Taboo subject No 2: Religion is a virus.

Religion is a mental virus

Quote :

"...the religious memes that include the notion of hell... These visions of horror work wonders. Terrified humans by the score allow unprovable concepts to take up residence in their skulls."


Over the past week I was constantly reminded of these words by Howard Bloom in his fascinating book The Lucifer Principle - A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History.


Bloom's argument is applicable to some readers whose reaction to my column (The Earth is not 6 000 yrs old!), explaining the techniques scientists apply to determine the age of the Universe or Earth and everything on it, was one of what I can only call terrified and total negation about the findings of science.


But how do scientists explain the psychological hold religion has on gullible people's lives?


Why do so many intelligent human beings continue to deny scientific facts despite overwhelming evidence contradicting the claims of absolute truths by prophets proclaiming a benevolent creator-god, miracles and everlasting life?


In 1976 Richard Dawkins published The Selfish Gene, a book that was later described as one of the 100 best books of the past century.


In it he took the evolutionary process of variation, natural selection and genetic heredity a step further by applying it to human cultural transmission.


He called this new replicator of cultural imitation and copying the meme.


"Genes are replicated, copied from parent to offspring down the generations," he wrote in a later book, Unweaving the Rainbow - Science, Delusion, and the Appetite for Wonder. "A meme is, by analogy, anything that replicates itself from brain to brain, via any available means of copying."


The Meme Machine


According to Dawkins, a theory later expanded by scientists such as Susan Blackmore in her insightful book The Meme Machine, Richard Brodie in Virus of the Mind - The New Science of the Meme, and Aaron Lynch in Thought Contagion - How Belief Spreads Through Society, "memes can be good ideas, good tunes, good poems, as well as drivelling mantras. Anything that spreads by imitation, as genes spread by bodily reproduction or by viral infection, is a meme."


Religion is a mental virus and one of the strongest memes transmitted from parents to vulnerable children who do not really have any choice in whether their minds should be allowed to be exposed to this virus. (Dawkins talks about the brains of children as "those mental caterpillars").


Blackmore points out that genes build the hardware (the physical bodies of people), but that memes are the software and that this co-evolution may have driven the inflation of the human brain.


Why is it so difficult for religious people to accept a scientific fact such as evolution, despite all the evidence proving its validity in biological development?


I am regularly bombarded by readers denying any truth in evolution and sending me long quotations from creationist websites that distort the words of scientists, and bluntly, without any shame or qualms, mislead their readers about what Darwin and modern evolutionary biologists indeed say about evolution.


The Selfish Gene


In The Selfish Gene Dawkins explains this phenomenon of denial and deceit: "The survival value of the god meme in the meme pool results from its great psychological appeal.


It provides a superficially plausible answer to deep and troubling questions about existence. It suggests that injustices in this world may be rectified in the next.


The 'everlasting arms' hold out a cushion against our inadequacies which, like a doctor's placebo, is none the less effective for being imaginary.


These are some of the reasons why the idea of God is copied so readily by successive generations of brains. God exists, if only in the form of a meme with high survival value, or infective power, in the environment provided by human culture."


According to Bloom the original religious meme of the Old Testament seldom leapt from one gene pool to another.


The ancient Hebrews made no effort to convert the heathens. "Unbelievers weren't family. If the meme was to retain its role as a genetic marker, only those who shared the same genes could share the same god. That was the tribal concept, held by primitive peoples the world over."


The apostles changed all that. Paul was one of the early innovators of a new concept: transferable religion, says Bloom, and emphasises that like Buddha, Paul freed gods from chromosomal components. "Thanks to Paul, the Christian meme would eventually sweep together an awesome jumble of genes."


As the virus of the mind spread, Paul and his followers, also later the prophet Mohamed, "helped make the meme the world's most powerful form of replicator", a meme that is so strong that even the factual onslaught of scientific facts from Darwin to modern times that contradict the meme's claims, face an upward struggle.


Still, science progresses relentlessly, even if the noise of unscientific prophets and contortionists tries to drown its factual, testable and verifiable findings through misleading distortions of and lies about the very same science.

A quote from somwhere log since forgetten where says.....

Quote :

The religious memes that include the notion of hell... These visions of horror work wonders. Terrified humans by the score allow unprovable concepts to take up residence in their skulls.

