I am skeptical that religion is a "mind virus"

ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 462
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I am skeptical that religion is a "mind virus"

Your average devout church-going Baptist most likely believes that the earth and the universe are 6000 years old and that we all came from 2 people akin to Brook Shields and Christopher Atkins in Blue Lagoon. That individual is also likely to be pro-life, pro-abstinence only sex-ed, homophobic and a hard-core anti-science rightwing loon. This individual is the unfortunate product of religious brainwashing instilled by his/her family and the immediate community. Yet contrary to Dawkins and Dennett, I am not convinced that he/she was infected and here's why.

This guy was one of the pioneers in revolutionizing our information age. He was a brilliant man with amazing forsight. Indeed there may never be another one like Steve Jobs in the 21st century. But he too was allegedly infected by the "mind virus". Granted he was a Zen-Buddhist and not a Christian or Islamic fundamentalist but he was religious.  Indeed, many atheists are reading this opening thread on their favorite Mac system. If Steve Jobs was infected with a mind virus, was his viral titer simply a lot lower than say Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman?

And for former theists who are now "cured" by education, how can they resist the mind virus and others cannot? Folks, it is quite entertaining to see religion as this insidious totalitarian virus that robs us of freedom and transforms us into mindless North Korean automatons but this is simply not the case. Indeed relgion does have the ability to brainwash and destroy an individual's capacity to reason but it is far from being analogous to an infection. If religion is like an infection, then any meme is similarly so. Football, violent films, porn, alcohol, socialism are therefore also like viruses? I think not. I am most certain that on this forum there is at least one intellectual who plays Grand Theft Auto, jerks off to Jenna Jameson, consumes beer to excess, a die-hard Steelers fan and believes that the rich should pay their fare share. I would hardly say that that individual's mind is infected.

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I agree that the "God virus"

I agree that the "God virus" is pseudoscience.

 

For one, it relies on the concept of memes which are also considered pseudoscience, and I have yet to see a single empirical paper establishing either memes or the god virus.

 

 

It's simply confirmation bias. Point to the ones that fit, and ignore the ones that don't. They invoke the god virus to explain away things they don't know or can't answer using actual science.

 

 

 

 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote: I am most

ragdish wrote:

 I am most certain that on this forum there is at least one intellectual who plays Grand Theft Auto, jerks off to Jenna Jameson, consumes beer to excess, a die-hard Steelers fan and believes that the rich should pay their fare share. I would hardly say that that individual's mind is infected.

 

ROFLMAO

As a former theist, it was a combination of life experiences and the ability to ask myself tons of questions that ultimately lead me away from religion and spiritual type woo.

Now, why so many of my family and others that I have encountered can ask these same questions and have similiar experiences, but still stubbornly cling to religion is beyond me.

Looking back on my prior belief system, I can't imagine how I could have swallowed that, other than the fact that indoctrination began, as soon as I was able to comprehend a simple sentence.

One difference that I have noticed among my own family and I (not bragging on myself) was the fact that I always loved to read and began doing so at a very young age.

Perhaps all the hours that I spent in one book or another exposed my mind to new concepts.

My own family members, would never look at, touch, or even TRY to read anything (and still don't) that does not line up with their faith. In fact, there were quite a number of books that were not allowed in my house, growing up. Simply because the church did not approve of them.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
It is and it is not. It

It is and it is not. It depends on what context. In a literal sense it is not like a physical structured virus that we can study under a microscipe. But IT IS in the context of passing down bad memes.

Humans are notorious for allowing there brains and senses to fool them, that is an unfortunate part of our evolution. That can have a real world affect on politics, crime and war.

Passing down bad memes is no different than infecting a computer program with a computer virus. Belief in god is normal in the sense that it happens, not because it is good, but merely from the fact that we can and do observe humans making claims about deities. Dawkins moth describes aptly the cause of superstition. It is the moth as he describes in the God Delusion, as mistaking the light bulb for natural moon light.

