Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/5/09 01:23 PM, poxpower wrote: Some might innocently be self-deluded but I'm sure a SIZABLE portion of them is full of shit and laughing all the way to the bank while fondling little kid's bums.

That's not black and white, either. I'm sure there's a smooth transition. Most of them probably start off with honest intentions. When they begin to discover how much is in it for them, that's when the self-deception starts to grow. They'll rationalize and convince themselves that what they're doing is still for the better of their fellow human beings, even if it makes them, the clergy, rich in the process. This effect becomes diluted over time until you're just a cynical, indifferent manipulator. But not everyone ends up that far.

At 11/5/09 01:23 PM, poxpower wrote: I guess I'd define brainwashing as MISLEADING someone or as being MISLEAD. But that happens a LOT and we just call that "lies". But at the base of it, brainwashing is just a series of X lies told to a person, intentionally or not.

You're missing the point, though; you don't know if you're being brainwashed by science or not. Marvels of engineering are easy to prove in everyday life (as elfer pointed out), but things like the Big Bang and evidence of evolution are harder for the average individual to believe without firsthand knowledge... you have to take the word of authorities in the subject.

None of us discussing this topic has firsthand experience with the core principles on which their beliefs are based that they can take to everyone and say, "Hey! Look what I've got!" If we did, we sure as hell wouldn't be wasting our time on here. We all just go by the word of experts in the field (you included, pox).

So the question becomes... who here has the authority to claim anybody is brainwashed in their beliefs?

Fame, money, power.

Whereas atheism seeks the betterment of mankind, right?

You realize you sound (almost word for word) just like a southern baptist preacher railing against the evils of atheism, right?

At 11/5/09 06:37 PM, Proteas wrote:

You're missing the point, though; you don't know if you're being brainwashed by science or not.

Is science lying to me? To think so implies a LUDICROUS conspiracy on a global scale involving everyone from the lowest college student to the highest Nobel winner...

Ultimately, it's not important in most instances to me if science is right or not about just about everything.
What do I care if the universe is 13.7 or 14.2 billion years old?

You can't brainwash someone with something that's completely trivial in their lives. To brainwash implies that you promote a change in behavior that is to your advantage even though it's not the truth.

You can lie to me about something but if I don't give a shit about it, you haven't achieved any brainwashing.

That's why we talk about brainwashing a lot more with religion, because it seeps into every aspect of a person's life. Every day they do something they would otherwise not do because they've been told by someone who doesn't know his dick from his ear that he should do it.

At 11/5/09 07:03 PM, poxpower wrote: Is science lying to me? To think so implies a LUDICROUS conspiracy on a global scale involving everyone from the lowest college student to the highest Nobel winner...

And implying that all religion is a pyramid scheme isn't a ludicrous conspiracy?

That's why we talk about brainwashing a lot more with religion, because it seeps into every aspect of a person's life. Every day they do something they would otherwise not do because they've been told by someone who doesn't know his dick from his ear that he should do it.

Whereas atheism doesn't encourage you to act in a specific way, right?

At 11/5/09 07:23 PM, Proteas wrote: Whereas atheism doesn't encourage you to act in a specific way, right?

Not really, no. Atheism is an outcome of a way of thinking, not a causal factor.

Also, the distinction between religion and science is pretty obvious.

Religion says "If you don't believe us on our word alone, you're going to burn for all eternity, so you'd better just believe what we say or else."

Science says "If you don't believe us on our word alone, here's exactly how we did it, go take a shot at it for yourself."

At 11/5/09 07:58 PM, Elfer wrote: Not really, no.

It was an oblique reference to the original subject of this topic; atheist bigotry.

At 11/5/09 07:23 PM, Proteas wrote:

And implying that all religion is a pyramid scheme isn't a ludicrous conspiracy?

No one said that.
Any of that.

Ever.

And it doesn't refute my point. Or address it. Or have anything to do with my post.

Whereas atheism doesn't encourage you to act in a specific way, right?

Atheism is not the cause of any behavior, good or bad.

At 11/5/09 10:00 PM, poxpower wrote: No one said that.
Any of that.

Ever.

You just did, not even 9 hours ago; last reply on page 1. Want me to post a screen cap of it? Perhaps quote it back to you verbatim? This topic isn't long enough for me to misread something you said pages ago.

Atheism is not the cause of any behavior, good or bad.

Neither is religion, it is merely a justification for a set behavior.

At 11/5/09 10:10 PM, Proteas wrote:

You just did, not even 9 hours ago

I didn't say pyramid scheme, I said business.
Some work alone :D

They work more like a corporation.
They provide a (non)-service and depending on the number of morons who pay for it, they employ more people.

Then they use their wealth to influence governments / fund projects etc.

