Least and most religious nations

[Thorne]

Yes, really. It is the materialism I am talking about, living in a consumer society where it seems the only function you have is to buy and buy and buy.

Yeah, I for one am getting very tired of all those corporation thugs coming around and forcing me into the stores to buy and buy and buy. I don't seem to have a choice anymore. Just spend, spend, spend or they'll take my family away and torture them. [/sarcasm]

To my mind, anyone who complains about "materialism" is only complaining because people have the choices and the means to buy things. No one is required to buy anything except the essentials. But having the choice implies having the freedom to choose, and to some people that freedom is heresy. People who have the freedom to choose which car to buy, or which TV program to watch, or which religion to believe in just might realize that they can have a choice in whether or not some asshole preacher/minister/priest/rabbi/imam should really be allowed to control other peoples' lives! Can't have that, now, can we?

[leo9]

To my mind, anyone who complains about "materialism" is only complaining because people have the choices and the means to buy things. No one is required to buy anything except the essentials. But having the choice implies having the freedom to choose, and to some people that freedom is heresy. People who have the freedom to choose which car to buy, or which TV program to watch, or which religion to believe in just might realize that they can have a choice in whether or not some asshole preacher/minister/priest/rabbi/imam should really be allowed to control other peoples' lives! Can't have that, now, can we?

Many people of the old Soviet Union felt they had freedom of choice, too. From outside, it was easy to see that they only had the freedom to choose what they were offered, and if one steps back and looks, the same goes for the freedom of choice in the Western world.

If you choose something not on the menu offered by the corporate system - like TV programs not controlled by the Murdoch corporation, or guaranteed GM-free food, or cars built to be fuel efficient rather than to make money for the industry, or a bank account that doesn't subsidise overpaid fiscal gamblers, and don't even think of a political party not controlled by big money - suddenly it gets a lot harder, and you realise that maybe you and everyone else were never as free as you thought.

Because if people really had the freedom they imagine they have, they might have a choice in whether some billionaire financer should be allowed to control people's lives, and that would be a change far more radical than squabbles over whether to worship Allah or Darwin. There's more than one way of making religion the opium of the people, and having them focus all their energy on hating their neighbour's faith works just as well.

[Thorne]

If you choose something not on the menu offered by the corporate system - like TV programs not controlled by the Murdoch corporation, or guaranteed GM-free food, or cars built to be fuel efficient rather than to make money for the industry, or a bank account that doesn't subsidise overpaid fiscal gamblers, and don't even think of a political party not controlled by big money - suddenly it gets a lot harder, and you realise that maybe you and everyone else were never as free as you thought.

Perhaps a little disingenuous here, don't you think? If you don't like what's on the TV, don't watch it. And make sure you tell advertisers that you won't watch it. And convince your neighbors to tell advertisers the same thing. That's how the system works. If people don't watch, the advertisers don't spend money, and the show goes away.

Problem is, the people DO watch. Programmers are smart enough to appeal to the lowest common denominator, virtually guaranteeing viewers for their advertisers. If you don't like it, of course, you're free to start your own network and create your own programming. Or just don't watch, find something else to amuse you.

Because if people really had the freedom they imagine they have, they might have a choice in whether some billionaire financer should be allowed to control people's lives, and that would be a change far more radical than squabbles over whether to worship Allah or Darwin.

As sad as it may be, people with money have always had far too much control over the people who do not have money. That's also the way things work. Mostly because the people without money are hoping that some of that money will pass on down to them somehow. Maybe if they wear the right clothes, eat the right food, drink the right wine, they can be rich as well. Meanwhile, they are spending what little they have and making the rich even richer.

The solution, of course, is to not succumb to hero worship and live your life, and spend your money, for your own benefit and not to benefit a corporation. Buying the expensive brand instead of the more economical brand is not going to make you more attractive/sexy/desirable. It will only make you poorer.

And just to satisfy my curiosity, could you please point me in the direction of the nearest Temple/Church/Mosque of Darwin? I've been dying to pray to old Chuck, but can't seem to find anyplace where I can worship Him.

