Are some religions just memetic control mechanisms?

[Shai Gar]

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.

No, I'm saying that they overreacted and started wiping out mass amounts of cats. It didn't matter what types of cat, they were seen as evil by association.

This was the Fourteenth Century, the mid 1300's. Christianity was in full swing back then annihilating anything that wasn't "Pure" as per Romes description.

Context. Remember it.

 

[BenW]

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.

I am "anti-religious" for mostly the same reason I am anti-phrenologist, and anti-racist. It's fallacious and by and large harmful.
I don't believe all people of religious faith to be bad.
I do, however, consider all of them to be deluded, as I stated before.

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.

Because violence exists elsewhere, religion is blameless for it's share?

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.

That is precisely the point of this thread.
Religion, "organized" or not, is the best known and most used tool for controlling people.

The wars in the Middle East are not about religion, either. Anyone who believes that is naive.

I don't think the regional Christians, Jews, Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds who have been taking turns killing each other for the last few thousand years would agree with this.

I don't think the growing number of Islamic militants worldwide would, either.

 

[Ketsugi]

I have been labeled as deluded. That makes me feel better.

I never said religion wasn't to be blamed for its share, but I haven't seen anyone complaining about other causes of violence. I think religion is seen as this huge evil that is the plague of the world. That seems just absurd and blown out of proportion.

Nothing in this world is good or bad. What people call "good" and "evil" is the result of the choices we make and also intention.

The tone of threads like this doesn't imply the relationship between politics and religion. It's been more of a "religion is stupid" feel.

The religious factions that have been killing each other have ulterior motives, I think. It's an example of "we're better than you" thing. I believe Islamic militants aren't really killing over religion either. I think it's also about politics when you really get down to it. A lot of recruits are brainwashed into believing that they will go to heaven for jihad, but again, it's the leaders and clerics who are at the root of this problem. Most of the people over there just want to have normal lives.

I would gladly participate in a discussion about how politicians like to use religion to control otherwise good and decent people, but lumping all religious people into one category and saying every one of us is deluded, that's black and white thinking... don't forget the many shades of gray. There are just as many deluded atheists, non-theists or what have you.

Saying that all religious people are deluded is just another way of saying that non-religious people are somehow better. And here we are at the "my group is better than yours" situation.

 

[BenW]

I have been labeled as deluded. That makes me feel better.

I haven't "labeled" you, I've stated an exact reason why I think theists to be deluded.

Would I be "labeling" people who identify themselves as racists, if I say I consider all of them to be intolerant and ignorant? Or would it just be a logical deduction to make?

I never said religion wasn't to be blamed for its share, but I haven't seen anyone complaining about other causes of violence. I think religion is seen as this huge evil that is the plague of the world. That seems just absurd and blown out of proportion.

Most of these other causes are generally acknowledged being as nefarious, rather than institutionalized, and vehemently defended by a large portion of the population.

Nothing in this world is good or bad. What people call "good" and "evil" is the result of the choices we make and also intention.

Debatable.
Ethics, secular or religious, really don't work very well without moral absolutes.

The tone of threads like this doesn't imply the relationship between politics and religion. It's been more of a "religion is stupid" feel.

Interpret the thread however you feel, however, I think I've made my own views clear enough.

The religious factions that have been killing each other have ulterior motives, I think. It's an example of "we're better than you" thing. I believe Islamic militants aren't really killing over religion either. I think it's also about politics when you really get down to it. A lot of recruits are brainwashed into believing that they will go to heaven for jihad, but again, it's the leaders and clerics who are at the root of this problem. Most of the people over there just want to have normal lives.

At the end of the day, it makes no difference to me whether the people pulling the strings genuinely believe in the faith themselves or not.

I would gladly participate in a discussion about how politicians like to use religion to control otherwise good and decent people, but lumping all religious people into one category and saying every one of us is deluded, that's black and white thinking... don't forget the many shades of gray. There are just as many deluded atheists, non-theists or what have you.

The delusion I was referring to is theism itself.
Or anything other than scientism, really.

Saying that all religious people are deluded is just another way of saying that non-religious people are somehow better. And here we are at the "my group is better than yours" situation.

If I have ever been unclear, allow me to concretely state that...
I think non-religious people are inherently better than religious people.
However, only in this one specific way.
And it's not just religion; any belief of the supernatural sort.

