Comparisons between religions and cults.

[LuxFerum]

* The value of religion is in its utility (usefullness to the religious person)

I guess you can say that

* More useful religions attract more followers

hmmm not necessarily, but it is mostly ok

* Therefore, religions with more followers must be more useful

hmm ok

* Therefore religions with more followers (mainstream denominations) are of more value than those with less (cults)

hmm ok

Some problems:

You have yet to prove that any religion is more useful than no religion.

Why?
I bet that the number of non-religuious people are bigger than a lot of cults/religion.
Therefore that statment is not true.

The argument depends on:

a) Your unsupported assertion that religion is useful

That is obvious isn't it?Do I really have to do that?

b) Complete denial of the possibility of brainwashing and/or coercion.

I don'T deny the possibility, but if you want to say that religion is brainwashing, you will have to prove it. Good luck with that.

c) Denial of the possiblity that people follow traditiion blindly and without questioning.

I don't deny the possibility, but that is not what happens in most cases. Otherwise tradition, religion, and states would be the sames for the intire history.

d) Denial of the other factors involved in the rise of Christianity and other religions - politics, first and foremost. Constantine, for example, adopted Christianity, some would say, as a political move. This gave a tremendous boost to the religion.

Communism did the same thing for atheism, but it didn't work.
Why? Because atheism is not as good as religion.

The biggest problem with your idea, however, as I see it is that you say "Christianity must be useful because so many people follow it" and you say "Cults must not be useful because so few people follow them" but you fail to take account of the fact that each person is an individual and, by your own argument, for each individual, their "choosen" religion must be at least as useful as the others'.

If you use the same argument for politics, you will have to admit that democracy is as good as theocracy. Which is not the case.
One form is much more fruitful than other, same thing for religion.

By your theory, as I understand it, therefore any given cult is as useful as any religion you care to name.

Nope, how can you compare heavens gate with christianity?
One is completely dead and the other not. They are clearly different.

There is therefore no difference between the two and we're back to square one.

Nope, there are differences between the two, the numbers shows it clearly, that is a fact.

 

[Atlas]

It seems to me that atheists consider religions the same in one factor only that they are all false.

...but today there is only a few really good religions.

I agree with both of these statements. That agreement rises in my twist of an Orwellian phrase... Some are more false than others. Applewhite's castrative protocol to prepare for cometary extraction causes me to shudder in contemplation.

Has anyone else noticed that in more than 100 posts to this thread, only Fade has dared use the word "superstition". That's strange because it's not a word that only atheists can use. Christians can use it for people who practice VooDoo and Tea leaf reading and Ouija board inquiry.

When B.F. Skinner tested for superstition in rats he found that random reinforcement was the most powerful behavior modifying schedule of reinforcement. The rats "prayed" at the food bar pressing it over and over and over again in a frenzy not seen on any other schedule of feeding. Powerful implications there... (or perhaps just powerful inferences.)

The classic superstition to me was always the Native American Rain Dance. Who here believes that the Rain Dance did not sometimes precede a rain. That is a powerful application of post hoc validity. And by extension it validates your whole spiritual cosmology in a real world manifestation: rain.

To me the Deist and the Atheist are twins. They synthesize the universe, and their experience of it, right up to a Supreme Being, which one accepts on the evidence and one rejects on the evidence.

The application of analysis against the evidence of their senses and logic lead, in one regard, to science and human proofs. But the analytical breakdown of Deism yields the thousand religions, the proofs of which are, generally, more superstitious in flavor than most scientific proofs.

When I look at the tradition of Communion I perceive something quite "superstitious" as it is practiced in Catholicism. Unlike some religions where it is practiced as a contemplative remembrance, in Catholicism it is not only that, but a magical transformation of bread and wine into the real body and blood of Christ. To me it is emblematic of modern religious superstition in its composition. First there is a story. Then a ritual signified by Talk, a Waving of Hands, and Acceptance.

In the Rain Dance the Waving is substituted with Dancing. But of course, Acceptance is the life blood of cults and religion. That certain knowledge that your Deist cosmology appropriately, logically, and coherently descends into these rituals to placate and supplicate the Almighty.

