Search the Community

Link IMDB There's been a lot of hype about this lately. Should be good.

I have heard many FDR podcasts where Stefan suggests call the "authorities" or call the cops in situations of abuse. I always find this irritating. From my experience, the "authorities" are most problematic in areas where abuse is most common. I live in an area now where I hear neighbors fighting. I have heard people yelling on another block when I had the windows closed at night. I see little children, clearly neglected, smashing up abandoned houses that are dangerous. I have heard stories about little pre-kindergarten children killing feral kittens. I did not call anyone and won't. I see the police as some of the most despicable thugs around. I try to be friendly to people especially children. I figure the best thing to do at this time is just interact in a positive way so they see a positive communication modeled. I'm not great at it, but I think it's worth trying to communicate in this way so they see that there are other types of people in this world. Not surprising, I have heard rumors spread about me being abusive. These rumors appear to come from the neighbors who I imagine are the most abusive based on the behavior of their children. They are projecting their abuse onto me. I believe Stefan's only argument for calling these people into an abusive situation is they are the only option we have right now. This argument is only valid if it is believed that the police are actually beneficial and are working for the ends they claim. They are not. Their stated goals only serve as cover for their predatory behavior. Their only purpose is to intimidate people into complying with the dictates of statists including themselves. They make up false accusations to get arrests. They cowardly target those who pose no harm while ignoring those who are a real danger. They prey upon those who appear unable to defend themselves. Sounds like the behavior of an abusive parent, right? The victims of the abuse hang onto the delusion that their abusers are there to protect them. The state is clearly just an extension of the dysfunctional family. To call in predators to deal with predators is to support predators. It's possible that my experiences with cops and other similar types are very different from what many others experience. The Ontario and British police may be mostly nice fellows in some areas. Maybe Stef's suggestion comes out of his wishful thinking that calling them will be productive or that someone could have called and prevented abuses done to him. Maybe he is still hanging onto the myth of a savior coming in to solve a problem. Letting go of this faith in imposed authorities leads to the uncomfortable reality that there is no protector. If we can tolerate this reality, we can begin to form new solutions that may actually benefit those who are being abused. It will take a long time to get these solutions to a productive level, but we have to begin. And we can't begin if we continue to live in the fantasy of a cop or CPS worker coming in and saving children. Building a free society involves de-normalizing abuse and seeing it for what it is, and those who tolerate abusive "authorities" are those who have normalized abuse. This meme of normalizing abuse is what needs to be destroyed. The meme of attachment to an abuser as is so common in the most abusive cultures must be destroyed. I'm sure many of you have noticed that insulting a person's mother is taken most personally by those who have the most abusive mothers. This is a painful reality that musty be exposed. So what are the solutions? I don't know. But focusing on spreading new memes is the best solution right now. Model positive interactions. Break down the free society, or more appropriately a transitional society, into the memes that comprise it. Advertise these memes so thoroughly that children who are unsatisfied will begin to question societal norms. Make the questioning of parents a normal behavior. Get it into discussion. Some ideas I have are posting billboards with lines such as: "Mothers who love don't hit." "Mothers who love don't yell at children." "Respect Children" "Break the cycle. Respect children." A business idea I have had that is probably not yet possible is a business made up of people who go around to homes where abuse is suspected and simply discusses peaceful parenting while empathizing with the frustrations of the parents. It would take the right kind of people to do this, something I am not. I think it may also have to wait until after some of the memes of questioning parents have been promoted sufficiently. This would also have to be funded on a donation based model something I also cannot afford. I have other ideas and am open to suggestions from anyone who is interested in this idea. Your feedback will be appreciated.

