I think it helps me stay cool under pressure and keep emotionally in control.

"Man is somewhere in between the gods and the beasts" - Plotinus

Tough to say, I think it depends on the context; something which is pure "pornography' with no meaningful context is different than tasteful depictions of sex.

Blaming it on "patriarchy" or conspiracies is rather silly, on some level, good or bad, it is a part of human nature, as evolutionary psychology more or less affirms, much as this does not mean we need or have to "reduce" human motivations to the purely sexual; in practice though, as most people get married or have a relationship, it does play a significant part in many if not most people's lives.

There's facts, and then there's how to use facts, source of the facts being damned, at least as far as partisan politics go.

Sadly most discussions about this subject (saying nothing about "Trump one way or another) seem like they're predicated on basic ignorance of what "facts" are, or how facts are used in anything resembling a consistent and objective setting, such as a trial or a court of law, or anything resembling non-sensationalist journalism and the ignorance it's predicated on an marketed to to begin with; often the word "fact" is just falsely conflated with the word "true", when in reality, facts are just isolated pieces of information, which could be combined in a virtually infinite number of ways to create, establish, or advocate any theory, premise or conclusion, regardless of the ultimate merits thereof are.

Much as how most if not all mass media is more or less predicated merely on regurgitating a set opinion or piece of bite sized information, usually substantiated by confirmation bias to support a presupposed conclusion for any number of reasons, many of them more emotional than rational or logical to begin with.

I didn't vote in this last election, and I'm kind of glad about that.

If I had to pick, I'd argue mathematics, which is what all theories, scientific or otherwise are presumably constructed from to begin with, Bacon's method never being a "pure" science in the sense that mathematics is, as well as being a relatively short-lived one, having only be around in its modern incarnation since the 17th century, while mathematics has been around and developed as a field since the ancient Greeks, if not before.

It seems to me that very few people have a serious vested interest in critically studying or examining such a thing to begin with, as opposed to mindlessly regurgitating media propaganda marketed to the 6th grade reading level, in the worst cases outright known that it is nonsense or contradictory and simply not caring, in many cases merely using outdated and archaic "system 1" thinking, as documented by experts such as Philip Tetlock to filter out the truth or inconventient details, not because it is "true" in any ultimate or axiomatic sense, but simply because it is "convenient" and provides a means of structure or consistenty to life, in regards to what to filter in and what to filter out, without ever bother to second guess or double check whether or not the axiom or judgment was ever or even 'correct' to begin with.

Scientism is nonsense, and it's anti-intellectual, based primarily on archaic, 19th century science and scientific axioms, taught and regurgitated at a 6th grade reading level, as well dishonest conflations of "atheism" or "Secular Humanism" as a faith-based religion or philosophy with "science", and other archaic historical myths and teleologies related to the development of science as an institution or system based on induction or empiricism, arbitrated parameters in regards to the established definitions of testing, testability, and so forth, with the problem often likely being what "isn't" tested or fits into the parameters of that particular method of testing to begin with, versus what isn't tested, the parameters and definition of testing themselves, being easily redefinable altogether, much as they were invented to begin with on the basis of certain mathematical axioms and parameters, other logical fallacies or even outright dishonesties aside.

I'm arguing one could be taught atheism and grow out of it into theism, conversely.

Or as another example, some people say that one was taught about hell in order to 'get them to behave'.

However, one may have also been taught that it was illegal to steal, to 'get them to behave' as well; and as far as the law goes, this is true.

So was it "wrong" to do so, or does the fact that it was taught to 'get one to behave' de-legitimize it itself?

Or if nothing else, this would de-legitimize the notion that a "theist" only does right out of fear of "punishment" by god; since by the same token, one who is an atheist may only do what is right out of "fear of the law", rather than higher moral sentiments.

My argument is simple, the belief may be acquired, but the contents of the belief or what the belief consists of are separate from the belief (or lack thereof itself).

For example, if you were never taught that the Eifel Tower was in Paris, France, would it still be in Paris France?

I would argue yes; arguing otherwise would be akin to solipsism, or the idea that no truth exists unless you "believe" it to be so.

So one couldn't immediately dismiss the legitimacy of a belief simply because it was taught or indoctrinated.