But there is ONE religion in particular that definitely DOES work pretty much exactly like a pyramid scheme: Scientology.

Atheism is not the cause of any behavior, good or bad.

Neither is religion, it is merely a justification for a set behavior.

One day you'll understand the cause/effect relationships.
One day.

At 11/5/09 10:49 PM, poxpower wrote: I didn't say pyramid scheme, I said business.

Oh, so it's legit.

But this is coming from you, so why would I assume for one second you meant a legitimate business venture and not a way to rip people off, as you're whole post implied?

One day you'll understand the cause/effect relationships.

You said atheism doesn't cause any certain behavior.... what's there not to understand? Atheists have no reason to justify their own bad behavior other than their own acerbic personalities, much the same way that religious extremists have no justification for their actions beyond their own delusions of grandeur.

At 11/5/09 07:58 PM, Elfer wrote: Religion says "If you don't believe us on our word alone, you're going to burn for all eternity, so you'd better just believe what we say or else."

I hate it when people use religion as a synonym for Christianity. :/

At 11/5/09 11:10 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: I hate it when people use religion as a synonym for Christianity. :/

I hate it when people don't have the balls to come out and say which religion they have beef with, attacking the whole group instead of the one offending branch.

At 11/5/09 11:07 PM, Proteas wrote:

Oh, so it's legit.

About as legit as lying to people for money can be.

But this is coming from you, so why would I assume for one second you meant a legitimate business venture and not a way to rip people off, as you're whole post implied?

A business doesn't have to be legit.. like the mafia is a business. Crime is a business.
Of you can simply say "they're in the business of" which is to say that "their goal is to".

Religion is a lot of things to a lot of people but at the end of the day it's plain to see that in a lot of places it's amassed incredible fortunes and it's for a reason.

At 11/5/09 11:39 PM, poxpower wrote: About as legit as lying to people for money can be.

Which brings me back to my previous point; ludicrous conspiracy, anybody?

At 11/5/09 11:39 PM, poxpower wrote: About as legit as lying to people for money can be.

This is where I always fall out with you, and people who make your similar argument with this: Is it lying if you believe you're telling the truth? To me it isn't. Are there some clergymen and religious folks in it for the wrong reasons who are probably atheists in theist clothing milking people? Sure, I have no doubt of it. But there are also people who truly believe inside there church and outside that they're religion is truth and correct. How do you call someone who honestly and truly believes what they're saying a lier? Don't hit me with misguided, because we all know you could still call a brain wash or misguided, I want how you would justify that that is LYING. Because I don't buy that it's EVERYONE, and EVERYWHERE that lying occurs.

Oh, I also would like to point out one example where someone's religion actually CAN and WOULD dictate behavior and beliefs: Catholicism. To be Catholic you cannot do the following:

1. Use a birth control, even if you or your partner have a fatal STD. No birth control never

2. No divorce. Hate that spouse of yours? Better hope the church is willing to give you an annulment because no divorces! Even though annulment is, ya know, the same thing? It's just that the church gets a cut of dat money to make it so your marriage never happen.

3. Don't not do anything the Pope says. The Pope is infallible, his word is law. If the Pope says this is the way it is, you're obliged by your faith to follow him.

Do people disregard some or all of these rules? Yes. But to be a TRUE Catholic, you're supposed to follow them, and all the other rules, and many people do. So to act like religion CAN'T be an authoritarian and behavior modifying presence is just not realistic.

At 11/6/09 12:02 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

This is where I always fall out with you, and people who make your similar argument with this: Is it lying if you believe you're telling the truth? To me it isn't.

If you're taking money from people, then it's your responsibility to test your product, isn't it?
Is it poisoning people if I sell them expired marmalade? AW BOO HOO I DIDN'T KNOW BECAUSE I WAS SO SURE THAT MY MARMALADE WAS SAFE I DIDN'T RUN ANY TESTS!

Just as the buyer needs to do his homework, the seller has a responsibility to deliver on the goods and the kind of shit religion sells can't be given to any man by any other man.

I'm sorry but that's how it works. Ignorance is not an excuse, especially not in the 21st century.

And frankly things like Scientology and the Church of Latter Day Saints are obvious OBVIOUS scams.

And I'd argue that people like Ken Ham, Kent Hovind and Ray Comfort are pretty likely exploitative jerkwads because no one can be that retarded.

But to be a TRUE Catholic

I don't think there ever existed one of those.

It's kind of ironic that pox is using arguments based on his strong belief in stereotypes about certain people to try and belittle them for believing stuff.

At 11/6/09 12:17 AM, poxpower wrote: If you're taking money from people, then it's your responsibility to test your product, isn't it?

But what in fact is the product they're selling?

