LiveJournal Revival

Join the LiveJournal Revival!

2021-06-24-002 1200 x 1200

Are you fed-up with garbage, full-of-shit sites where nobody actually communicates, such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and Twitter? Do you wish your old friends who've migrated to those sites would return to LiveJournal? The the_lj_revival community has been set up with that aim in mind, and you are invited to join it. If you are already on LiveJournal and still have a Facebook profile, and would like to see more people returning to LJ or setting up accounts here, we invite you to post a link to this community on your Facebook Timeline. If you would like to find out who is still using LiveJournal and make contact with those who are already here, you are invited to copy and paste the 'about me' questions on the profile page and post them with your answers to the community.
  • Current Mood
    busy
vertigo
  • f45one

discrimination?

I work in a 24/7 facility. While making up the schedule one of the mangers said "for xmas schedule f45one he's an atheist"

Now I'm single and without children so I usually volunteer to work "family" holidays so that my co-workers can get their QT.

have any of you been discriminated against because of your perceived lack of outside commitments?
Pee!!!

Long, Sorry Don't Know How To LJ Cut...

Happy Friday Everyone...

Just wanted to share this.....

"To view the pursuit of greater equality as a process of shoe-horning societies into an uncomfortably tight-fitting shoe reflects a failure to recognize our human social potential. If we understood our social needs and susceptibilities we would see that a less unequal societies causes dramatically lower rates of ill-health and social problems because it provides us with a better-fitting shoe.

Mirror neurons are a striking example of how our biology establishes us as deeply social beings. When we watch someone doing something, mirror neurons in our brains fire as if to produce the same actions. The system is likely to have developed to serve learning by imitation. Watching a person doing a particular sequence of actions - one research paper uses the example of a curtsey - as an external observer, does not tell you how to do it yourself nearly as well as if your brain was acting as if you were making the same movements in sympathy. To do the same thing you need to experience it from inside.

Usually, of course, there is no visible sign of the internal processes of identification that enable us to put ourselves inside each other's actions. However, the electrical activity triggered by these specialized neurons is detectable in the muscles. It has been suggested that similar processes might be behind our ability to empathize with each other and even behind the way people sometimes flinch while watching a film if they see pain inflicted on someone else. We react as if it were happening to us. Though equipped with the potential to empathize very closely with others, how much we develop and use this potential is again affected by early childhood.

Another example of how our biology dovetails with the nature of social relations involves a hormone called oxytocin and its effects on our willingness to trust each other. People in more unequal societies are much less likely to trust each other. Trust is of course an important ingredient in any society, but it becomes essential in modern developed societies with a high degree of interdependence.

In many different species, oxytocin affects social attachment and bonding, both bonding between mother and child, and pair-bond between sexual partners. Its production is stimulated by physical contact during sexual intercourse, in childbirth and in breastfeeding where it controls milk let-down. However, in a number of mammalian species, including humans, it also has a role in social interaction more generally, affecting approach and avoidance behaviour.

The effects of oxytocin on people's willingness to trust each other was tested in an experiment involving a trust game(http://www.nature.com/nature/journ…). The results showed that those given oxytocin were much more likely to trust their partner. In similar experiments it was found that these effects worked both ways round: not only does receiving oxytocin make people more likely to trust, but being trusted also leads to increases in oxytocin. These effects were found even when the only evidence of trust or mistrust between people was the numerical decisions communicated through computer terminals(http://www.sas.upenn.edu/psych/PLE…).

Other experiments have shown how the sense of co-operation stimulates the reward centres in the brain. The experience of mutual co-operation, even in the absence of face-to-face contact or real communication, leads reliably to stimulation of the reward centres. The researchers suggested that the neural reward networks serve to encourage reciprocity and mutuality while resisting the temptation to act selfishly. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed…)

In contrast to the rewards of co-operation, experiments using brain scans have shown that the pain of social exclusion involves the same areas of the brain as are stimulated when someone experiences physical pain. Naomi Eisenberger, a psychologist as UCLA, got volunteers to play a computer bat-and-ball game with, as it seemed on the screen, two other participants. (http://www.neuro-psa.org.uk/downlo…) The program was arranged so that after a while the other two virtual participants would start to pass the ball just between each other, so excluding the experimental subject. Brain scans showed that the areas of the brain activated by this experience of exclusion were the same areas as are activated by physical pain. In various species of monkeys these same brain areas have been found to play a role in offspring calling for, and mothers providing, maternal protection.