In admission, Acceptance is also an aspect of Science but one that is rigorously assailed in the marketplace to keep Science distinct from Religion.

 

[LuxFerum]

From memory, but since I have seen that film probably 2 dozen times, pretty accurately (if you want better, I have Milgram's book at my office)...

He said "ow!" a few times, then "that's enough--let me out of here"

The best that I could find was this:
http://www.wernersplace.com/obedience2.htm

But I guess it is not the original, just a representation.

But If it is accurate...

Specially this part:

"Are they dangerous?
-No, although they may be painfull they are not dangerous"

I think I can say that I would go to the end. The guy didn't complain that much anyway.

 

[Cleopatra]

Good evening Atlas!

After reading your last post in this thread about atheists and theists forming the two parts of the universe I wanted to address you with something like " Good evening my pre-socratic friend" but then I though nah this could have been Plato as well but hmmmm. This can be found in the speeches of Anthony the Great for sure, not verbatim of course but then I remembered the dancing Sheba. What ever! You will have to live with a plain "Good evening Atlas"

That said, I find topics like this fascinating and often difficult to discuss without giving offense. I try to guard against it but sometimes it shows. Call me on it and I'll usually apologize. I gain from being able to discuss these things freely, not defensively, and I want others to feel that way too.

True. As Mycroft pointed out in PalTalk earlier this ( my) morning we get upset and offended when deep in our hearts we want to persuade others. This comment kind of brought me back to my senses...

I was merely pointing out that humans attach great weight to whatever they perceive to be their Life Giver. Whether that is the Buffalo, the Ocean, or God. Yes, I was alluding to a kind of equivalence, but at this point I was speaking about them conceptually, and how they were concepts that had an ability to sustain a culture.

I agree with you and partly this is the reason why I got upset with Mercutio who is able to distinguish the idea from its carrier. I think that when it comes to religion this is wrong. If you consider that religions even affect our dietary habits , the way we walk and dress and this happens for centuries, well, it's rather difficult to make this distinction.

The Church has changed it's positions to be accepting of scientific explanations in preference to some of it's fundamental "truths". The Ptolemaic Celestial Spheres have been replaced with a Copernican and allowing for an Einsteinian Cosmology, and evolution is treated more factually that Adam and Eve. I appreciated that growing up as a Catholic. Some of my Christian companions of other faiths had "weird" ideas though.

I will repeat this in my reply to Graham later but I do aknowledge that there are levels and scales of "weirdness". From the one hand you have a religion that accepts the evolution and from the other hand you have a religion that believes that its members must be trained on different planets... Maybe it's because I am not a member of the later religion but I can see some different levels of absurdity here.

First, my reference to the Pharaoh was an extension of my first point that people will deify their perceived Life Giver. I meant to extend the idea that people can engage in a life sustaining belief pattern for centuries that is not be based on reality. Even the Pharaoh came to believe that he was, at least, part god.

Very well put but I sense that for the majority the national state has taken the same position in our days. Think about it it's not the Pharaoh that is a life giver of course but it's the national state that provides for our prosperity and you know how people feel about prosperity. It's not a modern phaenomenon though. I think that this is the tenth time I quote Sophocles in this forum. In "Antigone" the chorus reminds to Creon that "our country is like a ship. Our proseprity depends totally on the safety of this ship. One it's lost, we are all doomed". The concept appears to be the same . Is it coincidental the fact that those who inspired the modern states drove their inspiration from the Classics? Hmmm. I guess not. So, to make a long story short we are talking about tendancies of the human nature, we cannot be critical, or that critical.

For me the Ideal is an amalgam of God, Country, Family, Freedom, Self - those things, I will say it this way, that we will die for. We all have the Master Concept: Ideal; atheist, religionist and everyone else. In some of us, Family is the large idea; in some others, Freedom; and in others, it is God. The Ideal is that concept against which we filter our world and which informs our action. Obviously I build this opinion entirely on conjecture. I hold it because it is philosophically satisfying and to me, inclusive.

You come to my words only a paragraph later. Once upon a time I was defending our right to keep our uniqueness in the European Union. I said back then and actually I wrote it too that I wish to have the right to continue my lifestyle, the elements that makeme a Greek: my language and my religion , the right to make my cross with the right hand!

