Are some religions just memetic control mechanisms?

[Shai Gar]

I think the Wikipedia is more the issue. Being INTP doesn't make him disregardable, but generally it's harder to explain the INFJ prospective to an INTP, from what I've experienced -- their logic isn't faulty, but it's often difficult to get them to see what we're trying to say from our point of view. It gets frustrating on our side.

Wikipedia is not an issue at all. If something is wrong with whatever is quoted, it's the substance that needs to be argued, not the origin of it.

If you're arguing something other than the substance, you're basically saying; I'm too pathetic to actually address your points, i'll try another line of attack.

Dealing under the table won't work. I see all.

omnomnom

Shai, You can toss the theory of relativity before we could allow tossing all the ints here, just in my opinion, and not because of who or what type wrote it. ; )

I don't get what you're saying here.

 

[Julia]

Most Buddhists say in China for example are Buddhist but also believe in a traditional type of religion. The giant egg for example. Buddhism is more of a way of life.

Buddhism can be primarily as philosophy, but there are applications of Buddhism that use ritual and superstition which could be defined as a religion in some contexts. Buddhism is quite diverse. I know strong atheists who are Buddhist in principle and had a friend from Thailand who was a "Buddhist Christian". I have Buddhist leanings myself and have a cursory knowledge of it, and I consider myself agnostic (not because I see all arguments as equal, but because I see human beings as being limited in understanding)

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Wikipedia is not an issue at all. If something is wrong with whatever is quoted, it's the substance that needs to be argued, not the origin of it.

If you're arguing something other than the substance, you're basically saying; I'm too pathetic to actually address your points, i'll try another line of attack.

I disagree. Starting off with an universally accepted source cuts down on pointless and excess research -- academic communities do the exact same thing. If you tried using Wikipedia even at my high school, you'd be looked down at.

Wikipedia is not meant to be a substantial source. It's meant to be a casual, defining one. I don't disagree with the context BenW used it, but I can see why it could be frowned upon.

 

[Shai Gar]

Yes, academic communities are retarded as well. Doesn't make my point invalid. If you can't attack the substance of the argument, only a debating weakling attacks the quoted source.

 

[Shai Gar]

When my sister was at university she told me that the university wouldn't let them touch wikipedia. I stole her assignment topic sheet and wrote a hell of a better essay than her, and I used wikipedia. She submitted it (small classes) on my behalf (without references), and her lecturer said that it's one of the best essays he has seen in years on Indonesian Politics. After he said that, I told him I used wikipedia.

I love doing that, it shits uni lecturers off to know that they've just lauded an essay using sources they publicly decry.

 

[craven]

Humanity's gain from unbelief

...by Charles Bradlaugh (the book is better than the published online, abridged essay)...

I find it disheartening that religion is still taught and that decisions are still made based on its fairy tales and methods of mind control. There is no critical or original thinking going on within its doctrines although religious zealots will quickly assert that their religion encourages debate and critical analysis - yet any rigorous critical analysis would lead to a total rejection of religion AND spirituality completely, I am sure.

Even Buddhism is not what's it's cracked up to be. Most Tibetan villagers suffer terribly due to the 'spiritual' pressure to provide food and clothing for the thousands of monks while their own families go without. The spritual teachings of Buddha are all a bit 'Amway' to me. In fact, I suspect those who sell Amway, Buddhist monks, and Catholic Priests... would have a very similar psychological... leanings.

We are better off without religion and spirituality. We just need to learn how to be good humans and get through life as best we can without causing any harm. There is no need for rules.

 

[Shai Gar]

As a former Independen Business Owner with ties to Amway, I'm insulted.

Amway has something that Religion doesn't. It works.

 

[alcyone]

Found a very apt quote in my book last night concerned the topic of religion.

Religion is the masterpiece of the art of animal training, for it trains people as to how they shall think. ~ Arthur Schopenhauer

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Yes, academic communities are retarded as well. Doesn't make my point invalid. If you can't attack the substance of the argument, only a debating weakling attacks the quoted source.

When my sister was at university she told me that the university wouldn't let them touch wikipedia. I stole her assignment topic sheet and wrote a hell of a better essay than her, and I used wikipedia. She submitted it (small classes) on my behalf (without references), and her lecturer said that it's one of the best essays he has seen in years on Indonesian Politics. After he said that, I told him I used wikipedia.

I love doing that, it shits uni lecturers off to know that they've just lauded an essay using sources they publicly decry.

I never said you couldn't make something decent when using wikipedia as a source. Hell, you can make something good out of anything, if you know how.

I am, however, saying that it saves a lot of pointless effort avoiding it, because the people making the source in the first place don't have to be credited or proven correct. Yeah, you can have a bunch of people come in a confirm it, but that doesn't mean it's good -- a bunch of morons confirming a moron doesn't make anyone less moronic. I'm not saying everyone on wikipedia is a moron -- but I am saying that it doesn't have any reputable or systematic way of proving they're not.

And you can attack the substance of an argument if you can attack its source, because if you have no way of proving the source as correct then you are losing the basis and framework for the argument. If you can find multiple sources that are consistent, then you have an argument -- if all you're using is wikipedia, then there is not a real way of knowing if the material you are creating an argument from is correct. And I know enough people that take enough flowery words and confusing catchers to make any argument seem correct, whether it's bullshit or not -- a good basis of reputable sources is, in many cases, a very good thing to have.

 

[Faye]

Wikipedia- Don't cite wikipedia, steal the sources wikipedia uses.

I never understood why people cite journals and whatnot on a forum though. The INTJ forums are insane about it.


Back to religion- Religion does basically control people to behave in certain ways. I think that is the reason it is so controversial. A person with a different religion has accepted a different mode of being and functionality (or disfunctionality depending upon one's perspective). It goes much deeper than whether or not someone believes in God.

 

[halicon]

So what are your thoughts?

No offense. i find religion and highly religious people are very simple minded and sometimes too hard headed or stubborn to search for alternative answers to the same questions.

perhaps answers that are not reliant on faith...

but i can also understand the requirement for us to attach to something 'spiritual' in a hope to extend the preverbial: "I am" into "I am... because"

in short. religion is a crutch.

i find often the actions of a religious person are defined in the religion where as actions of someones choices coming from within are almost always sincere to whom they are. religion can sometimes destroy sincerity. if that makes sense.