The mind.
Ok man. You win. 
Okay?
Unfortunately the post you’re quoting didn’t carry and I don’t remember specifics.
We are in a red state technically, purple in all actuality and on the cusp of turning blue.
The vast majority of our blue votes come from our major cities, who almost have enough population density to change our political landscape and will in short order if our growth trajectory continues.
I would say we are witnessing the changes everyone is discussing with a front row seat. We weren’t “moderately blue” uncomfortably watching progressive ideology run the bullshit ball further, we were deep red and have watched our landscape turn purple in short order, like dropping food coloring in to clean water, with a quick stir from areas like Austin.
Still, my experience in Comal county is night and day different than yours in Travis county, and it can lull the senses.
Fortunately, excepting Beto O’Rourke, our blue contenders, at least at state level, (Colin Allred) are still relatively moderate. If they win, all bets are off as they enter the political machine.
So, again, let’s define conscience. One definition and a common theme for discussion is:
“the state of being aware of oneself or of something
outside of oneself, and can include experiences sensory perception, imagery, or dreaming”.
Grizzlys and apes exhibit these qualities. They even operate in communal societies, apes especially, with developed social systems demonstrating a conscience beyond self. This is actually true for the vast majority of animals, and it’s a learned behavior to Skyzsks’ point earlier.
Grizzly bear communities are not as complex as apes, nor do they mirror humans as closely, but they have defined social structures, “rules” and order requiring a conscious awareness for sure. People really don’t give animals credit they deserve in many cases.
It’s not that manufactured. Think of a horror movie; there’s a noise in the basement. Is it the killer? You won’t know for a fact unless you go in the basement. If you decide to know, maybe it’s the killer, maybe it’s not, but if it is, you’re dead. If you believe it’s the killer and don’t go in the basement, you live regardless if it was him or not.
There was a time when humans were prey animals. Those humans who ran like hell when they heard a noise, lived to breed. Those who didn’t and needed to see actual evidence that the noise came from a predator, were sometimes right and sometimes dead, and therefore didn’t reproduce. Evolution and survival favored those who were more risk averse and able to believe in the unknown. Certainty is not conducive to survival.
So “If I’m right I go to heaven and you go to hell, but if you’re right we both just end up dead. So buy the insurance policy”.
Which company’s policy do I buy, are ancient religions still relevant in the mix since they’ve never been factually disproven as “real”, and why would I insure risk that has zero evidence of legitimately existing outside of commercials from self-contained belief systems?
Over the course of 200 years, there has been somebody somewhere who believes we’ve been on the wrong path. Anything that affects anybody positively will likely affect someone else negatively. On the balance, our quality of life is good bordering on indulgent. Jobs are plentiful, food and water is available and is relatively safe, you don’t get thrown in jail for free speech, there are opportunities for recreation, etc. Some people here have never lived in a truly dysfunctional society, and it shows.
2 Likes
This a question of genetics and evolution. Humans just can’t undo what we’ve evolved to do. Studies have shown that not believing something requires more cognitive steps than believing. In effect, disbelief is the process of unbelieving. Spinoza proposed this idea 300 years ago but neuroscientists have been able to prove it’s validity.
What it means is, someone tells you something false, you automatically believe it’s true until you unbelieve it. It was thought that our brains consider the truth or falsity of input before filing it away as such in our brains. Spinoza believed that understanding something brings with it believing it’s veracity. Afterward there is a process of rejecting it. Psychological and neuro testing have backed this theory up.
So what you have is people are inherently lazy. It takes more cognitive effort to unbelieve things and when what is believed is preferable to the alternative, why would anyone seek to disprove it? It’s easier to just run from the noise than take a chance on investigating its source. In the past, it made sense for reasons of survival but in the modern world there are obvious drawbacks to this approach. Skepticism was a luxury our ancient ancestors could not afford.
I don’t know if this can be factually verified.
We do know that during the spread of Christianity, at least in Europe and via European colonization, if you didn’t convert you were shunned, tortured or killed. I don’t think it is wise to cross-reference subjugation and choice. Since separating religion from political power, at least direct political power, we have witnessed a divergence away from Christian values over time as traditions wore off, and especially as science narrowed the scope of “supernatural” and continues to do so at an accelerated pace over and above all of history.
