The God Delusion

[Spec]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


But the fact is, what do you think the probability is? Far less than things most people would dismiss in the blink of an eyelid...

Did you have to specify "lid"? Can soemone blink from else where?

Spec.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Spec
I'm being serious here, try doind the same please and make me understand your point, how you can beleive in something that was created to answer un-answerable question (thus making up answers) and to control an uneducated population to have them do what you want.

Problem with this idea: You do not in fact need a religion to control people in this way. As history since the 1600s or so has demonstrated, it's quite possible to justify the most horrendous things in terms of economic, political, or other theories. Nor is the supposed falsifiability of these theories much of a factor, as the people given power by them are quite capable of sitting on dissent regardless of its origin. The word "heretic" is just replaced by "reactionary" or "anti-progress," etc.

In fact, religions (or at least those historically used for this purpose) have significant, closely interrelated disadvantages as domination-fodder:

A. Being based on interpretation of a received text/other meme, there are limits to how far the ideology can be plausibly stretched to fit existing needs.
B. Most of them have inconvenient but prominent clauses along the lines of "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," which contradict the utility needs of a ruler.
C. With the exception of pure personality cults, all of them set their followers up to be obedient to something greater than their leaders, who are just servants of a deity. It is thus possible to contradict or oppose the Ruler while remaining loyal to the system (follows from A and B).

So it seems more reasonable to me to say that religions were found and used as tools by those in power than to say that they were concocted explicitly for that purpose (with the possible exception of Islam, which IMO appears almost perfect, whether by design or accident, for such an end).

[Spec]

Never said they NEEDED religion, they just used it to justify some things.

A sword used alone can create a riot, a sword used with the explination that god told them so is much more easily "understood".

Like sacrificial killings, they used "god" to dispose of unwanted people for example.

Spec.

[Elok]

Yeah, but some non-religious BS about the greater good in terms of race or society or whatever can work just as well without the risks of religion. So why make up a religion as opposed to, say, some ancient version of trickle-down economics? Well, they didn't have economics back then, but you get the idea, I hope.

[Spec]

Because religion is a catchier story. Like advertising or TV ratings.

Spec.

[Elok]

To use your example, imagine quasi-Malthusian sacrifice: "It is necessary to control our numbers so that we do not consume all available resources. In the interest of the greater good, we will choose whoever we deem least useful to society and kill them. Opposing this practice is an act of opposition to the greater good of not only our tribe but all of humanity, and so must be severely punished." Just off the top of my head at the moment; use your imagination. And yes, I know Malthus was a preacher of some sort, but his ideas in this respect were not religious so I don't think it matters.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Spec
Because religion is a catchier story. Like advertising or TV ratings.

Spec.

Tell that to Hitler, Stalin, Robespierre, Critias, McCarthy...

[CrONoS]

If it was so catchy; I would see millions of people driving their car while listening to the Requiem of Faure, at the same time throwing their money to the poor... directly going to a monastery; to live in comptemplation.

I would also see millions of people in the street; reading St Thomas of Aquinas, St John of The cross or Meister Eckhart... but badly this is not the case... And we are only left with some evangelist on T.V....

Originally posted by Spec
Because religion is a catchier story. Like advertising or TV ratings.

Spec.

[Spec]

Originally posted by Elok


Tell that to Hitler, Stalin, Robespierre, Critias, McCarthy...

Not the same time in history.

Technology tends to dissimate religion.

Spec.

[Spec]

Originally posted by cronos_qc
If it was so catchy; I would see millions of people driving their car while listening to the Requiem of Faure, at the same time throwing their money to the poor... directly going to a monastery; to live in comptemplation.

I would also see millions of people in the street; reading St Thomas of Aquinas, St John of The cross or Meister Eckhart... but badly this is not the case... And we are only left with some evangelist on T.V....

Ok kids, today's word is "WAS:.

When the most fun game was throwing rocks in the water, story telling was quite a pass-time, so religion was much more effective.

Spec.

[Lorizael]

So, Spec, now that you admit the fact that religion is no longer the most successful tool of the oppressors, will you agree to stop harping on it and focus on more prominent and relevant tools such as nationalism, propaganda, etc.?

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Lorizael
So, Spec, now that you admit the fact that religion is no longer the most successful tool of the oppressors, will you agree to stop harping on it and focus on more prominent and relevant tools such as nationalism, propaganda, etc.?

Oh, he does that alot too

[Elok]

Er, Critias was a contemporary of Plato's, and possibly one of the reasons why Socrates had to die. He was one of the Thirty who ruled Athens as a supposedly ideal state. And you'd be hard-pressed to find a ruler of that time, religious or otherwise, with more absolute power. He was so heavy-handed that he got driven out by military force within around a year (IIRC), but his ideology would have served him perfectly well if he'd had the sense to keep it in check. Look at Plato's Republic for a less-extreme example. Why weren't such people more common until recently?

That religious tyrannies were more prevalent is obvious. But given that secular tyrannies can work in such a context, why did so many despots go religious? And seeing as Christianity is just about the most obvious historical example of religion used to exploit people for power: why on earth would somebody make that up to gain power if he'd have to awkwardly ignore half of what Jesus actually said (or was recorded as saying) later?

[BeBMan]

Didn't read the whole thing - did you guys establish in the meantime if there's a God or not? I mean some say so, some disagree, it's all so confusing

[CrONoS]

@Bebro

I think we can definitely agree with Mobius, and say that God doesn't exist! He seems so sure about his opinions. Look how big he wrote BAAAA… .

Originally posted by MOBIUS
BAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Nope, just the arrogance of the certainty that we are right!