I would be able to find these beliefs humorous and harmless, were they not harmful to so many people.
As a person raised in a fundamentalist Christian household (Seventh Day Adventist), and one who considered himself a Christian until he reached the age of reason (5-6 years old), I feel qualified enough to state that this upbringing had a deleterious effect on my life and my psyche, and I am thankful that I was born with the intelligence to escape from it when I did.

 

[Ketsugi]

You should spend some more time walking in the shoes of other religions besides Christianity.

 

[TheLastMohican]

I would gladly participate in a discussion about how politicians like to use religion to control otherwise good and decent people, but...

You could start another thread for that type of discussion, and you don't have to post in or read threads like this one if it makes you uncomfortable. Those who disagree on this topic are perfectly capable of agreeing on others and enjoying their conversations. I don't think anyone here has a hostile attitude towards religious people from the outset.

 

[Shai Gar]

I was thinking this earlier. However it's in the nature of humans to like being spanked.

 

[Eniko]

Isn't it the organizations that cause the meme, rather than the religion? You can argue it's in the best interest of some ephemeral concept like an idea to keep growing, but it seems silly when there's an established organization with matters of power and income at stake who cares about propagating the idea.

I don't mind religion so much. I mind organized religion.

 

[Ketsugi]

You have to agree with a post to reply?

 

[TheLastMohican]

I've stated an exact reason why I think theists to be deluded.

When you say that all theists are deluded, are you using the adjective as you would to describe people of differing politics, or perhaps conspiracy theorists? Remember that not all theists claim to have personal experiences that would appear to us to be hallucinations or self-delusions. Many believe in God in a strictly evidenced-based manner, which is caused simply by varying levels of ignorance. Some others who have been brought up in the faith just haven't bothered to question it, just as many people assume that operating under the Constitution is ideal (because the founding fathers and their parents and teachers said so), or that reading in low light damages the eyes. I think your assignment of the word "deluded" needs to be focused on those who actually claim what appear to be delusions, rather than opinions that can easily exist in a sane mind.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

These religious arguments kind of run around in circles, don't they?

Religion is no worse than government parties, than activist groups, than anything else that requires a widespread mindset. Indeed, atheists often contribute to trying to spread a belief -- I know plenty of atheists that accept the others that share their atheism, and are fully against those who don't share them.

Sure, they don't promise heaven and threaten hell. But they do promise higher knowledge and threaten ignorance, and often times with similar zeal.

And sure, not all of them do. But not all religious people do.

Fact of the matter is, if there is society, there will be a device for control, regardless of what form it comes in. Faith provides a comfort for some, as does the feeling of being knowledgeable, as does contributing to something great or powerful.

I lose respect for a person if they are anti-another group, regardless of the group they put themselves in. Especially if they claim to dislike another group because another group discriminates...that doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[Jana]

I

I personally don't really see what good can come from a belief in the supernatural.

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.

1. If I say: "I personally don't really see what good can come from a belief that there is nothing more than things we can see with physicall eyes" I'd be called religious dogmatic person.
2. That just show your lack of information about matter. God is not invisible man in the sky. Hoe can you talk about something and not even knowing what are you talking about.
And yes, the end of your sentences shows great intolerance. You should be more open minded to opinions of others.

 

[TheLastMohican]

You have to agree with a post to reply?

No, you're free to disagree all you like. We don't censor expression of views on this forum. I'm just saying that if participating in these topics makes you feel unwelcome, it's best to leave them alone.

 

[Ketsugi]

Why can't I express my views? Aren't they just as valid? If we avoid everything that is uncomfortable then we will be hiding all our lives. I'm not saying that anyone should embrace religion, but rather have a tolerance and respect for people unlike ourselves.

 

[Jana]

These religious arguments kind of run around in circles, don't they?

Religion is no worse than government parties, than activist groups, than anything else that requires a widespread mindset. Indeed, atheists often contribute to trying to spread a belief -- I know plenty of atheists that accept the others that share their atheism, and are fully against those who don't share them.

Sure, they don't promise heaven and threaten hell. But they do promise higher knowledge and threaten ignorance, and often times with similar zeal.

And sure, not all of them do. But not all religious people do.

Fact of the matter is, if there is society, there will be a device for control, regardless of what form it comes in. Faith provides a comfort for some, as does the feeling of being knowledgeable, as does contributing to something great or powerful.