These connections have always been understood intuitively. When we talk about 'hurt feelings' or a 'broken heart' we recognize the connection between physical pain and the social pain caused by the breaking of close social bonds, by exclusion and ostracism. Evolutionary psychologists have shown that the tendency to ostracize people who do not co-operate, and to exclude them from the shared proceeds of co-operation, is a powerful way of maintaining high standards of co-operation. (http://www.amazon.com/Social-Outca…) And, just as the ultimatum game showed that people were willing to punish a mean allocator by rejecting - at some cost to themselves - allocations that seemed unfair, so we appear to have a desire to exclude people who do not co-operate.

Social pain is of course central to rejection and is the opposite of the pleasures of being valued or of the sense of self-realization which can come from others' appreciation of what we have done for them. The powers of inclusion and exclusion indicate our fundamental need to social integration and are, no doubt, part of the explanation of why friendship and social involvemnet are so protective of health.

Social class and status differences almost certainly cause similar forms of social pain. Unfairness, inequality and the rejection of co-operation are all forms of exclusion. The experiments which demonstrated the performance effects of being classified as inferior (among Indian children in different castes, also African-American students) indicated the social pain related to exclusion. Part of the same picture is the social pain which sometimes triggers violence when people feel they are put down, humiliated or suffer loss of face.

For a species which thrives on friendship and enjoys co-operation and trust, which has a strong sense of fairness, which is equipped with mirror neurons allowing us to learn our way of life through a process of identification, it is clear that social structures which create relationships based on inequality, inferiority and social exclusion must inflict a great deal of social pain. In this light we can perhaps begin not only to see why more unequal societies are so socially dysfunctional but, through that, perhaps also to feel more confident that a more humane society may be a great deal more practical than the highly unequal ones in which so many of us live now."

THE SPIRIT LEVEL by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett pp. 210-213
Bamf!

(no subject)

First off, its a bunch of crapola I can't leave a comment on an individual post on this community board.

@Anuvia

You feel that without religion in your life you would not have the same moral compass you do today. Well I would need to know what is included in your moral compass? Morality in America tends to follow 2 paths, one liberal and one conservative. If your a conservative your morals tend to have a theocratic element to it, pro-life, pro traditional marriage (anti gay marriage), etc. In one of the articles I posted below it does show a positive correlation between monogamous marriage and morality. I think your criticism on atheists and how they view religion may hold some merit and I myself get tired of hearing some of the same rhetorical religious arguments and prefer atheists to try and focus their attention on something else, yet like the common cold religion just keeps coming back which forces me to pull out these loop arguments and sometimes feel like a robotic message machine (strangely similar to my mission). However I think you have a lot of straw man arguments. You seem to have all atheists bundled together all holding the same position which I think the reality is much more rainbow colored and not so black and white. I am an ex-mormon, and I have friends of different faiths, I may respect them individually but I don't have to respect their beliefs. There was also an article I recently read which shows a correlation between atheism and education, the more educated a person is the more likely the person will be atheist. I don't deny Religions historical and cultural elements and I have heard some compelling arguments from cultural conservatives. The whole pledge of allegience "under god" part was added in 1953 I believe. It had to do with our leaders not wanting to be seen as communist atheist russia, its called polarization. It's like the polarization of republican/democrat, communist/fascist. To answer your question of why does it offend me(not speaking for anyone else), because you are maintaining a position that to be American you believe in god, would it offend you if it said under one "white" nation, or under one "gay" nation, or one nation under "Allah"? America was founded on freedom of religion, and separation of church and state. The word god has no place in a public school. If you want to maintain the pledge than you are outrightly disrespecting our constitution which is our nation's rulebook.

"Why does a nativity scene drive you into such a rage that you'd go as far as to sue someone for putting it up?"

Do you have a news source to back this up. Was the nativity seen placed in a government building? Are lawsuits being filed on a regular basis from atheist communities? Again, you are implying every atheist holds this position that the sight of a nativity scene angers us. That we desire to wage war against religion.

"It seems like as a community, we, the atheists, seem to want to abolish any form of religion in some fashion I can only imagine under a dictatorship."

Again where are you going with this, implying that without religion we will be controlled by a dictatorship?

