the roman lawyer (and later philosopher) Cicero, said that without religion their society would be chaotic.
do people think that religion is personal or is it used more to control the masses? :goof:
Printable View
the roman lawyer (and later philosopher) Cicero, said that without religion their society would be chaotic.
do people think that religion is personal or is it used more to control the masses? :goof:
That's an interesting idea, Corpse. Napoleon Bonaparte said, "Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." And - "As for myself, I do not believe that such a person as Jesus Christ ever existed; but as the people are inclined to superstition, it is proper not to oppose them." So in a sense, yes, I suppose you *could* say it was used, at some point of time at least, to control the masses.
It's a natural opiate, so to speak. It has just been commodified by the government on occasion to make their laws work out for them. It isn't usually religion's fault, since it is most usually a personal concept, but when religious folks get into government, its hard for them not to let the two play in their power..
If anything power is just the culprit here. Religion without power is perfectly fine. Religion with power can do wonders of beauty, or evils a'plenty.
*IWilKikU Chomps down vigourously on his tounge, drawing blood, in an atempt not to bring this thread into the light of current politics by pointing out how a certain un-named despotic "President" utilizes religion to pass all kinds of rediculous laws about how two men can't get married*
*snickers quietly at Kik*
I'd say there's no question religion HAS been and IS used to control the masses. But drawing off Sitaram's post in another thread which suggests that there is an innate psychological NEED for religious expression (whatever its manifestation might be) - I would then ask if controll of the masses is what religion is SUPPOSED to be about.
I, personally, would say no - that it is a phenomenon like many others that has been abused in the pursuit of power.
looking at the religious model of the romans which was based around order of family unity, and ultimatley was used to control people, id say society will get fed up of religion being used to control people. unfortunatley it may take around 300 yrs.
Considering that religions has been around for thousands of years, I really doubt that 300 years will be enough for people to get fed up. I agree with snukes that religion in itself is not about controlling masses but it has been corrupted... just like anything else humanbeings touch...
Organized religion is the corrupt form of spiruality, which is an individual and personal pursuit that has nothing in common with any organization (s).
Well said.
The intelectual actors might be the one who do that corruption, but I think the followers might have the same common interests and needs in spirituality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddad
Si, yes mi amigo, common interests, perhaps an inately human common drive as has been suggested. But the human mind and body have lots of other traits that fall into those catagories that don't require a meeting. Of course, to some this is exactly what is wanted. To each his own, live and let live (the only two platitudes I could think of at the moment). It is the preaching of "This is THE way", excluding the other 6.8 billion perspectives on this planet that I cannot abide......Quote:
Originally Posted by subterranean
...Whoa!!! *just noticed Sher's comment re; human beings touching things...*
From transtopia.orgQuote:
Originally Posted by corpse
"Religion is a crutch for the weak & ignorant, and a handy tool for the manipulative. Or, in the words of Roman philosopher Seneca the Younger: "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.""
Regards.
Religiosity is innate:Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Darcy
Regards.
do you have thoughts of your own on this? that we cannot necessarily find on the net? :)
I am not a scientist. When making claims regarding psychometric traits, one needs to strictly post research. Otherwise, "my own thoughts" would be strictly hypotheses. I would suggest you learn about the scientific method. Also, studying the academic rules of debating would help youQuote:
Originally Posted by amuse
Regards.
oh please. others express their own thoughts. i don't think any of us are scientists!
and perhaps you're debating; i'm not. just noticing that you're not putting yourself out here, just parroting others. it's like you're an automaton.
Ha, I'm glad you mentioned this god gene stuff. I found this hilarious interview featuring the president of American Atheists, Ellen Johnson along with a few people displaying the wrong kind of religiousity in public. It's astounding what these people will throw out to divert attention from the point at hand.
There's an interesting biological perspective from this person, which seems to deduct that the gene is important, sure, but that it isn't some magical "god gene" responsible for chastity, benevolence, etc. People read a bit too much into this sort of thing, by the sound of it. It also seems that the discoverer of the 'god gene' "admits that the gene probably accounts for less than 1% of the total variance in human spirituality."
Also, AA, this forum isn't always waiting for a debate. Sometimes we just like to talk about our own personal feelings on the matter. For instance, I would prefer to find more scientific research outside of one source on this matter before fully accepting it as true, so I can't give much opinion outside of: I doubt it.