I lose respect for a person if they are anti-another group, regardless of the group they put themselves in. Especially if they claim to dislike another group because another group discriminates...that doesn't make much sense to me.

I agree, so I won't write on this topic anymore. I just ask all "freeminded" people to think for who they keep their tolerance. Just for people with similar opinions or for Others too???

 

[TheLastMohican]

Why can't I express my views? Aren't they just as valid?

No one has told you that you cannot express your views. As I already said, we don't censor them.

If we avoid everything that is uncomfortable then we will be hiding all our lives.

Okay, then by all means continue to participate. Your comment about feeling unwelcome had me thinking you might want the OP's views censored for your comfort, but fortunately that's not what you were getting at.

 

[BenW]

When you say that all theists are deluded, are you using the adjective as you would to describe people of differing politics, or perhaps conspiracy theorists? Remember that not all theists claim to have personal experiences that would appear to us to be hallucinations or self-delusions. Many believe in God in a strictly evidenced-based manner, which is caused simply by varying levels of ignorance. Some others who have been brought up in the faith just haven't bothered to question it, just as many people assume that operating under the Constitution is ideal (because the founding fathers and their parents and teachers said so), or that reading in low light damages the eyes. I think your assignment of the word "deluded" needs to be focused on those who actually claim what appear to be delusions, rather than opinions that can easily exist in a sane mind.

I consider faith to be the delusion.
Be it faith in the existence of God, ghosts, Xenu, etc... it's all the same.
Faith is by definition, believing in something in spite of a lack of evidence, and/or evidence to the contrary.

1. If I say: "I personally don't really see what good can come from a belief that there is nothing more than things we can see with physicall eyes" I'd be called religious dogmatic person.

If you believe there is some good that can indeed come from a belief in the supernatural, feel free to persuade me.
Until then, I'll go with the evidence at hand.

2. That just show your lack of information about matter. God is not invisible man in the sky. Hoe can you talk about something and not even knowing what are you talking about.

It's called being facetious. I was purposely simplifying the definition.
There are, however, plenty of people who really do believe God to be an invisible man in the sky keeping score.
Are you saying they are wrong to think so? Simply because their beliefs may not be as sophisticated as yours?

 

[TheLastMohican]

I consider faith to be the delusion.
Be it faith in the existence of God, ghosts, Xenu, etc... it's all the same.
Faith is by definition, believing in something in spite of a lack of evidence, and/or evidence to the contrary.

Ah. See, many theists have difficulty with concept of faith. Some just leave it aside and go for evidence. Others claim to have faith, but give it a more convoluted definition based on Biblical verses that hint at an "evidence-based faith" or the like. In my experience, those who really adopt the "belief without evidence" aspect of faith tend to be those who believe based on an elusive feeling of God's presence or a personal spiritual experience. So it seems that most all theists have one kind of reason or another besides the concept of faith.

 

[Jana]

If you believe there is some good that can indeed come from a belief in the supernatural, feel free to persuade me.

This is rreally my last post on this topic. In MBTI words: as a INFJ I just know that there is Someone, I can't help myself, it's my introverted intuition...

 

[BenW]

Ah. See, many theists have difficulty with concept of faith. Some just leave it aside and go for evidence. Others claim to have faith, but give it a more convoluted definition based on Biblical verses that hint at an "evidence-based faith" or the like. In my experience, those who really adopt the "belief without evidence" aspect of faith tend to be those who believe based on an elusive feeling of God's presence or a personal spiritual experience. So it seems that most all theists have one kind of reason or another besides the concept of faith.

Considering that faith is a necessary tenant of most if not all religions, the people who try to convince themselves that they have empirical reasons to believe very much confuse me.

The "evidence" I've seen for the existence of God generally is composed of false and poorly constructed first-day Apologetic arguments against abiogenesis, biological evolution, or the big bang theory. Or my personal favorite, vague statements about how something so complex as life/Earth/the universe could not have arisen by means of anything other than intent.

At least most religions are finally starting to resign to accepting evolution.
I find it ironic that Catholicism led the way; they just officially forgave Gallileo seventeen years ago.

This is rreally my last post on this topic. In MBTI words: as a INFJ I just know that there is Someone, I can't help myself, it's my introverted intuition...

That is intellectual surrender...