Evolution has produced in life, pattern seeking, the natural flaw is that we far to often fill those gaps in those patterns with what we think works, not what we test. That is the "virus. Again, not a literal one, but a natural flaw in our evolution, because evolution isnt about perfection or finding answers, but merely getting to the point of reproduction. The delusion that the sun was a god that the Egyptians once held to be fact, served them well for 3.000 years, but it WAS a virus in the sense that our species has always been flawed in passing down memes "just because" it feels right.

I think politically correct theists and atheists are afraid of the word "virus" when really those who are using it are merely saying it is a flaw in evolution. "Gap filling" OF ANY KIND inside and outside the issue of religion is a natural meme virus because humans are flawed with defaulting to filling in gaps more often than not.

No different than selling a kid Santa. The child who literally buys it is not born with the knowledge that it is bunk, and since the meme is appealing to them, they buy it, The "virus" is because the were not born with a "bullshit" detector to inoculate them from the bad meme.

Any unfounded claim, any unproven claim, on any subject, not just religion, is a virus in the meme sense. Bad use of logic can lead to bad results. Just like a computer program can get infected if it isn't written to prevent infections.

But god belief IS natural, in the sense that it happens and can be observed through the claims of others. "Natural" in the scientific sense does not mean desirable, just a recognition that the observation of such happens.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I am skeptical that

Quote:
I am skeptical that religion is a "mind virus"

It's harmful to your emotional and mental well being.

You pick it up from other people.

You can pick it up from things.

You can spread it to others.

It's resistant to treatment.

Even if treated, you can get infected again.

People can die from it.

 

Those are some basic attributes of a 'virus'.

Does religion fit the bill?

Yup, I just checked...

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Quote:I am

redneF wrote:

Quote:
I am skeptical that religion is a "mind virus"

It's harmful to your emotional and mental well being.

You pick it up from other people.

You can pick it up from things.

You can spread it to others.

It's resistant to treatment.

Even if treated, you can get infected again.

People can die from it.

 

Those are some basic attributes of a 'virus'.

Does religion fit the bill?

Yup, I just checked...

 

 

 

Wow, now I'm convinced. But hey, couldn't the same be said about Socialism? Captalism? Any political idea? Any idea ever?

 

 

 


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:redneF

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

redneF wrote:

Quote:
I am skeptical that religion is a "mind virus"

It's harmful to your emotional and mental well being.

You pick it up from other people.

You can pick it up from things.

You can spread it to others.

It's resistant to treatment.

Even if treated, you can get infected again.

People can die from it.

 

Those are some basic attributes of a 'virus'.

Does religion fit the bill?

Yup, I just checked...

 

 

 

Wow, now I'm convinced. But hey, couldn't the same be said about Socialism? Captalism? Any political idea? Any idea ever?

What's that got to do with the price of tea in China?...

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:redneF

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

redneF wrote:

Quote:
I am skeptical that religion is a "mind virus"

It's harmful to your emotional and mental well being.

You pick it up from other people.

You can pick it up from things.

You can spread it to others.

It's resistant to treatment.

Even if treated, you can get infected again.

People can die from it.

 

Those are some basic attributes of a 'virus'.

Does religion fit the bill?

Yup, I just checked...

 

 

 

Wow, now I'm convinced. But hey, couldn't the same be said about Socialism? Captalism? Any political idea? Any idea ever?

 

 

 

"Meme" is just Dawkin's fancy word for "idea" so ideas do exist, and bad ideas when passed to others via communication, can have a wider affect, including bad ideas of how governments should be run.

"The idea" that the sun was a god, was spread for 3,000 years. It was not a medical infection, but it was a placebo that had the bad affect of the Egyptian population falsely accepting and falsely believing that the sun was a thinking entity. That did have a bad affect because it prevented them from looking for the truth.

Again, bad ideas spread because of gap filling. It is a natural flaw in our evolution but it is how we creat placebos "ideas" we stick in gaps. So memes is merely a psychological term in the sense that we do far too often default to an idea that sounds nice more often than testing it first.

But "Idea" with blind faith is asking for trouble, Be it the dogmatism of god/s or the dogmatism of a political state.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:"Meme" is just

Brian37 wrote:

"Meme" is just Dawkin's fancy word for "idea" so ideas do exist, and bad ideas when passed to others via communication, can have a wider affect, including bad ideas of how governments should be run.

