Hi,
I've often observed that lie is a common practice, even more with religious people who claim to have moral. Some of them just spread lies because they don't know they're lies but many know they're lying each other's and oven have child and getting married on this basis relationship.
Religious people are not stupid, some are oppressed and some get their way along with that.
I mean that it's possible that most of them are as rationals as anybody but use a filter like religion to know who get manipulated of who use the manipulated ones and not just the Vatican but common citizens also.
Are religions some strange game rules where people just bluffing each others? Are they not just a manipulative propaganda but a culture of lie?
In that case atheists are like someone who play a constant poker game but never bluffing and say out loud the probabilities to win to everyone every time.
The goal of those games would be to generate the most in rule's people possible and one's price will be rewarded as how many he generate without letting the fact that he just use the rule's for others being know.
Growing up in those culture would be learn that's all lies and use those lies to deceive others, most of the time youngsters.
In those culture, men are the ones deceiving women (for the most part ans some are sure that they're are victorious after buying many drinks and journey to the lady and then both have sex. I mean both get sexual activity but one get free stuff!!) and the ones which behavior are the most religious or most believe in obscurantist stuff like astrology, reiki, chakra or get laid by con artist are women.
So in those cultures the ones who get more money, women, fame, are the ones who know what are lies and how to use them to lure people.
Just looking for review on this for now.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
skeptikos575,
The Bible contains numerous stories of con men using religion to enrich themselves and to gain power and status over their superstitious buddies.
yeah but it's told that's wrong but here is the filter. Some will learn how not to be like those con men and others how to act like one and it seems to that how people get higher ranks in religion hierarchy.
There is the ones who listen at the temple and learn how to manipulate those who's been told to blindly respect religion but are made unable to understand it or don't want to listen to this bullshit, the ones who don't understand the lessons and the ones who get manipulated.
My point is, maybe religious people are not believers but act like ones to gain respect or look dumb that way they are above suspicion.
That way the offended when religion's criticized look like an act. It seems to me that most people just play the character they were told to. Shakespeare says "the world is a theater were everyone play an act". Maybe he was far from wrong. As to keep peoples under oppression, making them play an act all their life as to keep them under the constant reward and satisfaction to fulfill a mission is a good one even if it doesn't last as it's difficult to leave the scene and being without a character to act as you never done somethings else.
This quote by Steven Weinberg seemed apropos, as I am always loathe to pigeonhole people.
“Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
The quote speaks to the corrosive and corrupting effect of religion, and the idea that we should base our actions and morals on blindly following a set of rules ripped out of a book cobbled together with ideas on morality from misogynistic bronze age patriarchal societies of hunter gatherers.
All human knowledge must be tentative in order to ensure we can correct it if we are wrong and the evidence demands it. This then is what science demands, but is the complete opposite of what religions demand.
I'm looking for a deeper analysis (mathematical would be perfect) of religion mechanism.
I don't think that most religion are believers and i'm looking for data or analysis on this topic.
Maybe it will lead to an antidote.
The antidote is education, to paraphrase Pink Floyd...The Wall album
Oi, preacher, leave them kids alone....
A more efficient one. I know many engineers who are believers
@skeptikos575
TLDR for this post and my 2nd post below this one:
1. Measurable data in prayer/worship/mass concludes there is no god.
2. Measurable data in history of religious organizations concludes there is no god.
3. Measurable data in finding/learning/believing in/of god when a person is in isolation of other people's teaching of their god, concludes there is no god.
Interested in details, and counter arguments? Please read on.
.
You will not really find any, what you will find is: the absence of data, and the absence of analysis reliant on numbers and data. This is to be expected and in line with something that does not exist.
There are a few lack of things we can observe in a mathematical data way however, the absence of effect.
One of the few things most religions have not yet moved over to entirely metaphysical is: prayer, mass and worship. Several studies have been done on the effectiveness of prayer, with test a group (people praying) and a control group, people not praying. All these studies have shown that prayer has not moved the needle on positive outcome over random chance and the control group. They also have done test where people pray, in earnest for people unaware of the prayer, effectively eliminating the placebo effect.
Another lack of data/numbers is bigger and more obvious.
