Is religion devised stupidity to control the people?

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is always a power if you rewind , one person better off as a result of procedes of religion

You might not see this in your own circles of people but if you rewind there is always somebody . Look at these avangelists for an example , it is donating to their life style .

Stop being so Western in your view.
Learn more about the world and different world views.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

You don't see poor religious leaders

I find Jesus warned about the false religious leaders of his day and pronounced many 'woes' against them and his reasons why as can be read in the 23rd chapter of Matthew.

Jesus did Not try to control people but to be a follower of Jesus a person would have to regulate themselves.
'Play by the rules', so to speak, such as found at Jesus' New commandment recorded at John 13:34-35.
To have self-control as to now love neighbor as Jesus' self-sacrificing love loved neighbor.
In other words, to now love neighbor MORE than self, more than the Golden Rule of Leviticus 19:18

 

[Sheldon]

God is in everything from the tinyest particle to the universe and beyond. ( that is my belief) but others may understand it differently.

Spiritual faith is belief in deity, it does not need science

That has nothing to do with Gods existence or not.

Money is a man made object, religious beliefs are and will be a belief in God, no matter if a few nut cases of leaders think money is what brings you to heaven...

It says more about the persons attachments to money, than about all religions are based upon money...faith dont need money.

I dont have anything to prove to others

True: Belief in God does not need other that faith and belief.
God would be there no matter if the houses of worship was there or not.

Those places are for folloers to have a place to meet.
A wooden Hut would be ebough

I have not clamed anything, only said my belief.

I count at least 8 separate claims you have made on this page alone? You do know asserting a belief is a claim right? Also all beliefs are the affirmation of a claim.

Belief
noun

1. an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.

Claim
verb
1. state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.

 

[PruePhillip]

I don't see the question sorry, just a list of (unevidenced) stats?

Oh, they are evidences alright. And pretty obvious too.
Also, I haven't got the statistics on guns, drugs and the
like.
Poll results are hard evidence of people's responses
to questions. I am at least glad you are not celebrating
these figures as 'progress.'

 

[Spirit of Light]

I count at least 8 separate claims you have made on this page alone? You do know asserting a belief is a claim right? Also all beliefs are the affirmation of a claim.

Belief
noun

1. an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.

Claim
verb
1. state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.

What I speak is my belief, it is you who see it as a claim. Not me

 

[SalixIncendium]

Oh it may have been poorly worded. but I lets not dismiss it out of hand...

Organization Worth (billion USD) Country
The Vatican (part of the Catholic Church) 4.0 Vatican City
Opus Dei (part of the Catholic Church) 2.0 worldwide
Catholic Church in the Philippines 2.0 Philippines
Church of Scientology 2.0 United States

Hmm...Then of course is the comparative wealth of religions and those religions followers. I don't think anyone is suggesting every single person involved in religions is cynically milking it for personal gain. just that a lot of them are doing precisely that...

Where were we "dismiss[ing] it out of hand?" Let's talk about these groups then, shall we, instead of making generalizations about all religious leaders?

 

[rational experiences]

Religious status. A teaching by humans after occult nuclear science of O God earth substances changed by men in science caused bio life to change its health.

Seeing our species human was meant to live exist 100 years.

Was science invented to control our lives?

Yes.

Men in science by thesis looked back to a place by choice when no human owned life or existed.

Then attacked us by anti machine causes.

So of course they tried to control every aspect of our existence.

We are humans. We do live. We live in community.

We perform rituals.

In the past owning no life health living existing control we built healing temples buildings

We taught that science of man attacked changed life on earth.

Spirituality taught. Live peacefully. Meditate. Ritualise living being. Use herbal remedy. Good eating. Oils for healing. Incense healing sticks smelling.

In ritual cleansing meditating prayer song dance peacefulness you could do no wrong. You were busy reverencing life.

Is the reason question...why did we ritualise scientific creation advice as a human in religious idealism.

Became a place to false preach again about science.

