Religion: Just a Form of Brain Washing?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

This may cause a bit of ill feeling ,but, we are all entitled to an opinion.

I, personally find the idea of religion as a cop out. A way and excuse for people to justify there actions and the way they live there lives.
I have no problem with admitting that it does good. It encourages values and so on and helps people get through life.

I have a problem with it being used as an EXCUSE for a persons actions or reasonings when it impacts upon another’s life and exsistence.

I wont “preach” so to speak, as i personally don’t follow any beliefs other than those that i have learnt through life.

I am interested in others points of view. And, PLEASE!!! don’t turn this into an us verses them forum. I am looking for opinions and points of view only. I’m not here to judge or persecute.

2

[quote]Perfectcircle wrote:
This may cause a bit of ill feeling ,but, we are all entitled to an opinion.

I, personally find the idea of religion as a cop out. A way and excuse for people to justify there actions and the way they live there lives.
I have no problem with admitting that it does good. It encourages values and so on and helps people get through life.

I have a problem with it being used as an EXCUSE for a persons actions or reasonings when it impacts upon another’s life and exsistence.

I wont “preach” so to speak, as i personally don’t follow any beliefs other than those that i have learnt through life.

I am interested in others points of view. And, PLEASE!!! don’t turn this into an us verses them forum. I am looking for opinions and points of view only. I’m not here to judge or persecute.

[/quote]

You say you don’t follow any beliefs other than those that you have learnt through life? How is being religious and using the teachings from religion used in daily life as a belief system any different from your own?

If people are religious, assuming they are performing good acts such as what the teachings were intended for, how is that a negative quality pertaining to being used as an EXCUSE for a persons actions or reasonings.

Don’t blame the system as a whole when individuals abuse it. You don’t blame all arabs for being terrorists, so why blame religion and religious people for negative qualities as well?

3

[quote]Perfectcircle wrote:
I have a problem with it being used as an EXCUSE for a persons actions or reasonings when it impacts upon another’s life and exsistence.[/quote]

In a good way or bad way? Be specific. I’m going to assume in a bad way (for the most part).

We all make our own decisions and have to live with them.

Karma ftw.

4

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Karma ftw.[/quote]

As far as I can tell, Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism and Buddhism are widely considered religions.

And personally, I don’t see any difference between the concept of karma and divine retribution as described in the monotheistic religions.

5

I remember reading somewhere (I think it was Thomas Browne in Religio Medici) that being an “atheist” (if that’s what the OP is saying) is quite impossible, on the following reasoning: every single one of us holds something of “ultimate concern.” Everyone.

Thing is, whatever you hold as an “ultimate concern” is your God. It might be a “false” God. It might be a harmful God. You might worship it unconsciously. But it is your God.

Religion, however, is just an accumulated wisdom about what & how to worship.

Why you think this is brainwashing is a little odd actually.

It seems to me that religion prevents “brainwashing” so that one doesn’t fall into the secularist trap of believing that he is “following his own drummer,” when in fact he has been all along - unconsciously or not - worshipping any number of things with a zeal that looks very much like a religious fanatic: money, power, one’s own body, one’s self, one’s children, the environment, et cetera.

6

Katzenjammer,

I’d say the idea of an “ultimate concern” being your particular god is stretching the definition of god to the point that it is meaningless… you might as well call it something else, like Ultimate Concern, so people will know what you’re talking about.

7

Organized religion - Can be very bad, can do very good.
Religious feelings - Can make you do very bad, can be very good.
Spirituality - Usually harmless, can be helpful or hurtful, but usually only to one’s self.

Religion is like anything else. It can cause horrible things and it can bring people joy. It can bring ignorance, and it can start debate.

Ect ect

Religion is not necessarily brain washing, though it is not necessarily NOT brain washing either. You can’t lump all religion into the same exact pile. (Note: I said Religion, not Religions).

8

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
I remember reading somewhere (I think it was Thomas Browne in Religio Medici) that being an “atheist” (if that’s what the OP is saying) is quite impossible, on the following reasoning: every single one of us holds something of “ultimate concern.” Everyone.

Thing is, whatever you hold as an “ultimate concern” is your God. It might be a “false” God. It might be a harmful God. You might worship it unconsciously. But it is your God.

Religion, however, is just an accumulated wisdom about what & how to worship.

