Are some religions just memetic control mechanisms?

[Satya]

Food for thought: could homosexuality and abortion be parasites of some part of humanity trying to force their way on the world and religion to rid the world of religion and/or morality so they can further mutate?

Possibly. Any idea could be a meme. Let's see if those two things meet the criteria.

Memes carry a "believe me or else something bad will happen to you" psychological stimuli.

If you don't believe in homosexuality does that mean something bad will happen to you?
If you don't believe in abortion does that mean something bad will happen to you?

Memes argue that they are the one and only truth.

Do people argue that the only way to live is through homosexuality?
Do people argue that the only way to live is through having abortions?

Memes require that others spread them throughout the world.

Do people try to make others into homosexuals?
Do people try to make others get abortions?

It may be quite possible each side views the other as parasites, I could guess.

The trick is which side relies on faith supported by reason and which side relies on reason supported by faith. The latter is most likely correct, whereas the former most likely has the meme.

 

[Satya]

Controlling others as in trying to make them live according to someone else's will.

Frankly, that is all politics and religion is really about. You want people to live in accordance to your ideology (liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc.) and live in accordance to your faith (Jewish, Atheist, Christian, etc.).

By embracing an ideology or faith, are you not enslaving yourself to a meme which drives you via fear tactics to spread it through the process of trying to make other live in accordance to your will?

 

[IndigoSensor]

Frankly, that is all politics and religion is really about. You want people to live in accordance to your ideology (liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc.) and live in accordance to your faith (Jewish, Atheist, Christian, etc.).

By embracing an ideology or faith, are you not enslaving yourself to a meme which drives you via fear tactics to spread it through the process of trying to make other live in accordance to your will?

Yes I want people to live the way I want, but am I going to make them? Of course not.

My "will" is for people to live the way they want to live with little to no restricon to how they do so. I'm really not gonna debate beyond this because it is becoming a matter of pulling threads.

 

[Faye]

Religions are more than memetic control. They are a socially acceptable way for people to avoid taking responsibility for themselves.

 

[TheLastMohican]

The discussion about population control has been moved here.

 

[54192&#cmy]

Are some religions just memetic control mechanisms? Yes I think they are. You present a good valid argument satya.
These religions also like to take money out of your pocket for being a member. In essence paying for praying.
I could see myself gravitating towards Buddhism. I seem to believe a lot of what they say already.

 

[Jana]

Why people who have negative view about religion like to open topic like this. I could say that I don't see my belifs like something that control me or I could say that I belive how religion is positiv thing. I could say that and try to find reason for that. But I won't because it won't change your mind. I'll just say that one who is not religios can't say that religion is for people who don't want to take responsibility for themselves. It's not true! Religion usually teaches that I have resposibility for myself and for others. So, I would advise some of you to be more tolerant to others opinion and views. Tolerant in a way that you have to understand that there is some people who are religious and it should not bother you. Don't try to tell me how I don't use my brain because I am religious or don't try to tell me how religion is excuse for hate the different one. Becasue it's not. Topics like this and views like yours show that the religious people are not the only one who migth have problems with accepting Different.

 

[IndigoSensor]

There is a difference between being religious and being dogmatic, Jana. I do not believe sayta's intention was to discredit religion as a whole. Simply to explain why religion could make people "blind" (which could be a method of control) and cause them to want to control others and cause socieital problems.

Also, it's good to question the root of people's beleifs, and understand why they believe what they do. This topic wasn't created to piss people off, or make people angry. It was made to allow us to discuss part of the nature of something like religion, and gain a broarder understanding of it.

Simply avoiding topics because they could offend people does not allow one to grow and learn.

 

[Shai Gar]

Religion is a meme is a meme.

 

[Jana]

There is a difference between being religious and being dogmatic, Jana.
Simply avoiding topics because they could offend people does not allow one to grow and learn.

1. That's what I always try to say in discussions like this one, but I usually come to being misunderstood. We must admit that there are dogmatic belivers and that there are dogmatic atheists. No man is totally free minded, we all have some theories and schemes in our heads that could be dogmatic if we let them.
2. Yes, but sometimes I would like to hear something like "You are rigth in this, but..." instead of "Yes, you religios people hate different, you are dogmatic, you hate homosexualls, you hate women, you were for slavery, you were killing scinetists in history, you this and you that..."
3, I am not pissed of, I am actually very calm, my point is: we all have theories that could prevent us to think with understanding for others.

