Paper Street

Even for me, when I hear the word “atheist” I almost immediately get the image of a person who is cold, emotionless, and calculating. However, the thought that believing is the equivalent of being a kind and moral person is incredibly unfair in my eyes. To be perceived that I am less kind, less moral, less spiritual and instead more cold, more calculating -and God forbid- more rational just because I don’t believe in God is unfair. Even if I was, there are millions out there that are genuinely good people who just happen to not be attached to a faith. While religion tends to be about human decency and can often serve as a great motivator for such behavior, I feel it is not a necessary part of it.

I don’t want to be told that I can’t comprehend the full extent of something like love or compassion without believing in a God. I don’t want to be told that I have a lower set of morals than someone else automatically because they belong to a certain group that I am not. An entire history of humanity, of the terrible actions that people have done things in the names of their deities, is a clear indication against that.

I know there are people who say that there are always people who do things in the name of a religion that don’t necessarily represent the good ideals of what the majority of believers believe. I can certainly reciprocate that sentiment. However, wouldn’t you hold that true for any group of people? There are certainly good people who are from different faiths from you. There are also good people who are atheists. And of course, for any set of beliefs there are the bad people.

So what is it that makes someone good? Take two people with the similar moral principles but different faiths. Who is “right?” What is the distinction, what is the reason for one to believe in the holiness of Jesus and the other that he was merely a good man. Am I worser man, if I am good person who does not believe in God, than the man who has questionable virtues but believes? Or the man who is “barely” religious but still makes the occasional effort to come to church? What is the line where you make that distinction? Should there be a line at all?

Countries such as Japan are predominantly non-religious (most cases of “religion” are matter of tradition rather than “real” faith). A substantial percentage of certain European countries such as Great Britain and the majority of Sweden identify themselves as “non-religious.” Yet, the people there seem to be doing fine. Society is not plummeting on itself. Are all these people worse off as a result of not believing? Are they missing out on something better?

Ask: why do you believe what you believe? What is it that makes you right? Why is it that you, say as a Christian, believe that Jesus was sent to save humanity; rather than what the Jews believe: that he was otherwise; and what the Muslims believe: that he was a distinguished prophet?

Ask: why in the entire history of humanity embroiled in religion, why you choose to believe in your faith and not others. If its because your faith doesn’t allow for the worship of other faiths is there another reason? Monotheism is hardly something new in the history of religion.

Do you feel a spiritual connection with what you believe? Why? How is your experience different from those of other faiths? Religion has an indisputable psychological impact regardless of what faith it is. I’ve had my own experiences with this. But when does an experience separate itself from a psychological phenomenon to something truly externally induced?

Ask yourself: how much influence on you it may have had on you as a child growing up in a certain environment, perhaps with a certain set of rules, perhaps where other views were never mentioned. Would you have grown up as a Jew if you were born a Jew? A Christian if you were born a Christian? A Buddhist if you were born a Buddhist? Statistically, the answer would seem to be yes. So if that is the case, what is the veracity of your belief? The question that keeps on coming back is: Why do you believe what you believe?

And at the end of all this. Even if it your faith that makes you feel higher, more enlightened. Why do you think that it’s true?
Just because something is comfortable doesn’t make it true. Can you even imagine where we would be if we took everything comfortable as truth? Not somewhere good, that’s for sure.

My goal in saying all this is not to say that I’m right. I just feel that these are important things that people should ask themselves to know what their faith is truly grounded in.

In my mind, if faith is something so important that it demands this much respect, you owe it to yourself to break yourself away from societal tradition, family expectations, psychological or environmental influences from growing up, and the such which may have influenced you to believe in a certain way, and learn to approach religion in a way that is as pure as possible. As Thomas Jefferson said:

“Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear. “

I ask all these questions, question all these beliefs, because I have an intense respect for the idea of faith. The only way to approach faith is to remove these bondings from yourself and ask yourself why you believe, and if they for any other reasons that aren’t purely your own.