What good would it be for me to express my own thoughts regarding the heritability of religiosity when I don't do psychological research? That would be the same as me saying that it is of my own thoughts that gravity does not exist: who would benefit from this opinion if I don't have any research to back it up?Quote:
Originally Posted by amuse
Would you prefer that I fabricate research?Quote:
i'm not. just noticing that you're not putting yourself out here, just parroting others.
I don't speak unless I have something practical to say, and practical claims often require scientific research.
I'm an ultra pragmatist (hard-core Conservative). Your anti-science, pro-sentimentalism beliefs indicate to me that you are an ultra-Liberal. We each have our own unique lifestyles.Quote:
it's like you're an automaton.
Regards.
i'm neither ultra-liberal or anti-science. i do, however, believe in self expression. and this is a lit network, not a conglomerate of researchers, AA. if that is what you expect here, you will be disappointed.
That guy has the carefree, anything-for-a laugh attitude that this place needs! Full of whimsy!
Why did this show have no actual brain scientists to speak on behalf of science? They could have invited someone like Professor Steven Pinker from the Department of Psychology at Harvard University (a review of his book: "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature," Viking Press, 2002
Buchanan starts out with a staw man: no scientist claims there is a Christian gene, or Muslim gene, or Hindu gene, or what have you. Rather, they say that predisposition towards superstition in partly inherited.Quote:
PAT BUCHANAN, MSNBC HOST: Is your religion determined by your DNA?
Regarding Dr. Dean Hammer's "God Gene": he claimed that his title was just meant to get the readers attention. Rather, he says that he found a gene that is associated with transcendentalism, which is a type of religious experience.
Another straw man by Pat Buchanan. Hammer never claimed that belief in God is the result of chemical reactions, he simply claimed what I stated above. Pat Buchanan is an interesting fellow, he writes genius articles such as but then when it comes to scientific topics, he completely fails (he is a Catholic fundamentalist).Quote:
Dr. Dean Hammer, an American molecular geneticist, compared more than 2,000 DNA samples and concluded that a person‘s capacity to believe in God can be reduced to chemical reactions in the brain.
Is this not obvious? Where does thoughts and emotions reside? In the brain, and the brain is nothing more than chemicals and neural nets creating programs for various behaviors, like software in a computer. Ever seen a dissected brain? Were there any supernatural events occuring when the brain was cracked open, or was it just pure biology, and at a more basic level, simply mechanical processes?Quote:
I am a believer that every thought we think and every feeling we feel is the result of activity in the brain. I think we follow the basic law of nature, is that we are a bunch of chemical reactions running around in a bag.
Behavioral geneticists and Evolutionary psychologists don't deny the existance of love (emotional attachment), they don't say poetry and philosophy does not exist, and who has repudiated determinism? This Rabbi needs to back up his statements with scientific evidence.Quote:
It denies the existence of love. It says that love is nothing but a trick
played on our genes in order to perpetuate the species. It denies poetry. It denies philosophy. It would rob the world of all its magic. Really, this stuff has been repudiated so long ago. It‘s amazing people still come up with this utter crap and nonsense.
Yes, science tries to do away with "magic."
Some of the super-computers we have today can actually predict the exact action of every atom in a nuclear blast. It will take such a computer to predict exact human behavior as well. Once every synapses and chemical in the human brain is mapped and understood, accurate predictions of behavior based on physiological patterns in the brain will be possible.Quote:
If reductionism behaviorism was correct, that God is nothing but a prediction of the brain, then we would be able to predict every human choice, because human beings would have no choice. We know how chemicals behave. We don‘t know how humans behave.
Actually, what this shows is that humans have a tendency to explain things they don't understand in terms of supernatural events. Look at our own history: the Bubonic plague was thought to be a supernatural event of an angry God, but now no Christian would accept that: they know it was a bacteria (or virus, not sure).Quote:
Hammer, he said that since God has been found in every culture throughout the world, it must, therefore, have a gene. No, sir, it‘s when people look at the infinite expanse of space, the infinite complexity of the human mind, the light tissue of the human eye, they decided that something that complex had to have a maker. If you walk into the studio...
What this also shows is that humans have an inborn psychological mechanism to give supernatural purposes to life to avoid the fear of death or to give them a reason for living and striving to advance and get things done. It gives purpose, and this must have been reproductively advantageous.