Why you think this is brainwashing is a little odd actually.

It seems to me that religion prevents “brainwashing” so that one doesn’t fall into the secularist trap of believing that he is “following his own drummer,” when in fact he has been all along - unconsciously or not - worshipping any number of things with a zeal that looks very much like a religious fanatic: money, power, one’s own body, one’s self, one’s children, the environment, et cetera.

[/quote]

I also agree with the above that this talk of “ultimate concern” doesn’t quite get anywhere.

i’ve always been annoyed by the religious (which, this being a western culture generally means christians) who try and pull “trump cards” like these. it is of course possible to be an atheist–the atheist is simply someone who denies the existence of a supernatural god (to put it crudely). of course, one can give some sort of straw man argument that well of course the atheist must live for SOMETHING, and thus that that something is their god. as the above poster said though, this is meaningless, as it stretches the meaning of god beyond what the atheist ever intended. of course, the atheist can nod their head and agree that they to have a “god”–but this brings them no closer to admitting theism.

and this thing about the atheist being “brainwashed” is equally as silly. in this respect, the primary difference between the atheist and the christian is that the atheist is free to change their mind without being self contradictory. the atheist is far more intellectually free then the christian, who generally asserts to already know the absolute truth. the only way to damn the atheist on this point is to again build up a straw man argument, and argue that since the athiest can’t really be absolutely “free”, that he isn’t free at all. the atheist is far more free then the theist.

finally, my last thoughts on the topic is… that atheism is as silly as theism. perhaps the better approach is to be agnostic and simply realize that for the most part, talk of the religious and supernatural is irrelevant to current issues (despite what the theist may claim). (i realize this is a large claim, one that i cannot support right now)

9

[quote]lixy wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Karma ftw.

As far as I can tell, Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism and Buddhism are widely considered religions.

And personally, I don’t see any difference between the concept of karma and divine retribution as described in the monotheistic religions.[/quote]

It depends who you ask. Karma means ‘willful action’ to a large swath of Buddhists.

10

Agnosticism is a cop-out – as if there were any question as to the possibility of “knowing” God. Of course God is unknowable – isn’t this why such knowledge is more commonly referred to as having faith?

One either has faith in the existence of a higher power or one does not. If one questions the existence of god by taking the agnostic position one is by default an atheist. Having faith necessarily means that the position is unquestionable – hence not agnostic – or else it couldn’t be faith.

11

[quote]lixy wrote:
As far as I can tell, Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism and Buddhism are widely considered religions.

And personally, I don’t see any difference between the concept of karma and divine retribution as described in the monotheistic religions.[/quote]

Hinduism isn’t a religion per se, it’s a term coined by the British to lump every tribal religion in India together. But they’re all very similar. So I suppose it’s a bastard religion made of melding all the previous Dharmic faiths in India and Sri Lanka together. Just like English is a bastard language.

What’s your understanding of karma, just out of curiosity?

I was taught that it’s simply cause and effect. We determine our own fate.

12

[quote]beebuddy wrote:
lixy wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Karma ftw.

As far as I can tell, Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism and Buddhism are widely considered religions.

And personally, I don’t see any difference between the concept of karma and divine retribution as described in the monotheistic religions.

It depends who you ask. Karma means ‘willful action’ to a large swath of Buddhists. [/quote]

I meant karma in the generally accepted sense (i.e: what goes around, comes around).

13

[quote]beebuddy wrote:
It depends who you ask. Karma means ‘willful action’ to a large swath of Buddhists. [/quote]

Is this a reference to something?

14

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Agnosticism is a cop-out – as if there were any question as to the possibility of “knowing” God. Of course God is unknowable – isn’t this why such knowledge is more commonly referred to as having faith?

One either has faith in the existence of a higher power or one does not. If one questions the existence of god by taking the agnostic position one is by default an atheist. Having faith necessarily means that the position is unquestionable – hence not agnostic – or else it couldn’t be faith.[/quote]

At first, I typed out some spiel about how your first assumption–that god was unknowable–was merely that, and assumption. I also talked about how you hadn’t even bothered to differentiate the different ways one might “know” god that are common in both theology and epistemology (ie, like the difference between having acquaintance and knowing facts). But, after all that, i decided a simple counter-example would work much better…

you claim that God is unknowable. There are many things though that I know about God. For instance, I know that God is not the coffee cup sitting on my desk right now. I also know that God is not the stink bug on my wall at the moment. I also know that if God exists, that he might be “beyond my comprehension”. I also know that if God is on this earth, God is not material–and that if God is not on this earth, that God might be material. etc…

Thus, God is knowable, for I know many things about God, and men who study God know many more things about him then I.