[leo9]

Perhaps a little disingenuous here, don't you think? If you don't like what's on the TV, don't watch it.

My point exactly. Your freedom of choice turns out to be the freedom to take what you're offered.

And make sure you tell advertisers that you won't watch it. And convince your neighbors to tell advertisers the same thing. That's how the system works. If people don't watch, the advertisers don't spend money, and the show goes away.

And gets replaced with something almost identical with detail changes. When did you last see something genuinely different?

If you don't like it, of course, you're free to start your own network and create your own programming.

And compete with Sky and News International, good luck with that. But in fact, that *is* happening now with online news and entertainment sites, which is why the media giants are trying to get a grip on the Net so they can squeeze out content they don't like.

My point was, I feel your dedication to the war on religion sometimes blinds you to other social problems. The great consumer society is not part of the solution.

And just to satisfy my curiosity, could you please point me in the direction of the nearest Temple/Church/Mosque of Darwin? I've been dying to pray to old Chuck, but can't seem to find anyplace where I can worship Him.

In this country he's got his face on the most widely circulated banknote, that's about as close to cannonisation as a secular figure gets.

[denuseri]

Ive been following the thread for some time but reserving comment and doing some reaserch on the subject.

One interesting point that I think bears looking at was a corolation, not between a countries direct prosperity level and low precentage rates of religious responcers so much as an inverse relationship between precentages of religious respondants and the level of comprehensive social welfare that was employed by each country.

Not all countries catagorically fit into a relationship where the more money was made the less religion was practiced, notable exceptions like the United States and others stood out.

A much higher degree of social welfare being employed by a given nation did apply in far more cases as the cuasitive agent.

In that regard then...is one not simpley replacing religion with something else in one's life?

Is such a replacement most often a headonisitc one?

[Thorne]

One interesting point that I think bears looking at was a corolation, not between a countries direct prosperity level and low precentage rates of religious responcers so much as an inverse relationship between precentages of religious respondants and the level of comprehensive social welfare that was employed by each country.

An interesting point, and one which doesn't surprise me. Religious organizations seem to be more interested in helping people get to heaven than in helping them get a job.

In that regard then...is one not simpley replacing religion with something else in one's life?

Simply? There's nothing simple about it. But yes, you would replace religion with something else. Hopefully it would be rationality, but there's no guarantees.

Is such a replacement most often a headonisitc one?

In some people it probably will be, I'm sure. It doesn't have to be. At one point I replaced religion with bowling, hardly a hedonistic activity. Unfortunately the Christian powers-that-be in this county decided that actually doing something enjoyable on a Sunday morning was a threat to our culture and forced the business to remain closed until after 1:30 PM. So much for worshiping at the Church of Earl Anthony!

[thir]

[QUOTE=Thorne;904608]Yeah, I for one am getting very tired of all those corporation thugs coming around and forcing me into the stores to buy and buy and buy. I don't seem to have a choice anymore. Just spend, spend, spend or they'll take my family away and torture them. [/sarcasm]

Thanks, but I think I just about spotten that sarcasm ;-)

To my mind, anyone who complains about "materialism" is only complaining because people have the choices and the means to buy things. No one is required to buy anything except the essentials.

True, of course, except that we are told that we will not be happy if we do not buy this that or the other, for one thing.
It tends to take away the attention from other more important things as well.
I do not have all the words in my head right now, but I truly believe that 'the people' are there to buy, and the corps are the masters.

Having 15 kind of soap powder is not really nessecary for freedom, IMO, but this tendency does empty our the resources of the world which are not infinite.

But having the choice implies having the freedom to choose, and to some people that freedom is heresy. People who have the freedom to choose which car to buy, or which TV program to watch, or which religion to believe in just might realize that they can have a choice in whether or not some asshole preacher/minister/priest/rabbi/imam should really be allowed to control other peoples' lives! Can't have that, now, can we?

The funny thing is that in so many mails on mine I have gone on and on about how important choices are, and how taking people's choices away from them is treating them like things.
But I cannot see that having the choice of 124 kinds of radio is important, nor does it have anything to do with freedom of religion, or of the press, or any other freedom.

If it does, please explain, because I do not see it.