Is not atheism a belief that god does not exist and the belief there is no need for religion? So equals a religion? Which depends if you view atheism as some form of religion? I have had that thrown at me loads of times, as soon as I mention if you must pigeon hole me, then I am an atheist, rather than a person of no fixed religious abode. ! It's also a pure cliché', how is that the 'none' belief in religion, is a religion in itself?

The dictionary says;
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
3. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
4. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. 2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. 3. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 4. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

A person with a certain level of common sense and in built realism who does not buy into the sad guilt ridden dogma of religion is branded an atheist, so be it, but it's not a religion, it's just normal people among the weak people who let fear rule them. I believe in that which can be proven or rationally theorized, religion can not be proven or rationally theorized. Faith is often confused as religion the two parts being both opposite and opposed to each concept. Religion is about control, through hardship, dictatorship and threats. Faith is a self concept on improving ones confidence.

Again you have brought up a subject which needs deep thought . Religion a virus? could well be in the case of forming peoples minds to accept only one line of thought which excludes all others or cannot accept difference or debat; The people who exerce this pression are often power hungry and use people's gullability to have them think as they want and not how the individual wants. any thought out side of the area imposed is wrongfull and punishable. Much like Pavlov's dogs. Those who do not accept the line of thought imposed are infidels and have no right to live as living in sin.
will have to get back to this subject.

In my opinion, it's really not even worthwhile to group atheists, or anybody for that matter, based on a single shared belief (or characteristic); the potential - and from what I've experienced, actual - diversity within such groups negates all reason to.

However, there does tend to be an arrogance with this debate, from both sides; When, in fact, neither has the right to claim truth and we - as a species -
should really be working together to answer the question. Instead, it seems we would rather create still more divides and in the process lose sight of what's really important.

I think that it also makes any discussion difficult when you're trying to universally define the terms as you go along; For example,
Atheism can be described as 'a religion' since it's synonymous with 'a philosophy', just as organised religion can be described as atheistic in it's denial of other deities (if it's one that does).

I'd argue that what you, Gris Gris, believe is contradictory to what you claim to believe.
The existence of God (or a god, or any of the gods) has not yet been proven or disproven and so you should really be calling both organized religion and atheism stupid from your position of agnosticism...

Inuit, funny you should bring up Pavlov's dog. Trained to do a command for a treat. Base instinct for animals, but also basic instinct in humans. Used for years by many leaders, not just religious ones.

Those same, traits of a psychologist to group people into boxes still goes one. So begs the question is psychology a bigger weapon wielded than previously thought. Religions like order and boxes, people for the most part can't conform to this idell.

.turnip. I have no religion,no beliefs in religion or in any god or religious structure. I am not agnostic either. You are right god has not proven to not exist or exist either. There is no current infallible methodology to prove or disprove either way.

As i said, if I have to be grouped atheism I side with when presented as a choice. I have none or need no religious practices, teachings or gods. I don't believe in any of those either or feel a need to want any.

I am if you want to label me a skeptic but even that box I don't fit in as I don't believe science has all the answers or is infallible. I am.. simply.. me.

Are religions and atheist, agnostic beliefs stupid. For me yes I see the idiocy's and the brutality that they wield to gain power. Take Judaism.Christanity or Catholicism, they are all the same at base. They took over the older multiple gods and religious beliefs of the Greeks/romans. Taking many of the popular worship places, such as the healing centres of the god Apollo among others and stating that they were always their own. Christianity.Catholicism has a record of changing to make sure it is top dog in the religious world even it goes against the grain of its so called correct word of god.

I don't understand... sorry.

Atheism is the rejection of belief in deities but by your own admission there is no proof either way and since the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence (or whatever that saying is), atheism is just as faith based as organised religion. Isn't it?

In fact, isn't what you are saying even more irrational since you are consciously choosing to ignore the logic in favour of choosing a side?

Agnosticism is the belief that something is either unknown or impossible to know based on current perceptions. Surely this is the only logical choice?
To admit that you simply don't know is a perfectly valid position to hold. Isn't it?

I think that maybe we're just working from different interpretations and that it's ultimately irrelevant but I'd hate not to understand.

On topic - In my opinion, to class religion as a virus is purposefully arrogant in it's ambiguity. That's not to say you couldn't, just that the motive for doing so seems less than honest.

Basically if the choice was religious, or carrot. I would say I'm a carrot. If I had to fill in a belief and was given Christianity or atheism I 'd say atheism.

