re: "Contact me if you would like to discuss this further" (dswright71)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB8_wPei2ZM

"Intelligent and articulate comment, hooray! I agree with all you said except your contention that control and repression are "unnatural". It is our animal territoriality that is behind most repression, that and the desire to control comes from our animal desire for "alpha" status. i believe humans only become enlightened when they control the animal within and not vice versa. Contact me if you wanna discuss this further."

I disagree that we become enlightened when we control our animal nature, to put out at the first what the difference between us is about.

However, I also agree, because, so far, controlling the animalistic nature has been the best method to being able to "get around to" enlightenment, especially because of the religiousity that the human  species has had. A lot of what I base my disagreement on is having listened to a lot of Alan Watts, and, since I still have not internalized his thoughts to mine such that I could explain it without referencing him, I reference him. You can find two playlists I have compiled of him on my channel, if you so care to watch them.

It has been, thus far, the inability to "deal with" and include others into our philosophies that, I think, has been at the core of animalistic territorialness. That is, put a group of people together who have different goals and different ways of thinking, and the base survival "kicks in" because there is a lack of communicative ability, or simply lack of tendency to communicate for them. And so, the other side of not communicating is that of war and conflict. If time stood still and this were a word problem, we could find a solution for it and there would be no need for war. Since that is not the case, the much faster version of this is that of physical movement and force.

With the internet, this will also occur. However, since this is the internet, I think, this tendency will slowly go away. I don't hope for it, but this seems to be the case - the internet is primarily for communication, and so with each of us pursuing our interests and projections (insecurities and probably boredom put large, to the internet, such as in the form of "trolling"), the inability to feel part of something without being part of a cult will dwindle. As thunderf00t put in one video, "the internet - where religions come to die".

Another part of this has been the thought that "atheism has nothing to offer", as proposed by many Christians, but especially TogetherForPeace. If we were geographically-situated, this criticism would hold foot, since there would be a lack of communication between parties and paranoia would spring loose and destroy the whole thing, resulting in a very political situation, an irony of its beginning.

I have spent what is probably too much time on the internet and on YouTube, and I feel the effects of it. My intent has been that of revising and reinventing memes, such that we could enjoy a better life. And a lot of us - basically everyone, including yourself - has been doing this.

It is arguable that my focus on religion misses a lot, and I think it does. What I have been focused on is the study of paranoia and group thinking, primarily because cults (especially Christianity, since I'm a former Christian) intrigue me. I think that one could have both the good stuffs of religion and of science, combined. To quote Einstein, "Religion without science is blind; science without religion is lame." I think of it now as a sort of clean-up - religion provides the interest, and science cleans up after it. That's not to say that religion does nothing - without religion, there would be no reason to do science. It's like putting science on steriods.

And here we come back to the control aspect:
Rather than "controlling religion" and making it ameliable for science, I would rather both understand it and embrace it. The reason that it has not been embraced so far is, I think, mainly able communication, the lack of it, and the lack of being able to see what the other person sees. Religion provides what could be called "the third eye", as put forward by David Wilcock in his "2012 Enigma" video.

Religion is concerned with intent, with thought. Science is concerned with material, with manipulating matter. Because the effect of religion upon a person is the wanting to know (intent), and science is based on playing with shit to see what happens, there occurs a paranoia from religion about science (science "manipulating" religion "thought"; "manipulating thought"; uncaring and demonistic science). Intent often ignores the method; the method is all the science is concerned about. And so, this I think offers an explanation as to why there is a disconnect between religion and science.

However, and I think this part is interesting, when science debates religion, it does so in the background of religion -- why are the two debating? This is an intent-based start. Likewise, because interest and eyeballs (TV and the such) revolve around religion-esque-based thinking, the two sides are likely to become polarized, since the background is in religion. Accordingly, this type of science with be religion-ized. This then results in the argumentative, pompous, and disregarding type of attitude that is exemplified by thunderf00ts videos. When he was debating another YouTuber called VenomFangX, I ignored this. However, when he made similar videos about dropping out of college, this was an emotional spot for me, since I have opinions that are opposite his in this spectrum.

So, in summary, I think that understanding will, in the long run, be better than repression, and that YouTube provides and excellent playground for this.