| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"newbert" |
| Date: |
29 Apr 2006 12:56:52 PM |
| Object: |
Daniel C. Dennett: Religion as Parasite |
My previous post (Bertrand Russell: Model Atheist?) questioned why
certain theists in this forum were being personally attacked, and I
received many sensible answers to explain that. The central theme of
those answers was that only those theists who overstepped the bounds of
politeness invoked the "wrath" of the atheists--often as a
psychological approach to force the troll theists' withdrawal from this
group.
These troll theists, who from what I gather (since I confess I am newer
to this group) have no intention to conduct rational discussion
whatsoever, seem to me to be perfect examples of a comparison Daniel C.
Dennett's made in his recent book "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a
Natural Phenomenon." The comparison is this: the proselytizing and
transmission of religion (religion being a "meme" that is passed from
mind to mind) is strikingly similar to an organism which has been
invaded by a parasite. In some cases (and Dennett wants to
specifically compare religion to these cases), the animal which comes
under the influence of a parasite begins to act for the benefit of the
PARASITE's reproduction, not its own.
I wanted to offer Mr. Dennett's point this to the group as a point of
discussion, to see who may agree/disagree that a person who is
near-fanatical about religion is essentially no different than an
organism infected by a parasite. In such a case, the troll-theists in
this group are infected individuals who are acting as the parasite of
their religion is instructing them to--for the benefit of the
RELIGION's reproduction.
I also highly recommend Mr. Dennett's book if one is not familiar with
how evolutionary theory and memetics may apply to religion.
.
|
|
| User: "Jeff White" |
|
| Title: Re: Daniel C. Dennett: Religion as Parasite |
29 Apr 2006 04:31:43 PM |
|
|
"newbert" <vikmail@myway.com> wrote in message
news:1146333412.926508.322630@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
My previous post (Bertrand Russell: Model Atheist?) questioned why
certain theists in this forum were being personally attacked, and I
received many sensible answers to explain that. The central theme of
those answers was that only those theists who overstepped the bounds of
politeness invoked the "wrath" of the atheists--often as a
psychological approach to force the troll theists' withdrawal from this
group.
it's amazing how offended people can get when you counter their beliefs. has
anybody ever tried subverting someone else's beliefs, or do we have some
sort of mindless religious aversion to deception?
These troll theists, who from what I gather (since I confess I am newer
to this group) have no intention to conduct rational discussion
no, most of them simply enjoy watching the atheists make remarks that
further ensure their entry into hell/sheol/hades/yaba-yaba.
whatsoever, seem to me to be perfect examples of a comparison Daniel C.
Dennett's made in his recent book "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a
Natural Phenomenon." The comparison is this: the proselytizing and
transmission of religion (religion being a "meme" that is passed from
mind to mind) is strikingly similar to an organism which has been
invaded by a parasite. In some cases (and Dennett wants to
specifically compare religion to these cases), the animal which comes
under the influence of a parasite begins to act for the benefit of the
PARASITE's reproduction, not its own.
i'm not entirely sure that religion is a parasite, as it benefits the host.
I wanted to offer Mr. Dennett's point this to the group as a point of
discussion, to see who may agree/disagree that a person who is
near-fanatical about religion is essentially no different than an
organism infected by a parasite. In such a case, the troll-theists in
this group are infected individuals who are acting as the parasite of
their religion is instructing them to--for the benefit of the
RELIGION's reproduction.
I also highly recommend Mr. Dennett's book if one is not familiar with
how evolutionary theory and memetics may apply to religion.
i recommend you read your bible and stop asking questions that threaten the
power structure, else you're going to burn in hell.
you're smart enough to be an atheist, but stupid enough to think others
should be.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Daniel C. Dennett: Religion as Parasite |
29 Apr 2006 09:57:16 PM |
|
|
In article <1146333412.926508.322630
@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, newbert said...
I wanted to offer Mr. Dennett's point this to the group as a point of
discussion, to see who may agree/disagree that a person who is
near-fanatical about religion is essentially no different than an
organism infected by a parasite.
I think you're overlooking an important human phenomenon. I'll
describe it bluntly: many people like being assholes. They take
pleasure in angering others, in fomenting chaos, in playing
callow games which have no goal beyond invoking exasperation.