And yes, I never call nonbelivers less worthy, because I wouldn't think somthing like that, because we are all equal, but I do feel that in eyes of nonbelivers I look sometimes stupid, dogmatic and less worthy. Why???
Because I am controlled? Nonsense.

 

[Chopsifer]

From what I've read there seems to be a lot of data that are suggesting that people without a religious community have an increased likelihood of depression or feelings of alienation.

While I by no means stand behind a lot of the polarization that many religious groups seem to harbor, I do think that religion can be a very good thing. Having said that, I understand what you mean when you call religion a parasite

 

[Shai Gar]

Yes, but that comes back to "Ignorance is bliss". You've really got to enjoy being ignorant to accept a situation like that.

 

[Chopsifer]

Yes, but that comes back to "Ignorance is bliss". You've really got to enjoy being ignorant to accept a situation like that.

And humanity certainly seems to enjoy its ignorance very much.

The majority of us still create wild generalizations and panacean heuristics rather than allow things to have more abstract categorizes and solutions.

 

[Jana]

Yes, but that comes back to "Ignorance is bliss". You've really got to enjoy being ignorant to accept a situation like that.

Repeating a hudrend times heard and said stereotypes about any group of people is one of bigger ignorance...Let's start to think outside of our little boxes.

 

[Jana]

How about if you find people who are in despair and thus vulnerable and offer them your religion as the answer? It's still their choice.

What about if they teach their own children their religious beliefs? Is it controlling for parents to teach their children what they believe is the correct answer in life?

Is it controlling to simply call those who don't follow your religion names like "pervert" or "abomination"? Just calling people names doesn't make them follow your religion.

Is it controlling to offer members of your religion special treatment that you don't extend to those outside your religion? You aren't doing anything directly in that case.

Is it controlling to legislate their morality? After all every citizen has a vote and if you choose to be a part of a representative democracy then you sometimes have to yield to the will of the majority.

Is it controlling to go to war with practitioners of another religion if they are seen as a threat to your nation? National security is important!

And if someone of a religion does go out and beat, kill, harass, torture, or do anything else to someone who doesn't live in accordance to their religion, then all the other practitioners of that religion will just tell you that those kind of vicious individuals were not true practitioners of the religion. Nonetheless, the message gets through. Follow the religion or else the extremists will get ya!

You know what? What you wrote are elements of fanatism in general, not elements of religion. You have to separate thes two, you really have to separate them. I live in country that was under communism (after second world war) for a long period. And guess what, communism, ideology without God (communists were not allowed to be religious), killed so many people in such terrible way. You could be sent to prison just by saying some joke about president of the state in private company. All people outside the communism were less good, in schools children were thought that nothing except pure communism is good. If you were good communist, you could not merry some daughter from bourgeois family . In such case, you were suspicios to the goverment.
So, are we talking about religion or about any fanatism? Because, if people do such terrible thing because of ideology without religion, then it's not religion that makes that, it's people who think that they are better than others.

 

[BenW]

You know what? What you wrote are elements of fanatism in general, not elements of religion. You have to separate thes two, you really have to separate them. I live in country that was under communism (after second world war) for a long period. And guess what, communism, ideology without God (communists were not allowed to be religious), killed so many people in such terrible way. You could be sent to prison just by saying some joke about president of the state in private company. All people outside the communism were less good, in schools children were thought that nothing except pure communism is good. If you were good communist, you could not merry some daughter from bourgeois family . In such case, you were suspicios to the goverment.
So, are we talking about religion or about any fanatism? Because, if people do such terrible thing because of ideology without religion, then it's not religion that makes that, it's people who think that they are better than others.

I believe the point is that, in the historical context, more violent and intolerant acts can be traced directly or indirectly to religion than not.
The fact that religion has on occasionally been on the receiving end of persecution doesn't expunge this.

The idea expressed in the initial post of this thread was along the lines of religion working not unlike a sort of mental virus, in the sense that they have a very efficient means of spreading through human culture.
Not a new idea to me, but still one that I agree with.