Consider hermaphrodites: these are people born with both a penis and vagina and are often bisexual. Did environment cause them to have both genitals or was it a genetic defect? Homosexual is just that: a genetic defect, like Downe Syndrome, schizzofrenia, and mental retardation. Also, studies of twins raised apart show that identical twins are more likely to be both homosexual than non-twins. This indicates that homosexuality is at least part congenital.Quote:
This same guy came up with this idea of the gay gene. I remember when that conversation was going on. Gays were all of a sudden worrying if people would start aborting kids when they found out the DNA suggested the kid might be gay or God forbid, we‘d run out of little gay kids, so all of a sudden, they became pro-life. Now here we have a situation where some of the atheists, they may want to abort the kids if they thought, in fact, there was some type of religious inclined gene, God forbid, they might have a kid who believed in God.
Regarding the aborting of homosexual fetuses or superstitious fetuses, I have no problem with that. I sure would not want a superstitious homosexual offspring.
Altruism versus tough-mindedness is one of the Big 5 Personality traits:Quote:
DONOHUE: I agree with the rabbi on that. In fact, I will take it a step
further. There‘s this book by the Jewish couple, the Olanders (ph) called “The
Altruistic Personality” and they studied those people who went out of their ways to help Jews during the Nazi holocaust and risked their own lives. They were people who took their religion very, very seriously, be they Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, whatever they were. In other words, there is something called an altruistic personality. That‘s based on virtue. It‘s not gene driven. As a matter of fact, that statement you read about this guy, sounds to me he must have hung out with Timothy Leary and drunk some of that LSD moonshine when he was at Harvard University.
Altruism versus tough-mindedness
Open-to-experience versus conventionality
Neuroticism versus emotional stability
Conscientiousness versus psychopathology
Introversion versus extroversion
These traits have a heritability rate of 50%, and this is one set of behaviors in which there is actually a consensus among all brain scientists. For the Rabbi and Buchanan to not know this indicates that they are definately not qualified to be debating human behavior. In fact, virtually all "talking heads" know nothing about what they are talking about. Big media is about politics, money, and power, not science or honestly.
Regards.
Delete . . . .
I was just kidding. I don’t think you bring anything to this party whatsoever--other than a grim, determined belief in a particular idea, which you have posted in the form of a book review, and now you are grimly awaiting the opportunity to engage in a grim, determined debate with anyone who speaks up about it. Oh, and you have a lot of links to sites that express support for your grim theory!
You may get your wish, if you stick around long enough. Someone may choose to engage you. Personally, I hope everyone ignores you, thereby thwarting your grim, sullen intentions.
Oh, and good luck with your grim, joyless existence!
That is a subjective characterization.Quote:
Originally Posted by Basil
Yes, I want to debate. What's your point?Quote:
debate
Yes, I back up my claims with evidence.Quote:
you have a lot of links to sites
So you are a closed-minded individual who does not want to learn anything new. I support radical open-mindedness, for this is the only way false ideas can be replaced by less false ones.Quote:
Personally, I hope everyone ignores you
In fact, this is something we East-Asians pride ourselves on: our extreme hunger for knowledge, esp. practical knowledge.
Thanks for sharing your perspective with me! :D
Regards.
What's my point? Well, you're proving my point. My point is that you joined this site--when, yesterday?--apparently for the sole purpose of proselytizing. "WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT," I can hear your emotionless, robotic voice ask. Well, it's the obviousness of it all--you clearly don't care about anyone here, you were rude to the one of the most beloved members of this site; in short, you have not observed any of the social niceties which govern this site, and life in general.Quote:
Originally Posted by Asian-American
Do you claim this to be EVIDENCE? Or any of your other links to sites which already share the beliefs you espouse? Links do not equate evidence, especially links to sites which express the same folderol as you. Really, I would expect someone of your superior East-Asian heritage to know better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Asian-American
I haven't said a word about your ideas; rather, it's the sorriness of the way in which you're trying to bring them about that irks me. I understand that you are vastly superior to me, O Mighty Asian-American, but I'm going to spell it out nonetheless: IT'S NOT YOUR MESSAGE, IT'S YOUR AGENDA. And you clearly have one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Asian-American
Well of course. I am here to get others to agree with my point of view, just like you are trying to get me to agree with your point of view. We are all here to share our views in hope that others will be attracted to them. Thus your accusations are hypocritical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Basil
Whether I have altruistic desires for other members is irrelevent: I am here to simply share my perspective on reality.Quote:
Well, it's the obviousness of it all--you clearly don't care about anyone here
Who? And how so? I am never rude: rather, other's have very fragile egos and have emotional breakdowns when they are proven wrong (like you in your message I am responding to right now). Go over all my posts: you will see others throwing ad hominem attacks against me, but never the other way around.Quote:
you were rude to the one of the most beloved members of this site; in short
I disagree: I am very polite :DQuote:
you have not observed any of the social niceties which govern this site,
I never said that link was evidence: I was simply quoting someone.Quote:
Yes, I believe most of my links are valid research.Quote:
Or any of your other links to sites which already share the beliefs you espouse?
