I started commenting on Reddit because my whole family is religious, and I live in a religious state, and I get beat down relentlessly by my religious family and friends. Reddit allowed me to have my atheist views without being beaten into the ground for it and there were others of like mind that I don't find in real life.

Just as a group of christians is likely to hound me on a christian based site and in real life, the same happens to christians here. One of the few places really. If you want to get my attention, appealing to martyrdom for christianity, the dominant religion in the western world, will get you tuned out.

I've watched some TED talks. They are individuals giving their opinon on selected topics. Nobody has to listen to them, or accept what they say. A few of the TED talks I've listened to all the way through have been informative and entertaining.

There was that asian chef dude on that Joe Rogan show, forget his name, he makes like asian street vendor food all trendy in NY. He said the TED people groom each speaker for like 16 hours a day and make each speaker go and participate in all these social functions and get togethers, they definitely have an agenda. TED talks always seemed like pop-science bullshit to me, where the audience is basically lulled into thinking they are smart enough to gain insight into incredibly complex things from an hour of engaging speech. And then praised for it. "Oh, you are so smart audience member for listening to us. Come back for more." It's cult shit.

Yes, there agenda is money. Do you know how much people pay to see TED talks? It's a big fucking business.

Have an up vote, and that is, their, and I hate autocorrect.

That made me laugh in its very accurate assessment. TED Talks, a manipulation machine, start to finish.

Sure, but you also don't have to comment or vote on this thread. But you still did.

Sure, but you also don't have to comment or vote on this thread. But you still did.

You comment is meaningless. It has nothing to do with my post.

You NLPd the fuck outta him. And me. Shit.

And himself, for making the thread!

pay attention to the TED talks speaker's hand movements. This is called Neuro-Linguistic programming, and connects your subconscious to the ideas given by specific hand movements during specific phrases and point.

I studied NLP (Neuro-Linguistic programming) for quite some time, and while NLP does offer an explanation of his hand gestures -- he's not a master practitioner using some mind control technique.

He's simply gesturing toward his own internal representation of his thoughts.

If you want to see some masterful use of NLP and Ericksonian hypnosis, you need look no further than Fox News. Not only do they masterfully employ hidden commands (repeating "accuse 911 hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui" while going full-screen with the man's image), but the crawl at the bottom of the screen combined with the spoken word -- actually is masterful use of NLP in a mind-control context.

And it's not just Fox News. It's all of them -- but Fox is so blatant it's pitiful.

To better understand what NLP actually is, check out any of Richard Bandler's early work (written, audio and especially video). He's since moved on to bigger and better things but as he says "there are so many people stuck at different levels of my development".

No, you've provided a lot of generalized moral panic in response to the TED talks, and little to no actual criticism of any specific content. TED talks are just a medium, and many different opinions are presented within. So let's look for your bias...

hate of, specifically, Christianity (or at least a skewed view)

and there it is.

Actually, that was included in my opinions on Reddit. And anyone with half a brain can see the real bias is against Christianity on Reddit, its easily attacked twice, perhaps three times as much more than any other specific organized religion.

Because its silly, that's why it is attacked. Also do you have a source on those 2x to 3x statistics?

All religions are silly by that logic.

And I'd say that most religions get attacked here pretty regularily. In fact this is just kind of how it is in 2014. If you're basing any major aspect of your life on religion then you're probably up for a little ridicule.

Reddit systematically indoctrinates people into the atheistic mind set, it carves out any possibility of spiritualism and relegates it it as trash through "f--- yeah" science propaganda, brainwashing which is also anti 9/11, anti truther, anti free thinker. I rage inside every time someone posts any of that degenerate garbage.

Agreed.

Yes, that is my logic.

All religions are silly

Correct.

Religions are mythology. All seek to explain the phenomena we're experiencing as life/existence. Like most religions, Christianity is based on astrotheology. Unfortunately, in this dark age of modern existence, nobody remembers the purpose behind the myth and ritual. We put too much faith in science. Science is fantastic, but it can only reveal the material world to us. It is thus far incapable of enlightening us as to the mysteries of our internal lives - the mystery of consciousness. Consider this: if the material is the only source of validation, then most of your life isn't real. Consider further: if your consciousness is nothing but a byproduct of chemical/electrical interactions in your brain, then there is no free will, and every thought you have had was predetermined by the chemical/electrical interactions that preceded it all the way back to your conception... Thats fate, a thought no materialist likes to entertain (but perhaps they don't have a choice lol).

