Credit where credit is due...

MrPudding

Religion, it really is an amazing racket.

You pray for something and you get it. God gave it to you, your prayer has been answered.

You pray for something and you don’t get it. Well, your prayer has been answered, just not the way you want. God has a reason for this though. Be happy with that.

You are having a crisis of faith? Pray harder, this is god testing you to make sure you are worthy.

Something simply does not make sense? You aren’t supposed to understand, god works in mysterious ways / we are too puny to understand god / do not question your creator.

You have doubts and you question god? STOP!!! That is a sin and offends him.

There is no evidence for god? Well, there isn’t supposed to be. If there was then you would not need faith, and without faith life is meaningless. So it is for your own good there is no evidence.

It goes on and on. It really is the most incredible self confirming, unquestionable, untestable, unfalsifiable, questioning intolerant racket I have ever come across. All credit to whoever thought it up. They really have thought of everything.

MrP

nozzferrahhtoo

Yea as I said in another post I am working on a blog entry for blog.atheist.ie on this very point. The parallels between religion and common 101 tactics in everything from advertising, to the practise of charlatans, to the common practises of mind control and brain washing.

Advertising for example. I said in another thread you commonly see lines like “You would be mad to miss it”. It is common to suggest that if the consumer stops to think that they are in some way remiss or mentally deficient. The bible also says “The fool hate said in their heart there is no god”.

Or with Charlatans they will commonly act hurt if you show doubt in their honesty. The play the hurt feelings card, or if that does not work they pretend to be offended. I wont even insult you by pointing out the parallels there.

With mind control and subjugation it is common to make the target feel totally and utterly worth less, but then offer them a way to re-attain this self esteem somehow. Compare this to Christianity. You are a sign little worm dirty with sin. You were made from dirt (or a clot of blood in Islam) and you are a dirty fornicator. However worry not, the entire wealth of creation is there with you in mind and everything is here so you and I can be having this chat now. God and Jesus love you.

I could go on at length but I am not finished the blog entry yet.

MrPudding

Your post was actually one of the things that prompted me to open this thread, an excellent post it was. Additionally, wolfie’s answer to the “how often do you pray?” question gave me pause.

It is just so finely constructed. Whatever the occasion there is an answer.

MrP

nozzferrahhtoo

Oh wow.... I inspired someone...... Ive never done that before! Im so moved. I thought I was just ranting away to no one who cared!

Thanks. I feel better now hehehehe.

You realise Im going to be just insufferable now? Or at least more so than I am already

Schuhart

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Oh wow.... I inspired someone...... Ive never done that before! Im so moved.

Show us another miracle!

Does it make sense to suggest that the religions that survive will be the ones that best fit with the human mind. By that I mean the ones that best anticipate how to handle human doubt.

Consider how, on the outside, you'd wonder how people could fall for an obvious ready-up like Scientology. Yet, if they've correctly worked out the right balance of carrot and sticks, presumably if you find those carrots and sticks arriving just at the point when that's what you need, then it brings you on in.

Which then leads to another question. Is religion popular because, regardless of whether its true, its useful for people to believe?

nozzferrahhtoo

Yes yes and yes

I can reply in no better way than to point you to Daniel Dennet's book "Breaking the spell" which essentially explores at length exactly what you just said here.

Rev Hellfire

If people can derive benefit and comfort from it that's good enough for me, the 'truth' or not of it is immaterial.

Mena

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

If people can derive benefit and comfort from it that's good enough for me, the 'truth' or not of it is immaterial until it starts interfering with the lives of those not sharing the same viewpoint.

Added a slight caveat to your post (in bold).

robindch

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

If people can derive benefit and comfort from it that's good enough for me, the 'truth' or not of it is immaterial.

Not a view that's likely to gain much sympathy here!

Have you ever visited Saudi Arabia?

argolis

This may be a redundant post for many, but I've never fully put my finger on the hilarious and ironic thought that religions have "evolved", as pointed out above by Schuhart, to adapt to reasoning. An evolutionary tree/chart connecting them all would be pretty funny, and probably simultaneously informative, like something you'd get in your junior cert science class. Why some became extinct (couldn't adapt to the discovery of some new knowledge) and others thrived (mutated their beliefs to further defy logic), etc.

It'd also be perfect if there was an inexplicable mass extinction of religions sometime in the past (maybe just over 2000 years ago) that divided the "relig-ientist" community, but definitely allowed modern belief sets to arise. :pac: Cheers for the thread

MrPudding

Schuhart wrote: »

Does it make sense to suggest that the religions that survive will be the ones that best fit with the human mind. By that I mean the ones that best anticipate how to handle human doubt.

Actually, the fact that religion has an answer for absolutely everything, for me, is one of the most suspicious things about it.

