User talk:Mendel/Religion

"[...]why does love exist?"
Simple, really. Offspring and hormones.

Love is a biochemical procedure in your body, the synthesis of oxytocine etc. That's also why breaking up hurts, and why people stalk. Your body is used to getting that high everytime you see your lover, read a note left by him/her etc. When that stops, your body objects. It wants that high again (yes, it's essentially the same as drugs. It's also the most common comparision). People start stalking because they want to get that high again, but can't imagine getting that with another human (can't move on).

The whole reason this biochemical procedure is initiated, is because humans are monogamous. A man and woman need to stay together to raise the offspring. Without love, the man would hump other women and essentially ignore it's offspring (once the young are born, the body reacts in a similar matter to the child as to the partner, but without the lust (generally speaking)). Tiger stops by, eats babies, mauls woman, humanity ends ---> here.

Just my atheistic take on the matter :> --- -- (contribs)  &emsp;(talk)  21:43, September 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * And that's why animals behave like humans?!? Also, you are using a very narrow definition of "love" here. -- ◄mendel► 02:08, September 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do dogs love their masters, and vice versa? [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 02:10, September 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * Is a dog nice to somebody it doesn't know? Are people? There's a difference. -- ◄mendel► 02:17, September 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * Most dogs don't "love" their masters. There are 2 parts to the attachment: the Master feeds the dog, and the dog is also typically trained to be obedient to that person. Most dogs will cease to fend off a stranger under one of 2 circumstances: either the Master tells them to stop, or the other person gives them food. There ARE exceptions with the smarter dogs such as German Shepherds, however, which MAY infringe on the territory of "love", but for the most part they don't, and this may simply be a result of the best training and not "love" at all. For vice-versa, however, it is a very simple explanation: domesticated dogs are tools for us in one way or another. They may do something useful, such as hunt, that is obviously a "tool" relationship, but other things they do are in this category as well. If you want ANYTHING out of the domesticated dog, then it is a "tool", and you will have that relationship as such. If you want NOTHING from it, then you wouldn't exactly have a dog, now would you?
 * The reason humans are nice to each other has a couple parts to it as well. The more obvious one, that is cited (but incorrectly) so commonly, is the Judeo-Christian value system so common throughout the world. However, this is incorrectly cited because the Judeo-Christian value system is actually based on an ancient Middle Eastern one, from (I believe) the Phoenicians, which (especially since it's the Middle East, the center of trade) spread throughout most of the linked continents. Obviously this was not present (specifically) in the Western Hemisphere, but a similar value system erupts as well. Now, this obviously begs the question: why does this sort of value system arise throughout the entire world in pretty much every culture? The answer is simple: when members of the species assist each other, it makes the species survive better. So, the ones that helped each other survived better, and therefore reproduced more, resulting in a biological trait common throughout humans all over the world to assist each other, to at least some extent. This same explanation is also why every society throughout the world (to a limit determined by the society itself, but still present) has a problem with murder. Murder makes the species (or the group, at least) less capable of survival, therefore it is a problem. Wars (mass murder) between groups is almost always seen as different, because killing a member of a different group doesn't affect survival of your group.