"What's so horrific about the idea of coexistence? Why can't Joe the Christian and Amy the Atheist unite as human beings rather than children of God? Yes, there are a few wack job Christians/ect out there that will push their religion on you until the day they die (there are extremists in every group) but for the most part, the general faith based populous is hardly like that at all. When we try to remove their right to belief, we're no better than the zealots that started the crusades or flew two commercial airliners into the twin towers. I personally think that everyone has a right to believe in whatever they wish and I firmly feel that if we tried to accept such an idea, the atheist community would get more acceptance and respect from the rest of the world."

Why can't we all just get along? The two suicide bombers that blew themselves up and 34 others on a Russian train a little over a month ago are in heaven with 72 virgins now, while the infidels are in hell according to their doctrine I don't think they are concerned with getting along. This War On Terrorism isn't a war against terrorists, its a war against Islam but no one wants to call it that because some relgious person may get offended. I don't have an answer for you, religion/god have been around since the beginning of human recorded history beginning with the first egyptian sun god Amon Ra and all religions have some things in common, they create diversity not unity with a toxic indifference to others and they have never been able to prove god exists. Yet you want us to respect them for it? Don't pull the religious card here, you will get no religious mercy.
Jim

Information source...

Since my boss blocked facebook from my work computer due to fear of virus's and I don't have internet at my new place I am looking for other atheist/antitheist individuals to keep me entertained while I'm "working". Here are some news articles which I hope you will all enjoy, please comment and leave any news/science sources for me to delight over so I don't have to go masterbate in the bathroom everyday just to keep me from going into a severe state of mind numbing depression.

Here are some articles I found to be very imformative and just for fun want to share them. Also, I would recommend a book The Spirit Level Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett two epidemiologists who reveal 30 years of data in regards to public health and economic inequality.

This article includes 4 other article links all worth reading in regards to altruism.
http://scienceblogs.com/primatedia…

Mating strategies..
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blo…

These two are in regards to the environment.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opini…

http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/biodiver…

This is in regards to Chiropractics...

http://www.theness.com/neurologica…

Hi.

 

Well, I just joined this, and just wanted to give a Hello.
Also I saw someone post below about the mockingbirds going on display and it reminded me of something.
I was in rehab back in March, and in this you are required to find a higher power, I don't under stand why but apparently you are not recovered if you don't. So the councilor asked me if I found one yet, I said no, I don't believe in such things. First she laughs at me, and says in a very sarcastic way and says so you're a 'Darwinist'? I really just wanted to hit her. I said no, I just don't believe in a god. So after that she told me I wouldn't be released until I picked a higher power, I reported her, since you are by law not aloud to do things like this biased on religious belief, nothing happened and the whole board there said I wouldn't be let out until I picked one.

I got myself kicked out. I didn't do anything, I wouldn't go to the ten step groups, and my only reason was I'm waiting for God to make me go.

I thought only us Antithesis were the mean, hateful, thick headed people that hates everyone who likes region. Ha.

I feel bad for the rest of the kids there, they are forcing them into religion when its not even a religious place.

Some things, I just don't understand..
 


Lyth

(no subject)

"Why does it offend your ears to hear the words "One Nation, Under God" in the pledge of allegiance? If God is but a fairy tale to individuals like you and I, then isn't it the equivalent of swearing allegiance to the Tooth Fairy? If anything, in saying it we are respecting the views of our founding fathers when they established this country...a country made on the principle that one should be free to believe as they wish. Instead of petitioning to have it removed, why not ignore it? It's not as if the word burns you as it leaves your lips."

Several reasons - the largest being that the founding fathers had nothing to do with that line. It, along with the "In God We Trust" on our money was added in the 1950's when religious zealots insisted on it. The founding fathers declared there would be complete separation of church and state. It irks me to no end when I hear people say, "But that's not really what they meant." These were some of the most brilliant minds of the age who wrote these lines. Are you trying to tell me they were unable to articulate their true meaning?! No, they meant exactly what they said, and for good reason. So whenever I hear religion mentioned in matters of state (including election campaigns) I get very angry. This country was not founded on religion, but on freedom.

Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. I don't have an option in currency, and I shouldn't have to see a "we" that includes me proclaiming a trust in a myth. My children should not have to stand in a public school and utter an oath which includes religion in order to profess a love for country. "One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."