So sports teams, rock bands, movie cults, and yes, nationalism can substitute for religious fervor in certain circumstances when perhaps Maslowe's hierarchy allows them. Can I use Maslowe in this context? I was thinking about him in regard to my previous post concerning shifting cultural "needs" of affluent societies where I spoke of Flash Mob phenomena.

Ok I kept smiling while I was reading that. I guess you can use Maslows that I became familiar with his theories quite recently I admit.

Atheism's contribution to history? Well, this might not be a very satisfying answer for you. First and foremost, Atheists have kids and love them just as much as anyone else.

Yeah and most of them raise them as atheists, the same thingtheir Christian parents did...

My argument here may be weak but I'm sure that, in their hearts, many of these artists and artisans agreed with this sentiment from Thomas Edison: Religion is all bunk. That is to say, they may have held faith in some regard but the idea that religion is bunk is one of the seeds of atheism. I know that's arguable. I don't intend to argue it. I hope you'll find my meaning there. I'm well aware that religion is not God.

So no contribution although maybe it was not legitimate from my part to make this question meaning that only recently atheists are able to declare their atheism.

Ever since a nun told me that she was married to Jesus - I had a concept of this.

Yes but this is not what I meant. The Church Fathers say that all of us cannot be monks and nuns and get married to Jesus. So, they advise us to find a human being to love deeply. Real love ( in Greek be in love and love is two totally different words and things. A mother loves her child and her husband and if she is lucky she is in love with him as well. True love in our religious tradition is the state that makes you surpass your ego and it brings you closer to the concept of God. Those heretics , the Catholics never managed to understand the mysticism of the East. They will burn in Hell I assure you.... ( I added the smile for the audience I know that you would realize that I am joking in my last sentence)

Usually they offer explanations of the tragedies of life and celebrate the wonders like marriage and birth. They admonish often to live well. But if I remember my catechism, we were made to know, love and serve God in this world and be happy with Him in the next. Is that what you mean by a reason to live or were saying that he is an example to the community in the way he lives?

I don't think that it's bad to try to persuade people that they should not be afraid of death and that this life has a meaning and this is to become a better person.

I would like to hear about the reason to live that would be different from an atheist's.

Atheists believe that there is no meaning in life, we just live. This thought upsets me. I am afraid of people that just live. I have them capable of anything.

Thanks for the discussion.The 8 o'clock drink was consumed a tad earlier today and you are to blame for that!

 

[Atlas]

A delightful response. Thank you Cleo.

 

[Mercutio]

"Are they dangerous?
-No, although they may be painfull they are not dangerous"

I think I can say that I would go to the end. The guy didn't complain that much anyway.

That quote is accurate, although it describes the Milgram experiment about as well as if I described you as "carbon-based"; it misses crucial details.

I fear the only way you will believe me is for you to see the video. I have the book in front of me now; it has all the evidence you need, but I am getting the feeling that words alone will not convince you. If I were not a good Radical Behaviorist, I'd say it was a defensive denial of a unacceptable part of your human nature... .

I don't know what more I can say, other than "try to see the film". These subjects, the "teachers", were going through hell, thinking they were killing an innocent man, but somehow unable to escape the situation. Before Milgram ran this experiment, he asked "experts" how many people would follow orders all the way through...they thought that fewer than one percent would obey. In the most famous version (the one your quote is from), 65% of the subjects went all the way. We found out that we could not point to cruelty and say "no normal person could act that way--he must be a monster!" We found out that the vast majority of us can be monsters under the proper circumstances. It is not a comforting thing to find out about ourselves, but I would rather know this and guard against it than deny it.

I cannot help but feel that you somehow need to deny it.

 

[Elind]

Atheists believe that there is no meaning in life, we just live. This thought upsets me. I am afraid of people that just live. I have them capable of anything.

As an atheist I believe I have the right to prove you wrong simply by saying I see plenty of meaning in life, I just don't need to invent one or more gods to tell me what those meanings are.

As to what we are capable of....I will take the above sentence as a compliment.

 

[Mercutio]

Atheists believe that there is no meaning in life, we just live. This thought upsets me. I am afraid of people that just live. I have them capable of anything.