 

[Mishmash]

Jesus did Not try to control people but to be a follower of Jesus a person would have to regulate themselves.
'Play by the rules', so to speak, such as found at Jesus' New commandment recorded at John 13:34-35.
To have self-control as to now love neighbor as Jesus' self-sacrificing love loved neighbor.
In other words, to now love neighbor MORE than self, more than the Golden Rule of Leviticus 19:18

Realistically has that meant to have some meaningful purpose in regards to anything or the thread topic ?

Jesus was no more meaningful than I or you and is a distraction from the thread .

 

[Mishmash]

Stop being so Western in your view.
Learn more about the world and different world views.

I am not anything in my unbiased view

People are naive and religion is no exceptiion to playing on this

 

[Spirit of Light]

I am not anything in my unbiased view

People are naive and religion is no exceptiion to playing on this

Just because you see it as being naive, does not mean religious or spiritual people are naive.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Realistically has that meant to have some meaningful purpose in regards to anything or the thread topic ?

Jesus was no more meaningful than I or you and is a distraction from the thread .

You are the one wanting control over others you actually play out your own worsed fear onto others.

 

[rational experiences]

O earth.
It's heavens. No humans. First advice I will name earth a God. I will claim science of God is to know substances I can use and change. Earth products.

As you cannot argue self presence. The human thinking.

A human scientist.

Do you know God then scientist?

What substance is earth?

A rock he said pretty basic let's give a planet a name. Then claim human law says so.

Scientist do you know what rock was when it wasn't a Rock?

Not possible he said. If I pretend the planet rock does not exist then any type of body or substance on it would be destroyed.

As I am not just discussing the planet itself.

First means a machine theist science claim I know by experimentation using machine parts made out of rocks substances is lying?

Answer yes. Why humans wrote the bible against sophist lying. Human theism.

Pretty basic God planet earth advice. No scientist knew god.

Science asks everyone as a theist what do you know about God.

They ask for science. They don't ask for or as a belief.

If science asks prove God to me....either the scientist actually wants you to tell them what God is or the scientist is asking another scientist what is your claim in science as a status...God.

To argue thesis. Humans theorising science laws for machine conditions reacting.

Why God in human presence is an argument.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I count at least 8 separate claims you have made on this page alone? You do know asserting a belief is a claim right? Also all beliefs are the affirmation of a claim.

Belief
noun

1. an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.

Claim
verb
1. state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.

@Mishmash this also for you,
Yeah, so let us concentrate on the fun one.
"I dont have anything to prove to others."

Your belief is that all humans must give evidence for their beliefs. But you seem to miss, that what you want from others is a belief. So here it is, In order for you to demand that we must give evidence for our beliefs, you must give evidence for your belief that we must give evidence for our beliefs.
And now comes the problem: You can't give evidence for your belief, that we must give evidence for our beliefs,
So how do I know that? Well, so far in recorded history nobody has been able to do so, There is no evidence for what is a normative rule and which is connected to morality and what is useful.

So let me explain to you what is. There is no theory based on objective evidence and rationality for what is a first person norm for behaviour. And all the rest of us have to do to test that as falsifiable and do the actual falsification, is to act differently. Your problem is that you don't understand how to test first personal norms and understand that they are first person norms, because you in effect believe your first person norm is universal, objective and what not. That is also the case for me, I just know that.

So here is in as simple as it gets:
You: You can't act differently than me.
Me: Yes, I can. I am doing it right now.
You: But it is not correct according to my universal norm.
Me: That is because there is no universal norm of behavior.
You: But it has to be universal.
Me: Yeah, but the falsification is that I don't have to use your first person norm. I just have to use another.

So, you are not that special. And neither am I. The difference is that you haven't checked your own norms using your own method. You just check everybody else and assume that you are different. You are not and neither am I.
So we have been here before. There is no evidence possible for limited cognitive, moral and cultural relativism. That is so, because it is not objective. And as long as you can't spot when you are not objective, but can only do so for everybody else, this will continue.

 

[Sheldon]

Oh, they are evidences alright. And pretty obvious too.
Also, I haven't got the statistics on guns, drugs and the
like.
Poll results are hard evidence of people's responses
to questions. I am at least glad you are not celebrating
these figures as 'progress.'

