PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

"unorthodox" with regards to religion basically means "outside of traditional teaching"

When I moved to the country several years ago, I thought I would be safe from the missionaries but today they found me. There were two of them, a man and a woman. The woman started to say something about Virginia Tech and then I noticed the bible in her hand. I said "Wait, there's a problem. These are private roads. Only home owners and guests are allowed here and I'm calling the association now".

What is it with these people? That pisses me off!

I'm not exactly sure what Stardust is getting at...

I think a lot of what you attributed to 'brainwashing' by parents (plopping them in front of tv etc..) is simply laziness, rather than a deliberate attempt at getting their children to think a certain way.

braincell, if you hate missionaries why do you want to be like them and try to convince everyone that YOU have the right answers? you're worse than they are, for hating....

well, regardless of the religion, a realistic aspect of the gathering is that any religion is, essentially a business. Not necessarily a business to make profit out of, but just that it works under a economics model. Apart from spreading whatever the belief that a religion may have, that effort has to be combined with an effort to convert new users, and ultimately generating more income.

Personally, I'd care less what the religions taught as long as it's something peaceful and harmless. A lot of religions use the same methods to "brainwash", or "reach out", depending on your view point. If bad people are being brainwashed with good thoughts, then I've only to commend the effort. It's the people who use these established methods for their own gain that I have a problem with.

A religion is a powerful organization. Used correctly, it can be used to give a sense of belonging for those that don't belong elsewhere. It can put people in a managable social construct, simplifying the world into smaller, managable parts. It's a method of stress coping, and organized thiinking. The only trade off is the religion specific world view. This is what makes them a "tribe", distancing them from other groups with different world views.

With a world view that is self supporting and self inflating, any religion is succeptible to unbalance. Since the value system feeds itself, the feedback loop often creates exponential mis-conceptions and mis-understandings. That's pointing to the many strange cults down south, or out in the country side. A mass suicide because the heavenly beings are coming? Within a feedback loop, I think such big misconceptions start from a very small detour that quickly builds on top of itself, and before you know it, the group is dead.

But essentially, I think these problems aren't local to religions. It's a problem on a wider scale. I'd say it's a cultural problem, or a problem that lies in basics of human society. It's the basic weakness of a generic group of people.

Segmentation (into smaller units) creates a unique entity, leading to identity. When the segmentation becomes too strong, and becomes a wall, the world becomes compartmentalized. Each member in the compartment then establishes identity within the population inside the compartment. At this point, the person's identity is no longer based on the "real" (pre-compartment) world, but relies on the existence of the compartments. This is when religion goes wrong.

Good points Kensuguro.

Brainwashing involves feeding people lies. Telling people the truth is not brainwashing. That is called 'education'. Education involves facts. Brainwashing skews facts or is fiction. They are *totally* different things. Because I want to teach people facts doesn't mean they should also be taught lies for balance. Yes people can read what they want these days but children are very impressionable. If you feed them lies as children, they will buy into it.

A religion is like a country. They want you to love it, to fight for it, to die for it. It's a matter of power but in the end, a country is a worthless piece of dirt, the same as any dirt anywhere in the world. There is nothing special about it just because you were born there or have some proclamation of citizenship. When observed from space, there are no boundaries. We make these walls. I get really angry when I hear politicians say this is the greatest country in the world. How could they say this when they never lived in all the other countries? Why can't they just say we are a good country and leave it at that? They divide us. They do not unite us. I'm not a team player. I don't go along with the game plan. I need to see proof and have yet to see one iota of proof about god, prophecies, or biblical miracles. How absurd it would be for me to think otherwise yet for so many, the absence of facts makes no difference in their view of reality.

Various people in the world such as Chinese and Japanese are not so anal about religion and I wish Americans could be more like they are, but I have little hope that we can achieve this in my lifetime.

What you would call a 'fact' may very well depend on one's point of view.
Your 'fact' may be anothers 'fiction'

take this for instance:

"a country is a worthless piece of dirt, the same as any dirt anywhere in the world. "

That is certainly true, but only from your perspective.

An alternative, and equally valid way of viewing a 'country' is to include the society that makes up the country. It's law's, the principles upon which it was founded, etc..
It could be said, and I think rightly so, that THOSE are the things that make a country great.

Don't be so quick to assume YOU want to teach people the "truth" or "facts", while people you disagree with simply want to brainwash people with lies and deception.
It would be the height of arrogance to assume such things.

Excuse me but your definition of a fact is in error. You can not decide what a fact is. As I stated earlier, a fact is something that everyone can agree on. We clearly don't agree on religion so religion can not be fact by definition.

Excuse me but your definition of a fact is in error.

Uhh. No. Sorry chief, it's not.

You can not decide what a fact is

I'm not suggesting I determine what is or is not a fact.

As I stated earlier, a fact is something that everyone can agree on.

LOL. yeah right. Methinks you are the one who does not understand what a 'fact' is.
If your assertion were a 'fact' there would be no 'facts' because it is rare that everyone agrees on anything!

We clearly don't agree on religion so religion can not be fact by definition.