Oh. My.

Wow. I could not disagree more. First off...I have no idea about what other atheists believe, as I did not have to sign a statement of beliefs. But...

All the meaning in life that you see? I see it, and what is more, I do not see it as having been handed to us on a platter, I see it as having been there all along (well, from our perspective anyway--we could get into evolution and the billions of accidents it took to get to us), such wonderful stuff in our lives (children, grandchildren, fuzzy kitties, little red flowers, oceans, sunsets, kisses, foie gras, Mozart, Van Gogh, Charlie Parker...I could go on, of course) that it exhausts our mundane vocabulary to say how wonderful it is...so we invent words like "spiritual" or "angelic" or "god-given" as a means of expressing a superlative superlative. Although I don't like the term, I know what people mean when they speak of having "spiritual" experiences with music, art, nature, or sex...when they speak of the "miracle" of birth or of love, or when a particular dessert tastes "heavenly". Life could not possibly be more precious when it only comes in singles. (I have heard people say of GWBush, "I don't want anybody who believes they are going to heaven to have control of nuclear weapons!")

Capable of anything? Absolutely not. I know that this is the only world we have, and that the people I love need to live in it. I want....I need to look at our long-term prospects and make the world a better place, not for the glory of god, but for the survival of my grandchildren (as yet, I have none, but I'd like the world to be ready for them) and theirs and theirs. This is the basis for my morality: we only get one life, and one world.

These things are important enough that we have developed religions to make life sacred, to enforce our morality with heaven and hell, to put some things beyond questioning. I think this is the function of religion; the superstitious trappings are the means to achieve that end, by exploiting (I don't mean this negatively) the same belief mechanisms we all have.

 

[Atlas]

I'm glad you guys chimed in on Cleo's thought. I think we all understood her. From a theist's point of view they have something that an atheist cannot share, a meaning to existence that is transcendent in it's very core.

I've heard it most darkly expressed as: atheism yields nihilism.

I too had a struggle with the embrace of atheism for this very reason. I needed to define what is truly transcendent in my own life and came to a similar conclusion to that expressed by Mercutio.

I hope to hear more on this. It is, to my mind a fundamental area in which to compare and contrast religion and cults and atheism.

 

[Cleopatra]

The hero that your avatar depicts was punished to lose the meaning of life he was not punished to hold a heavy object. The same happened to poor Sisyphus...Anyway.

The meaning of life is very subjective and it's discussions in this forum that have made me realize that atheists believe that there is not any superior meaning of life. For example, have a look at this thread.

Mercutio, you Atlas and many other people are capable to see a meaning in a flower or in a sunset. Maybe what you see and appreciate is its beauty because it is a religious person that can see a meaning in the existence of tiny things.

 

[Elind]

I'm glad you guys chimed in on Cleo's thought. I think we all understood her. From a theist's point of view they have something that an atheist cannot share, a meaning to existence that is transcendent in it's very core.

I've heard it most darkly expressed as: atheism yields nihilism.

I too had a struggle with the embrace of atheism for this very reason. I needed to define what is truly transcendent in my own life and came to a similar conclusion to that expressed by Mercutio.

I hope to hear more on this. It is, to my mind a fundamental area in which to compare and contrast religion and cults and atheism.

If I wanted to get gushy about it, I suppose I could admit that I sometimes think that the very fact of my thoughts (existence), is transcendent in its very core as a part of this universe; speaking as an atheist of course.

More simply put, without religious jargon, it's pretty damn neat

 

[Mercutio]

Mercutio, you Atlas and many other people are capable to see a meaning in a flower or in a sunset. Maybe what you see and appreciate is its beauty because it is a religious person that can see a meaning in the existence of tiny things.

More than just its beauty...its relation to everything around it, its development over a time-scale that is nearly unfathomable to our experience, the memory of being shown that flower by a parent at a very young age, and the joy of showing that flower to my own kids...and so much, much more...