"The idea" that the sun was a god, was spread for 3,000 years. It was not a medical infection, but it was a placebo that had the bad affect of the Egyptian population falsely accepting and falsely believing that the sun was a thinking entity. That did have a bad affect because it prevented them from looking for the truth.

Again, bad ideas spread because of gap filling. It is a natural flaw in our evolution but it is how we creat placebos "ideas" we stick in gaps. So memes is merely a psychological term in the sense that we do far too often default to an idea that sounds nice more often than testing it first.

But "Idea" with blind faith is asking for trouble, Be it the dogmatism of god/s or the dogmatism of a political state.

 

 

I have a word for an idea: An idea

 

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Brian37

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

"Meme" is just Dawkin's fancy word for "idea" so ideas do exist, and bad ideas when passed to others via communication, can have a wider affect, including bad ideas of how governments should be run.

"The idea" that the sun was a god, was spread for 3,000 years. It was not a medical infection, but it was a placebo that had the bad affect of the Egyptian population falsely accepting and falsely believing that the sun was a thinking entity. That did have a bad affect because it prevented them from looking for the truth.

Again, bad ideas spread because of gap filling. It is a natural flaw in our evolution but it is how we creat placebos "ideas" we stick in gaps. So memes is merely a psychological term in the sense that we do far too often default to an idea that sounds nice more often than testing it first.

But "Idea" with blind faith is asking for trouble, Be it the dogmatism of god/s or the dogmatism of a political state.

 

 

I have a word for an idea: An idea

 

 

 

"Meme" is merely a term Dawkins used to explain how human psychology can have an idea passed on because of its appeal. It merely says that through communcation ideas get popularized true or false through our natural communication.

Captian, I had the same reaction to hearing "Meme" the first time when Bob told me about it. I said what the fuck, but I now realize it is merely Dawkins using new language to discribe psychology, and marketing and how those ideas get spread.

In the business world it is called marketing. People go to college to get marketing degrees to the extent of studing which words are better to use to sell something, which colors are used, ect ect ect.

In theism the "the idea" is spread through appeal or praying on the credulous (ie, a kid who doesn't know better) is easier to sell a falsehood to them because it sounds nice).
 

In science the "Idea" is not marketed. It is developed through prior data and study. The data is tested in the model and replicated and falsified and independently tested. Then, after repeated conformation a consensous is built the "idea" is confermed.

The study of HOW "ideas" spread is important. It cuts down to what your religious beliefs are and even what products you buy, and who your friends and what your politics are.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
reason for everything

Brian37 wrote:

Evolution has produced in life, pattern seeking, the natural flaw is that we far to often fill those gaps in those patterns with what we think works, not what we test. 

One thing I hear frequently is that there is a reason for everything. My gut has been telling me that it is simply not true. The past fews days I understand why. There is not a reason for everything, but we simply are geared to look for a reason for everything. Life is really just random. Perhaps somewhat predictable because  "we have been here before", we see a pattern, but that could break at any point. I think this bias to find a reason for everything is stages away from believing there must be a god.

 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
It seems to me that thinking

It seems to me that thinking of religion as a mind virus adds nothing, for it to mean something there would need to be a healthy state. Disease is only notable be cause there is health, without health disease is normal and not a bad thing it is the norm. If religion is a mind virus then so is everything that you can believe in and the whole thing becomes a nothing term. Its like saying an idea is an idea... so what, unless there is something else it could be why is this notable?

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:It seems to me

Tapey wrote:

It seems to me that thinking of religion as a mind virus adds nothing, for it to mean something there would need to be a healthy state.

There is.

Emotional and mental well being.

I already covered that.

IOW, are you better off with, or without religion.

It seems perfectly black and white that I would be better off without religion.

 

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:redneF

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

redneF wrote:

Quote:
I am skeptical that religion is a "mind virus"

It's harmful to your emotional and mental well being.

You pick it up from other people.

You can pick it up from things.

You can spread it to others.

It's resistant to treatment.

Even if treated, you can get infected again.

People can die from it.

 

Those are some basic attributes of a 'virus'.

Does religion fit the bill?