And the creationists and evolutionists don't agree on anything, so apparently none of the claims made by either side are 'fact'
At least according to Braincells definition of a 'fact'

I think this is a very bad facet of religion tho. Whether a member of one religion fights to guard his belief, or fights to change another's belief. It easily takes on a competitive structure, or a survival structure. The bottom line is though, that religion is just a set of beliefs. It's a set of values. This is something that humans have by nature. Religion, like any culture, family, friends, tradition, extreme experiences, boy scouts, team sports, sex, etc, gives a supporting framework to assist the sharing of beliefs.

It's ironic that the framework to assist the sharing of beliefs creates such tension and friction. In the end, it is just a framework, a system. The rest is pretty much what the people bring into it.

I think there is always a collaborative way of tackling an issue. We can sit here and throw rhetorical jabs and punches about the details of religion, or gather together to view religion as an interesting social aspect of human beings, that we all can learn something from. It's pointless to fight over a framework that is meant for peace. (for the most part... )

A study of religion, is the study of the human value system, and ultimately how humans function within a social unit. When you think of it that way, it's a lot less about what each religion believes in (difference), it's alot about how people persue their beliefs (common denominator).

manfriday wrote:

If your assertion were a 'fact' there would be no 'facts' because it is rare that everyone agrees on anything!

Is this a fact? You seem to be saying that there is no such thing as objective truth, because everyone has different opinions on the details of it. If so, you could not possibly express such a thought, because it claims to be an objective truth. We all can and do agree that water boils at 100celcius. It's like saying "Wise men doubt, fools are certain". Are you sure of this? "I'm certain!"

I don't claim to know for sure that I have any one fact right. I know though, that it is POSSIBLE for me to have a fact right. If it were not.. then it could not be a fact that it was impossible for me to have a fact right. Reasoning is something you have to accept is valid (on faith ) . You can't prove it (a proof would be reached by reasoning, which is yet to be proven), or disprove it (since you've proven no proofs are possible, your proof is not possible).

We all can and do agree that water boils at 100celcius.

Not really, it depends on the air pressure

piddi wrote:

We all can and do agree that water boils at 100celcius.

Not really, it depends on the air pressure

OK, then specify whatever variables you want. But the temperature the water boils at is the same for you and for me, regardless of our beliefs.

Morally, don't do to anyone which you don't wanne be done to yourself is all I need
Only this will garantee my personal freedom.
Politically this unevetible means a representive democracy based on one-man-one-vote right, as long as no better option is available.
The rest are details, some social struggle about them, and some burocracy
A certain social and psychological damage caused by the resulting personal freedom which not everyone can handle, is the price I (we) will have to face.

stardust wrote:Didn't we have that before ?
Statistics dont tell simple truths, but probabilities of various truths in a certain context.
[/b]

Is this the truth? Or just probable to be true?

Hey, My favorite way to rid myself of people who wish to save me and my twisted world is to invite them inside.

Jehovahs witnesses are the best. There's always 2 or 3, and usually male and females together, as the Lord intended of course.

Pretend you are really interested and bring them into your house, asked them to have a refreshment to make them comfortable, and after they are seated sit next to the dame and let them make their speil, the whole time you are caressing the womans leg and have your arm around her. I guarentee they are too shy to make a scene, and it's kind of fun to see the broad getting a little bit giddy. They will not come back I guarentee it. But if the girl shows back up alone, you'll know why. Then I suggest while having sex with her to qoute from the Bible using a Charlton Heston type voice ( a little verb for God like autheticity ) and say .......Here's Your Daily Bread. It's a win win situation. You could have sex with a sweet good hearted woman, or they never come back. Both are acceptable solutions for me.

Liquid Len wrote:

stardust wrote:Didn't we have that before ?
Statistics dont tell simple truths, but probabilities of various truths in a certain context.
[/b]

Is this the truth? Or just probable to be true?

as 'statistics' is a scientific product, science doesn't want and also can't say anything non-scientific.
If a scientist would confirm your question, he would make a non-scientific statement.

Science is my relegion I guess, as long as no other intellectual system proves better

Scope4live - ROFLMAO!! Back in my youth, we used to have contests as to who could come up with the best idea to scare people like that off. Fortunately we kept them all as 'ideas' because if 'implemented' they woulda brought the cops over. One was going to be, Arch would go upstairs and wait till they were inside for 5 minutes before making a noise. Then one of us would go upstairs, pretend to be beating someone up, "I told you never to make noises!". But your way sounds more fun.

Once I invited one in and blatted with him for 5 minutes. After I had him convinced I was interested and knowledgable, I started interspersing 'blessed are the cheesemakers' man did he give me some weird looks.

While I find it useful to keep skeptic about things, I think the other extreme is assuming you can know nothing. It doesn't even make sense, because if you can't know anything, how could you know that you don't know anything? As soon as you're done philosophizing and live in the real world, you will definitely act as if you knew things to be real. To me that tips the scale a bit in favour of there being real facts that we all agree on.

And too-night - is the meaning - of life. I don't know what the purpose of anything is for sure, but if there was no point in anything, what would be the point of saying it? The only point is that there is no point? That doesn't seem likely, especially as soon as the philosophizing is over, people do act like they have reasons to live. I think there's definite truths, and definite right and wrong, though I do not claim to know any specific instance.

That's a good one too Len. Sadly though, I am past my prime in age, but my chops are supreme, and I am handicapped by immaturity. I am afraid it was meant to be.


BTW what is ROLFMAO