Why are we, as part of the youth culture, so obsessed with alcohol? This is a question that has been troubling me ever since I had my first sip of the stuff.

Why, despite everything that is wrong with alcohol – the proven toxicity, addictiveness, physical disorientation, obvious harms to others (e.g. drinking and driving), foul taste – why do we persist in consuming it in such vast quantities?

A friend of mine once said that alcohol is useful as a loosener. That when you’re ‘under the influence’, you do things that you normally wouldn’t do. Is that true? And if it is, is that really the best reason we’ve got for drinking at every social gathering we attend?

Now, some may find me pretentious, or condescending, or even plain arrogant, but I will make no apologies if I offend your habits. This is merely my opinion, drawn from my own experiences, which I believe are quite enough for me to grasp a decent point of view. I think you will find that it is necessary for me to describe my own experiences in order for me to continue.

In my experiences with alcohol, I have found myself immune to any state of mental alteration. After consuming enough alcohol to hurl repeatedly, I have found myself to be completely rational and remarkably clear-headed. I am able to make decisions in my head, and upon reflection, those decisions are in fact no different that what I would have made if I were completely ’sober’. I, being one who prides myself on rational thought, believe this not to be an anomaly, but in fact, the default state under which a person is affected by alcohol. Alcohol does not alter your state of mind.

Then, why do people act so differently after consuming massive amounts of this toxin?

The answer, I believe, lies in our sober states of mind. Societal pressures cause people to conform. Peer pressure, notably, causes people to become someone they aren’t. It causes people to change themselves, or, more accurately, hide themselves, in order to belong to the elite groups in society. We put up layers and layers of facades until we barely recognize ourselves, just so we ‘fit in’. It leaves no room for embarrassment, no room for a ‘mistake’ in the eyes of society. The pressure would build up if we were all to hide ourselves, forever, just to have a decent life. People would go insane.

To solve the problem, society has also devised a convenient way for people to unmask themselves. A convenient excuse – that is, alcohol. I’m sure most of you reading this have all tried, at some point in time, some form of alcohol. Now, what is it that you feel? Think hard. You feel a buzz, perhaps, and then you become a little bit dizzy. After a lot of it, you start to lose your balance. Then, you can hardly walk. Finally, have enough, and you’ve physically disabled yourself, unable to move and speak properly. Most of the effects of alcohol are physical. They act on the nervous system as the alcohol interrupts the signals from the brain, which is why you feel dizzy and lose your balance. Now, some sources contend that alcohol affects mental capacity, and ‘euphoria’, ‘excitement’, and ‘confusion’ are often listed as effects of alcohol. But think about it – how would they seriously measure ‘euphoria’ anyway? Tell someone to take a few drinks and ask them if they’re happy?

So I will confidently say that alcohol has minimal effects on mental capacity (of course, when you’re comatose, it’s irrelevant how your mental capacity was affected – so I will not deal with the extremes here). In fact, I am trying to say that all the supposed mental effects of alcohol are in fact, psychological, and caused by ‘flawed’ social interaction.

As I was saying, alcohol is an excuse. It’s an excuse for letting yourself do whatever you want. Of course, that implies that you don’t already do whatever you want when you’re sober. I’m sure we’ve all had that feeling. Sometimes, we just want to do something outrageous, but we stop ourselves, because it would be ‘inappropriate’, or ‘embarrassing’. But who is it that decides whatever you’re doing is inappropriate? Clearly, this is a case of societal conformation. When you’ve consumed some alcohol, and you’re beginning to lose physical control of your body, it’s not so big a leap as to say you also lost mental control. So you begin to do some things you don’t normally do when you’re fully in control of your body.

When you’re under the influence, you don’t become someone different. You don’t suddenly have bursts of inspiration that gives you crazy new ideas. The ideas had to come from somewhere – more than likely, it was already in you. So you decided one day you’d do something crazy, but you can’t do it while you’re sober, because people will think you’re a nut. What if you’re drunk? We have a great way of treating people when they’re drunk – we act as if they’re toddlers.

