| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Portly Gent" |
| Date: |
28 May 2005 06:21:07 AM |
| Object: |
Poll: central mechanism of religion |
It occurred to me recently that if there is one
mechanism of religion that has the most impact
on the personalities of those people I've met who
were either priests or nuns or family members of
priests or nuns, it is the following.
But, I want to see whether others agree or not.
Poll:
The central mechanism of religion as experienced
by the proprietors of religion can be summed
up as "violation of the innocent", which is to say
breaking past the natural barriers of the innocent
which includes natural skepticism about invisible
people called gods, as well as a natural desire
to be self-guided and self-motivated. The "innocent"
includes not just children but also people who
have mistakenly given over their trust, e.g.
indigenous people, uneducated people, "follower"
types. "Violation" can of course also be sexual,
and it can also include violation of basic trust,
e.g. when a nun unnecessarily hits a student.
Do you agree, and state whether you're a nonbeliever.
A: very much
B: somewhat
C: uh-uh
D: my lawyer has advised I do not speak
.
|
|
| User: "Dale" |
|
| Title: Re: central mechanism of religion |
28 May 2005 01:45:03 PM |
|
|
"Portly Gent" <oportodobrasil@unilikey.uwill.spam.uh-uh.no> wrote in message
news:XOWdnSpfd4a_yQXfRVn-jw@comcast.com...
[...]
Poll:
The central mechanism of religion as experienced
by the proprietors of religion can be summed
up as "violation of the innocent", which is to say
breaking past the natural barriers of the innocent
which includes natural skepticism about invisible
people called gods, as well as a natural desire
to be self-guided and self-motivated. The "innocent"
includes not just children but also people who
have mistakenly given over their trust, e.g.
indigenous people, uneducated people, "follower"
types. "Violation" can of course also be sexual,
and it can also include violation of basic trust,
e.g. when a nun unnecessarily hits a student.
It's more likely that religious tendencies are the natural lot of humans,
and that the development of religion is an attempt to marshal and direct
these tendencies. There's plenty of evidence for this view. If you have
children, you will have seen it first hand. Children naturally are disposed
to magical thinking, and have to learn that the world doesn't work that way.
I think most people never learn this fully. They may learn to think
logically about certain aspects of their lives, but humans easily
compartmentalize their thinking, lessons learned in one area are not
necessarily applied to all areas.
Religion develops in a community because people have a natural tendency to
desire unity, and in some sense they pool their religious tendencies
together to find a common ground. The character of a religion develops
through natural feedback mechanisms as people recognize the power of belief
to affect behavior on the small scale as well as the large. Of course,
humans being what they are, all sorts of abuse of religion become evident,
but that doesn't mean that the central mechanism of religion is abuse.
Religion is a tool, and like all tools, can be used for good or evil.
Do you agree, and state whether you're a nonbeliever.
A: very much
B: somewhat
C: uh-uh
D: my lawyer has advised I do not speak
My answer: C
.
|
|
|
| User: "pan" |
|
| Title: Re: central mechanism of religion |
29 May 2005 10:01:55 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 28 May 2005 18:45:03 GMT, "Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net>
wrote:
"Portly Gent" <oportodobrasil@unilikey.uwill.spam.uh-uh.no> wrote in message
news:XOWdnSpfd4a_yQXfRVn-jw@comcast.com...
[...]
Poll:
The central mechanism of religion as experienced
by the proprietors of religion can be summed
up as "violation of the innocent", which is to say
breaking past the natural barriers of the innocent
which includes natural skepticism about invisible
people called gods, as well as a natural desire
to be self-guided and self-motivated. The "innocent"
includes not just children but also people who
have mistakenly given over their trust, e.g.
indigenous people, uneducated people, "follower"
types. "Violation" can of course also be sexual,
and it can also include violation of basic trust,
e.g. when a nun unnecessarily hits a student.
It's more likely that religious tendencies are the natural lot of humans,
and that the development of religion is an attempt to marshal and direct
these tendencies. There's plenty of evidence for this view. If you have
children, you will have seen it first hand. Children naturally are disposed
to magical thinking, and have to learn that the world doesn't work that way.
I think most people never learn this fully.
It's amazing how pervasive magical thinking is even among people who
should know better.
They may learn to think
logically about certain aspects of their lives, but humans easily
compartmentalize their thinking, lessons learned in one area are not
necessarily applied to all areas.