Schuhart wrote: »

Which then leads to another question. Is religion popular because, regardless of whether its true, its useful for people to believe?

It seems to be. I was talking about this yesterday actually. I sometimes miss the “comfort” of when I believed it. Obviously I was not a proper believer or proper christian, but I still believed and I still took comfort from that. Knowing that when I dies I would see all my family and watch over those left behind. I actually miss that feeling. But I know it is rubbish. So yes, I can see why it is popular for that reason.

MrP

DapperGent

It really is one of the finer examples of cultural evolution. Religion is and always was an incredibly competitive marketplace of human ideas therefore only the fittest religions will be able to survive. Any religion that forbids proselytising (or is forbidden) outside of a single ethinic group is going to be screwed over time (one example I saw recently was Zoroastrianism in India), a religion that makes unambiguous claims about the future is similarily in trouble (how Jehovah's Witnesses deal with the world's stubborn failure to in fact end on numerous occasions is always good for a laugh), anyone making genuine pacifism an article of faith at most stages in human history was always likely to experience a swift kicking while hearing the lamentation of their wimmins, make yourself as handy as possible to secular powers from parents (that teenager isn't just being cheeky he's sinning) to dictators, some absolutism and exclusivity help too - like "There are various different ways to the Father, I'd like to think I'm a pretty decent option." isn't going to provoke much zealotry to be honest, you're going to need a really good life after death story etc etc.

I think it's important to recognise that this isn't the work really of some person sitting down and just making shít up no more than biological evolution is random chance. This is thousands of years of successful adaptation. It's quite depressing to consider that the various lunacies of Christianity or Islam or Scientology is quite clearly what people want. I like to think that we are simply exceedingly vulnerable to a combined offer of community and life after death and don't care how the blanks are filled in after that. The baser wants of moral superiority and spiritual primacy are prevalant enough to make me sick to my stomach on a frequent basis though.

Rev Hellfire

robindch wrote: »

Have you ever visited Saudi Arabia?

Nope, though I have been in the area. Certainly there's a difference between religion and state-enforced religion like in the region.

I was under the assumption the discussion was on religion as a concept.

DapperGent

MrPudding wrote: »

Actually, the fact that religion has an answer for absolutely everything, for me, is one of the most suspicious things about it.

That's because God did it.

Rev Hellfire

Mena wrote: »

Added a slight caveat to your post (in bold).

You can add that cavaet to almost anything, all laws for example start interfering with the lives of those with opposing viewpoints.

Not that I'm implying that religiously influenced laws are good, but its not automatic that they're bad either.

stevejazzx

I hate this argument of religon 'being useful' becasue it somehow puts a person in a position which becomes favourable in terms of evolution or just survival.
I think it is a very pedantic way of twisting the idea of 'survival of the fittest'. The reasons for believing are multi faceted and are, more often than not, based on tenuous life experiences and fear. The initial disposition, therefore, of someone undertaking a solid religous belief is already one that is less favourable on the evolutionary scale i.e. decisions casued by fear and lack of understanding. To twist that idea into an explanation of that persons natural inclination to gravitate toward a safer position in life is wrong, it is simply a very clever criticism of a darwinian model - either that or someone doesn't understand the darwinian model very well to begin with.

Handsome Bob

The convenient answers of organised religion really don't bother me just as long as people use their faith as a resource of strength in their lives and keep it to themselves if people don't want to hear it. If you take Obama for example, he's a man who has spoken of a personal relationship between himself and his God. But it doesn't rule the way he lives his life and it certainly won't rule the way he runs his country.

It's only when the nutters come out and begin to harass certain groups of society (with their doctrine as ammunition) that I become dismayed with religion and how some people interpret it.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

this

Nodin

Sean_K wrote: »

this

O Yeah.

Schuhart

stevejazzx wrote: »

I hate this argument of religon 'being useful' becasue it somehow puts a person in a position which becomes favourable in terms of evolution or just survival.

In fairness, we could tidy up our language. But I think the essential point would still come true.

stevejazzx wrote: »

The initial disposition, therefore, of someone undertaking a solid religous belief is already one that is less favourable on the evolutionary scale i.e. decisions casued by fear and lack of understanding.

But my understanding of evolution (such as it is) was that 'fittest' just means organism that has the best chance of reproducing in a particular environment. In other words, the organism that best 'fits' the context, not the organism that is cleverest/strongest or whatever (unless being cleverest/strongest is what the reproductive context favours).

So, indeed, possibly the human features that best fit our reproductive context is to base decisions on fear of god. If a consequence of that fearful belief is a desire to go forth and procreate, then that's what will happen.

At the same time, I accept your point that the basis for belief is complex. But surely the factors that influenced the development of the human hand (just to pick something at random) would be similarly complex. The point is more whether we can account for the success of religion on the grounds that it successfully anticipates and addresses human needs.