Is it poisoning people if I sell them expired marmalade? AW BOO HOO I DIDN'T KNOW BECAUSE I WAS SO SURE THAT MY MARMALADE WAS SAFE I DIDN'T RUN ANY TESTS!

This isn't the same thing because what you're selling here isn't a tangible product, you're selling a concept and a way to happiness and control of your audience in some cases.

Just as the buyer needs to do his homework, the seller has a responsibility to deliver on the goods and the kind of shit religion sells can't be given to any man by any other man.

Actually it can. Religion when it's done RIGHT gives people feelings of joy, community, and happiness. People can certainly give that to each other with or without it...so that changes the argument to whether or not religion has a right to charge anybody anything for it's particular brand of it. Also technically all collection plate passes are voluntary, so it's certainly possible to pop nothing in there.

I'm sorry but that's how it works. Ignorance is not an excuse, especially not in the 21st century.

I agree, the problem here is I think you've got a biased and somewhat ignorant view on what exactly it is religion sells to people. Therefore it presents flaws in your argument.

And frankly things like Scientology and the Church of Latter Day Saints are obvious OBVIOUS scams.

Oh yes. But that's them, just because they're obviously crap and scams doesn't mean you can lump all faiths and belief systems into it.

And I'd argue that people like Ken Ham, Kent Hovind and Ray Comfort are pretty likely exploitative jerkwads because no one can be that retarded.

Probably they are, but it goes back to can they be considered representative of ALL theists? I say no, it's like the theist claim that Richard Dawkins represents ALL atheists. They only represent themselves in the end, and if people choose to listen and follow them that's they're own damn business and fault.

I don't think there ever existed one of those.

Oh, I think way back before people could read...maybe...there might be some in africa now. Maybe. Not sure. But I think my points on that one still stand :)

At 11/6/09 01:31 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

But what in fact is the product they're selling?

What AREN'T they selling you mean?
Prayers, indulgences, blessings, rituals, powders, serums, therapies, visionsm books, tapes, memberships, machines etc.

This isn't the same thing because what you're selling here isn't a tangible product

Whatever is it you claim to sell, it's your responsibility as a seller to make sure you can deliver it.

Actually it can. Religion when it's done RIGHT gives people feelings of joy, community, and happiness.

That is NOT what they claim they're giving you. That's what happens to you when you THINK they've given you what they promised.

And again it all depends on what in particular you're talking about but usually even simple counseling or advice will be given under false pretense. The religious person thinks a priest knows dick about a sex life or finances and will trust them because of their religious bonds.

And that's the LEAST mislead you can be.

At 11/5/09 11:13 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 11/5/09 11:10 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: I hate it when people use religion as a synonym for Christianity. :/

I hate it when people don't have the balls to come out and say which religion they have beef with, attacking the whole group instead of the one offending branch.

Oh, there's a heap of them, but with variations on the theme. It should be noted that the idea of eternal punishment in religion existed way back in ancient egypt, long before Christianity was invented by Roman executioners.

Catholicism = you'll burn in hell
Judaism = you won't get into heaven, and this is KILLING your mother
Islam = we'll put you in a bag and hit you with rocks until you'll die

etc. etc. etc.

The point I was making is that no matter what method they use to convince people, it's never evidence-based. There's a few exceptions, like Zen Buddhism, but those are few and far between, and start blurring the lines between religion and philosophy.

At 11/6/09 07:58 AM, Elfer wrote: Judaism = you won't get into heaven, and this is KILLING your mother

Judaism doesn't specifically acknowledge the existence of heaven for everyone. "Going up" is only ever referenced 3 times in the Tanach, and there is nothing else on the subject. There's one reference to a possible resurrection of all Jews, but again there aren't any qualifiers on it.

Judaism is an Orthopraxy, and a majority of its laws and customs, as you have pointed out, are social constructs and are already found in government and other societies regardless of religion. Aside from a few stories where god "opens up the earth," "unleashes plagues," or "floods the world" (which he promised according to the story not to do again), there's very little reprisal for disobedience. And, perhaps even more uniquely, Judaism doesn't claim non-jews are responsible for anything. The reality is that while Judaism claims to be a monotheistic religion, it is really just a religion that sprang from the worshiping of a single god as the best god while acknowledging there might be others. As such, in almost all of the scripture a majority of the laws (neglecting those the scripture claims were given to Noah (a non-jew) only 9 (do not murder, etc)), only apply to Jews. It also entirely custom to reject people who want to convert. While there were ages where Jews did proselytize, its hardly the norm now and consequences aren't held out. Being a Jew is more of a burden than not being one and we look at it more as donning a responsibility.

All that said, every philosophy has people who indoctrinate others on some level. I only agree with Proteus that indoctrination shouldn't be used as an argument against. Not all indoctrination is bad. Not every religion leads to strife. And if there is an issue in an argument, indoctrination doesn't get to the root of the argument.