I think I have fully learned "that the world doesn't work that
way"(i.e. with magical thinking)
And yet I still often find myself using magical thinking while I'm
'daydreaming'.
For example:
I'm imaging that I'm the star receiver for an NFL team. While I'm
daydreaming this I can hear traffic noises outside. So I tie this
noise into my daydream/fantasy using magical thinking: I tell myself
something like: " If I hear a car honk its horn within the next 30
seconds then I'll succeed in scoring the winning touchdown."
I find myself imagining sh*t like this all the time. =-)
(i.e. Tying some unrelated aspect of the real world into my daydreams
using magical thinking.)
Of course, I don't actually believe that magical thinking works,
(just as I don't believe I'm a star receiver in the NFL).
But it just shows how pervasive magical thinking is to my thought
processes.
pan
Religion develops in a community because people have a natural tendency to
desire unity, and in some sense they pool their religious tendencies
together to find a common ground. The character of a religion develops
through natural feedback mechanisms as people recognize the power of belief
to affect behavior on the small scale as well as the large. Of course,
humans being what they are, all sorts of abuse of religion become evident,
but that doesn't mean that the central mechanism of religion is abuse.
Religion is a tool, and like all tools, can be used for good or evil.
Do you agree, and state whether you're a nonbeliever.
A: very much
B: somewhat
C: uh-uh
D: my lawyer has advised I do not speak
My answer: C
.
|
|
|
| User: "pan" |
|
| Title: Re: central mechanism of religion |
29 May 2005 10:11:40 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 29 May 2005 08:01:55 -0700, pan
<couchslothsnake--remove_serpent--@netzero.com> wrote:
(snip)
I'm imaging that I'm the star receiver ...
Opps!
Make that: "imagining", not: "imaging"
pan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: central mechanism of religion |
28 May 2005 07:52:27 AM |
|
|
"Portly Gent" <oportodobrasil@unilikey.uwill.spam.uh-uh.no> wrote in message
news:XOWdnSpfd4a_yQXfRVn-jw@comcast.com...
You are dead right. Without this intellectual and emotional violation of the
innocent - especially the young, whose receptive brains are particularly
vulnerable to the implanting of destructive, viral memes - this whole
disgusting racket would have ground to a standstill centuries ago.
'Religious instruction of the young' is *child abuse*, pure and simple.
I vote (and as a 'nonbeliever') as follows:
A: very much
Katt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: central mechanism of religion |
28 May 2005 08:21:52 AM |
|
|
Katt <seruhshjaudn@dfhu.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Portly Gent wrote in message
You are dead right. Without this intellectual and emotional violation of the
innocent - especially the young, whose receptive brains are particularly
vulnerable to the implanting of destructive, viral memes - this whole
disgusting racket would have ground to a standstill centuries ago.
'Religious instruction of the young' is *child abuse*, pure and simple.
I vote (and as a 'nonbeliever') as follows:
A: very much
It becomes especially viral when a parent thinks their child needs to
be "saved" by superstitious rituals in their own religion. This led
to baptism and circumcision of infants, who had no say so in the
matter when it was done to them.
I wonder how many parents would freak out if their child could somehow
"take back" both of those things?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: central mechanism of religion |
28 May 2005 09:17:10 AM |
|
|
Elroy Willis wrote:
Katt <seruhshjaudn@dfhu.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Portly Gent wrote in message
You are dead right. Without this intellectual and emotional violation of the
innocent - especially the young, whose receptive brains are particularly
vulnerable to the implanting of destructive, viral memes - this whole
disgusting racket would have ground to a standstill centuries ago.
'Religious instruction of the young' is *child abuse*, pure and simple.
I vote (and as a 'nonbeliever') as follows:
A: very much
It becomes especially viral when a parent thinks their child needs to
be "saved"
Salvation is a concern for parents whether understood from a theological
or a secular point of view. If anything can go wrong in child rearing
it will (Murphy), i.e., if parents do not try to fortify their offspring
against the seductions of human nature's universal dark side, "they will
have the devil to pay."
by superstitious rituals in their own religion.
Both parents and children need ritual expression and practice to
reinforce their commitment to what they understand as "the good life" in
opposition to its opposite. (The "good life" not in today's
materialistic terms, but in its original meaning of a moral life.)
This led
to baptism and circumcision of infants, who had no say so in the
matter when it was done to them.
So parents should make no decisions on behalf of their children?
