk involved (viruses, Trojans and the like). The equation for me is simple I just want to to enjoy my precious leisure time, (as time is a resource I am loathe to waste), however if every game had shipped with something similar, and thus costing me time my cost benefit analysis might have caused me to rethink. That's the main argument I tend to use against software piracy: the time you spent faffing making things work, if you just did a little overtime you'd probably make the damn money you needed in possibly less time, so in some cases software piracy is also costing the pirate certainly time and possibly money too!