[thir]

Problem is, the people DO watch. Programmers are smart enough to appeal to the lowest common denominator, virtually guaranteeing viewers for their advertisers. If you don't like it, of course, you're free to start your own network and create your own programming. Or just don't watch, find something else to amuse you.

So, the freedom of choice here is Watch Our Shit (meant for the lowest common denominator) or Nothing. Some choice.
The only channels worth watching are often the non-commercial ones.

As sad as it may be, people with money have always had far too much control over the people who do not have money. That's also the way things work.

'Always'? How far back do we go?
Anyway it isn't 'the way things work.' It is the way some powerful people make it work. It is not a law of nature.

The solution, of course, is to not succumb to hero worship and live your life, and spend your money, for your own benefit and not to benefit a corporation. Buying the expensive brand instead of the more economical brand is not going to make you more attractive/sexy/desirable. It will only make you poorer.

But, according to you these choices are what gives you freedom! Why?

[thir]

"It’s Official. We Are All Contaminated
It’s all over the Internet by now. Research carried out by the University of California reveals that of 268 expectant mothers each of them showed levels of toxic chemicals. The study, recently published in Environmental Health Perspectives, concluded, “Certain PCBs, organochlorine pesticides, PFCs, phenols, PBDEs, phthalates, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and perchlorate were detected in 99 to 100% of pregnant women.” Read the report HERE."

Read more: http://www.care2.com/greenliving/its...#ixzz1BspkqdH2




http://www.care2.com/greenliving/its...ed.html?page=2

[Thorne]

So, the freedom of choice here is Watch Our Shit (meant for the lowest common denominator) or Nothing. Some choice.
The only channels worth watching are often the non-commercial ones.

So what are you saying? We'd be better off with only one TV network? No choice at all? That hardly seems an improvement. As I said earlier, in this country you have the freedom to establish your own network if what's available doesn't suit you. Just get the money. And I agree, the non-commercial channels often have the better quality programming. Not necessarily the most enjoyable, but the better quality.

'Always'? How far back do we go?

At least as far back as the establishment of money.

Anyway it isn't 'the way things work.' It is the way some powerful people make it work. It is not a law of nature.

Sadly it's a law of human nature. Far too many people are willing to accept the advice and opinions of wealthy people than of poorer people.

But, according to you these choices are what gives you freedom! Why?

No, freedom allows me to have the choices. Just because all the choices may be bad doesn't take away from the benefit of having choices. Better to choose among three or four (or 124) bad choices than to not have any choice at all.

[Thorne]

[QUOTE=thir;904927]

True, of course, except that we are told that we will not be happy if we do not buy this that or the other, for one thing.

Well I can tell you right now that you will not be happy until you, and everyone you know, send me $100 right away. After all, isn't happiness more important than money? Just because someone tells you, or some commercial shouts at you repeatedly, that you need this, that or some other thing to be happy, does not mean you must buy it. The choice is still yours! Get the truth, study the data, so you can make an informed choice.

I do not have all the words in my head right now, but I truly believe that 'the people' are there to buy, and the corps are the masters.

That sounds more like an excuse than a philosophy. The corporations exist to make money. They do that by convincing people to buy their products. As in everything else, those with the money are in control. If you don't buy from the corporations they will have to change. If you decide that you just HAVE to have what they're selling, then you give them the power.

Having 15 kind of soap powder is not really nessecary for freedom, IMO, but this tendency does empty our the resources of the world which are not infinite.

Agreed. You only need ONE kind of soap powder. You only need ONE kind of canned soup. You only need ONE kind of razor blade. So which one will you accept? The one I choose? Or do you want to choose your own? Quick! Decide! while you still have the choice!

But I cannot see that having the choice of 124 kinds of radio is important, nor does it have anything to do with freedom of religion, or of the press, or any other freedom.

What about the freedom of CHOICE? What about the freedom of businesses to promote their own brand of radio? Once again we come to the fact that, as long as people are buying those 124 different radios, there is a demand which the corporations are more than willing to fulfill.