Infants certainly had no say in the matter of whether they should be
conceived and given birth in the first place, do they? It's very hard
(impossible) to rear children in a cultural and philosophical
vacuum--"so they can make up their minds for themselves." Children need
a background of customs, practice and world-view in order to begin to
think for themselves, though some never do.
I wonder how many parents would freak out if their child could somehow
"take back" both of those things?
You could ask perhaps the majority of posters on this NG who as infants
were baptized or circumcised if their parents freaked out because they
'converted' to atheism. Actually it is not possible to "take back"
either one's baptism or circumcision. What was done as an infant
remains forever part of one's personal and social history.
Denny
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barry Trotter" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: central mechanism of religion |
28 May 2005 03:42:29 PM |
|
|
In the great debate about "Re: central mechanism of religion" in
alt.atheism, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net> catapaulted the following
piece of rotting fauna:
It's very hard
(impossible) to rear children in a cultural and philosophical
vacuum--"so they can make up their minds for themselves."
Who does that? I don't know anybody that does that. Do you know
anybody that does that?
With a secular upbringing, children get told all of what society is
about without selectivity, and more than that, they get critical tools
with which to examine and evaluate the truth and extract moral
certainties from it. What is gained by whom if they are taught to
tolerate or ignore the cognitive dissonance that is ever present in
religion?
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N. aa #2208
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: central mechanism of religion |
29 May 2005 07:00:44 AM |
|
|
dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis wrote:
It becomes especially viral when a parent thinks their child needs to
be "saved"
Salvation is a concern for parents whether understood from a theological
or a secular point of view. If anything can go wrong in child rearing
it will (Murphy), i.e., if parents do not try to fortify their offspring
against the seductions of human nature's universal dark side, "they will
have the devil to pay."
And that cannot be done without religion?
by superstitious rituals in their own religion.
Both parents and children need ritual expression and practice to
reinforce their commitment to what they understand as "the good life" in
opposition to its opposite. (The "good life" not in today's
materialistic terms, but in its original meaning of a moral life.)
So there are no good non-religious parents out there?
This led to baptism and circumcision of infants, who had no say so in the
matter when it was done to them.
So parents should make no decisions on behalf of their children?
Not religious-based ones or ones which involve cutting off part of the
body.
Infants certainly had no say in the matter of whether they should be
conceived and given birth in the first place, do they? It's very hard
(impossible) to rear children in a cultural and philosophical
vacuum--"so they can make up their minds for themselves." Children need
a background of customs, practice and world-view in order to begin to
think for themselves, though some never do.
So all that's impossible without religion and superstition?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Black Wibble" |
|
| Title: Re: central mechanism of religion |
28 May 2005 04:43:51 PM |
|
|
"Portly Gent" <oportodobrasil@unilikey.uwill.spam.uh-uh.no> wrote in message
news:XOWdnSpfd4a_yQXfRVn-jw@comcast.com...
It occurred to me recently that if there is one
mechanism of religion that has the most impact
on the personalities of those people I've met who
were either priests or nuns or family members of
priests or nuns, it is the following.
But, I want to see whether others agree or not.
Poll:
The central mechanism of religion as experienced
by the proprietors of religion can be summed
up as "violation of the innocent", which is to say
breaking past the natural barriers of the innocent
which includes natural skepticism about invisible
people called gods, as well as a natural desire
to be self-guided and self-motivated. The "innocent"
includes not just children but also people who
have mistakenly given over their trust, e.g.
indigenous people, uneducated people, "follower"
types. "Violation" can of course also be sexual,
and it can also include violation of basic trust,
e.g. when a nun unnecessarily hits a student.
Do you agree, and state whether you're a nonbeliever.
A: very much
B: somewhat
C: uh-uh
D: my lawyer has advised I do not speak
C, and I'm an atheist. The the very mechanism by which religion spreads is
used to promulgate other highly retarded doctrines, too, like
Communism/Marxism, Nationalism, Socialism, National Socialism, Fascism,
tribalism, Deep ecology environmentalism, pacifism, cultural relativism.
However, some non believers who might agree with you, yet spread one of more
of the above retarded doctrines, would object strongly to the suggestion
they are really no better than ~sex molestors~. People rarely promulgate
ideas they know are false and malicious. The ones who do are unscrupulous
bastards, but most people believe the ideas they promulgate are true. Often
the "innocent" are not innocent. Often people become lumpen vats of
stupidity thru conscious effort by ignoring facts that contradict their
specious beliefs. Irrational ideas are spread by gullible people to other
gullible people, so the root mechanism by which religion and other garbage
doctrines spread is human gullibility.