Overblood

A pure relgion-bashing thread. Was wating for something like this to come along. :pac: *jumps in*

Dades

Overblood wrote: »

*jumps in*

Don't forget your armbands.

karen3212

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

You can add that cavaet to almost anything, all laws for example start interfering with the lives of those with opposing viewpoints.

True, which is the reason so many people need a lot of reasoned convincing and pointing at evidence before they are changed, generally.

Rev Hellfire

karen3212 wrote: »

True, which is the reason so many people need a lot of reasoned convincing and pointing at evidence before they are changed, generally.

Totally agree, that's the nature of society.

Handsome Bob

karen3212 wrote: »

True, which is the reason so many people need a lot of reasoned convincing and pointing at evidence before they are changed, generally.

No matter how much "reasoned" convincing is put in front of some people, they'll never change. That's not exlusive to just religious folk. Take white supremacy movements or even more specifically the British Nationalist Party for example. There is plenty of solid evidence completely disproving their beliefs yet they ignore it. Some people just aren't open to reasoned debate and it's a fallacy of society to give everyone the right to say whatever they like because it is assumed that they can be debated in a public forum and that they'll just magically turn around say "you know what? You're right. We were wrong!"

Rev Hellfire

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Some people just aren't open to reasoned debate and it's a fallacy of society to give everyone the right to say whatever they like because it is assumed that they can be debated in a public forum and that they'll just magically turn around say "you know what? You're right. We were wrong!"

But just because you can't reason with someone doesn't extinguish their right to speech. I'm sure by their reasoning many here are equally intractable, perhaps we should remove theirs as well ?
Rather you need to win over the hearts and minds of the majority to effect the changes you wish.

Handsome Bob

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

But just because you can't reason with someone doesn't extinguish their right to speech. I'm sure by their reasoning many here are equally intractable, perhaps we should remove theirs as well ?
Rather you need to win over the hearts and minds of the majority to effect the changes you wish.

It's a fine line, I agree with that. But I feel the line must be drawn. If we take racism for example, when one's freedom of speech is used to incite hatred towards another race and to preach a fallacy that a race is genetically inferior to another, I find that unacceptable. A liberalist approach would tell us that freedom of spreech to say anything we like is crucial, because it allows for public debating to show one the error of his ways. But it is a mistake to assume that all people are open to persuasion.

MrPudding

LZ5by5 wrote: »

No matter how much "reasoned" convincing is put in front of some people, they'll never change. That's not exlusive to just religious folk. Take white supremacy movements or even more specifically the British Nationalist Party for example. There is plenty of solid evidence completely disproving their beliefs yet they ignore it.

I think this is particularly true for the religious though. They have so much invested in it. It is eternal life for goodness sake! Many will have incredible tales of lives being turned round, which could not have happened without Jesus. Some will tell you of their fear that without god they would be raping and killing. For others it is that their lives are crap, and the hope that there is something better after death is all, ironically, that keeps them going.

People have so much of what and who they are invested in it that they simply can't afford to give it up.

I know this is veering towards "relgious people simply don't think" and though that is not specifically what I am trying to say, I can see that it is unavoidable.

Over the past fews days in particular I find myself wanting to shake people and say "can you not see what is going on here?" As time passes bouncing between here and the christianity forum I find myself moving more towards a Pat Condell kind of view of things. Why should I respect this thing for which I can see no rational reason for believing? Why should I see someones ability to believe this rubbish as something they should be proud of or something I should respect them for?

MrP

stevejazzx

Schuhart wrote: »

In fairness, we could tidy up our language. But I think the essential point would still come true.But my understanding of evolution (such as it is) was that 'fittest' just means organism that has the best chance of reproducing in a particular environment. In other words, the organism that best 'fits' the context, not the organism that is cleverest/strongest or whatever (unless being cleverest/strongest is what the reproductive context favours).

So, indeed, possibly the human features that best fit our reproductive context is to base decisions on fear of god. If a consequence of that fearful belief is a desire to go forth and procreate, then that's what will happen.

At the same time, I accept your point that the basis for belief is complex. But surely the factors that influenced the development of the human hand (just to pick something at random) would be similarly complex. The point is more whether we can account for the success of religion on the grounds that it successfully anticipates and addresses human needs.

Yes but what you're saying is that they accidently stumbled upon a more beneificial (in terms of survival) life choice. In evolution animals purposefully andeventually improve on their weaknesses, it is not accidental and it always changing.

Rev Hellfire

stevejazzx wrote: »

Yes but what you're saying is that they accidently stumbled upon a more beneificial (in terms of survival) life choice. In evolution animals purposefully andeventually improve on their weaknesses, it is not accidental and it always changing.

Actually it is accidental since animals (other than man) don't engage in husbandry.

5uspect

Don't some ants farm termites?