If I was given a choice to say god squad or nothing, then nothing is my choice.

OK?

You called me agnostic. I am not, I am me. You put me into another non-religious group belief. I have no religious persuasion, no religious belief, no religious god. I don't believe in religion or a greater higher power. I don't need it or need a god to make my life means something or bend to whichever religious doctrine is currently to be upheld.

However I know that science, at present can't prove God exists, neither can religion prove god does. Just because of that does not make me fall into any belief group, be it Christianity or atheist or agnostic or skeptic.

Do you understand now?

I think that maybe you mean antireligious rather than atheist. You are clearly the former but unintelligibly claim the latter.

Also, in my mind it's not about groups (as I tried to suggest earlier) it's about understanding your personal choice.

Out of interest -

- How do you define a religion?

- How do you define agnosticism?

- What does your life mean?

- Do you believe in gravity?

- Do you really believe that you are rational in your choice?

- Do you really think you are better than those who choose to believe there's something more than us?

.tUrniP wrote:

I think that maybe you mean anti religious rather than atheist. You are clearly the former but unintelligibly claim the latter.

Also, in my mind it's not about groups (as I tried to suggest earlier) it's about understanding your personal choice.

No idea where you got the idea, that according to you, I am anti religious from? Which part of I am not religiously/god belief inclined in any shape of form do you not quite grasp? What is with your preoccupation with labeling me and attempting to put me in a box labeled some religion, atheist agnostic why not add humanitarian into the mix too.

Let me run this by you one more time and see if it sinks in. When asked am I Jewish, Shinto or atheist. I answer Atheist.

When asked am I, Agnostic, Catholic, or Kabbalah or Agnostic. I answer Agnostic.

When Asked am I, Wiccan, Juce, Kulam, Igbo, babist, Protestantism, or Jedi or none. I answer none.

Yes Jedism is a recognised religion.

For the first 2, why do I answer either atheist or agnostic, simple as there is no other or none I chose the option that is as close to a non religious source as possible.

Quote :

Out of interest - How do you define a religion?

Religion is a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny by following a set code, moral tasks, religious texts or task, devotion by ritual attendance at a place or set worship or preforming ritual observances as set down the the religious leaders or scared texts. Such as mass or fasting or responding to the call to Mecca.

Quote :

- How do you define agnosticism?

Agnosticism has a philosophical basis of religious orientation of doubt; Which is based on that neither you can prove nor disprove God's existence, but they do not deny god may exist.

As opposed to Atheism which is based on the doctrine or belief that there are no God/s.

Equally as opposed to Secularism which doctrine rejects religion and religious considerations.

Then there is also, humanitarianism which is based on the concept that is people's duty is to promote human welfare , as in a held common view to a wide range of ethical stances which attach importance to those stances of human dignity, justice, ethical concerns, and capabilities and in particularly rationality. It rejects religion, religious concepts, supernaturalism, all pseudoscience, and superstitions among many.

Quote :

What does your life mean?

Does it have to have a meaning?
Need to be exact to provide you with an answer.

Quote :

- Do you believe in gravity?

Of course, it is a sombre emotion used in situations that are dire.

Quote :

Do you really believe that you are rational in your choice?

'I think therefore I am.'Quite an apt quote all things considering. If you mean to ask how have I decided to turn away from the social norm of being religious in one form or another. Simple I read, I learn, I research all the options then I make my mind up at that particular time based on what I have found. I then live with my choice. As any stance, notion or item can change or throws more light onto anything I have made a choice on. I re-evaluated and compute whether my choice is still right or do I have another option to choose from. I then assess and either own up to making a boo-boo, stick or change as I see fit. All very rational darling.

Quote :

- Do you really think you are better than those who choose to believe there's something more than us?

I am an equal to those who show respect. I am Superior to those who choose to be extremist in view and action. I am inferior to some who may have a better health or education etc. I am human and therefore prone to make mistakes as is part of the course in learning and existing in this life and social system.


If you are trying to understand 'me', then don't waste your time, you won't. I am complex.I am as quick as I am slow. Which is why my longtime pals call me their favorite paradox or enigma. As they say just when you have thought you've solve the 'me' puzzle, only to then find some of the pieces have changed shape or you have an extra bolt or 2 leftover.

I'm sorry I seem to have angered or irritated you. I would appreciate you keeping calm and respectful though, if you could. Thanks.