Did you see what Bob did last night?

Yeah, that was nuts! Man, he’s so crazy!

Oh yeah, he had a lot to drink at the party – he was totally smashed.

Haha, we should invite him over for some drinks one day. That was crazy!

I have heard conversations like these far too often. Is it indicative of the alcohol, or my friend ‘Bob’ that something crazy happened at the party? I would argue that ‘Bob’ always wanted to do something crazy, but because he knew on some level (conscious or unconscious), that if he did the crazy thing while drunk, people would admire him rather than chastise him. That is the reason why alcohol appears to affect our decision making. I like to believe that humans are very rational beings – and that everything we do has a justified reason, on some level or other. We make a conscious decision to do something because we know there will be no consequences. It’s a psychological phenomena, not an alcohol-related physical phenomenon.

I, for one, have consciously removed myself from the societal loophole. I’ve gotten myself drunk in a completely rational state of mind, under little to no societal pressures, and my mental capacities were not affected at all. It’s a matter of faith on the alcohol. If you believe it will set you free, then it will. But if you are like me, and you don’t believe that alcohol has any such effects, then all you’ll get is some physical disorientation. Alcohol is nothing more than the greatest placebo of modern society.

Will a couple of beers really ‘loosen us up’ for the party? Or do we simply believe so strongly in that concept, that it becomes inevitable? To me, it all seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you have nothing to hide, alcohol does nothing.

This post has been imported from Societal-Rants.
View original post.

Credibility: This is purely based on opinion, I have nothing to back me up… though I’m sure somewhere out there a highly elevated professor would agree with me.

I believe that a lot of talents can be learned, and aren’t simply something that one is born with.

I’m going to be using Art and Music as an example for my arguments. For example, a science kid would go up to an art kid and say “Wow, you’re really talented at art. Look at my drawings, they look like crap…”. I would say if that science kid was younger and realised that he or she enjoyed art, and practiced it every day, they would be able to achieve the same level as the art kid. Why? Because that’s exactly what the art kid did, not because of some magical born talent.

So the difference between someone who has a “talent” in art and someone who doesn’t, is that at a young age the art kid had interest in that area and practiced for a long time. I think “interest” and “talent” are very distinctly different, and “talent” is merely a product of one’s “interest”.

Now arguably, and I won’t deny it, there are those who seem to have a “gift” of talent. Okay, lets say Mr. Perfect Pitch was born with the proper conditions where he could learn instruments in a heartbeat… the difference with that is he can skip the “interest” phase and get right to the talent. But this is why I’m not calling it a talent, instead I consider it a “gift”. It’s just a shortcut to the “talent” that everybody can still achieve with determination and hard work.

With the right mindset and determination that one has from an interest in a certain subject, it would influence them into learning quicker and reaching this high level of “talent”. Let me give you a personal example. In grade 8’s time, I would say I could sing to a reasonable degree. It honestly wasn’t anything magical or special where I would consider it a talent. I just was able to hit the right notes in a very small range, no biggie. But then I never sang, even for fun, for years after. So when I sang in grade 10, it sounded like a donkey who got hit by a tractor. But then I discovered how I enjoyed singing, and for a year (grade 11) I used to sing to songs I liked in the privacy of my own home, and kept on singing for my vocal range to increase. And hey, right now I sound ok… not Celine Dion, but the point is I managed to improve my SKILLZ, into what someone would now consider a “talent”. No dear, I’ve worked with my “interest” to getting to this level of “talent”.

Same goes with art. I really, really believe that the only difference between a crappy drawer and picasso, is that picasso actually cared. Now you math kids who hate art and draw skunk crap as a result of trying to draw a beautiful girl… I think that if you had the patience and determination, and a good art teacher, you could actually achieve the level that I’m at. I’m no picasso, so that’s why I think it’s achievable (picasso is pushing it. Heck why am i referencing picasso? DaVinci is more like it.) It’s all about the mind set

Practice makes perfect! Practicing an interest makes it a talent.