 * And, one of the ultimate questions: why does every society invent some sort of religion or magic or whatnot? From an anthropological standpoint, it's clearly to explain what people don't know. From an evolutionary standpoint? Well, people are held together by similarities. Religion is (unfortunately) most commonly the similarity used for this purpose, rather than the incredibly obvious one regarding people being HUMANS. But anyway, it holds groups together, but also relating to the anthropological explanation, when people can explain their surroundings, they will be more comfortable, and can focus on other things that matter.
 * This shows where religion has no part in modern society any more: DESPITE religion, we now understand nearly everything around us. We don't NEED an invented explanation for what surrounds us to give us peace any more, because with any decent level of schooling we can at least vaguely understand what matters in our surroundings, such as the weather. It's not some angry god deciding to throw lightning at us, it's caused by a cold air mass colliding with a warm one. Since obviously religion is not needed any more, it brings the question: why DOES it still exist? Because the VAST majority of what we've learned to explain things rather than using religion were learned VERY VERY recently, and evolution takes time. That, and greed, lust for power. Since religion is believed by so many people, it obviously gives great power to whoever can control it. And also because of tradition. Raised a certain way? Most likely you will raise kids the same way. Exceptions to this are not particularly common, and religion in particular ingrains itself deeply into people because they are brainwashed into it at a young age, when they know little about how the world works, and as such believe what elders (parents, teachers, priests, whatnot) tell them without doubt, because they don't know anything to counter it.
 * Sorry for the giant wall-o-text. Doesn't happen very often, just this is a special topic. --Gimmethegepgun 04:04, September 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * You've reinforced my point that teh religious valiues can be deduced from the way our world is set up; they simply make sense.
 * However, you also illustrate nicely how expressing these things non-religiously makes them very impersonal and pretty much useless when you're trying to make sense of your personal life. -- ◄mendel► 04:32, September 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * "This shows where religion has no part in modern society any more: DESPITE religion, we now understand nearly everything around us.... It's not some angry god deciding to throw lightning at us, it's caused by a cold air mass colliding with a warm one."
 * This is not the type of question most major religions are concerned with today, sir.
 * Are you also going to make the claim that religion has never furthered the expansion of human knowledge? All of those monastic libraries, the Dead Sea scrolls, religion's hand in guiding the fate of legendary artists like Leonardo Da Vinci...they are insignificant, or even detrimental?
 * Can science and technology offer any insights about what happens after we die? What do we know about spirituality and the soul? What is the mind, and why can we not replicate it, even if we can (almost) manufacture a brain? Even if we know infinitely more than before, we also have infinitely more questions.
 * In addition, I strongly resent your insinuation that all religions gain converts through "brainwashing" children and the vulnerable. That term carries such a negative connotation. You seem to imply that religion is inherently bad. I will not deny that the recruitment practices of some religions are underhanded and ethically questionable, but I may as well say that American children are brainwashed into the service of "democracy".
 * I'll leave you with this question; would you rather be right, or would you rather be happy? You can't always have both. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 04:38, September 12, 2009 (UTC)