Yup, I just checked...

 

 

 

Wow, now I'm convinced. But hey, couldn't the same be said about Socialism? Captalism? Any political idea? Any idea ever?

 

No.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Brian37

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

"Meme" is just Dawkin's fancy word for "idea" so ideas do exist, and bad ideas when passed to others via communication, can have a wider affect, including bad ideas of how governments should be run.

"The idea" that the sun was a god, was spread for 3,000 years. It was not a medical infection, but it was a placebo that had the bad affect of the Egyptian population falsely accepting and falsely believing that the sun was a thinking entity. That did have a bad affect because it prevented them from looking for the truth.

Again, bad ideas spread because of gap filling. It is a natural flaw in our evolution but it is how we creat placebos "ideas" we stick in gaps. So memes is merely a psychological term in the sense that we do far too often default to an idea that sounds nice more often than testing it first.

But "Idea" with blind faith is asking for trouble, Be it the dogmatism of god/s or the dogmatism of a political state.

 

 

I have a word for an idea: An idea

 

That was two words.  Meme is one word.  Memes spread, ideas don't always spread.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I'm forced to consider

 

 

the god virus to be in the same league as the god-shaped hole inside every person. You know. The need for understanding, mixed with confusion, awe and two heaped tablespoons of fear of the unknown. 

We'd all agree theistic beliefs have some of the qualities of viruses. They can't breed outside of living organisms for one thing. But once they start jiggling those magnocellular neurosecretory cells, look out...

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Meme

Meme. According to wikipedia :

]) is "an idea, behaviour or style that spreads from person to person within a culture."[2]

A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols or practices, which can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals or other imitable phenomena. Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes in that they self-replicate, mutate and respond to selective pressures.[3]

The word 'meme' is a shortening (modeled on 'gene') of 'mimeme' (from Ancient Greek μίμημα Greek pronunciation: [míːmɛːma] mīmēma, "something imitated", from μιμεῖσθαι mimeisthai, "to imitate", from μῖμος mimos "mime&quotEye-wink[4] and it was coined by the British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene (1976)[1][5] as a concept for discussion of evolutionary principles in explaining the spread of ideas and cultural phenomena. Examples of memes given in the book included melodies, catch-phrases, fashion and the technology of building arches.[6]

Advocates of the meme idea say that memes may evolve by natural selection in a manner analogous to that of biological evolution. Memes do this through the processes of variation, mutation, competition and inheritance, each of which influence a meme's reproductive success.

Memes spread through the behaviors that they generate in their hosts. Memes that propagate less prolifically may become extinct, while others may survive, spread and (for better or for worse) mutate. Memes that replicate most effectively enjoy more success. Some memes may replicate effectively even when they prove to be detrimental to the welfare of their hosts.[7]

A field of study called memetics[8] arose in the 1990s to explore the concepts and transmission of memes in terms of an evolutionary model. Criticism from a variety of fronts has challenged the notion that scholarship can examine memes empirically. Developments in neuroimaging may however make empirical study possible.[9] Some commentators[who?] question the idea that one can meaningfully categorize culture in terms of discrete units.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
So what's the difference

So what's the difference between a meme and an idea?

 

 

harleysportster wrote:

Meme. According to wikipedia :

]) is "an idea, behaviour or style that spreads from person to person within a culture."[2]

A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols or practices, which can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals or other imitable phenomena. Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes in that they self-replicate, mutate and respond to selective pressures.[3]

The word 'meme' is a shortening (modeled on 'gene') of 'mimeme' (from Ancient Greek μίμημα Greek pronunciation: [míːmɛːma] mīmēma, "something imitated", from μιμεῖσθαι mimeisthai, "to imitate", from μῖμος mimos "mime&quotEye-wink[4] and it was coined by the British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene (1976)[1][5] as a concept for discussion of evolutionary principles in explaining the spread of ideas and cultural phenomena. Examples of memes given in the book included melodies, catch-phrases, fashion and the technology of building arches.[6]

Advocates of the meme idea say that memes may evolve by natural selection in a manner analogous to that of biological evolution. Memes do this through the processes of variation, mutation, competition and inheritance, each of which influence a meme's reproductive success.