I consider this a bad or false equivalency, at least as far as serious philosophical or theological arguments about the nature of god go.

I think that, for example "Santa" or the "Tooth Fairy" is more akin to something from one of Jung's Archetypes, which is a simplistic representational image.

However, most arguments about the nature of God are referring to something abstract; even during the medieval days of the church, the images of God were not said to be "God" himself, but images used to represent God.

So this would be the equivalent of dismissing the idea of alien life on the basis of equating it with belief in Marvin the Martian, or that a person speculating about alien life would assume it would actually look like Marvin the Martian.

This is why most arguments about beliefs in god and what they consisted of to begin with are archaic cultural myths; which falsely reduce it to belief in an simplistic graven image or stereotypical "fairy tale" written on a level for young children, when in reality the actual beliefs, texts, and speculations were much deeper thought and abstraction, contrary to popular myths on the subject and so forth, usually themselves based on ignorance or misinformation, or simple cultural myths about "religion" itself, what it is, and what it consists of, handed down in childhood themselves, not remotely historically, philosophically, or theologically accurate at all.

(Such as most of the nonsense, anti-intellectual cultural myths and fables about Francis Bacon's 17th century scientific method, and the development and overarching cultural significance of the various theories invented and contained within and thereof).

I'd argue that it treats symptoms in isolation, which would be the biggest flaw.

Akin to treating obesity without examing the patient's diet.

My belief is that God in theology refers to a universal supreme being, in this sense most world religions have a concept of such a being.

So I wouldn't equate being taught about God, or a specific God, with the deeper thought about the existence of a supreme being to begin with, and I believe that people would still speculate about such a thing even if they hadn't been "taught it".

Much as whoever the first person to come up with the idea of a supreme being was, obviously wasn't "taught it", but came up with it himself and passed it down to others.

I'd have to disagree, as this would basically be asserting that there are no universals.

(However, even then it's asserting the idea that "growing out of beliefs" taught as a child is some type of universal).

Much as there's a difference between being taught "the word", as opposed to being the concept which the world refers to; I'd argue that regardless of what the "belief" supposedly is, that if one's level of understanding it is limited to indoctrination or rote memorization, this isn't the same depth of belief and comprehension as one who, for example invented or discovered the theory on their own, even if it's one widely considered to be true.

For example, if you asked a 6th grader to explain any of the finer details of Newton's physics, he would likely not be able to answer, since his learning doesn't extent beyond rote instruction or memorization.

My point is this would lead to absurdisms; obviously children are indoctrinated to a certain degree, and this isn't considered "wrong or bad" (e.x. most people only have a 6th grade reading level or understanding of things like physics, arithmetic, English, and so on and so forth, much as they are "indoctrinated" into the law of the society they are a part of - a person showing a belief in Newton's physics merely because they were "taught it" isn't on the same level as someone like Newton who discovered or invented the theories himself).

So one can't argue entirely against "indoctrination" here, it would have to do with what is being indoctrinated, or the method or way in which it is being done, or else it would potentially lead to absurdism, epistemological nihilism, or other things of that nature.

In practice, what I see, arguments specifically about "religion" aside, many would rather one simply be "indoctrinated" into the "right-think" rather than think for themselves and come to the "wrong" conclusion, and this is what the bulk of education, at least at the lowest levels, independent of the subject matter is.

Regardless, I wouldn't take this all for granted, I am glad to some extent that I was "indoctrinated" into speaking English as a child, rather than speaking no language at all.

As far as the law goes, it's predicated on harm or damages.

(Not "pain" as some erroneously state; using "pain" as a measure for harm would also lead to absurdism and strict "non-aggression arguments"

For example, speaking in a public place created sound waves which "aggress" upon another's ear without consent, and cause a small amount of "pain"; or likewise, heathy activities such as exercising or playing sports cause "pain" to the self as well as the participants, but since it is a consensual activity done for enjoyment, it is not considered illegal or immoral).

For example, the same physical act done in a boxing match or a legal form of sports or recreation, if done without consent to a stranger (e.x. striking an innocent bystander) would be illegal because it's a form of assault against another without consent, and potentially causes measurable harm (e.x. a broken bone, death, etc).