I feel a little about this flower or this sunset, Cleopatra, the way I feel when I hear some new-age devotee (and I count many among my friends) go on and on about how a particular quartz crystal "gathers beneficial heart energies and synchronizes with your own chakras to heal you" or some such tripe. If the crystal alone is not beautiful enough for you, and you have to make up cr@p like that to see the world as special, then I pity you! (And no, Cleo, I don't mean you--I have read enough of your writing to know you do see the beauty in the world.) It is an insult to flowers and sunsets to suppose that they need anything more than to be what they are!

 

[Atlas]

If I wanted to get gushy about it, I suppose I could admit that I sometimes think that the very fact of my thoughts (existence), is transcendent in its very core as a part of this universe; speaking as an atheist of course.

More simply put, without religious jargon, it's pretty damn neat

And not to be be gushy in return, but that's what I love about ya.

 

[Cleopatra]

It is an insult to flowers and sunsets to suppose that they need anything more than to be what they are!

Ha! That was nice Mercutio. No I don't see God in Nature or an Intelligent Creator ( is this how you say it in English? i think you know what I mean) I think that the laws of Physics are really beautiful but as a theist I don't have such problems.

I don't feel the need to describe the nature of my relationship with the natural world or I do not have any problem to seek a meaning of life in a form of morality ( it doesn't matter if it is good or bad , I hope you know what I mean), I am not afraid to declare that I have principles that spring from a religion.

I'd say that it's the... other half of the universe that has those problems....

But the meaning of life is not the topic of this thread.

 

[Atlas]

Though it may not be the subject of this thread I cannot leave my last post to Elind as my only words on this subject.

I may wish Mercutio to rewrite this in order to give it the necessary loftiness, but I'll give it my best.

As usual, I'll be presenting my personal, arbitrary distinctions only because I find them philosophically appealing and inclusive.

I am not trying to get at the meaning of life, but more at where I think it is most valuable to look. Hopefully, there will be some tie that will allow us a moment of comparison to religion and cults. If it helps, think of me as a cult of 1.

Apart from the mundane experience of going to church and saying your prayers, spiritual experiences are of 3 classes. Transformative, Transcendent, and Mystical. (My arbitrary classifications.) You can find them anywhere, in anything. I will choose the experience of carnal knowledge because like water it can be experienced in all 3 states, (and more than that.)

I chose the term because it included the word knowledge. This is something we talked about as teens but had no way of knowing how rich an experience it is.

I think you'll agree that it is, as a first time experience, Transformative. You are cast from the Garden, a sinner. You are a whore. You are a Man. You are loved. You can come away from the experience so many ways but always you are changed.

If you are loved in the exchange you step close to the transcendent. If you also love and the moment is one of shared love and joy it most certainly can be transcendent.

When your hearts beat as one and you totally lose your self in the experience you enter the mystical.

Transformative experience is personal and not necessarily spiritual. Transcendent is beyond the personal, a shared appreciation of the moment beyond or elevated from everyday experience.

Mystical involves a kind of death of self. It is a blending as one. It is an appreciation of unity. I imagine a Mother with her newborn is captured by the moment of oneness when she is no longer one person but two. This is also what happens to the mystic when he has the feeling of being one with everything.

Back to Transcendent for a moment, I remember a day after work walking home twisted and churning over my day. I walked past a woman with a stroller. She was window shopping and the infant in the stroller gazed up at me and broke out in a smile of excitement. It was not only transformative for me it was a transcendent moment that etched itself in my memory. In the momentary glance with an innocent I was blessed in my existence. I don't know how else to describe it. Lifted out of my dark self into the light and blessed.

For me, and this is where I'll come back to the thread, these feelings compare to what religion has to offer. That is, even without religion, the human being has the capacity for the transcendent and mystical experience. I could describe others, truly mystical, but I'll wait to see if anyone wants to explain that which is transcendent and mystical inside their own religion, cult or other experience.

With these thoughts I am pulling the discussion of religion and what drives it right down to the personal level. That is, it is different from the "community of faith" level where we often talk about it. I believe that these experiences, that we all have and interpret for ourselves, give rise to explanations that become religions and cults.

From an atheist perspective I am seeking to explain, or at least name the terms, what may in fact be, the source of all the religions... our deep feelings of the experiences that we all have that can be described as Transformative, Transcendent and Mystical.