Memes spread through the behaviors that they generate in their hosts. Memes that propagate less prolifically may become extinct, while others may survive, spread and (for better or for worse) mutate. Memes that replicate most effectively enjoy more success. Some memes may replicate effectively even when they prove to be detrimental to the welfare of their hosts.[7]

A field of study called memetics[8] arose in the 1990s to explore the concepts and transmission of memes in terms of an evolutionary model. Criticism from a variety of fronts has challenged the notion that scholarship can examine memes empirically. Developments in neuroimaging may however make empirical study possible.[9] Some commentators[who?] question the idea that one can meaningfully categorize culture in terms of discrete units.

 

Wikipedia also characterizes it as pseudoscience.

 

 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience#Psychology

 

 

Quote:

  • Memetics – approach to evolutionary models of cultural information transfer based on the concept that units of information, or "memes", have an independent existence, are self-replicating, and are subject to selective evolution through environmental forces.[71] Starting from a proposition put forward in the writings of Richard Dawkins, it has since turned into a new area of study, one that looks at the self-replicating units of culture. It has been proposed that just as memes are analogous to genes, memetics is analogous to genetics. Memetics has been deemed a pseudoscience on several fronts.[71] Its proponents' assertions have been labeled "untested, unsupported or incorrect."[71]

 

 

 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
 I just had an idea a few

 I just had an idea a few minutes ago, now I forget the idea.  I have been spreading memes for years, I don't care what you call it, but I can see a distinction between the two.  

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Tapey wrote:It

redneF wrote:

Tapey wrote:

It seems to me that thinking of religion as a mind virus adds nothing, for it to mean something there would need to be a healthy state.

There is.

Emotional and mental well being.

I already covered that.

IOW, are you better off with, or without religion.

It seems perfectly black and white that I would be better off without religion.

 

 

Atheism would be a mind virus just the same as religion. Any world view would be as far as I can see. There is no "health"

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:redneF

Tapey wrote:

redneF wrote:

Tapey wrote:

It seems to me that thinking of religion as a mind virus adds nothing, for it to mean something there would need to be a healthy state.

There is.

Emotional and mental well being.

I already covered that.

IOW, are you better off with, or without religion.

It seems perfectly black and white that I would be better off without religion.

 

 

Atheism would be a mind virus just the same as religion.

How is the 'lack' of something not necessary to health, able to make you become 'unhealthy'??

 

 

Tapey wrote:
Any world view would be as far as I can see. There is no "health"

So, health is impossible because it would be a contradiction to what??

 

Are you on meds?

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 462
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Quote:I am

redneF wrote:

Quote:
I am skeptical that religion is a "mind virus"

It's harmful to your emotional and mental well being.

You pick it up from other people.

You can pick it up from things.

You can spread it to others.

It's resistant to treatment.

Even if treated, you can get infected again.

People can die from it.

 

Those are some basic attributes of a 'virus'.

Does religion fit the bill?

Yup, I just checked...

 

 

Do you therefore think that Steve Jobs suffered from the mind virus given that he was religious?


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote: Do you

ragdish wrote:
Do you therefore think that Steve Jobs suffered from the mind virus given that he was religious?

Yes, to the extent that you would classify it as a religion, instead of what other people consider it, which is that it's a philosophy, wisdom seeking, and a discipline of meditation.

 

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Tapey

redneF wrote:

Tapey wrote:

redneF wrote:

Tapey wrote:

It seems to me that thinking of religion as a mind virus adds nothing, for it to mean something there would need to be a healthy state.

There is.

Emotional and mental well being.

I already covered that.

IOW, are you better off with, or without religion.

It seems perfectly black and white that I would be better off without religion.

 

 

Atheism would be a mind virus just the same as religion.

How is the 'lack' of something not necessary to health, able to make you become 'unhealthy'??

 

 

Tapey wrote:
Any world view would be as far as I can see. There is no "health"

So, health is impossible because it would be a contradiction to what??

 

Are you on meds?

 

 

I was going to write a long thing explaining everything but I can see that will be pointless instead I shall just point you in the right direction.

 

If you are not religous what are you?