Never in the history of any organized religion has a particular religious group had any sort of divine like benefit over another religion or other organization of people. Or: in the long term, any additional positive effect for the followers of a religion divine or not. The only real constant we seen in organized religion is: they change, both in context, and in influence. Every major religion in the past has seen a major waning of influence at some point in its history with many disappearing almost entirely. With all of organized religion as a whole suffering a loss of overall population % influence today. And for most all, of recorded human history, those changes of influence can be charted to the ability of the people in the organization to win in aggression and ability to successfully resist/defend from other aggressors.
In summary: Prayer has no measurable effect in positive outcomes, and religions themselves enjoy no measurable long term effect in positive outcomes for the group that follows it. Exactly the lack of data we expect for something that does not exist. Just like: the utter lack of finding rainbow poop tells us, data wise, that unicorns that poop rainbow colored shit do not exist.
Another way to put is: the hard numbers and data disproving organized god based religion is everywhere. In the utter lack of data that points to there being a god, as god is depicted by most major organized religions.
.
.
Some preemptive rebuttals to common counter arguments for anyone interested:
Apologist will say prayer done in a way to try and deceive god does not work, as he is already aware of the dishonesty in that. To which I counter, I can control their god's will by praying dishonestly for someone to make sure he can not intervene in rates above random chance over those that do not pray? Other apologist will say, prayer is not meant for asking for miracles, (even if it is a 12 year old child dying of cancer.) And is only meant to "commune" with their god. But then people are just thinking to themselves, the word prayer has its core definition changed to be just communication instead of asking for things. It is not prayer anymore, it is simply talking to their particular interpretation of god. All the above also applies for worship/mass.
Many religions avoid the increasingly obvious fact that no one religious group has had a divine benefit, including their own, by: saying all the reward is in the unquantifiable and undetectable "afterlife." Convenience of that is, anyone can promise anything about the afterlife, and never have to make good on their promises in the real world. I promise you a trillion dollars in the afterlife, if you give me 10 bucks today, I suspect, (hopefully!) no one would take me up on that deal. Ask yourself: why? Then apply those same reasons to any religion's promises involving afterlife, peel back all the tradition, finery, long history and big impressive structures and you have the same completely worthless promise.
-edited to add a tldr.
Oh, another obvious data/analysis point:
Children must be taught religion, by other people. And a particular religion must be taught or shared by the people of that religion. In isolation no child or grown adult becomes aware of a particular religion's god and the details of that god 100% of the time.
Well duh right? But this again points to that gods/religions are a human construct, children are not born with a particular god in their head (or any god.) If you raise a child in isolation from other people's religious god's input, that child is not going to "find god" on his/her own, because there is nothing for them to find. Subtract out the part of humans telling other humans about their particular god/religion and no one would be religious or believe in god.
Why? Simple, because outside of human communication and shared belief systems, there is no god, just uncomfortable questions people like to have answered.
I know all those fact. The data I'm looking for are "are they conscious they lie?", "to what extend are they conscious?" and such. It's obvious that they're lies but I'm looking for a scientific protocol to go deeper than "Oh! A lie!". What neuronal mechanism where activated or deactivated for make lie a standard or any other hypothesis about how religion work at neurological ground?
I know for living this myself that religious people commit psychological, physical and sexual abuse on their own children as parents. I saw many parents masturbate their children during young age or intrusion into their sexuality and still pretend that they love their child. Even our current society (parents/children) spread the message that who care the most about you is your parents so when your parents commit atrocities on you, you refuse to believe that you're such a lowlife that your own protector abuse you. Later it become impossible to criticize religion who use the lie of love because it you believe you're a lowlife and question religion mean confront the truth that you've been abuse by your parents and it's better to lie too than admit that someone made you a lowlife. There is part of religious shame lie.
Most of the time you need to infiltrate those family to observe it but sometimes i've observe it in public place (in a corridor in a ferry where all people without a room sleep during the night)
I'm pretty sure that most of religious people where sexually abused by their parents as theses practice leave marks as aggressive behavior and such. So how to prove it and how to announce it?
As you Like It
"All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players: they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts, his acts being seven ages"
Probably one of the misquoted extracts of Shakespeare. Which, in a convoluted way proves your point. if we just substitute a few words it can read like this " All religion is a stage, and all the priests merely players: they have their exits and their entrances; and one priest or nun in their time plays many parts, their acts being seven lies,
Religion is a lie. Practitioners are living a lie. Proselytisers are selling the lie for profit. The end.