When this is coupled to the martyr syndrome common to certain
brands of Christianity, the result is a potent and addictive
melange. The frenzy-addict deliberately offends, then rushes
behind the cross and claims religious persecution, thus feeding
both of his needs simultaneously.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Daniel C. Dennett: Religion as Parasite |
01 May 2006 11:10:54 PM |
|
|
On 29 Apr 2006 10:56:52 -0700, "newbert" <vikmail@myway.com> wrote in
alt.atheism
My previous post (Bertrand Russell: Model Atheist?) questioned why
certain theists in this forum were being personally attacked, and I
received many sensible answers to explain that. The central theme of
those answers was that only those theists who overstepped the bounds of
politeness invoked the "wrath" of the atheists--often as a
psychological approach to force the troll theists' withdrawal from this
group.
These troll theists, who from what I gather (since I confess I am newer
to this group) have no intention to conduct rational discussion
Rationality isn't part of superstition. For Christianity the driver is
emotional-and stark raving terror is very very strong. High fear has
the tendency to lock out cognitive functions.
[]
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "leo" |
|
| Title: Re: Daniel C. Dennett: Religion as Parasite |
29 Apr 2006 02:41:27 PM |
|
|
this meme theory is one of the several posible theories to explain
proselitizing by fundies. The idea of the meme reprodution is rather
simple and is bound to triumph.
I am not in favor of this theory. This case of the dundy trolls can be
explained also by the "operant conditioning" paradigm. In th case of
an operant conditioning, the person is bound to have extreme behaviour
of this type or the other. You cannot understand well, how a young
pianist can expend about 12 thousand hours of his childhood and youth
practicing at the piano from his eighth year to his twenty something.
Or just figure it a young athlete training, or a kid traing to play
golf or tenis to become a champion. You can not explain this extreme
behaviour without considering "operant conditioning". So the case of
the fundies, as the cases of anyone obsessed with something peculiar,
like politics or religion, are easily explained by operant
conditioning.
In general, the control in operant conditioning are mere words. It
takes a lot of work to produce a person obsessed in a extreme way, and
you can see that this sort of people are a small minority. There is a
fine point in that some obsessions are relatively mild, like sportive
people and athlets, or musicians or even scientist and engineers. Most
of this people are welcome, even if we dont understand the reasons
behind so much work and dedication.
The trouble with the fundies is that they are usually pestering most of
us, not only to the atheist but even to middle of the road religious
people. Most of the religious people are not prone to pester their
neighbors, friends or co-workers, about their faith. They do not feel
obligued to pester everyody with his own believes.
Summing up, the fundies are a variety of fanatics obsessed with the
idea of convert us all to his own faith.
In general, all behaviour is the result of an operant conditioning.
In that way, we are being controled by our parents, teachers, friends
neighbors and relatives in how to behave and what to believe as true or
false. We learn waht is important, and what is a stupidity. We learn
want is right and waht is wrong. In this way, I have to say that not
all people has the same influence over our mind. Some actors have much
more influence over us than others. Even authors of novels and books
can have an influence over our believes. For that to happen it is
necessary to read these books, of course. So, in a way, we are not
isolated in the world, and our ideas and believes are mostly of social
origen, even if our ideas are rare or not popular. That is the case of
people that are atheist, or pertain to minority sects, or small
political parties.
The operant conditioning is everywhere and this can explain easily rare
cases like the suicide terrorist. How can you explain the existance of
"suicide terrorists" without the aid of operant conditioning?
I am rather old and remember the Corean War, when the North Vietnamese
delivered the prisioners of war. The papers were talking then of
"brain washing" because most of the prisoners have become "communist"
while being in captivity. How this happened? Well, I have read a
tesis about this fenomenom and it was quite easy. The technology
behind this is called "behaviour modification". But many people can do
that by merre intuition, without any formal training in behaviourism.
Leopoldo
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
DANIEL DENNETT - The Evaporation of the Powerful Mystique of Religion
Podcast: Breaking the Spell: Daniel Dennett on Religion
Audio: Rebroadcast of Aussie interview with Dan Dennett on Religion.
Religion as a Natural Phenomenon (Dennett)
Dawkins, Dennett, Harris in "Wired Magazine."
Daniel Dennett responds to Dinesh D'Souza
On Radio 4 Now. Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Richard Harries, Hamish Mykura and Barbara Ehrenreich
Daniel Clement Dennett
| Common Sense Response to Dawkins and Dennett
Daniel Dennett, rational atheist.
Newsweek article: Sam Harris, Dan Dennett, and Richard Dawkins
Daniel Dennett interview: Dissecting God
Michael Shermer's "Open letter to Messrs. Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens"
(cp) Dan Dennett: Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of meme
Breaking the Spell, by Daniel Dennett
|
|
|