Tony.
--
"Disrespect for the Holy Koran is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it
ever be, tolerated by the United States."--Condoleeza Rice
"To the extent [My Resolution Regarding Relgious (sic) Intolerance] mentions
the Quran and Islam specifically, that is obviously to respond to those who
believe our nation would tolerate disrespect of that religion or its holy
book. Clearly we should not, at least in my opinion."--John Conyers Jr,
Democrat.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Portly Gent" |
|
| Title: Re: central mechanism of religion |
28 May 2005 05:31:57 PM |
|
|
The Black Wibble wrote:
C, and I'm an atheist. The the very mechanism by which religion spreads is
used to promulgate other highly retarded doctrines, too, like
Communism/Marxism, Nationalism, Socialism, National Socialism, Fascism,
tribalism, Deep ecology environmentalism, pacifism, cultural relativism.
Don't forget American capitalism, which is increasingly like
a religion and like fascism.
People rarely promulgate ideas they know are false and malicious.
You've obviously never met an economist or used car salesman,
or listened to rightwing talk radio ;)
.
|
|
|
| User: "pan" |
|
| Title: Re: central mechanism of religion |
29 May 2005 11:20:29 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 28 May 2005 18:31:57 -0400, Portly Gent
<oportodobrasil@unilikey.uwill.spam.uh-uh.no> wrote:
The Black Wibble wrote:
C, and I'm an atheist. The the very mechanism by which religion spreads is
used to promulgate other highly retarded doctrines, too, like
Communism/Marxism, Nationalism, Socialism, National Socialism, Fascism,
tribalism, Deep ecology environmentalism, pacifism, cultural relativism.
Don't forget American capitalism, which is increasingly like
a religion and like fascism.
People rarely promulgate ideas they know are false and malicious.
You've obviously never met an economist or used car salesman,
When these people lie it is usually out of greed, and not in the
process of promoting some "ism". (Assuming that you are talking
about economists who lie to manipulate investors.)
or listened to rightwing talk radio ;)
But these people *do not* think that the main idea they are
promoting (i.e. social/political conservatism) is "false and
malicious".
They may 'stretch' the truth a little at times, or even pass-on the
occasional whopping lie, just to promote their 'greater truth'. ;-)
----->Many (possibly most) fanatics behave this way, no matter what
the "ism" is that they are promoting.
It has also been my experience that many fanatics will unquestionably
trust a largely unsubstantiated story if that story helps to promote
their beliefs. So at times they may unknowingly pass-on lies.
This is why I don't trust fanatics.
pan
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Black Wibble" |
|
| Title: Re: central mechanism of religion |
30 May 2005 05:09:57 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 28 May 2005 18:31:57 -0400, Portly Gent
<oportodobrasil@unilikey.uwill.spam.uh-uh.no> wrote:
The Black Wibble wrote:
C, and I'm an atheist. The the very mechanism by which religion spreads
is
used to promulgate other highly retarded doctrines, too, like
Communism/Marxism, Nationalism, Socialism, National Socialism, Fascism,
tribalism, Deep ecology environmentalism, pacifism, cultural relativism.
Don't forget American capitalism, which is increasingly like a religion and
like fascism.
When you say American capitalism is becoming increasingly like Fascism, are
you claiming more and more of it is being utilized by the U.S. government to
create a military industrial complex like in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany?
With regard to religion, do you mean that the right to private property,
freedom of association, freedom of speech are taken as articles of faith
rather than reasoned out?
And another thing I'm not clear about since I don't live in the U.S: How is
American capitalism different to Australian capitalism, New Zealand
capitalism, British capitalism, Japanese capitalism, Canadian capitalism,
and capitalism in any other Western nation?
Tony.
--
"Disrespect for the Holy Koran is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it
ever be, tolerated by the United States."--Condoleeza Rice
"To the extent [My Resolution Regarding Relgious (sic) Intolerance] mentions
the Quran and Islam specifically, that is obviously to respond to those who
believe our nation would tolerate disrespect of that religion or its holy
book. Clearly we should not, at least in my opinion."--John Conyers Jr,
Democrat.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Portly Gent" |
|
| Title: Re: central mechanism of religion |
30 May 2005 02:56:33 PM |
|
|
The Black Wibble wrote:
When you say American capitalism is becoming increasingly like Fascism, are
you claiming more and more of it is being utilized by the U.S. government to
create a military industrial complex like in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany?