What are you doing when you make that switch?

Are you losing belief?

Are you gaining any belief?

If you gain any belief can your new position truely be called a lack of the other position?

Can you find a state where you lack a view on the matter at hand?

No matter what view you take does it match those points you put up (please note the first and last points are complete BS, a virus doesn't need to do those)

 

As far as I can tell what you guys are saying is a mind virus is a belief in anything. Atheism christianity, religion in general, non religion, pasta sauce.  That only time you do not have this mind virus is when you are dead because you hold no beliefs. There is no health to the disease "mind virus".

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:redneF

Tapey wrote:

redneF wrote:

Tapey wrote:

redneF wrote:

Tapey wrote:

It seems to me that thinking of religion as a mind virus adds nothing, for it to mean something there would need to be a healthy state.

There is.

Emotional and mental well being.

I already covered that.

IOW, are you better off with, or without religion.

It seems perfectly black and white that I would be better off without religion.

 

 

Atheism would be a mind virus just the same as religion.

How is the 'lack' of something not necessary to health, able to make you become 'unhealthy'??

 

 

Tapey wrote:
Any world view would be as far as I can see. There is no "health"

So, health is impossible because it would be a contradiction to what??

 

Are you on meds?

 

 

 I shall just point you in the right direction.

You'd have to prove I wasn't going in the right direction, first.

 

Tapey wrote:
If you are not religous what are you?

I'm some of the other things.

Tapey wrote:
What are you doing when you make that switch?

Did I claim I made a switch? Which one? From where to where?

Tapey wrote:
Are you losing belief?

What belief?

Tapey wrote:
Are you gaining any belief?

About what?

Tapey wrote:
If you gain any belief can your new position truely be called a lack of the other position?

About what?

Tapey wrote:
Can you find a state where you lack a view on the matter at hand?

Yes.

Tapey wrote:
No matter what view you take does it match those points you put up...

View of what?

Tapey wrote:
(please note the first and last points are complete BS, a virus doesn't need to do those)

Please note that everything Tapey says is complete BS, and I am always right when I post, I don't need to prove anything, I just assert and you people just nod in agreement.

Tapey wrote:
s far as I can tell ...

Please note again, that everything Tapey says is complete BS, and I am always right when I post, I don't need to prove anything, I just assert and you people just nod in agreement.

 

Fuck!!!!!!

Winning debates is EZ!

It's sooooooooooooo much easier now that I learned the proper technique!!

 

Weeeee!!!

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

 

 

Wikipedia also characterizes it as pseudoscience

 

 

 

 Consider certain ideals and trends that seem to catch on in the modern conscious without anyone attempting to spread them.

For instance, I encounter far more theists today, that will say things like "I am spiritual but not religious,". When I further press them on exactly what this means, they usually give me a blank stare.

It usually just means these are people that no longer wish to follow religion but can not shake the idea that god must exist.

I didn't hear this term as often, say ten years ago.

I can't recall anyone pushing that term or making that term popular. It seems to be one of those memes, that have caught on in popular culture.

Kinda like the way the facebook phenomenon exploded. I can't recall ever really reading about or hearing about facebook, but out of nowhere, it seemed that everyone was on there and everyone knew what it was for.

A couple of weak examples of memes, I know. But it is early in the morning and I have not had my coffee yet.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Cpt_pineapple

Sapient wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

"Meme" is just Dawkin's fancy word for "idea" so ideas do exist, and bad ideas when passed to others via communication, can have a wider affect, including bad ideas of how governments should be run.

"The idea" that the sun was a god, was spread for 3,000 years. It was not a medical infection, but it was a placebo that had the bad affect of the Egyptian population falsely accepting and falsely believing that the sun was a thinking entity. That did have a bad affect because it prevented them from looking for the truth.

Again, bad ideas spread because of gap filling. It is a natural flaw in our evolution but it is how we creat placebos "ideas" we stick in gaps. So memes is merely a psychological term in the sense that we do far too often default to an idea that sounds nice more often than testing it first.

But "Idea" with blind faith is asking for trouble, Be it the dogmatism of god/s or the dogmatism of a political state.