One other thing to consider is that, if you eliminate the choices, make it so that there is only one kind of radio, one brand of soap powder, than the corporation can charge whatever it wishes for it. Without competition, they absolutely DO control the prices. And the buyers.

[lucy]

"It’s Official. We Are All Contaminated
It’s all over the Internet by now. Research carried out by the University of California reveals that of 268 expectant mothers each of them showed levels of toxic chemicals. The study, recently published in Environmental Health Perspectives, concluded, “Certain PCBs, organochlorine pesticides, PFCs, phenols, PBDEs, phthalates, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and perchlorate were detected in 99 to 100% of pregnant women.” Read the report HERE."

Read more: http://www.care2.com/greenliving/its...#ixzz1BspkqdH2

http://www.care2.com/greenliving/its...ed.html?page=2

And how ist that news?
Plus: Have they made comparative studies, to see whether those leves of contamination have risen or fallen over the last 10 years? Not too long ago, they'd have found large amounts of lead, too. Then unleaded fuel was introduced and lo and behold, lead's off the list.
Face it: Never before in the history of humankind have so many people had the possibility to live so healthy as today.
If people decide to stuff themselves with oversized meals and drive the 100 m from McDonalds to Walmart, then that's their choice. It's also what kills them, not a bit of PCB.
With that I don't want to insinuate that I think PCBs and all that other crap shouldn't be taken off the market.

I just want to say that compared to the health risks people take willingly and knowingly (i.e. not move their asses, eat too much, eat the wrong stuff, no hygiene in their kitchens) the health risks of those poisons you mentioned are chickenshit.

Besides, as Thorne said: Choice FTW.

[leo9]

One interesting point that I think bears looking at was a corolation, not between a countries direct prosperity level and low precentage rates of religious responcers so much as an inverse relationship between precentages of religious respondants and the level of comprehensive social welfare that was employed by each country.

Not all countries catagorically fit into a relationship where the more money was made the less religion was practiced, notable exceptions like the United States and others stood out.

A much higher degree of social welfare being employed by a given nation did apply in far more cases as the cuasitive agent.

Sounds like it confirms my guess at the start of this thread: it's about security rather than prosperity. If the state makes you feel secure, you don't need to get it from the church.

And contrariwise, this probably also explains why rising prosperity in Africa and the Middle East has in many cases led to more, not less religiosity. Between neoliberal advisers, and the direct influence of the corporations, very little of the new money has been spent on any sort of welfare, and people's jobs and status are at the mercy of unpredictable corrupt officials. So the new middle classes, for all their money, are actually more insecure than their parents back in the villages.

[denuseri]

I just hope that such state replacement isnt worse in the end than what it is attempting to replace.

The biological need for the spiritual itch to be scratched is a perplexing one, its as much a part of our hardware as any other component of human pycology according to the latest reaserch.

Perhaps Mill and other Utilitarians were prophets to some degree.

[leo9]

I just hope that such state replacement isnt worse in the end than what it is attempting to replace.

The difference is that state-provided security leaves you free to choose your own spiritual path if you feel drawn to one. The state doesn't demand to be worshipped. (Those states that did, failed the security test, as shown by the explosion of religiosity in the ex-USSR.)

The consumer economy, on the other hand, does demand worship, full time and devoted, but that's another branch of this thread, which IMO needs to be split off into a topic of its own.

[Thorne]

The biological need for the spiritual itch to be scratched is a perplexing one, its as much a part of our hardware as any other component of human pycology according to the latest reaserch.

What do you mean by "spiritual itch"? In fact, what do you mean by spiritual anything? I hear, and see, people using that word all the time and it seems to mean just about anything the user wants it to mean.

What is spiritual? How do you measure it? How do you touch it? You mention a spiritual itch, and all I can think of is that annoying itch I sometimes get that seems to keep moving around whenever I try to scratch it. leo9 talks of a 'spiritual path', which conjures up images of hippies sitting around getting high while pretending to make some magical journey into Neverland or something.

As near as I can figure, spirituality is something like virtual reality, in that it seems to be real but isn't. It has the appearance of truth, but is all smoke and mirrors. There's nothing there to grab hold of, nothing to feel, nothing at all. It's like eating virtual food: looks good, but doesn't fill your stomach.