Basic morality remains, and Christians will claim everybody is living a Christian blue print because of this, but I disagree. Similar values through history have been measured in non-Christian societies as well. Basic tenants of “good” codified in to law pre-exist Christianity and even Judaism by thousands of years.
This is a bit of red herring. Atheism and communism aren’t mutually exclusive.
You’re confusing public policy with religious belief again. And Specifically relating to “America”, our own forefathers routinely wore ornate, long haired wigs, powder makeup and very gay buckle shoes as “high style”, so there’s that.
Life will be different as Christianity becomes increasingly irrelevant for sure, and if you use Christianity to measure “right”, or “good”, I can see how that would be problematic… to your paradigm. Which is still not validated by any objective scope as “real”. Only believed.
1 Like
Whether or not that’s true doesn’t change the fact that today, right now, the present, if you made a list of 50 countries you would be OK living in, all of them would have Christianity as their main religion. The exceptions might be Japan, South Korea or Israel. I don’t think it would be honest to diminish or even ignore that Christianity played a role in this present day reality.
You may be right. Before i came to austin area, I dealt with a lot more bullshit. Small towns seem to carry a lot more of the anger and ignorant mentality.
If you are in austin proper too often, you deal with the liberal annoyance, but in Round Rock, it just feels like I live my life unaffected. Perhaps this is just my mentality.
I cant really agree with any side as I am very libertarian, but dont find liberals or republicans closer to that than the other, which is strange. I dont know why social topics are in government whatsoever. I think if we gave more power to the states, we would have democracy in action.
I am not superstitious, so dont believe in santa clause, god, or crom. I think that religion is a great way to control the masses, though. If it makes you feel better, go wild.
I believe you are right about texas soon being blue. I think when i go to mexico, it feels the way texas should be. Just needs to be cleaned up a little in the way of corruption.
I had never given this much of any consideration until now. Could it be that the mind does not weigh the information as truth or untruth, but sees it as information. With a blank mind, it accepts all information. As the mind begins to fill, some incoming information conflicts with other information that was previously stored. At that moment the mind weighs the contradiction and decides whether to accept the new information, reject it, or keep for further consideration later.
The longer information has been in the mind, the greater its credibility. A greater burden of proof lies with the new information. It seems clear that the easy route is to keep the oldest information. It requires much less analysis.
Just an initial thought.
Yeah, Round Rock isn’t really Austin imo. Neither are Georgetown, Dripping Springs, Cedar Park or any of the other outer burbs.
Texas and Mexico share a lot more history than most are comfortable with in today’s political climate. The entire cowboy culture for starters. Both were actually kicked off by the Spaniards vs the Brits and the nuances tie us in more so than even our American North East culturally.
Yes. We are very rebellious about being fucked with also. Kind of like the US was when it started.
It is hard for me. I just think a government is doing its job best when not noticed
1 Like
So then you would have to discuss whether or not Christianity legitimately factors in to life in any of those countries.
Cliff notes: it doesn’t.
I would’ve hated the Puritan era personally.
1 Like
Christianity shaped the cultures. It has left an indelible mark on them. Abolitionists were influenced by their Christian beliefs. Slavery existed in the Muslim world a century after our Civil War. In some Muslim nations it still exists. So if someone were to ask why we don’t have slavery in the West, we can answer, “because of Christianity.” This will be the answer today or a hundred years from now. Christian belief can cease to exist and it will still be the answer.
And that will also be the answer in Muslim nations that don’t have slavery as it was pressure from the West that persuaded them to end it. And this pressure from the West came in spite of the fact that the slave markets were supplied with Africans and Asians, not Europeans.
To a degree. But the appropriation of everything good that exists in the west doing so because Christianity also does is a point where we will have to agree to disagree. Example, Christianity allows for slavery, with instruction on how to be a godly slaveholder found in the Bible.
Crediting Christianity with the eradication of slavery is a falsehood.
If anything, abolishing slavery was an early step away from literal Christianity.
1 Like
I have always said that California would be great if not for Californians (though that was not an invitation for the fucks to exodus to Tx)
I feel the same about religion. I feel like the majority of the followers kind of ruin it for any intelligent members.