At 11/5/09 01:23 PM, poxpower wrote: Religious is and has always been a business.

Woah, woah, I have to disagree with you on that. If you're going to go by scripture, you would know that Jesus barely made any money at all, and was basically homeless. You can bash modern religious practices all you want, but to say that it has always been a business is inaccurate. In fact, Muhammad and Buddha were already rich before making religions. I doubt it was done for money. Now, Scientology, that was done for money as the creator said making a religion would be a good way to make money. I don't recall anyone of any other religion saying that.

At 11/6/09 10:01 AM, Ericho wrote:

At 11/5/09 01:23 PM, poxpower wrote: Religious is and has always been a business.

If you're going to go by scripture, you would know that Jesus barely made any money at all,

Jesus did what every quack today does for a living: bum money, food, services etc. off people in exchange for promises, good thoughts and magic tricks.

If prostitution is the oldest job, prophet has to be the second oldest. The second Jesus realised he could just quit having a real job and just live off people's good will he probably had a boner.

Except he probably never existed anyway so who cares.

Muhammad and Buddha were already rich before making religions. I doubt it was done for money.

Here's one thing you may not know about rich people: they want more money and power anyway.
As far as Buddha goes, I'm pretty he was fictional too so who cares what his religion says about him? It's not true.

At 11/6/09 03:46 PM, poxpower wrote: As far as Buddha goes, I'm pretty he was fictional too so who cares what his religion says about him? It's not true.

Ih, no. Buddha is generally regarded to be a genuine historical fugure. It's just that there's little data seeing he lived around 500 BC.

And he really did give up his earthly posessions. Some Buddhists sect embrace this idea, others (like the Tibetan branch) don't.

Religonns aren't that much about money, as they are about power, though. All/any religions can be used as a justification for realpolitik.

I just wish we could get along. It does not matter to me if you are atheist or religious. These threads always gets into pointless bitching on both sides and nothing new is presented by both sides. Just give up on these threads.

At 11/6/09 03:46 PM, poxpower wrote: Here's one thing you may not know about rich people: they want more money and power anyway.
As far as Buddha goes, I'm pretty he was fictional too so who cares what his religion says about him? It's not true.

There's pretty good historical evidence for Buddha, since he was actually known as a prince before he was known for his spiritual teachings. He also didn't claim to have superpowers or a phone line directly to god. His teachings all basically came down to "try to be a good person."

Buddhism is an oddity among world religions in that for the most part, you don't really need to believe in anything. There's certainly no concept of heresy the way it exists in say, Catholicism.

It's interesting since parenting plays such a big part in the religious development of an individual.

If you are brought up with the notion that god is an all knowing omnious being etc etc than you will be very much more inclinced to believe in god than a person that is brought up that god is a farce that is not to be believed in.

Yet many atheist I believe, are brought up that they should make their own judgement and then they are offered the stories of a religion and the laws of physics etc. Ethiest choose logic and reasoning in their respective scientific contexts as their orientation and feel inclined to say I agree with this position since there is an overwhelming amount of empirical evidence to support this stance rather than religion.

So I arrive at the conclusion that many people may be brainwashed (religious or not), but still the people who are not are less likely to make a certain claim that has been disproven (such as the effectiveness of prayer) or philosophically wrong (such as the claim that god still lives if he ever lived).

I understand the concern that religious debates may be overturned as a superstition too easily but I believe it to be a very good development that a lot of people start questioning faith (as long as they remember to do the same for theories etc.)

At 11/6/09 06:53 PM, Elfer wrote:

Buddhism is an oddity among world religions in that for the most part, you don't really need to believe in anything.

Doesn't take a long read of the wiki page to know how much mystical bullshit is mixed in with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism.

"Devotion is an important part of the practice of most Buddhists.[92] Devotional practices include bowing, offerings, pilgrimage, chanting. In Pure Land Buddhism, devotion to the Buddha Amitabha is the main practice. In Nichiren Buddhism, devotion to the Lotus Sutra is the main practice."

It's the same story.
Build temples, make statues, become priest, take offerings: profit.

It might be tamer in its teaching but contains just as much bullshit as the others. It's like the unsalted butter of the religious world.

But at the end of the day, they're all in the same racket.

At 11/6/09 09:20 PM, poxpower wrote: But at the end of the day, they're all in the same racket.

You do realize that there is such a thing as Church of Atheism, right?

At 11/6/09 09:46 PM, Proteas wrote: You do realize that there is such a thing as Church of Atheism, right?

You also realize that there's no actual church building, and the only thing that organization does is ordain people as ministers, right? There's no obligation, real or implied, for any atheists anywhere to have anything to do with this organization.