First of all, it doesn't make sense for you to choose to believe opposing ideas depending on non-existent restrictions (your lists). Hence my confusion.
Why not tell me what you believe rather than which options on the lists (that I had no way of knowing about) are least religious?

Secondly, to my mind the terms agnostic, atheist, etc are identifiers for the viewpoints that they apply to, not labels for the people that hold them. I thought I had made that clear but obviously not.

I think that you may be trying to say that you have no opinion but you clearly do ... you started the thread calling the religious weak and irrational, you would rather choose any other option (that you don't believe in) than a religious one on these lists you've created and you've said that there's no definitive proof. That's just in this thread.

Shall we plough on, see if we can get it through my thick skull?

By your latest definitions you can hold both atheistic and religious beliefs whereas before you seemed to say that one negates the other. Is that intentional?

I asked what your life means since you don't need a god to make your life "means" something. I assumed that meant your life had an identifiable meaning that you could share with me. Just out of interest.

I asked if you believe in gravity as I'd like to read your proof of it but only if you believe in it (that doesn't mean I don't believe in gravity).

Please define "extremist".

Don't hurt me.

.tUrniP wrote:

I'm sorry I seem to have angered or irritated you. I would appreciate you keeping calm and respectful though, if you could. Thanks.

First of all, it doesn't make sense for you to choose to believe opposing ideas depending on non-existent restrictions (your lists). Hence my confusion.
Why not tell me what you believe rather than which options on the lists (that I had no way of knowing about) are least religious?

Secondly, to my mind the terms agnostic, atheist, etc are identifiers for the viewpoints that they apply to, not labels for the people that hold them. I thought I had made that clear but obviously not.

I think that you may be trying to say that you have no opinion but you clearly do ... you started the thread calling the religious weak and irrational, you would rather choose any other option (that you don't believe in) than a religious one on these lists you've created and you've said that there's no definitive proof. That's just in this thread.

Shall we plough on, see if we can get it through my thick skull?

By your latest definitions you can hold both atheistic and religious beliefs whereas before you seemed to say that one negates the other. Is that intentional?

I asked what your life means since you don't need a god to make your life "means" something. I assumed that meant your life had an identifiable meaning that you could share with me. Just out of interest.

I asked if you believe in gravity as I'd like to read your proof of it but only if you believe in it (that doesn't mean I don't believe in gravity).

Please define "extremist".Don't hurt me.

Oh bless you, no you haven't angered or irritated me. I am in deed calm, relaxed, chilled out with a grin on my face and have been all the way through our exchange. Hint I will say piss off if you're bugging me.


As for gravity, I answered it. You should be specific when answering questions. As for the Gravity, as in Newton theory of equal and opposite forces. At the moment the theory has a credibility to it as nothing has yet been able to disprove it. Therefore for lack of anything I am content with the theory of gravity.

Its like saying do you believe in oxygen? You can't see it but are told that is what you are breathing so you believe it.

The rest I'll get back on. As for hurting you, that may well take place later too.

Righto back on track with hurting you.

I can chose what I want when asked a question. That was the point after all. If asked what are you, I will answer whatever the non religious choice is and... I had answered before I am non religious, not atheist not agnostic and NON full stop.

Quote :

I think that you may be trying to say that you have no opinion but you clearly do ... you started the thread calling the religious weak and irrational, you would rather choose any other option (that you don't believe in) than a religious one on these lists you've created and you've said that there's no definitive proof. That's just in this thread.

Next slap...I didn't call anybody weak or irrational, did you not notice the quoted red text in the quote boxes? That is quoted material. Mine is the white stuff. You get a scowl for that stating I did when I didn't. I commented on the belief system that atheist and non relious folk fall foul of.

I did say sad guilt ridden dogma of tyrannical led religion.

A slight ankle kick.... My opinions on religion and my choices on religion are without a doubt different.. I find religion fascinating subject, but not one I want to embrace. You seem to be confusing the two sides here.

I won't choose a religious belief. I am not religious or do I subscribe to the view held by atheists or agnostics or any of the other so called non religious belief system. I am non belief.. end of.


And a cuff around the ear... Lets say I ask you to prove to me Catholicism is genuine and so is god. First how would you start the process on proving thus?


Atheist agnostic are labels. They are as well identifiers of groups or definitions of belief systems as well. Which all goes back to this inclination to put people into pigeon holes and or boxes. Neat packaged people that all fit and everything is rosy and we all livei n pink palaces...not!.