Think about it.

This post has been imported from Societal-Rants.
View original post.

I’ve been wondering to myself in English class, “how can one analyze the subject of love and sexuality in poems and stories, if most of us do not actually understand it first hand?” We discuss in class how characters in stories do things for love, feels certain ways, do certain things etc. but how can anyone fully grasp a concept without experiencing it in life?

Anyways, let me explain more specifically the discussion in class. Today my teacher brought up some notices and such about sexual innuendos in a poem we read that no one was able to detect; something about a guy telling a girl not to become a nun, because it’s like a rose who ends up simply dying instead of being plucked and living forever as potpourri (in vague terms: she should lose her virginity to live a useful life). I thought this was beautiful, but could also tell that many of the females in my class only took it in as simply a literature analysis statement.

What I’m trying to get at is, as children we are taught that sex is a forbidden topic. We grow up being hesitant even to mention the word “sex”. Sex education nowadays teaches us the negative aspects of sex in our world, including the consequences such as STDs, and unwanted pregnancies. Of course this is really important to us as a society, because the consequences of sexual intercourse can really damage a life and a future… however this is an automatic assumption that is put upon us as teenagers that we’re all going out to parties every weekend getting drunk and having casual unprotected sex. Of course this applies to a portion of us in the world, but what happens to the young innocent girls who you know would never throw their lives away to risk something such as this?

These type of girls are brought up being taught that sex is absolutely wrong, and forbidden. There is no right to it, and it shouldn’t even be considered. What this does to them, is it creates this concept in their head where they’re forced to see only the negative aspects of sex, sexual desire, practice, etc. By doing this, they never end up understanding what sex is, and at the same time they don’t want to. While the government is keen on educating the youth and allowing the nation to be more knowledgeable in subject such as the consequences of sexual activity, of course it may work for a part of the population, but it actually ends up sheltering girls who are falsely accused for something they’d never do. The government wants us to be more knowledgeable, but people twist the concepts in their head that they learn as kids and automatically assume that sex and anything having to do with it, is wrong.

Once in a while, the topic of sex comes up with friends and while sometimes it’s just a pure joking “guyish” conversion, other times it actually gets interesting to hear the views of others. With the guys, obviously the discussion revolves around the same “guyish” idea; after all we grow up together and experience puberty similarly as well are significantly more open to discussion on embarrassing personal subjects (which is why this article is about young females, which may sound biased but really isn’t. Yes, guys learn about sex differently). However with girls, it is much more different and actually very interesting to hear the views since they can vary extremely from person to person. I remember hearing the strangest things such as “girls only have sex when they’re feel sad…” and “‘sex’ is something two people share [strictly] for the purpose of advancing relationship.” Hmm, interesting. As for most of those who aren’t sexually active, their concepts generally believe that sex has absolutely nothing to do with anything physically, and is all just an emotional “step” in life.

Ok I’m not writing this article for the purpose of sex education, and I’m not going to preach my views on sex and what it is. However I’m just trying to make the point that we live in a world where our so-called “education” on sex ends up being detrimental instead of providing the benefits from it’s intentions. It has good intentions, and I understand how difficult it is for them to target their audience… but I’m just bringing up a point where what is happening, is happening.

And I’m by no means saying vaguely that “party animals should not have sex, and introverted shy girls should go out insane!” Absolutely not. What I’m saying is those girls who’ve been imposed on the negative concepts of sex in this world are shut off to something that needs to be understood and embraced. Sexual activity isn’t simply “something dirty, that you’d only do when you’re married”. It’s a whole lot more than that, and there are numerous reasons for someone to make a life decision and begin a sexually active life. There are also numerous reasons for someone to choose not to be active. But all that matters is if it’s done for the proper reason and the concequences are properly thought out… along side with the benefits.

