Re: Is religion "cultural baggage" or a natural, default way of thinking?

From: P.Comm (tjsrno_at_spampost.com)
Date: 09/25/04 

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 19:56:01 GMT

Please see inside - but also please do read
http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-shamanism.html

It really does cover developments, and covers a lot of what you are saying
too. Don't scan it fast. Read it and think about it. It's saying a lot in
a very short space. See inside.

"Mark Blackham" <marqaa@telus.net> wrote in message
news:4%44d.107494$XP3.81202@edtnps84...
> We all believe something, whether it is called religion or not. In the
> western world, we are "brainwashed" into believing that capitalism is the
> only "right" way, to the point of being sacred.

Not everyone is brainwashed to believe that because their physical
experiences refute that idea.

When the ideal of the
> economic system of capitalism was threatened in the past (even at a
> distance), the threat was met with McCarthy era witch hunts. In principle,
> were these actions much different than the Salem witch burnings?

No they weren't different in their vehemence and panicked methodology, but
in the practical $$$$ real sense, they were different. Communism is REALLY
a threat to capitalism, heh. Communists are real. Spooks spells and demons
are not real.

> The same is true of democracy. Any attempts to counter the ideals of
> either
> democracy or capitalism

If you think about it, the concept of democracy is anathema to capitalism in
practice.

are generally met with highly emotional responses,
> similar to a rebuttal from a religionist. It seems that both capitalism
> and
> democracy are strongly equated with Christianity's notion of Divine
> Providence.

Agree - but this equating is done by people who don't really think about it.
That IS like religion - with the faithful followers.

> We all have a belief about the way the world should be and about the kinds
> of things that exist in that world. We all have notions about what is
> really
> "real" and what is not. In sum, how does this differ from any religious
> belief?

Well, money is really real - in our society it buys really real things.
Pink elephants are not real and if a whole bunch of people see one - call
the zoo and asked them why they dyed the elephant pink. LOL. I've seen
pink and light green dogs in curcuses :) So in that sene, what people think
is really real is not quite the same as faith about what possibly
supernatural things are real. I believe the world should be the way
Roddenberry saw it (on earth) in the future. Everyone has a piece of
peace - and the society is NOT profit driven. It doesn't take too much
thinking to realize that a profits before people, profit driven society
could easily become the most hellish kind of society on earth - where
literally EVERYTHING is up for sale, including your kids, your bodily organs
(don't matter if you are dead yet, either), etc.

It seems to me that anyone who strongly and aggressively believes
> they have the inside track to the truth, present a dangerous threat to all
> of us; whether so-called religious or not.

Well, what kind of truth? I'm sitting in a chair typing. That is truth. I
have the inside track on that. No one else does because I might be really
standing up dictating to a typist. :-D. The truth about capitalism being
so divine is true only for those that got RICH from it. That's a few
people. It's not the majority. Democracy, meanwhile, is majority rule.
Contradiction is there.

> World history clearly demonstrates that both religionists and
> non-religionists can pose an equal threat to the peace and security of
> others. And both are responsible for genocide, persecution, bigotry, and
> ignorance. It is not so much what one believes in as much as believing
> that
> everyone else should think just as you do - even to the point of death. I
> believe these people are the really dangerous ones.

Hmm, not exactly - people who get power and do such things, do them for a
real reason, beneficial to themselves. See article on url - until the entire
kind of PRIMATE way man is stuck in, can be overcome and a NEW incentive for
making society arises - it's gonna be more of the same old ***, war,
genocide, persecution, rich versus poor, you name it. The problem seems to
be also that certain types of people are DRIVEN to get power like that -
while others, even those who are a lot smarter - tend to be peaceful natured
and not driven like that at all.

Unfortunately, they
> teach and enculture their children in the same ideologies. One might call
> it
> a "culture of bigotry."

Us versus them. It's not bigotry. It's a primate thing. Hm, it might be an
animal thing in general.
>
>
> "P.Comm" <tjsrno@spampost.com> wrote in message
> news:rV%2d.4028$gG4.1462@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> "J Aksel Aarnisalo" <aaarnisa@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
>> news:chjtvd$dq0$1@oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
>> >
>> >> It's just baggage. If families just let their children decide what
>> >> they
>> >> wanted to believe instead of brainwashing them from birth, then
> religion
>> >> would be just treated like an ancient myth (which it is).
>> >
>> > Would it? How did religions come into being in the first place, then?
> Why
>> > were the multitude of early cultures around the globe mostly religious
> one
>> > way or the other? Who was there to brainwash them before?
>>
>> Please see this article, which I believe covers it all.
>>
>> http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-shamanism.html
>> >
>> >
>> >> Not really. You either believe the mythical man-made stories or you
>> >> don't.
>> >
>> > How come? I know a lot of people who fall in between. An individual's
> mind
>> > isn't quite so simple. In any culture and society there are a myriad of
>> > beliefs, or rather, a myriad interpretations of beliefs. There are old
>> > folklore and new folklore. There are old ethics and new ethics. Our
>> > perspectives are influenced by more factors than we are aware of. I
>> > believe there are no such person who is definitely 100% "pure" in the
>> > sense of just one definite system of thought and belief.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> Not when children are brainwashed with santa clause, easter bunnies,
>> >> church,
>> >> sunday school, etc..
>> >
>> > There is always someone or something that "brainwashes" and individual.
>> > Identity does not form without influence. Take for example the few
>> > children that have been found from nature, raised by animals. They
> formed
>> > into what they experienced. Of course, this goes rather to metaphysics
>> > than anthropology, perhaps. But also to biology. If we raised a person
> in
>> > a pitch black void, somehow providing food, water and air to him
>> > without
>> > entering the space, his body would naturally develope and produce
>> > survival. And so on.
>> >
>> > It is quite question of perspective to use the term "brainwash" in
>> > relation to the term "natural". What indeed is natural, and what is
>> > not?
>> > How can we really separate something as "unnatural influence"?
>> >
>> >
>> >> Default would be Agnostic or Atheist, but certainly not brainwashed
> with
>> >> 1
>> >> particular religion.
>> >
>> > Really, atheism and agnostism are just as abstract concepts as a
> religion.
>> > Thinking about your view of "natural", how do you think they can act as
>> > default settings? A person who has no knowledge, idea or intuition
>> > about
>> > religions, gods, philosophies, or likewise concepts whatsoever, is not
> an
>> > atheistic person. For atheism and agnostism to develope into a concept
> in
>> > one's mind requires influence and information just like anything else -
>> > or, as you put it, "brainwashing". You don't just think like that
> without
>> > getting the necessary information to form the thought.
>> >
>> >
>> >> The evidence lies in the fact that 90% of people are of the same
> religion
>> >> as
>> >> their parents and families. Having been brainwashed from birth, its
>> >> not
>> >> likely they will change. However, some manage to break away and start
>> >> thinking on their own.
>> >
>> > I consider myself to have "broken away". But not by myself, and I'm not
>> > sure into what. Certainly not into atheism, which more or less is
>> > merely
> a
>> > religion reversed, and most likely not into agnostism. It didn't happen
>> > that way. My decision - or perhaps indecision - was also caused by
>> > influence from different sources that affected my way of thinking. Like
> I
>> > said earlier, it becomes a question of philosophy, metaphysics, not
>> > perhaps exactly anthropology. A question of free will and it's
>> > possibilities.
>>
>>
>
>

Quantcast