This is a very touchy subject...

As far as types of behaviors which are stereotypically viewed as "masculine" or "feminine", I believe the behaviors can exist in either sex. I find that most overly reductive stereotypes are unhelpful, and that it's better to read about thinking men and women in the context of their whole lives, rather than media stereotypes or dichotomies oriented toward childhood or adolescence moreso than mature adulthood.

I agree with Virgo in that there is a genetic inheritance, and that this is widely documented, it is not solely a "social construct"; people may have invented the terms 'male and female', but they weren't invented in a vacuum, or for conspirital reasons, they were invented on the basis of objective differences.

Tricky subject, to me the common theme seems to be that more "legitimate" systems of government have some type of checks or balances to prevent power consolidation and abuse, while autocratic governments tend to be tyrannical and unrestrained by constitution or law, such as pre-Magna carta Britain.

And in practice, non-governmental social institutions can act in ways of this nature.

Thank you, I tend to agree with that sentiment lately.

How do people think that formal religion as a business model will hold up in the information age?

Some people may not visit their local church, but may instead watch sermons on social media.

This is, in some ways why "church attendance statistics are archaic and flawed", much as they don't reflect one's personal level of commitment or behavior to begin with, and seem more predicated on financial goals or group statistics.

I think the more "serious" games (e.x. Esports games) are mentally stimulating, akin to chess or other mental games, but playing with anonymous people tends to be a negative social environment.

I don't have any current interest in multiplayer games unless it's with a dedicated group of people who at least use basic etiquette.

I find that most of the political rhetoric is more emotion than logic, so I'm taking a step away from it.

As far as "flawed", I believe everything is flawed, but I tend to shy away from "attacking the whole system" lately.

A difficult question to answer indeed.

In practice though, I believe that ideologies or philosophies, or any system of axioms accepted on faith serves as a functional equivalent to religion; I see little difference between "religious fanaticism" and partisan politics, for example.

But that could apply to any belief, which is taught or indoctrinated into at a low-educational level (e.x. elementary school), including beliefs in things, ideas, or concepts we take for granted, such as physics and the natural sciences.

Most people are simply taught them at an average 6th grade reading level, having never studied them at higher levels, or invented said theories themselves.

I believe in it, I won't argue on it, particularily if it's based on a reductionst argument or fallacy.

I agree, I've heard contradictory arguments on this one:

1. "All babies are atheist until indoctrinated into religion"

2. Religion is a childish belief which one grows out of?

Doesn't seem that both can be true at the same time.

I believe ways in which people live court exacerbate one's mental state, some evidence for this exists, such as how feeding or reinforcing negativity can lead to a confirmation bias.

I believe it is, to a degree - at least that one can react positively or negatively to the circumstances around them, even though the circumstances can't magically be changed; my honest view is that some people simply do better or worse within whatever circumstances they are born into or fall into.

I think there are better and worse ways to do so, and that a true philanthropist, as opposed to just doing the 'bare minimum' or the 'first step' is a rare thing, but that is just me.

Wouldn't this mean Jesus is your highest authority, if you are following him?

I would simply counter the problem of evil with the problem of good:

If the Devil exists:

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is benevolent.

Is he willing, but not able? Then he is impotent.

Is he both able and willing to prevent good? Then where cometh good?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him Devil?

I don't believe in Tabula Rasa and consider it an archaic theory; with fields such as evolutionary psychology affirming that people just like animals are born with inherent or genetic predispositions, in fact this would seem to be common sense.

In fact, even during the 19th century when Tabula Rasa was most popular, what I consider to be more "serious" fields of speculation, such as the theory of the Common Law as per Oliver Wendall Holmes and other legal theorists, it was more or less known that "passions", or "instincts", play a role in human behavior, not solely rational faculties, so even during it's era of popularity, Tabula Rasa was, in my opinion, always a nonsensical theory.

For example, in the theory of criminal, crimes of "passion", or done in the "heat of the moment", when a person is acting more from impulse or instinct rather than from reason, are less severe than "pre-meditated" crimes, those which are intentionally and methodically planned out while in a fully rational state.