What question? Sorry but all I see is a list of stats, no question, and no context. What are they supposed to mean?

Why would I be celebrating bare stats when i have no idea of the context? In what way would they represent progress, to what from what, I have no idea what on earth you're talking about? What are the stats meant to represent. link a citation and show some context, otherwise they're meaningless.

 

[Sheldon]

What I speak is my belief, it is you who see it as a claim. Not me

I believe you are wrong.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I believe you are wrong.

No problem

 

[Sheldon]

Where were we "dismiss[ing] it out of hand?" Let's talk about these groups then, shall we, instead of making generalizations about all religious leaders?

I quite specifically didn't make a generalisation about religious leaders, I stated as plainly as I could that those stats could not be used in that way? See below...

Oh it may have been poorly worded. but I lets not dismiss it out of hand...

Organization Worth (billion USD) Country
The Vatican (part of the Catholic Church) 4.0 Vatican City
Opus Dei (part of the Catholic Church) 2.0 worldwide
Catholic Church in the Philippines 2.0 Philippines
Church of Scientology 2.0 United States

Hmm...Then of course is the comparative wealth of religions and those religions followers. I don't think anyone is suggesting every single person involved in religions is cynically milking it for personal gain. just that a lot of them are doing precisely that...

 

[PruePhillip]

What question? Sorry but all I see is a list of stats, no question, and no context. What are they supposed to mean?

Why would I be celebrating bare stats when i have no idea of the context? In what way would they represent progress, to what from what, I have no idea what on earth you're talking about? What are the stats meant to represent. link a citation and show some context, otherwise they're meaningless.

The context of the stats? To answer the question about religion making people stupid,
The Gallop Poll figures show that people ARE different today now that religion has
become a minority thing (not for the fast growing Muslim populations, however.) So
WERE people more 'stupid' back in our grand and great grand parent's day? Did
'single mothers' marry the government and live off welfare? Were universities churning
out precious little snowflakes who can't read, write or think? Were people calling for the
govt to 'defund the policeforce' while under seige by homicidal maniacs and drug addicts?

By any standard you chose, religious people of say, 1900 (about the height of Christianity
in Austalia & New Zealand) would see our society as an abject failure - but they would not
have been that surprised it's come to this because the writing was on the wall back then
when secularists spoke of strangling the last priest with the entrails of the last king - so to
speak. And then we murdered quarter of a billion people in wars, pogroms, revolutions and
holocausts.
Hitler grew up as Catholic. Stalin studied for the Orhtodox ministry. Mao, Pol Pot and Ho
Chi Minh were Buddhists.

No, religion didn't make people stupid back then - the majority of stupid people are alive
today in our 'post religious world.'

 

[Viker]

You don't see poor religious leaders

My understanding is that you see just a few bad examples as representative of all religions. Not every religious leader has a private jet. Just the same, not every religion focuses on economics or meagerness as virtuous.

 

[Sheldon]

The context of the stats? To answer the question about religion making people stupid,
The Gallop Poll figures show that people ARE different today now that religion has
become a minority thing (not for the fast growing Muslim populations, however.) So
WERE people more 'stupid' back in our grand and great grand parent's day? Did
'single mothers' marry the government and live off welfare? Were universities churning
out precious little snowflakes who can't read, write or think? Were people calling for the
govt to 'defund the policeforce' while under seige by homicidal maniacs and drug addicts?

By any standard you chose, religious people of say, 1900 (about the height of Christianity
in Austalia & New Zealand) would see our society as an abject failure - but they would not
have been that surprised it's come to this because the writing was on the wall back then
when secularists spoke of strangling the last priest with the entrails of the last king - so to
speak. And then we murdered quarter of a billion people in wars, pogroms, revolutions and
holocausts.
Hitler grew up as Catholic. Stalin studied for the Orhtodox ministry. Mao, Pol Pot and Ho
Chi Minh were Buddhists.

No, religion didn't make people stupid back then - the majority of stupid people are alive
today in our 'post religious world.'

I can fathom what you're trying to say sorry, and the unnecessary line breaks do not help. I am still none the wiser as to the context of those stats, or what question you're suggesting they ask or answer?