 

 

I have a word for an idea: An idea

 

That was two words.  Meme is one word.  Memes spread, ideas don't always spread.

 

Memes dont have to spread either. "Snarfwidget" boom,. Now go try selling "snarfwidget" to your friends.

Just like some species die out, memes and ideas die our or never get out of the starting gate. Just like most sperm die and only one sperm gets the egg pregnant, and even then, that doesn't mean the egg goes on to be a baby or will reach old age.

Memes and ideas are pretty much the same thing, other than semantics.

"I can fart a full sized lamborghini out of my ass" Call it an idea or a meme. If I find someone stupid enough to buy it, I can sell it. How far it goes depends upon the culture. But cultur's change just as ideas or memes.

You are stuck on the semantics. The truth is any sentence in the form of a claim, credible or not, the attempt to sell the claim is a reality. Wether the claim sells or not is a different story and completely independent of credibility of the claim.

Whenever a sentence comes out of your mouth, or is typed or communicated to the point others view it, it spreads, how far it spreads is a separate issue.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Wikipedia also characterizes it as pseudoscience.

Wikipedia is led by a dumbshit from Huntsville, AL who rewrites history everytime he mentions his role in the wikimedia project who also fancies himself as it's "spiritual leader". His admins twist articles towards their personal bias; articles are written, stylized, template'd, split, projected and formalized according to who champions their use and their ultimate vision; underused/abused articles require several templates to inform others of just how 'unclean' or "(passivlely) vandalized" they are.

Sati (practice) was an example of just such an article that presented cultural and personal bias problems, both of Indians and (perhaps) more western mods.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote:Your average

ragdish wrote:

Your average devout church-going Baptist most likely believes that the earth and the universe are 6000 years old and that we all came from 2 people akin to Brook Shields and Christopher Atkins in Blue Lagoon. That individual is also likely to be pro-life, pro-abstinence only sex-ed, homophobic and a hard-core anti-science rightwing loon. This individual is the unfortunate product of religious brainwashing instilled by his/her family and the immediate community. Yet contrary to Dawkins and Dennett, I am not convinced that he/she was infected and here's why.

This guy was one of the pioneers in revolutionizing our information age. He was a brilliant man with amazing forsight. Indeed there may never be another one like Steve Jobs in the 21st century. But he too was allegedly infected by the "mind virus". Granted he was a Zen-Buddhist and not a Christian or Islamic fundamentalist but he was religious.  Indeed, many atheists are reading this opening thread on their favorite Mac system. If Steve Jobs was infected with a mind virus, was his viral titer simply a lot lower than say Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman?

And for former theists who are now "cured" by education, how can they resist the mind virus and others cannot? Folks, it is quite entertaining to see religion as this insidious totalitarian virus that robs us of freedom and transforms us into mindless North Korean automatons but this is simply not the case. Indeed relgion does have the ability to brainwash and destroy an individual's capacity to reason but it is far from being analogous to an infection. If religion is like an infection, then any meme is similarly so. Football, violent films, porn, alcohol, socialism are therefore also like viruses? I think not. I am most certain that on this forum there is at least one intellectual who plays Grand Theft Auto, jerks off to Jenna Jameson, consumes beer to excess, a die-hard Steelers fan and believes that the rich should pay their fare share. I would hardly say that that individual's mind is infected.

Godwin but relevant:

"Vile Germs"; Star of David, Sickle and Hammer, and the triangle used to represent homosexuality. May have been based on the then-recent development of the scanning electron micrograph from Max Knoll. Fast forward 45 years...

Flower child from working-class Liverpool (1940s working-class in war-time Britain, not the working class of today.) Experimented with all kinds of things in the 60s and 70s including the then-hip rock and roll to millions of adoring, obsesive fans. Supposedly had a dark side from the chemical backup of all the 'experiments' he did during the 1960s and 1970s, of whicch  he (again, supposedly) frequently exposed to Yoko Ono. He had many 'pathogens', but aside from serving as a really bad role model possibly giving rise to Rockstar Syndrome (along with Elvis and James Brown), the only person he hurt besides Yoko... was himself. Then a really deranged, obsessed fan hurt and killed him. He didn't die by his own gun after convincing his wife to die by hers, unlike the infamous person who is known to inspire numerous "vile germs" remarks. Fast forward 16-19 years...