Good of you to spot the strawman: explaining lightning hasn't been the object of any of the big religions for a few millenia ;-P
 * Religion does *not* offer any insights into what happens after we die. However,it gives answers how that uncertainty should affect your life. -- ◄mendel► 04:51, September 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * Lightning is an EXAMPLE. Now then, might I remind you that gains in knowledge were stunted almost entirely for nearly 1000 years in Europe because of the stranglehold of the Catholic Church on anything that went against their teachings? Throughout the rest of history, knowledge is under constant expansion, with occasional losses (such as when Rome fell), but for so long there was not very much change in what people knew aside from a few various war technologies. And DESPITE religion is still correct, because religion is still constantly trying to fight what we actually know and replace it with their beliefs shown to be wrong, most notably recently Intelligent Design.
 * Now, please, would you define what a "soul" is? Have we ever found any such thing to exist? Any evidence at all? The soul is simply an invention to explain consciousness. And we know that all of our brain functions are based upon complex electrochemical reactions. The mind is simply what is perceived from all the brain's action. And we can't replicate a mind (yet) because the brain is so vastly complex and has so many interacting reactions relating knowledge that it would take ages to add them all in. Remember: an adult mind takes 15-20 years of nearly constant input of vast amounts of data from 5 senses AND constant, repeated overlapping of data both within itself (comparing known data to other known data) and repeating of old data input that may offer a new perspective. And, since the brain has more computing power than any single computer we've made thus far, and that computers haven't really been very powerful until only a few years ago, it would make sense that it would take at least a DECADE of work from now to create a computer representation of an adult mind rather than having a brain-based one.
 * I would agree with you that American children are "brainwashed" into Democracy, but it is different in that political philosophies don't have such a defined correct answer as other things in the world do.
 * Ah, but science DOES give insight into what happens after we die: After accepting that the "soul" is just an invented term for our consciousness, it can easily be shown that what happens after our death is that we rot in the ground. All those chemicals and their processes that compose the human body and mind all decay into the earth, and without those chemicals present and being powered by chemical energy from various nutrients, they cease to function. Meaning the mind goes away as soon as we die.
 * Final: I'm fairly certain that I'd rather be right than happy, because being right BRINGS happiness through insight. Bring shown to be wrong also brings insight, so what I'd REALLY prefer would to know. To know would make me happy. Being right means I know, therefore the 2 are one and the same. --Gimmethegepgun 05:19, September 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you explain how the teachings of the catholic church of the middle ages touch upon my article, or vice versa? Else I call strawman again. -- ◄mendel► 06:16, September 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * "DESPITE religion, we now understand nearly everything around us...." ~Gimme
 * "Are you also going to make the claim that religion has never furthered the expansion of human knowledge?" ~Entropy
 * I think it was over 50% of scientists are religious men/women. Then again, my memory is like sugar. It holds for a moment, but any liquid ruins it. Regardless, religion is a major drive for research. They are just people that want to know more than the bible (and, of course, other religious texts and teachings) tells them. I bet in history there were even more religious scientists than there are now, but that's just a thought.
 * "Could you explain how the teachings of the catholic church of the middle ages touch upon my article, or vice versa?" ~Mendel
 * Simply by being there. If there were no Catholic teachings back then, do you think Christianity would exist these days? --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG]] -- (contribs) &emsp;(talk)  11:24, September 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * Gimme has a point with the "DESPITE religion, we now understand nearly everything around us...." Remember Copernicus? The Church was happy to develope new sciences, exept if it went against what they considered was right. Too bad for science's sake, but most stuff went against it back then...--[[Image:El Nazgir sig.png|Talkpage]]El_Nazgir 11:27, September 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Christianity would still exist, as it came before Catholicism. Catholicism just happened to be the main structure most Christian doctrine fell into in the early, early days of the Church.  There were various other groups that had schismed from each other that could have easily grown as large as Catholicism.  Jink  15:23, September 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * "Christianity would still exist, as it came before Catholicism" Not entirely correct. Catholicism was the first Christianity, made by one of the apostles (Paulus iirc). All other branches of Christianity split off of it. Orthodox Christianity was born in the eastern Roman empire, splitting off the main church in Rome, iirc. Lutheranism and Calvinism were born when Luther and not much later, Calvijn openly protested against the Catholic Church, and Anglicanism came from one of the English kings (Henry the 8th I think), when he wanted to divorce from his wife. That sums up all the different Christianities I think, do tell me if I missed one.--[[Image:El Nazgir sig.png|Talkpage]]El_Nazgir 15:48, September 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, what my wife said is entirely correct. In fact, at the very beginning, there wasn't even Christianity - there was just a subset of Judaism that believed Jesus was the Messiah.  In the years after Jesus died, though, they took on an identity to distinguish themselves from the rest of the Jews, and came to be called "Christians".
 * "Catholic" is just a Latin word that means "universal", and it was used to describe the Christian faith because, unlike Judaism, it welcomed everyone, Jew and Gentile/pagan alike. However, it wasn't until the late 3rd century that the title "Catholic Church" came into common usage, as a way of distinguishing the "true" faith from the various schismatic sects that had arisen over the centuries.  In a general sense, those sects were basically the same as the Orthodox or Protestant churches: they disagreed with the "Church of Rome" on some matter of dogma.  The difference is that, for whatever reason, those sects failed to flourish the wan that the Orthodox/Protestant churches did.  If Rome had been sacked earlier and the "Catholic" church had died out instead, one of those sects (Arianism, Gnosticism, etc.) may have emerged as the dominant force in Christianity, and the Christian church today would look very different.  Alternatively, Christianity may have died out altogether, and who knows where we'd be now.
 * And there are a LOT more denominations of Christianity than that, Nazgir. You're missing Baptists, Latter-Day Saints, Pentecostals, Old Catholics...  Your list covers  the most prominent ones, to be sure, but it's far from complete.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 22:10, September 12, 2009 (UTC)