There is that, but also fascism relies on corporatism which
is where large entities compete for control of the legislature,
instead of voters competing with votes. We have that now in the
form of special interest groups and especially corporations.
Our politicians however greatly favor corporations and really
their current behavior is like that of a ***** offering services
to patrons.
And another thing I'm not clear about since I don't live in the U.S: How is
American capitalism different to Australian capitalism, New Zealand
capitalism, British capitalism, Japanese capitalism, Canadian capitalism,
and capitalism in any other Western nation?
It's harsher? For example, we have almost no welfare state here
any more, yet corporations are moving jobs overseas as fast as
they can; and even small companies prefer to hire illegal immigrants
to US citizens.
PG
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Barry Trotter" |
|
| Title: Re: Poll: central mechanism of religion |
28 May 2005 03:49:06 PM |
|
|
In the great debate about "Poll: central mechanism of religion" in
alt.atheism, Portly Gent <oportodobrasil@unilikey.uwill.spam.uh-uh.no>
catapaulted the following boulder:
It occurred to me recently that if there is one
mechanism of religion that has the most impact
on the personalities of those people I've met who
were either priests or nuns or family members of
priests or nuns, it is the following.
But, I want to see whether others agree or not.
Poll:
The central mechanism of religion as experienced
by the proprietors of religion can be summed
up as "violation of the innocent", which is to say
breaking past the natural barriers of the innocent
which includes natural skepticism about invisible
people called gods, as well as a natural desire
to be self-guided and self-motivated. The "innocent"
includes not just children but also people who
have mistakenly given over their trust, e.g.
indigenous people, uneducated people, "follower"
types. "Violation" can of course also be sexual,
and it can also include violation of basic trust,
e.g. when a nun unnecessarily hits a student.
Do you agree, and state whether you're a nonbeliever.
A: very much
B: somewhat
C: uh-uh
D: my lawyer has advised I do not speak
A: It's more or less the point of religion to get people to be
obedient to authority by undermining their self reliance and self
esteem.
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N. aa #2208
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "pan" |
|
| Title: Re: Poll: central mechanism of religion |
28 May 2005 08:05:20 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 28 May 2005 07:21:07 -0400, Portly Gent
<oportodobrasil@unilikey.uwill.spam.uh-uh.no> wrote:
It occurred to me recently that if there is one
mechanism of religion that has the most impact
on the personalities of those people I've met who
were either priests or nuns or family members of
priests or nuns, it is the following.
But, I want to see whether others agree or not.
Poll:
The central mechanism of religion as experienced
by the proprietors of religion can be summed
up as "violation of the innocent", which is to say
breaking past the natural barriers of the innocent
which includes natural skepticism about invisible
people called gods,
I think that "innocent" isn't a very good term to use here.
I would describe young children as 'innocent', yet they seem to have
a propensity for believing-in things like: invisible friends,
monsters, and that inanimate objects are in some way alive (e.g.
dolls).
And I wouldn't hold to much in our "natural skepticism".
We seem to have a very strong disposition towards 'magical thinking'.
Probably most of our skepticism is gained by experience
as well as a natural desire
to be self-guided and self-motivated.
We also have a strong natural desire to be part of a group (i.e. we
are a social animal.)
The "innocent"
includes not just children but also people who
have mistakenly given over their trust, e.g.
indigenous people, uneducated people, "follower"
types.
Perhaps natural human 'gullibility' would be a better term.
"Violation" can of course also be sexual,
and it can also include violation of basic trust,
e.g. when a nun unnecessarily hits a student.
I'm an ex-born-again type Christian (turned skeptic and atheist).
I don't feel that I was "violated" by anyone.
Those whom I looked up to as 'spiritual' leaders (when I was a
Christian ) seemed to sincerely believe what they were saying.
So by your definition, even the leaders of these institutions (for the
most part) have been 'violated'.
I guess you could say that it is these beliefs themselves that do the
'violating'.
I look at it more as: I allowed my self to be duped, by those who
were already duped.
Do you agree, and state whether you're a nonbeliever.
A: very much
B: somewhat
C: uh-uh
D: my lawyer has advised I do not speak
'C'
pan
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