My life is just that, life. I live I breathe I interact, I have emotions. I am a mother, I am a daughter I am a sister, I am an aunt I am a granddaughter, I am niece I am wife(of sorts) I am an ex wife, I am a dog owner, I rescue dogs, I am a consumer I am a provider, etc etc... Why do I need a god to make my life have meaning? Why does my life have to have meaning. Do you think my life is lacking as religion/god is not on my agenda?

I think therefore I am. That is meaning enough? I am alive, what more meaning is there and why must I have to have it? I am content I don't need my 5 minutes of fame, or have some religious connotation lurking in it.


Are you religious? What does you life mean?

Finally duff on the nose... goes to defining extremist.

Extremist/extremism also know as fundies or fundamentalist, are words used to describe the actions or ideologies of individuals or groups outside the perceived norms of social, political religious, center of a society; or otherwise .applied to anybody that violates common moral standards. Can be applied to a person who holds extreme views which use of opinions and actions go far beyond the norm that is culturally accepted.

Fundamentalism refers to a belief in a strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature), sometimes as a reaction to perceived doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life. These include attacking verbally and or with violence to silent or heckle or remove something or somebody that is opposed or in perceived opposition.

Example Islamic fundamentalist/extremists.. Religious terrorism the supports the ideology of violence and practice of exerting pressure on decisions or particular groups that they see as infidels.

Jewish extremists support and actively engage in religious terrorism by methods that include motivations and specific aims that have a predominant religious violent control of eradication not tolerance character or influence.

Well that's you beaten up for the night.

Quote :

I can chose what I want when asked a question. That was the point after all. If asked what are you, I will answer whatever the non religious choice is and... I had answered before I am non religious, not atheist not agnostic and NON full stop.

That's fair enough, except that you're choosing a belief that you don't hold in order to avoid choosing another belief that you don't hold. It simply doesn't make sense; especially since the restrictions are of your own making in this instance.

If I were in a restaurant and had the choice of roast pork or steak and ale pie I would choose neither since I'm a vegetarian. Not one that I didn't want.

--

Quote :

Next slap...I didn't call anybody weak or irrational, did you not notice the quoted red text in the quote boxes? That is quoted material. Mine is the white stuff. You get a scowl for that stating I did when I didn't. I commented on the belief system that atheist fall foul of.

I did say sad guilt ridden dogma of tyrannical led religion.

Let me quote your 'white stuff' -

Quote :

A person with a certain level of common sense and in built realism who does not buy into the sad guilt ridden dogma of religion is branded an atheist, so be it, but it's not a religion, it's just normal people among the weak people who let fear rule them. I believe in that which can be proven or rationally theorized, religion can not be proven or rationally theorized. Faith is often confused as religion the two parts being both opposite and opposed to each concept. Religion is about control, through hardship, dictatorship and threats. Faith is a self concept on improving ones confidence.

--

Quote :

A slight ankle kick.... My opinions on religion and my choices on religion are without a doubt different.. I find religion fascinating subject, but not one I want to embrace. You seem to be confusing the two sides here.

I won't choose a religious belief. I am not religious or do I subscribe to the view held by atheists or agnostics or any of the other so called non religious belief system. I am non belief.. end of.

I'm afraid that you do subscribe to agnosticism (as I know it). I don't mean to tell you what you think but you have already agreed that there is no definitive proof and therefore the 'truth value' is unknown. You've also been pretty derogatory about religion to an extent where it's a fair assumption that you are anti-religious (either that or, at the very least, impartial to "sad, guilt ridden dogma", "hardship" and "dictatorship"?).

I'm not entirely sure what your aversion to 'labels' is (even though that's not how I see them) but the beliefs behind them are there...

--

Quote :

And a cuff around the ear... Lets say I ask you to prove to me Catholicism is genuine and so is god. First how would you start the process on proving thus?

First of all I would tell you that I don't believe Catholicism is genuine. I'd then tell you that I have no evidence to support the existence of a deity and admit defeat.

However, since I too believe that there is insufficient evidence to make a choice it would only be hypothetical defeat.

--

Quote :

Atheist agnostic are labels. They are as well identifiers of groups or definitions of belief systems as well.

I suppose you are right but even though words do have set definitions there is always an element of artistic licence and personal interpretation with language. That's for a linguistics thread though.