I agree with the earlier comment that religions are silly, but we must understand that it is our misunderstanding that makes them silly. Granted, the authorities of religion are propagating these misunderstandings, but my point stands, and that is: that religion, as a spiritual experience, is necessary for human beings. It is equally as foolish and ignorant to place blind faith in material science, as to place blind faith in an authoritative religion. Sadly, it is in vogue these days to do so, and so I come here, with this lengthy post, doing what I feel is part to expand the awareness of whoever cares to hear.

At one point, religion, science, and art were one.

Thanks for reading.

Well said! I have more pity for angry atheists than I do for fundamentalists, because of what they painfully lack which is an appreciation for the myth. People need some jung and joseph campbell if they're gonna throw religion out of their lives.

I disagree, I think ,we need good relationships with each other, not imaginary relationships.

Where did I say anything about imaginary relationships? Human life is all about narrative, and myth is grand narrative.

I prefer learning about our actual history, we know precious little.

I prefer what some call a spiritual experience, to be based in my relationship with people and my environment, and mostly I love them even the ones I consider political opposites. We are all first, last, and always, human.

I'm not sure what I've said that you're disagreeing with. If you look at human history and fail to see the existence and importance of myth through every culture and age, you might want to look again.

I am not denying that the myths exist, I am saying why make the imaginary stories part of our consciousness. I don't think they are more fascinating and they are designed to support and justify the oppression and exploitation.

Because we need stories! A human life is a story. If you dismantle the context for people having myths, then they turn to television and hollywood and are never satisfied or able to be real adults. Look where the adolescent mindset has gotten this country.

As far as myth enabling oppression and exploitation, I think you're focusing on a very narrow aspect of SOME applications of SOME religions, which is missing what I'm saying. And there is plenty of oppression and exploitation in states without dogma--look at china and russia's past. America is increasingly atheist or less interested in religion(and our leaders clearly don't follow the bible despite what they claim during campaign season) and I'd say we're the number 1 oppressors and exploiters of the world.

I am perfectly ok with disagreeing about this, we don't have to justify our stand to each other. There is no grade or pay for what we do on reddit. I enjoy reading others ideas, I am not out to change anyone's ideas, I like typing my own ideas, I don't mind disagreement.

if your consciousness is nothing but a byproduct of chemical/electrical interactions in your brain, then there is no free will, and every thought you have had was predetermined by the chemical/electrical interactions that preceded it all the way back to your conception

Why not both?

In a chaotic system like you've described, initial conditions and interactions make long-term prediction incalculable. And perhaps it is that incalculability that we call free will?

A justification if you will, for that which transcends human understanding (that's Campbell's definition of God btw: that which transcends human understanding).

religion, as a spiritual experience, is necessary for human beings

I think spiritual experience is necessary for human beings, but that religion is not.

I will state confidently that there is no God in the traditional sense. Yet I live a very spiritual existence. I sense that there are meaningful coincidences and I live my life as if those serendipitous experiences are as real as the nose on my face.

But the religious myths just lose their power to inspire once their assertions prove to be incompatible with those things we know to be true.

Apollo can't be pulling the sun across the sky because we now know a bit about orbital mechanics. And very likely the God of the old testament was volcanoes.

And yet prayer seems to work -- probably through a combination of confirmation bias and simply talking to ourselves to sharpen our concept of what it is we most care about. But it does seem to help.

Who cares if we're just talking to ourselves if it provides us comfort, hope, and maybe a little magic?