Moreover, you attempt to support your claim by arguing that any “knowledge” of God is really only faith. this is merely begs the question–and is a circular argument.

without your assumption that God is unknowable, your second paragraph falls apart as an argument.

Thus, one might be a theist because they have faith, but a lack of faith does not make one an atheist–as you try to suggest–unless you assume that “faith” constitutes all ways of knowing God.

so… i’ll chop this “you can’t be an agnostic” stuff up as another “trump card”, just like the whole “you can’t be an atheist” stuff.

15

You don’t know that God is not your coffee cup. What if he is? How would you know?

Explain how you can know God please.

Why can’t he be material on this earth, or immaterial off of it?

He/she’s fucking GOD. He/she/it can be whatever the fuck it wants to be.

16

The burden of proof has always been on religionists and they’ve always come up short.

17

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
You don’t know that God is not your coffee cup. What if he is? How would you know?

Explain how you can know God please.

Why can’t he be material on this earth, or immaterial off of it?

He/she’s fucking GOD. He/she/it can be whatever the fuck it wants to be. [/quote]

I said I know that God is not my coffee cup, not that I did not know whether he was or not.

I cannot answer your question about what God is (at least to your liking), but I still know many things about God.

How do I know God? Why can’t God be the things I said? Because these things involve contradictions–if God was my Coffee cup, then it would not be God. If God was material and on this earth, we would surely know it–if not, then it is not God. etc…

By your very act of demanding that I know God, you have limited what God can and cannot be. It is not true that God can be “whatever the fuck” it wants to be, for there are many things that if it were, then it would not be God. (and moreover, if God were those things, say like my coffee cup, then I would surely know God, because I know my coffee cup quite well).

But anyway… I was trying to be cute in giving the counter-examples–trying to show how some of the “trump cards” some of you were trying to pull were not thought out at all.

though my counter-examples are true, although a bit cute, my real objection to the claim that one cannot “know” god beyond “faith” is that the claim is simply meaningless. in making the claim, there has been no attempt to clarify just what it means. does it mean that one can only have acquaintance with God by faith? does it mean that one can only know facts about God by faith? If it means one of these ways, one what grounds is the claim made? what epistemic standards of knowing are being applied? are you using the classic “justified true belief” account of knowledge? what?

I mean look, i’m all for discussion about these topics, but some of the stuff that gets said is just silly. having an opinion on an issue and an argument for that position is one thing–but attempting to pull “trump cards” while making wide, sweeping statements that ignore most of the other related positions and arguments is silly.

18

I think many people are able to twist things and use them for their own reasons. “revenge is mine says the lord” You have no right to hurt people ect… so how can Christians be responsible for what a few people do and claim it to be part of their groups beliefs…you dont hate Germans because of hitler…

People are always going to doubt what is real. Jesus performed many miracles right before the apostles eyes and they still doubted him…when he rose from the dead after he was nailed to the cross and stabbed they doubted him. Doubt is natural so I dont blame people for having trouble believing in god.

Even if God wasnt real then it still has a positive effect on people…it makes people much stronger than they could ever be alone.

19

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
You don’t know that God is not your coffee cup. [/quote]

http://www.veoh.com/videos/v6993747sG3b5ME2

20

[quote]Perfectcircle wrote:
This may cause a bit of ill feeling ,but, we are all entitled to an opinion.

I, personally find the idea of religion as a cop out. A way and excuse for people to justify there actions and the way they live there lives.

[/quote]

I really don’t know, but my general view is that religion isn’t so much a “cop out” in most cases, as it is simply a social thing.

What i mean is that most religious people were born into a religious family, they grew up in the religion, came to adhere to it to some degree, and will thus continue to follow the religion throughout their life if for no other reason then thats what comes naturally. in one way its socially easily to continue the religion, in another way its just natural.

it seems little different then most other cultural things–ie, one eats the general types of foods they were brought up on, wears the general types of cloths, etc…

of course there is deviation everywhere, but we’re talking in generalities here.