Indoctrinated with Science
Now, I can see how it is tempting to post all of your preconceived notions about church here, and in fact that's what I feared when I held off posting this. There were attempts to discuss what I actually wrote, but they soon got lost.

The sad thing is that the position of the critic is occupied by people who can't even distinguish indoctrination from brainwashing, bring up strawmen, and limit "science" to astronomy. Does the name "Mendel", father of modern genetics, ring a bell? Do you know what his job was? Have you ever considered the notion that your upbringing and the media you're exposed to have indoctrinated you in different ways (it's hardly avoidable)? Are you aware of them? Because your claims smell of indoctrination; they're ill informed, yet partisan. You also judge my background without really knowing much about it (if you aren't, a lot of the preceding posts should have been worded differently).

What's more, the claim that we can explain everything falls far short of the truth; it only holds if you ignore scientific advances (where is science advancing to?) and overlook the questions that arise in your personal life - or are you so shallow as to have none? Life's problems and issues are mostly about other people, and science is suddenly very much elsewhere when you need it; while you don't need religious terms to talk about what's going on, if you have an open mind you find yourself reading a translation of the same book on life (at least I do). That's what my post is about. You can't be right (and hence, not be happy?) if you haven't got that. -- ◄mendel► 22:37, September 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * My high school physics teacher was an Augustinian priest. He had three Master's degrees. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 23:10, September 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it complements religion well. :) -- ◄mendel► 00:53, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * Strawman sensor is going crazy. Who EVER claimed that current science can explain everything? We know this to be false entirely BECAUSE we're constantly discovering new things. But that same point illustrates that it's extremely likely that we'll find answers to most if not all unanswered questions in the future, provided that civilization doesn't collapse or humanity goes extinct or something due to our own mistakes, and as such should not be explained with something made up (yes, I feel the SAME way about Dark Matter. We really shouldn't use that term. Same goes for the concept of "random". "Random" is a STAGGERINGLY large pile of bullshit). As for Gregor Mendel, did he even realize the significance of what he found? No one realized it for 35 years, which was after his death. --Gimmethegepgun 01:47, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I'm not a large pile of bullshit, secondly - yes, science is filling the gaps that God is supposed to occupy, but that doesn't mean that people still can't argue, we don't know everything - and I have a sneaking suspicion that even if we do this question will remain unanswerable. As it is today, there is no way to prove or disprove God's existance either by thought or by science. Random Time  09:16, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * Ding! Ding!  Yes, it seems one of the fundamental aspects of life is that we are eventually forced to make decisions and assumptions based on inadequate information.  The truly rational course would be to do that only when physical needs force us to, but we also have desires and emotional needs as well that tend to make us assume more than physical needs require us to.  It's human, but I believe it's silly to define it as rational.  Proving God's existence is essentially possible if he reveals himself, so that way at least leads to hope of more answers.  Disproving God has the unfortunate problem of proving the universe is a fully closed, self-sufficient system without ever being able to observe the system from the outside, as doing so would only prove the system is larger than previously believed.  It comes down to all the fundamental difficulty of proving a negative, and as I said, I don't believe it can be described as truly rational to believe anything fundamentally unprovable without physical need justifying it.
 * The argument over which is more rational is far more complicated, of course, but to keep it simple, I think inadequate information makes that a difficult question to truly answer at this point as well. In the end, I think it's like the difference between love and hate:  they aren't really necessarily the opposites of each other in the way apathy and love/hate is.  The same thing applies to atheism and religious faith; they are essentially both faith of a kind.  The true opposite of both is a lack of faith and assumption, which life doesn't truly allow and which human nature tends to push us farther away from.  Hence, the argument is likely to continue for the rest of human existence, and it's only natural for it to.  It can still have value, though, because the things that make life worth living don't always come from rationality.  Nwash 11:46, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * Finding all of the answers? Fundamentally, I think current scientific theory makes it easy to argue the exact opposite--it's not only unlikely, our current understanding may imply it's impossible.
 * Information theory tells us that the smallest possible piece of information is the bit. Knowing that something is true or that is false is the fundamental basis of all information--any knowledge more complicated builds on that.
 * For it to be knowledge, *someone* must know it. Under our current understanding, that would require some kind of encoding in our brain's neural structure, but let's make things easier and assume our minds run on the principles of quantum computing and that we are fundamentally storing information in the most efficient possible way under current understanding:  as the individual states of subatomic particles.
 * To have all of the answers is essentially to know everything about every particle and bit of energy in the universe. Under this highly optimistic scenario, storage of that information alone would optimistic require the same amount of matter and energy available in the universe.  Actually using that information would require some way to retrieve and process that information, requiring more than 100 percent of the available matter and energy available in the universe.
 * Of course, that's probably not what you meant by having "all the answers." However, note how optimistic the scenario was:  we store information biochemically, which requires far more overhead.  We're nowhere near a 1:1 efficiency in information storage; somehow, I doubt even 1% is a good estimate--the efficiency of our information storage vs. ideal storage (in terms of matter and energy used) is probably much much lower.  Do you think the answers you are referring are a small enough fraction of the total "answers" to truly understand it all?  Personally, I have some doubts; physical sciences seem to be the ones we're most likely to fully comprehend, but when you start looking at life sciences and then the mess that is social science, it does start to make you wonder if humanity will ever have the collective storage capacity for that.  Nwash 11:46, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome post Nwash, I'm more inclined to believe that our religious views are physiological stemming from the evolutionary trait of believing whatever your parents tell you, and our desire to know more about the world around us (which science and religion fit in quite nicely) Random Time  12:45, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * The information is compressed, so you need less space to store it. -- ◄mendel► 18:57, September 13, 2009 (UTC)