--

Quote :

My life is just that, life. I live I breathe I interact, I have emotions. I am a mother, I am a daughter I am a sister, I am an aunt I am a granddaughter, I am niece I am wife(of sorts) I am an ex wife, I am a dog owner, I rescue dogs, I am a consumer I am a provider, etc etc... Why do I need a god to make my life have meaning? Why does my life have to have meaning. Do you think my life is lacking as religion/god is not on my agenda?

I think therefore I am. That is meaning enough? I am alive, what more meaning is there and why must I have to have it? I am content I don't need my 5 minutes of fame, or have some religious connotation lurking in it.


Are you religious? What does you life mean?

First of all, I didn't suggest that your life had no meaning. I'm just always surprised by peoples assertion that they don't need a god to give their life meaning. It implies that they already know what their life means. I have no idea what life means ... I was just interested.

Secondly, Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" is only a proof of personal existence (and arguably not a particularly good one), it doesn't give meaning to life. Existing to exist is circular logic.

Lastly, I am not religious. I believe that it's an irrational belief to hold. I don't know what my life (or life in general) means.

--

Quote :

Finally duff on the nose... goes to defining extremist.

Extremist/extremism also know as fundies or fundamentalist, are words used to describe the actions or ideologies of individuals or groups outside the perceived norms of social, political religious, center of a society; or otherwise .applied to anybody that violates common moral standards. Can be applied to a person who holds extreme views which use of opinions and actions go far beyond the norm that is culturally accepted.

By your defintitions you are an extremist/fundamentalist - "I decided to turn away from the social norm". I don't disagree with your defintion but "percieved norms" ... perceived by whom?

--

Quote :

Well that's you beaten up for the night.

Thank you.

I feel like we've been around the circle several times now. I think I'll leave this thread alone now.

First point, in a restaurant it is a different concept from being asked to provide your religious outlook.

Like saying I was in a restaurant and they asked me do I want atheist or catholic. I'd choose a nice big juicy catholic- medium rare.


Ah ha.... You didn't read it properly did you... Weak people are more pronounced to give in/ruled by fear. Totally different from what you were implying.

I an adverse to labels, as I feel it demeans people to be grouped into these government requested boxes to suit their need and not encompass that we are all different and individuals. Simples

I could gleefully strangle you. Agnostics believe in god. I don't believe in religion or god/gods. If you so want to label me so badly, I will subscribe to being best pals with the Church of the flying spaghetti monster. Oh hail worship his noodliness. I am a FSD. OK

Life means, all manner of things to different people. To some there is no meaning they embrace life and get on with it. You seem to be focused on having somebody define a meaning for life you can apply to your own.

I think therefore I am was spoken by Pris in bladerunner. To show they had evolved from being just machines.


To you religion is irrational and you are beating on me about it.... The way you were beating me up I was beginning to have you marked down as religious. So there is me now spanked.

You do like to try and label me don't you.. is it a fetish you have? Now, according to you I am both agnostic, extremist and a fundie. How rude, how contradictory.


Society norms are the rules and regulations and sometimes those thing we do by default...Like wearing clothes to work and eating with knives and forks. As opposed to eating with a sofa and military tank. The latter is what is known as a perceived social norm. It is was we do because everybody else does. Not that we've been told that is what we must do it is what we have copied from out parents, their parents and so forth.


Government introduced what it considers acceptable society practices ( social norms) decades ago when it enlisted en-mass psychologists etc to profile the nation and create the pigeonhole system...in your case your love of 'labeling'.


One more thing... we are because you are too focussed on a train of thought that is not following what is written and your fetish for lables. Forget trying to label me, just remember I am not religous do not feel the need for it or a god and neither do I believe in a supernatural being or gods.

Lastly.....WHIMP!

Okay, I changed my mind. I'll go around again with you. :)

--

Quote :

First point, in a restaurant it is a different concept from being asked to provide your religious outlook.

The principle is exactly the same. I don't think you can honestly deny that.

--

Quote :

Ah ha.... You didn't read it properly did you... Weak people are more pronounced to give in/ruled by fear. Totally different from what you were implying.

I keep reading it and it still means the same thing to me... As does your 'correction'.

You create a contrast which implies those that believe in a deity (as opposed to those that don't/you) lack "...a certain level of common sense and inbuilt realism...", are "...weak people who let fear rule them..." and believe in that which can't "...be proven or rationally theorized...".