 

[LuxFerum]

I fear the only way you will believe me is for you to see the video. I have the book in front of me now; it has all the evidence you need, but I am getting the feeling that words alone will not convince you. If I were not a good Radical Behaviorist, I'd say it was a defensive denial of a unacceptable part of your human nature... .

I cannot help but feel that you somehow need to deny it.

Don't get me wrong.(I don't tell me that I said that just because I deny everything that you say.)

I just want to have a clear picture of the experience, and what the conclusion really mean.
And I won't deny that I think that you somehow overextended the conclusion.

Because of that quote, and by the way the Authority behave, the teacher is cheated into believe that everything is allright.
Although there are some evidence of the contrary, they don't have eye contact with the learner, without eye contact help reducing the obedience when the authority is not in the room, so it should also reduce obedience if the teacher could see the learner.
So in my point of view, the question in the mind of the teacher is not authority versus his moral principles, but "Do the authority knows what he is doing?", and the authority seems pretty confident that the situation is allright, there is nothing to worry.
The authority is in question, but most people will wash their hands, probably thinking that he must know what he is doing.
But in my point of view this will wear out the authority figure.I don't know the amout of time needed, but I bet it will (for 33% that was more than enough). People won't keep doing what they don't want, without a good reason. That is why a lot of authority figures were killed throught history.

These subjects, the "teachers", were going through hell, thinking they were killing an innocent man, but somehow unable to escape the situation.

They were in an unknow territory, doing a research on punishment, which is by definition, against the persons will. Administrating eletrical shocks that are allegeable safe. Following instructions by an authority figure, pretty confortable with the situation, that assure every time he ask, that the proceding is completely normal and that there is nothing to be worried about.

By this point of view, I don't know why would someone stop?

We found out that we could not point to cruelty and say "no normal person could act that way--he must be a monster!" We found out that the vast majority of us can be monsters under the proper circumstances. It is not a comforting thing to find out about ourselves, but I would rather know this and guard against it than deny it.

This is where you lost me.
First I don't see what those people did was a monstruosity.
In fact, the number of people that stoped show that a considerable number of people (30%+-) don't tolerate even the remote possibility of harming someone.
Others may give the benefit of the doubt to the authority, but clearly unconfortable with the possibility of harming someone.
Sorry but that says nothing about turning someone into a moster.



How is that for a turnaround?

 

[hammegk]

.....
From an atheist perspective I am seeking to explain, or at least name the terms, what may in fact be, the source of all the religions... our deep feelings of the experiences that we all have that can be described as Transformative, Transcendent and Mystical.

You make a lousy atheist. Lost your handbook?

In a non-immaterialist sense, "Transformative, Transcendent and Mystical". ROTFL. In fact, ROTFLMGDFAO!

 

[Fade]

You see, there are billions of religious people, more than 99% of them, don't fly planes into buildings. Your assumption is wrong.

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you just have a short, incredibly fallable memory. I already pointed this out. I pointed this out very clearly.

My point, that you completely missed is that there isn't a huge gulf between putting money in the collection plate, and strapping dynamite onto your chest and walking into a synagogue.

So do you believe that atheists brainwash their kids too?

Some do, but it isn't as simple as that.

You, like many others, apparently see atheism as something like a religion. It isn't. Some atheists (such a myself) subscribe to something that is something similar to a religion (Humanism), but atheism itself, being a complete nonentity in the minds of almost every atheist on this planet, simply never comes up.

Can I brainwash you into not like Mango by never feeding it to you?

No, I can't. Of course, you won't develop a taste for it, because it simply won't enter your realm of awareness. So, short answer is no, atheists don't brainwash their children. Long answer is it is possible, though I've seen it so rarely that it doesn't really matter.

That doesn't mean nothing.

Putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "lalala don't hear you!" won't remove reality. The higher you work up the educational ladder, the fewer religionists you'll find. There are two conclusions that can be drawn from this, one or both may be true:

1. The average atheist is more intelligent and a better learner than the average theist.

2. Education has a mitigating effect on religious belief.

My vain side wants prospect 1 to be correct. However, number 2 is far more likely. Real, actual knowledge about the universe slowly extinguishes religious belief.