 * "But that same point illustrates that it's extremely likely that we'll find answers to most if not all unanswered questions in the future" &mdash; that is exactly the nature of the indoctrination; what you have there is a statement of faith! Aldous Huxley's Brave New World is one where questions that science can't answer don't occur to people (well, except his protagonist, of course), but that's done at the price of proclaiming the unexplainable nonexistent: deep feelings. Science sucks very much at providing an answer to the question "what should I do"; it is better at answering "what can I do". Now if you can illustrate scientific progress towards the solution of the former question that makes me believe it will be solved scientifically one day, I'll concede. -- ◄mendel► 18:57, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * You're assuming that there is an answer to "what should I do" Random Time  21:35, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * What would Jesus do? [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 21:43, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * That religion's answer, but mortality cannot be answered by science (unless you're talking some kind of mortality brought about by evolutionary science). Random Time  21:50, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * There is an answer because you eventually do something (which includes doing nothing, ironically), thus answering yourself. However, you have some freedom in deciding what that answer should be, which you can either use or not. HOw do you use your freedom? -- ◄mendel► 22:18, September 13, 2009 (UTC)

Reward or Punishment
The main problem is that in Christianity at least, and in many other religions, the answer to what you should do, according to the religion, essentially comes down to reward or punishment after death. How can you act selflessly when in reality you're acting to keep yourself out of Hell, or to get into Heaven? --Gimmethegepgun 22:46, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * You haven't understood what I wrote in the article we're supposedly discussing, and you haven't understood Christianity, either. You have black pedagogy down pat, though. -- ◄mendel► 23:08, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * You haven't even begun to understand why people want to know about wrong and right. -- ◄mendel► 23:09, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * And your feet smell. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 23:12, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Felix. They do smell. Anyway, this was more of a response to how you say science doesn't tell us what to do in our life. Religion hardly does any better, because is it really better to have our actions motivated by fear rather than by understanding? --Gimmethegepgun 23:54, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * * ethics and morals [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 23:56, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * Reminder: Judeo-Christian value system (though technically Phoenician or something), which includes ethics and morality, are based upon evolutionary design. Unlike evolution, however, it is enforced via a vengeful "god" --Gimmethegepgun 00:04, September 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * Citation needed. Really. Please tell me where you get your facts. Because 1), my text does not contain one (read the thing for once? please?), and 2), the Christian god is usually attributed as merciful, not vengeful. I tell you, as a Christian, that my ethics aren't motivated by fear, and you don't respond, you just say "it is, too". Frankly, I don't see why I am discussing with you at all, you don't seem to actually read understand anything I write. -- ◄mendel► 05:08, September 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * Whereas, without religion, ethics and morals are enforced by the judgment of others having opinions that matter to us. I find the idea that religion prevents selflessness to be extremely poorly thought out.  Really, when you come down to it, it's very hard to perform a truly selfless act.  If you aren't performing actions for the approval of others, odds are you are doing it for approval of God or approval of metaphysical forces like karma.  The closest you get is when you do something for your own self-approval, but even that can easily be described as just affirming to yourself that you are worthy of the respect and affection of others.  Even giving your life for someone else can be described as coming from selfishness:  you may only do it because you don't want to live with the consequences of not doing it, i.e. the loss of your significant other or a group of people you depend on.