I never said I personally was intelligent. I just posted research that East Asians, on average, are intelligent.Quote:
Really, I would expect someone of your superior East-Asian heritage to know better.
My debating style follows the rules of academic debating.Quote:
I haven't said a word about your ideas; rather, it's the sorriness of the way in which you're trying to bring them about that irks me.
I would suggest comparing psychometric scores between you and I before you come to such conclusions.Quote:
I understand that you are vastly superior to me
Of course I have an agenda, everyone does. If no one had an agenda, there would be chaos.Quote:
IT'S YOUR AGENDA. And you clearly have one.
Have a nice day :D
No, that’s what YOU think, because that’s precisely the enterprise YOU'RE engaged in: trying to get people to agree with YOUR ideas. But for you to say, “WE are ALL here to share OUR views in hopes that others will be attracted to them” is to assign YOUR motivations to others. It’s not why I’M here, and no, I’m not trying to get you to agree to anything I believe. I am simply pointing out that you are a douchebag. If I could get you to agree to that, I'd be the best debater EVER.Quote:
Originally Posted by Asian-American
Imperiously instructing someone to learn the rules of scientific discovery seems rather condescending; any sentient human being would know that, but I’m starting to doubt that’s what I’m actually communicating with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Asian-American
That is a subjective characterization.Quote:
Originally Posted by Asian-American
Do the rules of academic debate suggest joining websites under the cloak of anonymity to argue the causes one strongly identifies with? There’s a cowardly aspect to what you’re doing, you know. I doubt you would have the balls to be saying this in public, face-to-face with people who disagreed with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Asian-American
I was being ironic--Actually, I suspect my DOG is probably smarter than you--but I’ll wait for the psychometric scores to come back before I make such hasty judgment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Asian-American
I disagreeQuote:
Originally Posted by Basil
What do you mean?Quote:
I am simply pointing out that you are a douchebag.
I disagreeQuote:
Imperiously instructing someone to learn the rules of scientific discovery seems rather condescending
So you believe I am a non-human species, perhaps an extra-terrestrial? Do you believe ETs would even care to talk with humans, instead of just seeing them as an inferior cockroach species? If you are interested in UFOs and the paranormal, I would suggestQuote:
any sentient human being would know that, but I’m starting to doubt that’s what I’m actually communicating with.
I disagree.Quote:
That is a subjective characterization.
I posted the link to the rules of academic debating. Go study it.Quote:
Do the rules of academic debate suggest joining websites under the cloak of anonymity to argue the causes one strongly identifies with?
It depends on the situation. For example, your angry behavior towards me was carried out by you because you feel you are safe behind the computer. But what if you met a very large man who had the same opinions of me and shared them with you, would you speak to him as you did with me face to face, even if he had the potential of assaulting you so severely that you would be hospitalized?Quote:
There’s a cowardly aspect to what you’re doing, you know. I doubt you would have the balls to be saying this in public, face-to-face with people who disagreed with you.
Personally, before I share my politically incorrect views with others face to face, I first test his tollerance for divergent opinions, see what his personality traits are, what his views are, and so forth. Then I say as much as I can without arising hostility in him. In other words, I say as much as I can without having the person get to an assaultive point. But, I have shared my views with dozens face to face, after screening for applicants to receive my message.
I don't believe your dog is smarter than me.Quote:
I was being ironic--Actually, I suspect my DOG is probably smarter than you--but I’ll wait for the psychometric scores to come back before I make such hasty judgment.
Regards :D
Since it has digressed 'enough', I will close this thread.
For future reference, please remember that we are all here to exchange ideas and opinions;however, let's keep the discussions within the Forum rules and respect each other's views even though we don't agree with them.