That really doesn't matter, if the things don't work, you can claim to be go, but that will not protect you from having your head removed from your body.

I'm not sure what you mean, do you think you could rephrase this for me?

People don't want to change if everything is fine in theirs lifes. If it is working don't fix it.

Again you gloss over reality. It isn't that "everything is fine" it's that they can't conceive of the fact that they aren't right about the universe.

Is not typical for religion too.

Yes, it is. Nyah Nyah Nyah NO IT ISN'T is not an argument. Children emulate their parents. Children believe their parents. This is how our intellect works. We hardwire our children, we give to them a perspective (let's call it a Lens) with which to view the world. As you accept new data, you compare it to the old. In the instance of a child that has been exposed to religiosity, anything that contradicts that is dismissed summarily, because "mommy and daddy said so." That is part of our nature.

That you don't agree with this is flabbergasting. It is paramount to pedagogy and our development. It's easily observable in every single social reaction that you have with children.

And nobody brainwash anyone for thoses things, we keep then because we like it, because it works, and somehow useful.

I'm not sure what specifically you "keep because you like and because it works."

If you mean "religion" then you have summarily dismissed the idea that religion is actually true. This summary I agree with. Glad we agree that religion isn't a statement of reality, but a statement of comforting fiction.

Most people have the same religion of theirs parents because the religion is good enough for theirs problems.

I am glad you see it my way. Religion is not true. Religion is a social construct.

Why most of the people drink coke and not some other soft drink?

I don't like coke at all. I was raised without carbonated drinks, and to this day don't really have a taste for them. I have been conditioned by my mother and father to like other things. I may believe that all my likes and dislikes are something I have consciously chosen, but it just isn't true.

Yes they are, people want things from their religion, if the religion don't provide it, they will change to another in a heart beat.

This type of caprice is funny to me.

The problem is that no religion tell the same thing every day of your life.
And even if it did, I would like to see some proofs that this sort of torture works.

I don't understand your use of the word "torture"

And every religion that I've ever experienced does this. I'm willing to accept that some religions exist without uh, any sort of communication, but I've never seen it. The "big three" of Hinduism, Christianity and Islam all repeat their tenets endlessly. This inculcation is crude programming and conditioning. A lot of work has been done in this field, I suggest you read up.

If you see it as an organism, you have to adimit that it is a beneficent organism, and not a destructive one like a virus.
The point is not debatable???lol
That statment is silly anywhere in the universe.

I see it as a cogent whole. English has no word that describes this phenomena exactly. Religion does indeed behave like a virus. That is what the word "meme" is saying. A bit of information (God exists, for instance) is repeated endlessly back and forth across each human being. Those infected with it long enough begin to believe it, and spread it themselves.

I do not see religion as beneficial in any sense of the word. I see no time in all of history where a religion would have been preferable to no religion at all. I see religion creating pointless struggle, creating horrible conditions, halting the advance of our understanding of reality, and giving people false hope.

Numbers don't mean nothing? Are you joking?
They clearly shows that there is a difference between them, if you can't understand why, that is your problem.

As others have pointed out to you, you have basically said christianity was at one point not true, and now is true. This is not only a logical fallacy, it's just silly. The amount of people that believe a thing says nothing about it's veracity. Nothing. Our wishes and dreams have 0 effect on the universe, outside of our physically changing our surroundings to sometimes suit them.

 

[hammegk]

My point, that you completely missed is that there isn't a huge gulf between putting money in the collection plate, and strapping dynamite onto your chest and walking into a synagogue.

I've completely missed any reason you might have for making that astoundingly bigoted statement. Got a fact you'd care to share?

 

[Dancing David]

Lux Ferum
The question is not about validity.
It is about how usefull the religion is in the life of theirs followers.
If Fade was right, people would never change their religion to follow chistianity.
But that is not the case, people did change theirs old religions for this new one, which is better than the old one. Solve the problems of life in a better way, give them a better change for a good life death, etc.

Yeah at the point of a sword born by the noble man who bound them to the land.(The history of Xianity is mainly that of a political movement, unfortunately, the politicians beat out the mystics.)

I think going to a movie theater and getting converted takes more free will.