 * We can see this in the well-understood principle of "diffusion of responsibility." If someone gets into a situation where someone else needs help, and he or she is the only one available to offer such help, then failing to do so places the guilt solely upon that individual.  Hence, people are more likely to help in this situation.  Add even one additional person who could offer aid, and that person's responsibility for the situation is diffused and he or she is far less likely to offer help.  Subtracting religion really just further removes motivation; the motivation coming from the desire to have the approval of others and from evolutionary drives exist either way.  I suppose that could be one of the reasons why modern cultures are becoming more individualistic instead of collectivist, which is another well-observed trend in society.  Individualism as a cultural construct tends to discourage many types of selflessness that are fully expected in collectivist cultures.
 * Secondly, I don't see how you can define "evolution" and "religion" as separate concepts, other than the fact that religion has been one of the forces involved in the evolution of human culture. That makes religion a subset of total human evolution.  Movement away from religion is also fairly recent in evolutionary terms, and increasing individualism in our culture, which does seem to be correlated with that movement, may well prove to be something that natural selection will punish.
 * Thirdly, I see signs in your arguments of a classic mistake. Like science, religion and religious culture march on, and not the same way it has always been done.  I see that particular flaw all the time when these kind of arguments come up:  for example, you see creationists debate evolution based on ideas that are decades old and you see naturalists lump all of creationism up into one belief system that thinks the Earth is six thousand years old.  In this case, you are failing to see that Christian culture is in the midst of a fundamental change.  mendel is already proving that his belief is based more on ideas far closer to the newer way to frame Christian beliefs.  You mentioned the vengeful God, and indeed, the fire-and-brimstone style of Christianity has definitely been around for a long time and has arguably been the driving force of the faith for a long time.  It's really a kind of a focus on the stick rather than the carrot, and there are still many Christians that focus on those aspects of it.  But I think you'll find most newer Christians are more interested in the core of the religion; to them, it is more about the sacrifice of Jesus and using him as an example of how to live a moral life.  It's not about fear, but about respect for the life and ideals of Christ.  If you were paying even the slightest bit of attention, Christianity is in the process of debating this within itself.  At a later time, I may look for some of the articles that have been discussing this fairly recently and give you links.  At least then, you could frame your arguments against the religion as it is today, and maybe open your mind a little more.  Nwash 08:33, September 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * Your argument has been very well put, and I thank you for sorting me someplace into modern theology.
 * Your first point reminded me of the book on group psychology that put forward that our morality is shaped by the groups we belong to and evolves from smaller to larger groups: from the close family at an early age to the peer group and, for some, on to larger groups such as their society or, at the abstract end, humanity as a whole. In the end obviously your values come from within yourself again (because "humanity" doesn't exits as a group), but with a very wide view of things.
 * Does this mean the individualistic individual really can be only one of these: completely selfish, hedonistic, intent on his own comfort; or emancipated, one with humanity; or completely lost between these two poles and finding no meaning to their life? -- ◄mendel► 18:15, September 14, 2009 (UTC)

To spell this out: the question what to do arises once you care what you are actually doing; once you have felt regret over a situation in which you did not know what to do and later realized that there was a course of action that would have satisfied you more than the one you did take. All it takes is a conscience: to be conscious of your own actions and the effects they have on yourself. This is my freedom, and from it arises my responsibility. -- ◄mendel► 05:15, September 14, 2009 (UTC)