Are religions mind control?

[Pekka]

And it still wouldn't be a religion.

What you're doing is playing the relativist game and it's just not something that's going to work. Case and point when you said I was indoctrinated to something. Sure. I won't deny that. It would be quite impossible to be completely influence free. However, that implicates that you can't associate any good or bad values to it. That's the relativist game once again.

The question that is presented in the topic is very clear, it explains itself and there's no room for existentialism in it.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Kataphraktoi
In a super nationalist state(fascism) the state itself could be the universe.

That makes no sense. There's a certain ideal of what a state is and what it does or how it works in fascism (as there are other ideals about a state with a democratic constitution etc.), but that does not make for a religion. You watered down the def so much that nearly everything with some rules and beliefs can be a religion, which makes such a def worthless, since it doesn't allow a clear distinction between different phenomena anymore. If your def includes everything you don't need it.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Kataphraktoi

After all you could say there are aliens living in the center of the earth and there is no proof either way. Its a moot statement

Nice dodge b/c the answer is obviously uncomfortable to a theist.

And if I did make such a claim would you not require some evidence? I have no evidence so to make such a claim would be silly. Where's your evidence of a supreme being (whatever you choose to call them)?

[Aeson]

This thread is mind control. (Nowhere near as potent as the mind control exhibited in the babe thread though...) The sun is mind control. Pekka is mind control. Everything is mind control.

[Elok]

Is throwing around hysterical labels a form of mind control?

[Aeson]

Yes, so is asking questions!

[Dis]

more like mind influence, or social influence. As religion is just a form of social influence. No different that perhaps any other organization. Any organization can influence (Charles Manson did it). So don't go bashing religion, it's just a tool to influence others, but doesn't always work. But I hate all the religion bashers, best to bash the people instead, they are the ones that crave power, and will use any means necessary to achieve it.

[Aeson]

Influence is just a form of incomplete control.

[Shrapnel12]

in·doc·tri·nate /ɪnˈdɒktrəˌneɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-dok-truh-neyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -nat·ed, -nat·ing. 1. to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.
2. to teach or inculcate.
3. to imbue with learning.

This is the definition of indoctrination. As you can see, Pekka is right. Instruction in religion can be called indoctrination, but so can a variety of broad concepts that Pekka did not choose to discuss. My sense of offense comes at using the word as an attack against religion. Pekka says it was not his intent to do so, so now I must decide if I believe him or not. I tend to not believe him, because again, he singled out religion. Why? What's your point?

Pekka, you also mistake me for a religious person. I neither believe nor disbelieve in any religion, but I was raised Roman Catholic. As a religion I have a lot of problems with it, but the people who worshipped in our church were very nice people just like you or me. They worship as Roman Catholics, but do not agree to everything. Some such as I have left the church and others came to it as adults. This is not mind control.

Wezil,
If I were a person of faith, I would answer that I don't believe in Zeus because it is not of my faith. I would tell you that I believe in my particular religion because I have faith in my god. It doesn't really matter if that's a good or poor answer. It doesn't really matter if you understand the answer. I would agree that's no way to convince others however if that is the intent.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12

Wezil,
If I were a person of faith, I would answer that I don't believe in Zeus because it is not of my faith. I would tell you that I believe in my particular religion because I have faith in my god. It doesn't really matter if that's a good or poor answer. It doesn't really matter if you understand the answer. I would agree that's no way to convince others however if that is the intent.

"Faith" is not evidence. It is the opposite actually.

[Pekka]

Shrapnel, that's because it is not an attack against religion. Since when is questioning an attack? It's a very valid and legit question.

Even within religions, even if there is a deity and one or two religions gets it right, it means all the rest are false, and that's the best case scenario.

Why I chose religion, well let's see.... because this question is interesting to me. Hey, there's LOTS of indoctrination that has ethical problems, no doubt about it. But religion is the most effective and the biggest one that can be seen throughout the world.

Indoctrination, if you think teaching science is indoctrinating to something, fine. But religion is different in a sense that it is based on faith, it often assumes a deity, it often has rules, it often divides people into believers and others, heaven, hell, all kinds of things. IT's a whole world of its own.

Now, do you believe in Santa? Why not? Well my deity isn't Santa, but this is the level that is being discussed. Beliefs and faith that rules people. And it does rule a looooooooooot of people, if not the majority. It is the irrational that requires faith when all you got is a manual that someone wrote, that religions often have. So indoctrinating people to that is a bit different than teaching them how to drive a car for example. If you disagree, you're taking the relativist game, which we can all play but when it comes to religion or politics, it's the equivalent of Godwin.

So we can stop this "well everything is indoctrinating" and "everything is mind control" stuff right about here. To argue semantics or to not understand the terms on purpose to hold on the last argument is really weak and not welcome anymore.

[Shrapnel12]

Wezil,
It was not my understanding that you asked for evidence.

Pekka,
I think our disagreement lies in the effect you think religion has. I think atheism and polotics are just as influential and when it comes to being based on faith, what would you say about communism? Here's a system that history has proven beyond doubt to be wrong, yet people still hold desparately to its tenets.

Getting back to the OP, I do think I've answered your question however. It's not mind control because people can easily change their minds about their faith and I've given examples. Dis said it most accurately when he said it is social influence. There is a difference between influence and mind control. On the other hand, there are cases of religions that brainwash their youth. This kind of mind control take severe abuse and terror however. Even then, it's not always successful.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12
Wezil,
It was not my understanding that you asked for evidence.

Post #33 I stated it clearly when asked if I believed in creatures at the centre of the earth or some such...

And if I did make such a claim would you not require some evidence? I have no evidence so to make such a claim would be silly. Where's your evidence of a supreme being (whatever you choose to call them)?

"Faith" in one supreme being w/o any evidence but not believing in another equally lacking in evidence to me reeks of indoctrination. Someone, somewhere convinced you to believe in fairies. Most likely through societal pressures.

[Shrapnel12]

Wezil,

Oops, there it is, but I was responding to post #24. I'll answer that question too though. No, I don't need evidence of your beliefs. As for do I have any evidence? Nope. Faith is all that's required. (again speaking from a believer pov).

I have almost no faith, so I require more, but I'm also not afraid of anyone's beliefs so I can argue both sides.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12
Wezil,

Oops, there it is, but I was responding to post #24. I'll answer that question too though. No, I don't need evidence of your beliefs. As for do I have any evidence? Nope. Faith is all that's required. (again speaking from a believer pov).

Which is where the debate ends b/c faith requires no evidence. I deal in the real world.

I have almost no faith, so I require more,

I have "faith" in some things despite little to no evidence ("People are ultimately good") but I have no faith in imaginary beings.

but I'm also not afraid of anyone's beliefs

It would depend on what those beliefs are. Some scare me.

so I can argue both sides.

Well you try. I read you as a right winger trying hard to appear a moderate but those core beliefs sneak out every now and then. No offense, just a personal read. You try to be a conciliator of sorts. That's not a negative trait.

I'll argue whatever side/position I'm paid to argue.