I personally don't really see what good can come from a belief in the supernatural.
It might, in a best case scenario, allow somebody to live a marginally happier life, but it's just self-deception.
At worst, it's probably attributable to a majority of the violence in human history.

I honestly believe, no matter how intelligent you may be, that if you really believe there is an invisible man in the sky keeping score, there is something wrong with you.
(Not you personally; this is a general statement.)

 

[arbygil]

Okay, small two cents...

I think this has a lot to do with how mankind expressed religion, too. If we really come down to it it's not the religion itself...it's the people in it who act wacky. At a basic root Christianity is two things: Love God wholly, and love your neighbor as yourself.

Yes, simplistic answer is simplistic but I'm keeping it simplistic for a reason. Are there organized religions that have a hands-off approach to their members, in effect saying "do whatever feels right to you?" And if such places exist, can they really be called organized religions?

Maybe the real problem is that the followers aren't reading their own books and they're following human leaders instead.

 

[Shai Gar]

I believe the point is that, in the historical context, more violent and intolerant acts can be traced directly or indirectly to religion than not.
The fact that religion has on occasionally been on the receiving end of persecution doesn't expunge this.

The idea expressed in the initial post of this thread was along the lines of religion working not unlike a sort of mental virus, in the sense that they have a very efficient means of spreading through human culture.
Not a new idea to me, but still one that I agree with.

I personally don't really see what good can come from a belief in the supernatural.
It might, in a best case scenario, allow somebody to live a marginally happier life, but it's just self-deception.
At worst, it's probably attributable to a majority of the violence in human history.

I honestly believe, no matter how intelligent you may be, that if you really believe there is an invisible man in the sky keeping score, there is something wrong with you.
(Not you personally; this is a general statement.)

You can throw the blame of the black plague at the doorstep of Christianity too. They made everyone scared of witchcraft, which meant kill witches, any black cat was obviously a witches familiar, so they went overboard and killed shitloads of cats. Cats were keeping down the rat population which carried fleas... Fleas are Blood Vectors, and were carrying the plague from asia.

450 million Europeans dead, because of Christianity's hatred of explanations other than those from "The Good Book".

 

[Milon]

Yes, simplistic answer is simplistic but I'm keeping it simplistic for a reason. Are there organized religions that have a hands-off approach to their members, in effect saying "do whatever feels right to you?" And if such places exist, can they really be called organized religions?

Maybe the real problem is that the followers aren't reading their own books and they're following human leaders instead.

Good point. But if we just tried to toss religion and keep spirituality, there'd be lots of people rebelling because they wouldn't know who was in God's good graces and who wasn't. Which means that these same people are more interested in keeping tabs on others than their own relationship with God. Is this in line with religion in general? Or is it simply that those folks are misguided?

You can throw the blame of the black plague at the doorstep of Christianity too. They made everyone scared of witchcraft, which meant kill witches, any black cat was obviously a witches familiar, so they went overboard and killed shitloads of cats. Cats were keeping down the rat population which carried fleas... Fleas are Blood Vectors, and were carrying the plague from asia.

450 million Europeans dead, because of Christianity's hatred of explanations other than those from "The Good Book".

So you're saying that the population of black cats were single-pawedly staving off the black plauge, and that white cats, calico cats, etc were ineffective in consuming a glut of rats? And it was only rats who weren't eaten by black cats that caused the plague? Some Christians may have inadvertenly contributed, yes, but I think you're going a bit far here.

 

[Ketsugi]

Whatever happened to live and let live? There is so much anti-religion on this forum. Unless someone here has shoved religion down your throat, I don't see why there's a need to insult everyone who is part of a religion. The argument that religion has caused wars; well how about the every day murders, rapes, robberies, etc.? More people are killed over an ounce of crack cocaine than over God. The wars in the Middle East are not about religion, either. Anyone who believes that is naive. Often times, religion has been the mask for the real issues. Rulers and leaders have control over religion, so they use it as a valid excuse.

I'm feeling less and less welcome on this forum. There is so much stereotyping here. It's in almost every thread. I don't want to be categorized. I am a human being and no one is going to tell me how I think and feel. What is this need to categorize and compare oneself to everyone else? I think self esteem issues are flourishing here.

The exclusivity that everyone hates so much in religion exists in other places too.