Thank you for your well thought out and detailed reply! I don't have the energy to get drawn into a debate (nor do I suspect that we would disagree much once we cleared through the jungle of semantics), but I did want to comment on a couple of things:

I would also say that I do not believe in "God" in the traditional sense - if by the traditional sense, we mean the Judeo-Christian anthropomorphic god. However, I do believe in a much larger (perhaps Jungian, or Campbell-esque) concept of God - to me, it is a totality; simultaneously the sum of all material and immaterial phenomena in the universe, and the inconceivable and invisible source of this phenomenal existence. To the native Americans, it was the Great Spirit; to the Hindus, Brahman; to secular man, the Cosmos... All mythologies are trying to explain the same thing, just with different sets of symbols. That's what religion is, a set of coherent symbols for conceiving the inconceivable. To me, the most important thing is for people to identify with their spirit, their consciousness, their inner divinity - whatever you want to call that piece of us which is in this world but not of it. When we do that, we move beyond fear of death. When we move beyond fear of death, we begin to see the irrationality and futility of possession and greed. And when enough of us do that, this world will be a better a place.

Well, this reply ended up being much longer than intended, but I hope it's well received. Cheers!

Very well received!

I almost agree, to me the what is greater than you and I is, we and us. I agree with the anthropologist who say we advance because we can, do and must cooperate with each other to survive and thrive.

That cooperation, not competition is what is natural.

When our religions/political systems force us into competitive and false hierarchies, we lose our very humanity.

Who cares if we're just talking to ourselves if it provides us comfort, hope, and maybe a little magic?

If, as Jesus said, "the kingdom of heaven is here and now, the kingdom of heaven is within you", perhaps you are praying to the God or Buddha Nature within. If it's all God, it really doesn't matter which direction your prayer is directed.

It is my firmly held belief that nothing harms us and our relationships with each other more than religion and their bastard child secular government which can be less harmful, or equally harmful.
The really worst form of governance is when they sleep together, religion and government.

Ok, religion is scorned on reddit, why is that a problem. Why must we all be religious?

Sounds like you're just being antiestablishment for the sake of being antiestablishment. I find TED talks usually pretty good, as I have a nice foundation on the content being covered and can judge how realistic they are.

I take it this is intense sarcasm, point to wit.

This is why it's imperative to learn as much as you can about all basic areas of mathematics and science, so that you can understand the more complex issues of weather modification and such.

Exactly. There's a reason I just laugh at chemtrail believers and the like; I know better.

I know better

Please elaborate.

You will never convince a believer.

I know. I'm just glad the believers of chemtrails are harmless.

I'd agree that there is danger in the way people sort of look to TED talks as these bastions of truth. But there are so many topics from so many people from so many industries that I don't think you can apply any one thing you perceive to all of them. Like the use of NLP. Do you really think all of those people giving the speeches are trained in NLP? That's not something you can just do after a few minutes of practice.

I don't believe what you say about NLP. One could argue the extant to which it is used in the media, real world, or even if it is real itself...but to state that you must be a trained handler to "know how to do this" is a flat out lie. Any sales rep or anyone who presents anything for a living knows what to do with your hands. It is a common realization when you start presenting..hey I have hands I can't just leave them hanging here they look awkward during my presentation what should I do? A good presenter learns how to draw an audience in and use every body action to accentuate what is being said.

Now some call this action NLP..which may be true pending on what you mean by NLP..but to state that you must be a trained handler to know how to accompany your speech with appropriate hand and body movements is absolutely absurd.

Training is required, even if it is self training based on experience.

But you can also buy Zig Zigler videos or any of hundreds of others.

Some schools of speech place all the emphasis on the choice and use of the words, some add the body gestures, some audiences respond to one style, some to the other style.

Nope. Wrong. Neuro-linguistic programming is a specific movement of hands and implying of speech to subconsciously promote presented ideas.

It is NOT the same as moving your hands while speaking (which is natural) , or even selling a product. (Which can be purposely done.)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming

Watch this video, which presents the technique and its use perfectly. Then tell me if this guy hasn't been trained to do this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9BeXEvdcpo

That guy doesn't actually know what Neuro-linguistic programming is. He's conflating a lot of different things -- and he lost all remaining credibility once he went overboard with all the sorcery and 666 shit.

He is correct about all the linguistic pyrotechnics, though. And he is correct that they're manipulating the whole farce of an "interview".

So he's not completely off base.

But his explanation of using gestures to scramble thoughts is based on a misunderstanding. You see, there is a physical place where you represent thoughts. So if you had a particular problem and I were to ask you where you were picturing that problem -- you might hold your hands in front of your face (like you were holding an invisible basketball) and say "right here".

And if I were to then make a sweeping gesture with my hands in that precise space in front of your face -- then that image, and thus the problem, become briefly disrupted.