Don't ever misquote Mr Shakespeare again. I spent 50 years years learning it. Goodnight. *bows*
Thanks for the right quote. English is not my native language and I was pretty sure to misquoted it and sometime it's good being proven wrong personally.
As I say above I'm looking for a deeper analysis of religion's lies because that may lead to an antidote.
That is an interesting way to observe the relationship between religion and dishonesty. IMO this is like the "which came first, the chicken or the egg"?
I doubt we can come close to obtaining relevant data, ask any 'holy man" if they lie, and we have a good idea what the response will be. Which leads to the question on how much slack the believers give to their holy people. Do they expect a completely honest and frank leader, or one who may be guilty of breaking any of the ten commandments?
There is no easy cure for denial. If we did have one, alcoholism would enjoy a valid treatment path.
For those who know they lie it's not about to look for an honest response but to show them that honesty work better. I used to think that but as i knew more I observed that most of religious people have been abused in many way and by their own parents but few people admit it because society told use that our parents are people who care the most about ourself so if they do something hurtful it has to be our guilt.
That the lie of love that religion use as part of the oppression because if you question the lie of love you assume the fact that you've been violated by your parents and you thought the your life is over.
Shame have to be on the aggressor not the victim. Changing that would be the death of one of the most powerfull and used tools of religions.
Religion is man made. Gods are human imaginings. That is the big lie of religion. That humans are not responsible for what gods say.
Can any remotely open minded person fail to notice that deities and religions espouse pretty much the same ideas as the people and societies that created them?
Rhetorical by the way.
@skeptikos575 "Are religions some strange game rules where people just bluffing each others? Are they not just a manipulative propaganda but a culture of lie?"
Believing is seeing. Find some of the YouTube videos on the "Miracles of Kim Jong-il, or Kim, Jong-un." Listen to the people talk about their fearless leader who hit a hole in one, 18 times, the very first time he played golf. Look at the moronic Muslims who believe Muhammad flew to the moon on a horse and then split it in half. Then go back and check your own ideas, You will find most of the ideas we have to be unjustified social creations. This is true whether you are religious or not.
I like your picture of nature from the top of a mountain overlooking the beauty of the valley. Wow, green, peaceful, serene and really connecting with nature. However, you are not trying to survive. You hiked up there for enjoyment. Enjoyment, peace and a great view were what you were looking for so that is what you get. You are not half starved and half naked looking for something to eat. You are not trying to find food for your family. You are not lost in the mountains with no way of telling where the water is or if you will ever find your way out. How you see the world around you is very much a reflection of what it is you are looking for as well as how others around you also see the world. (You probably have a lot of friends that really admire those photos and think just like you.) Believing is seeing.
@skeptikos575 - So in those cultures the ones who get more money, women, fame, are the ones who know what are lies and how to use them to lure people.
No! Not in "Those" cultures. "In all cultures." People who believe your version of reality are attracted to you.. People whom you can convince of your version of reality will look to you for guidance and admire you. You create the story and then you live it. You talk to others about it. And you create your own little "Life World."
"Life World" Lifeworld (German: Lebenswelt) may be conceived as a universe of what is self-evident or given,[1] a world that subjects may experience together.[2] For Edmund Husserl, the lifeworld is the fundamental for all epistemological enquiries. The concept has its origin in biology and cultural Protestantism.[3][4]
The lifeworld concept is used in philosophy and in some social sciences, particularly sociology and anthropology. The concept emphasizes a state of affairs in which the world is experienced, the world is lived (German erlebt). The lifeworld is a pre-epistemological stepping stone for phenomenological analysis in the Husserlian tradition.
I'm asking not affirming somethings. I'm used to scientific protocol and just looking to one about religion's lie effects on neuronal scale or whatever explain how people assume that lies are a common practice as seeing people getting married because their both goods liars. It's a selection's criteria for some. "Boobs: check. Ass:check. Liars: check. ok let's get married"
Not in all culture. In the scientific one it's not a matter of beliefs but proofs and not everybody looking for someone to admire or guidance but just data. I think that it's a matter of culture to have a tendency to admire people as a classification of people.