How does one follow a spiritual path? Are there spiritual hiking boots to protect your feet? Will spiritual camping equipment be needed, or is this a one day spiritual hike? What about spiritual protection against spiritual dangers?

So many questions, and no meaningful answers.

[Thorne]

The consumer economy, on the other hand, does demand worship, full time and devoted

Nonsense. The consumer economy only demands consumers and suppliers. There's nothing to worship. Suppliers provide the products, consumers purchase them. If the suppliers don't provide quality products, consumers don't, or at least shouldn't, buy them.

People want to believe that their lives are controlled by the evil corporations, but in reality the corporations can only exist as long as we continue to purchase their products. If you aren't happy with the products, stop buying them! If you don't like the way the corporations do business, start your own business. People start new businesses every day around the world. (And businesses fail every day, too.)

And I am sick and tired of hearing people complain about the corporations making profits. That's what corporations are there for! It's what they do! If you want to develop a product, manufacture it, sell it and not make a profit at it, then I have to think the problem lies with you, and not with those who DO make a profit. How many people are willing to work for just enough money to pay their bills, with nothing left for extras? No movie tickets, no restaurant outings, no cable TV. Just food and housing, the basic necessities. Yet this is exactly what they expect the corporations to do: make no profits, nothing above the cost of actually doing business. That's just silly, and selfish.

[lucy]

The biological need for the spiritual itch to be scratched is a perplexing one, its as much a part of our hardware as any other component of human pycology according to the latest reaserch.

Says who? I haven't been researched. Nobody ever researches me. That's probably why the come up with that. Dammit!
I don't feel no spiritual itch. I sometimes feel an itch between my legs, but that usually goes away with a good hearty screwing, so I guess it's not spiritual.

[thir]

"But I cannot see that having the choice of 124 kinds of radio is important, nor does it have anything to do with freedom of religion, or of the press, or any other freedom."

"What about the freedom of CHOICE? What about the freedom of businesses to promote their own brand of radio? Once again we come to the fact that, as long as people are buying those 124 different radios, there is a demand which the corporations are more than willing to fulfill."

I think this is a new thread in its own right, and worth exploring. I will start one on democracy, freedom and commercialism here, and hope many will contribute, as I am running into thoughts here which are new to me!

One other thing to consider is that, if you eliminate the choices, make it so that there is only one kind of radio, one brand of soap powder, than the corporation can charge whatever it wishes for it. Without competition, they absolutely DO control the prices. And the buyers.

[thir]

If the suppliers don't provide quality products, consumers don't, or at least shouldn't, buy them.

However, things are just not that easy. How do your know if a product is quality, or even safe? Do you think the ads will tell you? I recently posted an article about medicine, and how the medicinal industry largely control release of their products, safe or not, useful or not. That is just one example.

You can do things in some cases, but first you have to know.

And I am sick and tired of hearing people complain about the corporations making profits.

Then stop reading about it. Nobody is forcing you.

That's what corporations are there for! It's what they do! If you want to develop a product, manufacture it, sell it and not make a profit at it, then I have to think the problem lies with you, and not with those who DO make a profit. How many people are willing to work for just enough money to pay their bills, with nothing left for extras? No movie tickets, no restaurant outings, no cable TV. Just food and housing, the basic necessities. Yet this is exactly what they expect the corporations to do: make no profits, nothing above the cost of actually doing business. That's just silly, and selfish.

Poor little coporations - how they must suffer! ;-)

[thir]

What do you mean by "spiritual itch"?

I would guess that the fact that some people cannot be content with a full stomach, and loads of gadgets.

[Thorne]

However, things are just not that easy. How do your know if a product is quality, or even safe? Do you think the ads will tell you? I recently posted an article about medicine, and how the medicinal industry largely control release of their products, safe or not, useful or not. That is just one example.

You can do things in some cases, but first you have to know.

