Well the question of what all religions have in common is an interesting one and I am curious what others think the answer might be. If any one is interested in a real discussion of the question please join this GD thread that I’ve just created. Now Clothahump, that is a GD thread, so you won’t be abused or hit over the head there (or at least should not be), but you are expected to actually make cogent arguments and/or to provide documentary evidence to support a position taken. Responding to points made by someone taking a contrary position is also expected but not required. If all you have to say is that you’ve studied this and you know but you won’t tell us then please PLEASE PLEASE find better “usage” of your time.
And oh, my horse said it was good for him, how was it for you?
No. In the Coment on Cecil’s Column thread (that would be day one, for this issue), you just dropped unsupported (no evidence provided in that thread) and insupportable nonsense (no evidence provided since that post and most of your claims requiring deliberate distortion of the English language to even pretend to support)–which is what I said.
In this thread, you have wandered out to express your personal displeasure that religion exists while making a claim that it took you twenty years of searching to discover this (still only vaguely mentioned) “truth.”
You are just being silly and trying to hide the fact that you have no support for your claim by ordering everyone else to waste six months looking for whatever silliness you believe you found while refusing to even identify the object of this “search.” Compare any three religions? That has been done to death in many investigations and it has been done here, although you refuse to acknowledge glee’s efforts. Your “fear of death” claim is refuted by those religions that made or make no promise for an afterlife (as in ancient Judaism). Your claims regarding the need for religions to assert their truth to the exclusion of others is refuted by the existence of the UU and the Baha’i. Your claim that religion “brainwashes” people in either killing or allowing themselves to be killed is too vague to be real, as there are many people through history who never killed over religion, who became apostate rather than die, and so many other non-religious human social systems have led to killing or martyrdom, so your claim is neither universal to nor exclusive to religion, meaning it is just something that humans have done, off and on, throughout history.
The reality is that you have created an idiolectic meaning for the word “brainwashing” that you cling to with the obstinacy and hubris of Humpty Dumpty and you claim to have discovered some “great truth” that simply amounts to a declaration that your own fantasies have some objective reality.
Bullshit. You know as well as I do that if you tell someone something they don’t agree with or don’t want to hear, they’ll reject it out of hand. It’s called denial. That is why I said to do the comparisons. If you learn it for yourself, you won’t deny it. But if I simply post what you’ll find, then it will be denied.
Having experienced the joy of this thread and the one where people brought in my response from a totally unrelated thread and used it to attack me, I can see why Cecil says on the opening page:
It’s been a wonderful display of the mindset that would have gladly burned me and others like me at the stake back in the days of the Inquisition.
Oh, what the hey. I’ll post it so you folks can deny it.
All religions are a scam with the goal of gaining power of their adherants and the accumulation of wealth (by whatever definition they use). They do this by exploiting the fear of death in some manner ranging from reincarnation to heaven/Valhalla/Elysian Fields/76 virgins/whatever. They promise you that you will be “saved” in some manner from death if you follow their rules and regulations. But if you don’t follow them, you won’t get the warm fuzzy of salvation. Oh, no, you’ll burn in hell/sheol/gehenna/whatever or simply puff away into oblivion.
That is brainwashing. You don’t need to drip water on someone’s head or screw with their sleep cycles to do this. All you need to do is get their children at a very young, impressionable age and load them down with this stuff on a daily basis. They’ll grow up believing it. And most of them will believe it strongly enough that it won’t take much to get them to kill others or themselves in the name of that religion (ie, Crusades, 9/11), etc.
Do the research for yourself. Or don’t. I really don’t care if you do.
Scoff away…
If you had posted this in the Pit or G.D. or IMHO, there wouldn’t have been a problem. People could debate your point, you could respond however you saw fit, and life would go on. But that isn’t what happened. As has been pointed out again and again, your post was not appropriate for its location. Simple, easy, no need to spend 2 pages going on and on and on about trivialities.
Except, of course, those religions that say that one will poof or moulder away regardless of one’s actions so that a fear of death provides no incentive for any action (ancient Greek Hades, ancient Jewish Sheol), those religions in which there is no hierarchy to exert “power” over the other adherents (numerous animist groups and even some smaller Protestant denominations), those religions in which no wealth (by whatever definition) is acquired or accumulated (many neo-pagan groups).
And, of course, there is the clear bias on your part that insists that the purpose of the religion is to provide such a “scam,” which is simply your personal cynicism projected without evidence onto the lives of all those religious leaders who have never acted out of a desire to gain “wealth” or power even when the religion may facilitate such actions.
You have not put forth an objective analysis of reality, but simply expressed a personal world view. So we’re back to you inserting personal beliefs (without substantiation) as an attack on one of Cece’s columns, with an added bonus that you misused the word brainwashing in your screed.
Oh, and,
scoff!
I already answered your question in post 49 of this thread.
Instead of denying this post exists, how about answering it?
P.S. Produce the results of your ‘20 years of research’. Or don’t. I really don’t care if you do.
P.P.S. As Tomndebb said - scoff!
I get the impression that Clothahump is not going to be convinced of anything along the lines of “religion does not necessarily equal brainwashing.” Therefore, I’m going to seek a response to a different question (admittedly, one that has already been asked).
Clothahump: How could you possibly think that your original comment on Cecil’s column “says, in effect, the same thing” as tofergregg’s comment on the same column, which you referenced in your OP? Compare these two posts:
Just so we’re clear, one is a sweeping indictment of organized religion for being the tool of brainwashers, while the other points out that it was Flavor-Aid (instead of Kool-Aid) which was used in a particular cult’s mass-suicide.
I can think of two possible explanations for the OP’s misrepresentation of tofergregg’s thread:
-
He realized that the two posts had nothing to do with each other, but lied to support his point, hoping no one would notice. Since the OP linked to the other thread, this seems unlikely.
-
He assumed that tofergregg was thinking along the same lines as he without so much as reading the post twice, and so assumed that tofergregg was merely leaving implicit the main point, which was (to him) obvious. So, Cothahump believed, if the other post had made it’s point explicitly, it might look something like this:
Explanation #2 requires us to make three assumptions:
a – Clothahump didn’t read Cecil’s column carefully at all. This much is certain. First, he apparently missed that Cecil mentioned Jonestown and Kool-Aid (and thus that tofergregg’s post was referencing the Kool-Aid/Flavor-Aid distinction). Second, he somehow missed the very first paragraph of Cecil’s column (“First, let’s define our terms. . .”).
b – He has read the OP in question, but nothing of the thread attached to it, which makes it thunderingly obvious (moreso, even) that the OP is only talking about sugar-flavored water. If he had, at some point, read past the OP, he would have mentioned the mistake he made in this thread’s OP . . . right?
c – At least in this case, his single-mindedness is astounding. So convinced of his belief’s truth and obviousness, he assumed that any post which mentioned both Cecil’s column and Jim Jones must be making a point about the similarity between religion and brainwashing.
As far-fetched as these assumption would seem to be, I have to think that #2 is the correct explanation.
Am I right, Clothahump?
I can think of a third possibility:
3)Clothahump’s brain has turned on the “No Vacancy” light and no new information is being admitted.