But because a guy on TV is not standing in the space where we make our images... and because he cannot know where we're representing things anyway (everybody's different) he cannot actually be doing precisely the same trick from very very early NLP.

This guy on the other hand, does know about NLP (he's one of the two people who invented it). His name is Richard Bandler and he actually uses NLP and its derivatives to teach NLP and its derivatives. Bandler is best at teaching how to use it.

The other guy who knows the most about NLP is John Grinder. Not as entertaining, but IMO better at explaining precisely what it is.

I think any religion would dispute that Richard Bandler or John Grinder invented body language for messaging.

Religions are jam packed with it and the technique is quite ancient.

NLP has almost nothing to do with body language for messaging.

And it is safe to say that Richard Bandler and John Grinder invented NLP because they did.

[deleted]

Are you objecting to the spread of those things. I think you will find that NLP has a firm foundation and is thoroughly rooted in religion.

Praying hands, bowed head, covered head, kneeling, crawling in supplication, blessing gestures, and more.

Has anyone else noticed, the talks lean very libertarian and often border on meanness.

Especially this one!

Question! Is this intentioned with specific talks, this one had the Goldman Sachs sponsorship logo in the background.

I can't speak to someone else's intentions. It could be that that is simply sponsorship logo, placed like most advertising, simply to enhance familiarity.

Now, I find most advertising to be insidious and purely evil.

Because we're bombarded with logos and related imagery simply to trick our subconscious into believing the associated business is familiar, comfortable, and safe.

So when one of the most evil corporations on the planet just happens to have their logo anchored in our subconscious along with the warm fuzzy emotions elicited by Jill Bolte Taylor's talk -- I have to wonder.

But I don't (and can't) know whether it's an intentional anchor.

Very good analysis!, I can see from your comment how they'd want to make the psychological connection between Jill Taylor's talk and their corporation, and or other speakers where they'd want to imply a similar positive similarity.

I suspect the social programmers did this more with intention, that's normally the status quo.

You forgot the /s and this is the one TED Talk I loved.

Why is it cruel, We must WORK goddammit! and with no minimum wage and no employee protections.

And that is the other reason the talks are cruel, our exploitative capitalistic system does not allow, the human to exist, only the producer.

How ironic that Redditors as a whole harp about how you should let everyone think for themselves and yadda yadda ya yet, like you said, Reddit is one big hivemind, dismissing or or disapproving of anyone thinking differently than the hive. Sad, really. But I've never found anywhere that didn't follow that to an extent.

I missed your point, if one was made, that in anyway relates to the post.

weird, i missed the point of your comment reply too.

OP deleted self, and I love this discussion. Thanks, if you are still around with another ID.

*edit funny typo, (depleted to to deleted)

But...but... internet pictures are funny.

Actually, that was included in my opinions on Reddit. And anyone with half a brain can see the real bias is against Christianity on Reddit, its easily attacked twice, perhaps three times as much more than any other specific organized religion.

That guy doesn't actually know what Neuro-linguistic programming is. He's conflating a lot of different things -- and he lost all remaining credibility once he went overboard with all the sorcery and 666 shit.

He is correct about all the linguistic pyrotechnics, though. And he is correct that they're manipulating the whole farce of an "interview".

So he's not completely off base.

But his explanation of using gestures to scramble thoughts is based on a misunderstanding. You see, there is a physical place where you represent thoughts. So if you had a particular problem and I were to ask you where you were picturing that problem -- you might hold your hands in front of your face (like you were holding an invisible basketball) and say "right here".

And if I were to then make a sweeping gesture with my hands in that precise space in front of your face -- then that image, and thus the problem, become briefly disrupted.

But because a guy on TV is not standing in the space where we make our images... and because he cannot know where we're representing things anyway (everybody's different) he cannot actually be doing precisely the same trick from very very early NLP.

This guy on the other hand, does know about NLP (he's one of the two people who invented it). His name is Richard Bandler and he actually uses NLP and its derivatives to teach NLP and its derivatives. Bandler is best at teaching how to use it.

The other guy who knows the most about NLP is John Grinder. Not as entertaining, but IMO better at explaining precisely what it is.

weird, i missed the point of your comment reply too.