One way is to do the research, something which is vastly easier, on the consumer level, due to the access granted by the internet. Check out consumer groups, look for others who have tried the product, develop a list of "trusted" producers that you will be more likely to purchase from. For example, I enjoy eating fresh peaches. We generally buy those which are grown locally, and they are generally delicious. At one point, when the local supply was gone, my wife bought some peaches which had been imported from Chile. They were terrible! We don't buy those kinds of peaches anymore.

Granted, you can't always know everything you need to know, but people have to stop blaming corporations and take a little responsibility on themselves to find out.

Then stop reading about it. Nobody is forcing you.

Touche! <grin> But if I stop reading about it I can't argue about it. And that's more than half the fun.

[Thorne]

I would guess that the fact that some people cannot be content with a full stomach, and loads of gadgets.

Yes, I see. They always want more, more, more. Just like those corporations they complain about.

[denuseri]

According to reaserchers in California:

"Is humankind hardwired to be spiritual? Recent research suggests that we just might be, as scientists from the University of Udine in Italy identify areas of the brain in which levels of activation regulate spirituality. This study, published in the February 11 issue of the journal Neuron, serves as a first step in pinpointing the biological root of spiritual and religious feelings. Looking for a direct link between neural activity and spiritualism, Dr. Cosimo Urgesi and his colleagues interviewed eighty-eight cancer patients with brain tumors of varying severities before and after their surgeries. They discovered that the people who had tumors removed in the left and right posterior parietal regions of the brain showed a considerable increase in self-transcendence. Though spirituality in many ways is seen as separate from religion, both incorporate a complex of attitudes and behaviors relating to a transcendent human condition. Religious beliefs and practices have been a source of succor and conflict for nearly all of recorded human history, making this study significant in that it paves the path for future investigation that can advance our understanding of the neurobiological reasoning behind disparate outlooks on spirituality. While some experts discourage comparing the neural mechanisms involved in spirituality with those of religious practices, the causative link between brain functioning level and state of transcendence should be further pursued as it may lead to answers of why humans are religious, and potentially reveal our genetic predisposition for belief."

"Previous reports confirm the relationship between spirituality and frontal, parietal, and temporal cortexes. In particular, the brain's right parietal lobe defines the aspect of "me." According to Brick Johnstone, a neuropsychologist at University of Missouri, this region assesses the body's position and location in space. Any modifications to the area would disrupt this awareness and feelings of individuality would fade. In essence, the sensation of transcendence would be heightened. By comparing imaging of damaged brains and the subjects self-described spirituality, one study, published in the journal Zygon in 2008, provides evidence that people with less active parietal lobes (i.e., "Me-Definers") are more likely to be spiritual. However, the research conducted by Dr. Urgesi is the first to suggest a causative link. His team surveyed the spirituality of a person by scoring their level of self-transcendence, which is an allegedly unvarying personality trait that abstractedly reflects a decreased ability to sense individual self and largely identify oneself as incorporated with the universe. In order to gauge self-transcendence (or ST), patients underwent formal interviews focusing on their level of religiosity, report of personal mystical experiences or extrasensorial consciousness (including the presence of God), and acceptance of their illness. "Damage to posterior parietal areas induced unusually fast changes of a stable personality dimension related to transcendental self-referential awareness," Dr. Urgesi concluded. Because a specific area of the brain closely controls this trait, spirituality and religious behaviors may be a direct result of diminished activity in the parietal area."

In other words...since people are spiritual and religious and any number of other things, and since in science we have found that structure equals function in all things from basic atomic principles to higher brain function...then there must be a physical area of the brain that governs said spiritualism and religion and any other number of human enmotive responses to stimuli.

Ergo we are to a certian degree "hardwired" to be what we are.

[Thorne]

Ergo we are to a certian degree "hardwired" to be what we are.

Perhaps that's true, perhaps not. Hard to tell at this point. But even if it were true, what does that mean? After all, men are "hardwired" to be polygamous. People are "hardwired" to kill enemies. There are numerous traits which can be considered to be "hardwired" in our brains, yet we have the ability to overcome them. That's a part of being human, too.