Sexuality isn’t bad people. Sex for the wrong reasons, like social acceptance, peer pressure, uncontrollable desires… is wrong. But eventually, in our lives as we mature, what needs to be realised is sexuality is part of us as humans, and is more than just something emotional.

Does one really believe that during mating season for animals, animals are simply “programmed” to randomly mate and have offsprings? There’s actually aspects of sexual attraction and it’s not just the next “programmed step” in life. Surprise surprise, animals have feelings.

Now there obviously isn’t a solution to this whole detriments of sex education. The purpose of this article wasn’t to be an advocate against sex education, it was just to inform people that this is an issue that should be thought about. We hear weird comments going around that are clearly a misinterpretation of sex, and if you think about it all roots from a misconception of what we are being taught. So basically if you are one of these “girls” with similar ideas expressed in this article, just realise that sex isn’t simply “the next emotional step in life”, and is more an aspect of one’s life that shouldn’t be judged with simple conclusions. It can’t be simply judged as “bad” because theres so much more to it to put a single label and assume correctness.

It’s an aspect of life as a human being that should be explored. Just get the whole picture before judging something as simply bad or wrong, and open your mind to the world.

This post has been imported from Societal-Rants.
View original post.

In the age of universal education, a new problem has appeared before us. With so many students, and so much pressure from parents and teachers, students have been driven to competition like never before. The focus in the classroom has shifted from learning to ‘getting high marks’. So much so that in fact, students no longer absorb information for the sake of learning, but pound it into their brains to get that coveted “perfect” on the next test, quiz, or exam.

Don’t believe me? What are the first words uttered by your friends beside you after getting a test handed back to you? Of course, being bombarded by a series of “What’d you get?“’s is not quite that pleasant, especially if the mark wasn’t all that stellar. When the teacher posts ‘anonymous’ mark updates, the first thing everyone does is crowd around to guess who’s who on the mark lists.

The problem goes beyond simple curiosity in the classroom – in fact, the problem wouldn’t be a problem if people merely wanted to find out how they are doing compared to others. The problem comes when friends start conspiring against other students with higher marks. This is all too common in the AP classes. Groupwork is no longer done with friends to have a good and friendly atmosphere; groups are now formed well in advance when people make ‘deals’ with each other in order to achieve the highest marks. What’s the deal with that? It has never failed to amaze me every time I see it happen.

Even in grade 10 and 11, when marks don’t matter for university or college (exception to the rare student who wishes to go to the States), I see people getting all moody and upset over tests, and even resorting to begging the teacher for better marks (no, I’m not talking about marking mistakes, but real errors that are argued extensively over) – though the people who do this are generally not the ones who need it.

Of course, a little competition will never hurt in the motivation of oneself, but not at the level that I am seeing it at right now. A few people I know (I won’t mention any names) always start a conversation with “What did you get in the last test?” or “I had a XX in that course, can you beat me?” I find this extremely annoying, and is becoming one of my pet peeves. In my opinion, I know what I know, and I know that I don’t need marks to prove myself so, I don’t need to flaunt them in front of people to feel better.

Our schools are now measured by inept benchmarks that nobody except the principal and the government take seriously. Why must they keep comparing schools with one another, and use numbers to represent something as complicated as education? One only needs to pop their head into an AP classroom to see how learning takes a backseat to marks. Universal testing is a waste of time and effort that yields no useful results, and should be scrapped. It’s not like there’s been any positive change from the testing. If anything, the disparity between the ‘upper academic class’ and the ‘lower academic class’ (read: AP and Applied) is growing. The nonchalant attitude in the applied/college and even academic/university classes is a huge contrast to the constant pressure of the AP classes. In a way, we (as in gifted/AP students) have something to learn about school – marks are not the be all and end all of our lives. There are so many more things to do while we’re still young than worry so much about having to ‘beat’ everyone else. Take the stress out of school and learn while you can, enjoy the rest of your time while you aren’t.