Regardless, it was only supposed to be an example of your beliefs, indicators that you're not as impartial as you're trying to make out.
--

Quote :

I an adverse to labels, as I feel it demeans people to be grouped into these government requested boxes to suit their need and not encompass that we are all different and individuals. Simples

Okay, of course you can believe what you wish.

It's just for the sake of ease though ... I'd rather type "agnostic" than "the belief that there is no definitive proof for or against the existence of a deity, or deities, and as a result there is no logical way to commit to a truth value" every time.

Maybe I'm just being lazy... ?

Quote :

I could gleefully strangle you. Agnostics believe in god. I don't believe in religion or god/gods. If you so want to label me so badly, I will subscribe to being best pals with the Church of the flying spaghetti monster. Oh hail worship his noodliness. I am a FSD. OK

That's simply not true. Agnosticism is the belief that there is no definitive proof either way therefore the truth value is unknown.

Yes, there are those that still believe in a deity regardless, just as there are those that believe there is no deity in the same way, based on faith, but it's not accurate for you to say agnostics believe in a deity.

You can't equate the possibility of a deity with the existence of a deity. It's wrong, they really are different concepts.

Flying spaghetti monster ... This reductio ad absurdum does nothing for you.

--

Quote :

Life means, all manner of things to different people. To some there is no meaning they embrace life and get on with it. You seem to be focused on having somebody define a meaning for life you can apply to your own.

If "I was just interested" is synonymous with "focused" then okay, you got me.
Since you can't produce a meaning that I find satisfying anyway (not that you had to) we'll forget it shall we?

--

Quote :

You do like to try and label me don't you.. is it a fetish you have? Now, according to you I am both agnostic, extremist and a fundie. How rude, how contradictory

It was by your definitions (I did say that) so if anybody labelled you as such it was you. Where is the contradiction anyway?

--

Quote :

Society norms are the rules and regulations and sometimes those thing we do by default...Like wearing clothes to work and eating with knives and forks. As opposed to eating with a sofa and military tank. The latter is what is known as a perceived social norm. It is was we do because everybody else does. Not that we've been told that is what we must do it is what we have copied from out parents, their parents and so forth.

This is for another thread really. One that I think I would enjoy actually, but there's too much to go into it here. I think so anyway.

I will just point out though, you mean former, not latter. I hope. Otherwise I've been doing it wrong.
It's not normal (or, more importantly, practical) to eat with a sofa and a military tank.

Also, food for thought (and encouragement for you to make that other thread), to do something because everyone else does is ridiculous.

--

Quote :

One more thing... we are because you are too focussed on a train of thought that is not following what is written and your fetish for lables. Forget trying to label me, just remember I am not religous do not feel the need for it or a god and neither do I believe in a supernatural being or gods.

I assure you I'm trying to follow what is written...

No, restaurant choice different. OK lets try this. You're In a restaurant yo have to eat one dish.. Roast lamb, beef wellington or chicken with a side dish of salad.

You'd chose the last option.

If you had to chose, tofu, pork tenderloin, shiitake mushroom veggie broth or rack of ribs. You'd chose either tofu or shiitake mushroom veggie broth.

If you were told to chose a carnivore dish or leave. You'd leave.

When presented with a list that can encompass you're preference, you'd chose your preference. If you had to chose one that was not exact, you'd chose the closest to your preference.

Do you get it now? I chose the closet to my ideal of non religious if I have to chose something. If I can write not applicable due to lack of choice I will or write other or none of the above, which is what applies tome on anything religious, atheist or agnostic. I am none of the above. I don't believe in atheism or agnosticism or any of the multiple religions.



So now move on from this bit.

I never said I was impartial about religion how it affects people or what it does to make people follow it. Such as induce a level of terror through applied fear of go to hell, in Catholicism for example. I argue for people to ask questions and not to be ruled through fear or intimidation and to seek the truth and hear all sides.

I do see weakness in people who are led by fear and because of that fear refuse to see, question or acknowledge the brutality or exposed truth behind a created biblical event, that they are trapped by.

Agnostics believe in god or higher being even though they acknowledge there is no proof of existence or not. = not me.

Atheist don't believe in god or higher being. They demand proof of existence but will not provide proof to deny the existence of god. = not me.

Both groups constitute a belief system= in turn equates the base concept of a religion = not me.