Just because there was once a survival advantage in believing in the supernatural doesn't mean that we must still do so. As humans haven't we advanced to the point where such simplistic explanations for the world around us are no longer necessary? And perhaps no longer advantageous. We no longer can afford to believe that mumbling a few trite phrases will help us to overcome disease and adversity. There are better ways which actually work. Our survival, MY survival right now, is dependent upon those rational methods of curing disease. No gods are going to help me, or you, or anyone else. Doctors and medicine and science just might.

[denuseri]

Being spiritual may be no different in medical terms than one's sexual prefrerence is my point.

As for your apparently biological compulsion to continuous attack, smear, and use sophistry when addressing people of religious faith I can only say that I am sorry you feel the need to belittle others in such fashion and scincerely hope and pray that one day you come to respect the belief systems of others as you would wish for them to respect your own.

I have pointed out a corolation between the level of social wellfare and the level of of reported religious adherence being the primary cuasitive effect involved in the relationship between church and state and I have provided further support for this contention found by medical reaserchers and other scientiests conserning the physical structures in the brain that directly corolate to religious orinetated adherences expounding upon how intellegent people of learning can and do still follow their beliefs in said manner.

In fact...some of the worlds smartest people...leading scientists in every field of study...are religious and some contend that they have no logical reason to be otherwise.

The fact that the more advanced a countries level of science is, and its level of prosperity in general apparently plays little in how many people are reported to follow a religion or claim to be spiritual only gives further evidence to my argument as to the real cuases.


Perhaps instead of putting down all people of faith we could discuss the topic for a change?

[Thorne]

[B][COLOR="pink"]Being spiritual may be no different in medical terms than one's sexual prefrerence is my point.

Perhaps that's true, though the evidence for either of these statements is far from conclusive. A lot of study must still be done before we can accept those hypotheses as proven.

But even if it were true, what does it mean? It's still not evidence for gods or other supernatural beings, any more than it's evidence for Santa Clause or unicorns. If it's true must we now release all those currently housed in asylums who believe they are Jesus Christ, or who believe they are angels? Does it mean that people who kill others because "God told me to" should be considered innocent of their crimes? No, it only means that there was some kind of evolutionary advantage to believing in invisible beings of immense power. It doesn't mean that such belief is endowed upon us by those beings.

As for your apparently biological compulsion to continuous attack, smear, and use sophistry when addressing people of religious faith I can only say that I am sorry you feel the need to belittle others in such fashion and scincerely hope and pray that one day you come to respect the belief systems of others as you would wish for them to respect your own.

I'm afraid I don't agree with your assessment of my actions, unless you think that NOT believing in your particular gods constitutes an attack. I do, and will continue to, attack religious organizations, which I feel are generally perversions of faith rather than caretakers of it. Personally, I have no quarrel with those who profess a faith, as long as they don't claim it to be the one TRUE faith.

I have pointed out a corolation between the level of social wellfare and the level of of reported religious adherence being the primary cuasitive effect involved in the relationship between church and state and I have provided further support for this contention found by medical reaserchers and other scientiests conserning the physical structures in the brain that directly corolate to religious orinetated adherences expounding upon how intellegent people of learning can and do still follow their beliefs in said manner.

Correlation does not mean causation. The USA, for example, has one of the highest rates of religious adherence in the world, yet one of the lowest levels of social welfare. And even a cursory look at the politics of this country will show that the religious right are the ones fighting hardest against any social welfare. The Catholic Church (which I use as an example because it is the one I am most familiar with) is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands, if not millions, of AIDS victims because of its proscription of the use of condoms, not to mention its outright lies regarding their effectiveness. Many religious organizations are misogynistic in nature, assigning a lower status to women simply because of their sex. And what of those religious organizations, and people, who advocate against the rights of homosexuals? Those same homosexuals whom you are willing to admit might be genetically predisposed to be what they are. How are any of these things consistent with social welfare?

In fact...some of the worlds smartest people...leading scientists in every field of study...are religious and some contend that they have no logical reason to be otherwise.

Rather say that some of the world's smartest people still have faith. Few are actually religious, as in following a specific religious organization. But even granting your comments: so what? At one point the smartest people in the world believed the Earth was flat, and held up on the backs of turtles. Does that make it so?