Recently out-of-the-closet atheist here, from a charismatic Christian background (that means dancing, speaking in tongues, literal interpretations of the bible, prophesying, praying for miracles of healing and other sorts). What would you wonderful intelligent skeptics say to someone who tells you they personally know a person who has been raised from the dead by prayer in Jesus' name after being dead for 24 hours, and personally knows someone who had a metal plate that had been surgically implanted in their head show up on an x-ray one week, then completely vanish in the next week's x-ray after it was prayed (also in the name of Jesus) that it would disappear? I mean besides the questions of clarifying who they are, who the doctor was, etc.What would you tell someone who was convinced this had happened? Would you just give up talking to them? I am very curious as this was one of the first things said to me when I came out. Thanks for your thoughts. P.S. I sent out 46 personal emails to people yesterday coming out explaining my journey and reasons for not believing and offered to talk further and discuss it with anyone who was willing. 10 people have already taken me up on it. They are reasonable people outside their faith, and I laid down guidelines that I may ask them to read certain books or articles before we continue our discussion if it is getting repetitive or stuck (which some will), and that I may stop if neither of us is increasing our knowledge, but I already know it is going to be exhausting. I know, I opened myself up to it. ANYWAY, what are some of your favorite sources/books/sites/etc. for atheist materials to refer to, other than the obvious (FDR)? I will probably be able to use anything I can.

Hi All! I have done a lot of exploring, thinking, reading resources on both sides, and testing, and I have been convinced that atheism is true. This is where I got my start. Perhaps this isn't surprising to a community of skeptics (and indeed, things seem so much clearer now), but I was in pretty deep.If you compare religion to drugs, when I hear most former believers' stories compared to mine, it is like I was snorting cocaine and heroin every day in amounts that would give someone who didn't have a tolerance an OD, and gone off that hearing people talk about how they tried marijuana a few times and managed to quit. Yes, both were addictions, and it's a good idea to get off both, but the degree doesn't even compare when you're talking about serious believers compared to nominal Christians. I lead worship frequently, prophecied, spoke in tongues, heard "words from God", prayed for miraculous healing, read the bible and prayed every day. I was completely surrounded by faithful believers. I still am for the most part, though I am changing that bit by bit. I have even felt a few withdrawal syndromes. But I am staying strong. I plan on putting together a huge "coming out" letter as soon as I am up to it. I just wanted to provide you with two resources that were incredibly helpful to me in making my decision. 1. One book I read on the Christian side is "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist". It is probably the best, clearest laid out arguments for a creator God in general and the Christian God in specific, such as they are. There is a genius review, just posted by some guy on the internet that goes through it point by point, and devastates it: http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p98.htm2. Another one, if you have charismatic believers who believe in healing like I did, is this documentary, which explains many of the techniques of such healings: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JGUFmY9gIE Those and a good amount of more skeptical reading of the Bible were probably the most helpful things in changing my mind.Both of these are I think more effective in that they approach the topic respectfully and with what Christians can see as an "open mind". People listen much better if they feel respected and heard. The God Delusion is a great book, but good luck getting a Christian to read that objectively, unless they've already got their foot in the door like me. This may not work for everyone, but I thought I would share what worked for me in case it helps anyone else out there. Thanks for reading, Stefan (not that one) P.S. I am still looking into secular morality, and I find it to be fascinating. Any recommendations for good works there (aside from UPB)?

As always, the philosopher in me is trying to figure out the building blocks to human existence. This time, I started thinking that "if only had I a group of trustees, which I could do things together with; then, we could probably solve just about any issue we put our minds and hands to." A sort of 'power in numbers' thing, only without becoming a mindless mass movement. Maybe the problem with human society is that our way of deciding to what extend each person and group are trust-worthy is just not correct? I'm not talking about having some centralized power deciding mechanism that declares who should be trusted with what. I mean that we just don't have the science of trust popular and based enough, so that we all could stop putting our trust in repeatedly corrupt & unreliable public representatives and misinforming media groups that broadcast, so called, news? I know that there is a lot of conversation about transparency and how it would solve this trust issue; but, I just don't see how that answers this problem. Transparency is one of those things that can mean too many things. Just because someone is being honest and transparent, doesn't mean that they should be trusted with anything. Do we need a well tested and ever-evolving scientific system of how trust can be applied successfully?