Flying spaghetti monster is a bonafide ' loosely applied relgious' concept. A great hoot to be a member of. Argh I salute the great FSM argh! Like his royal noodliness I was taking the treasure. Google his royal noodliness and rejoice in his appendadages.


No I didn't label me. I stated I was not agnostic or athiest. It was you kept appling the agnostic label to me. Don't keep on calling me an agnostic. I am not and many of my agnostic friends won't be happy with me being thrown into their gang. They'd revolt and I can only cope with so many revolting friends.

Fundies are violent, promote violence, as are extremist = terrorist/ism. You called me at basic level a terroist. They are devoted to religon at the exoense of destroying by any extreme method those who are not following their relgions.

Do you see the contradiction?

Society norms etc, you asked; I answered. I agree it is a topic for another day, not just yet. We have religious meme and a virus in the OP (orignal post) here to discuss, not my non religious/belief/agnostic/atheist, state.

So do you believe religion is a meme or a virus?

I wouldn't choose the last option at all... Even If I were to ask for just the salad I wouldn't be choosing chicken and salad I would be choosing salad. They're quite obviously not the same thing.
Anyway, choosing atheism when you would prefer none is like choosing trifle when you were already full from the starter and main; Also, unless of course you are suggesting the staff are going to force feed me (in which case I'd suggest your use of the word "eat" is misleading), then I don't "have to eat" anything...

The Flying Spaghetti Monster originated as a parody of religion. It's a reductio ad absurdem argument inspired by Russel's teapot. It's intentionally silly but still cannot really be proven to be false and so is ultimately irrelevant. Hence my comment.

Although you didn't actively put yourself into the 'groups' you fit the 'labels' as you defined them; Except of course for your new definition of agnosticism but (by logical extension of certain claims) you do fit your original definition (see your 4th post). One which is much closer to what I see as the actual definition.
Anyway, the implication was that either your definitions or your logic are flawed, either you're an agnostic/extremist/fundamentalist/terrorist (by your original definitions) or your claims don't add up.

Terrorism, extremism and fundamentalism are not exclusively religious, if at all. Nor are they necessarily violent.

--

I don't see us coming together on this... I really should have just left it before. It's not really important except in that I hate not understanding.

Oh well...

In regard to the original statement, I'm not sure what else I can say.

I guess what you are really asking is if I think religion is good or bad ...?
Essentially, I think (to be more accurate) theism/deism is illogical and that several religions promote several bad ideologies.

In this thread extremist/fundies are relgious...


Do you not or understand what a meme is?

and no I am not asking if you think religion is good or bad.

btw I didn't claim anything I stated I was non relgious. You started throwing the atheist, extremist etc at me. So my claim to be non religous still stands your claim that I'man extremist, fundie, atheist,agnostic, etc doesn't.

There is a difference between stating I am non relgious and that I believe atheism is a belief so equates a religon and you calling me religous by inferring I am atheists. Understand now.

I know all about FSM and why it was created. I was around at its first breath of life.

Quote :

Do you not or understand what a meme is?

and no I am not asking if you think religion is good or bad.

What are you asking then?

Quote :

In this thread extremist/fundies are relgious...

btw I didn't claim anything I stated I was non relgious. You started throwing the atheist, extremist etc at me. So my claim to be non religous still stands your claim that I'man extremist, fundie, atheist,agnostic, etc doesn't.

There is a difference between stating I am non relgious and that I believe atheism is a belief so equates a religon and you calling me religous by inferring I am atheists. Understand now.

I know all about FSM and why it was created. I was around at its first breath of life.

Please read through the thread again ...

Do you understand what a meme is?

I thought so but it can't hurt for you to tell me, can it?

.tUrniP wrote:

I thought so but it can't hurt for you to tell me, can it?

tUrniP explain to me what you think a meme is?





BTW! It can hurt, if for example while I am telling you, I am hitting you repeatedly over the head with my broomstick.

An idea that spreads from person to person.

I believe that in this context virus and meme are used almost synonymously; The difference being that a virus is necessarily negative whereas a meme is not. Hence "good or bad?".

However, that's not what you're asking, so really I just need you to tell me what's right. It seems easier than me guessing.

A meme can be both good and bad.

Quote :

The difference being that a virus is necessarily negative whereas a meme is not [necessarily negative].

Other than that, are you asking if I think belief is genetic or cognitive? Are people genetically predisposed to believe or is it their conscious choice?

... can't you just tell me?