The fact that the more advanced a countries level of science is, and its level of prosperity in general apparently plays little in how many people are reported to follow a religion or claim to be spiritual only gives further evidence to my argument as to the real cuases.

Sorry, I don't see how that has any bearing on it. People are generally raised from birth in a specific religion. Breaking away from it is very hard, especially when it could result in alienation from a community or even a family. I would say, rather, that some people retain their religions against all evidence, despite the higher level of science or their level of prosperity. Whether or not they actually retain their faith, though, is a different story. I wonder how many of the people who attend services every week are really true believers, and how many are just going through the motions because it's something they've always done? I think the number of the latter would surprise a lot of people. But how do you get people to admit that?

Perhaps instead of putting down all people of faith we could discuss the topic for a change?

I thought I was! But all right, let's try this:
How much money did American churches spend to try to keep homosexuals from having equal rights, illegally involving them in politics? Don't you think that money could have better been spent to help homeless people? Where is the social welfare?
How many different religious institutions actively fought against the idea of women's rights? How many still keep women in virtual slavery? Where is the social justice?
Throughout history you can find religious organizations not at the forefront of advancement, but fighting savagely against any advancement. Europe's feudal system could not have been maintained were it not for the Catholic Church bolstering the nobility. Any study will show that billions of people throughout history and around the world suffered far more due to the teachings of religious organizations than were helped by those teachings. Religion has been proven to be the most effective means for controlling a population, capitalizing on that genetic predisposition to believe in things which are not there. So show me how that is a benefit to people.

And I still have no idea what you, or anyone, means by 'spirituality'. What is a spiritual experience? How does it differ from a physical experience? And, most importantly to me, how do you know it really happened?

[Thorne]

denuseri,

Apropos of your statements regarding the brain's structure, this was posted today.

Taking a few comments from there:
"The older brain --built by natural selection for solving survival challenges -was not built for rationality. Emotions like fear, love, rage, even hope or anticipation, were selected for because they helped early mammals flourish. Fear is a great prod to escape predators, for example, and aggression is useful in the defense of resources and offspring. Care or feelings of love (oxytocin and opioid based) strengthen bonds between mammal parents and offspring, and so on. Emotions are in many cases quicker ways to solve problems than deliberative cognition."

"People who critique such emotional responses and strategies with the refrain "But is it true?" are missing the point. I agree with the atheists: Most religious beliefs are not true. But here's the crux. The emotional brain doesn't care."

"Science and rationality are not best suited to navigate some of those crags and chasms of feeling, but other human cultural tools (like religion and art) can engage them effectively."

Anyway, I think this says what I was saying, though more eloquently. Our brains have developed to respond to things, even things which might not be true. That doesn't mean that gods exist. It only means that we can understand WHY people think gods may exist. Because it makes them feel good. It would be just as rational to proclaim that ice cream is a gift from heaven, just because it tastes so good.

[denuseri]

I think you have missed the boat entirely here and are still on an anti religion/faith rant Thorne and quotes provided by you from well known biased atheist iconoclastic demegouges really dont lend any wieght to such arguments.



The corolation between levels of religious adherence in any given state and its level of social welfare is an inverse one.

In other words the higher the level of social welfare...the lower the level of religious adherence.

All the other factors you have mentioned as possible cuasitive agents have proven to be spurious in so far as providing any single catagorically aplicable cuasative arangment.

[Thorne]

I think you have missed the boat entirely here and are still on an anti religion/faith rant Thorne and quotes provided by you from well known biased atheist iconoclastic demegouges really dont lend any wieght to such arguments.

Ahh, so I should be quoting FATHEIST iconoclastic demagogues? The ones who basically agree with you? Seems to be counterproductive, from my point of view.

The corolation between levels of religious adherence in any given state and its level of social welfare is an inverse one.
In other words the higher the level of social welfare...the lower the level of religious adherence.

I must have misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were implying a direct correlation, not an inverse one. I agree with you about that. Which, again, doesn't say all that much for religious organizations.

All the other factors you have mentioned as possible cuasitive agents have proven to be spurious in so far as providing any single catagorically aplicable cuasative arangment.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Would you please clarify this statement?