"You are all diseased!"

"Concerning school uniforms, it's not even a new idea. I first saw it in old newsreels fro the 1930's, but it was hard to understand, because the narration was in German! But the uniforms looked beautiful. And the children did everything they were told and never questioned authority."

Great guy, great stage performer, and a perfect commentator/mocker of things I don't care for. About the most diseased person so far on this list as well as the most enlightening, and the most entertaining. A shame he's gone, but alas "the good die young".

"I'll take the zombies."

Quote:
I am most certain that on this forum there is at least one intellectual who plays Grand Theft Auto, jerks off to Jenna Jameson, consumes beer to excess, a die-hard Steelers fan and believes that the rich should pay their fare share.

"Eggiweggs. I would like... to smash them. And pick 'em all up, and THROW-"

*jerks broken arm*

"OW fucking hell!"

GTA can't hold a torch to 70s exploitation flicks. It tries, and it fails.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:It is and it

Brian37 wrote:

It is and it is not. It depends on what context.

+1

We have a winner!

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Indeed. Definitions of

Indeed. Definitions of certain things, like viri, are so broad and so often metaphorically used that it complicates communication.

Is religion literally a biological infectious virus? No.

Can religion be contrasted metaphorically with terminology used to describe the behaviour of a virus on a population? Yes.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Brian37

Kapkao wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

It is and it is not. It depends on what context.

+1

We have a winner! 

+2 actually and I think Vastet makes it +3.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
The brain is an organ. It

The brain is an organ. It needs a blood supply and oxygen. It can be injured. If it's infected by a virus, it can cause it to not function properly, cause further illness, or even death.

Viruses can be harmful to vital organs and can even cause death, once organs get infected.

This is religion.

It needs to be eradicated, not legally injected into vital organs.

It should be illegal.

Period.

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I agree with this

 

redneF wrote:

 

It needs to be eradicated.

It should be illegal.

Period.

 

 

But because monotheism breaches Articles 5 & 30 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

People can believe in whatever fantasy they want. But when they use this subjective fantasy to rationalise the subjugation/torture/murder of living beings then their belief system loses its protected status and must be re-modeled or cast into the outer darkness where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 

 

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:The brain is an

redneF wrote:

The brain is an organ. It needs a blood supply and oxygen. It can be injured. If it's infected by a virus, it can cause it to not function properly, cause further illness, or even death.

Viruses can be harmful to vital organs and can even cause death, once organs get infected.

This is religion.

It needs to be eradicated, not legally injected into vital organs.

It should be illegal.

Period.

 

It is very rare that an atheist scares the shit out of me, but you just managed to do that Red.

Utopia thinking does not work. In a perfect world we could make laws banning religion. But we do not live in a perfect world and evolution does not seek perfection. Considering our species population is 7 billion, I think it is impractical, to outlaw religion, even if I wanted to.

Humans are the same, humans don't like being forced. Oppression doesn't work when theists do it to other theists or to atheists, and it wont work if we use that tactic either.

In pluralistic societies, even outside the issue of religion, civil society protects dissent. A Jeffersonian ridicule and blasphemy approach is as close to attacking absurd claims pragmatically as you can get. When you use government guns to say "You cant do that", it is the same as telling a kid they cant do something, it makes the kid want to do it more.

Religion is it's own worst enemy because the gods and claims they make do themselves in. I think the worst tactic atheist can use is force. It will just push them deeper into their delusion.

I think it is better that we give them enough rope to hang themselves by letting them show by their own words, how absurd their claims are.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 855
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Civilization can also

be a mind virus. It operates on the same premise as religion. Civilization can also be (become) ones religion. A few decide for all which direction things are to be/go. It would take deception to pull it off, at least initially.  And it may take continuous deception to keep it going. No one is going to follow another like a child accept if deceived.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers


ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 462
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Judging by the comments of

Judging by the comments of Rednef, Sapient, Atheistextremist, etc.. that based on your notions of a mind virus, that any ideology can therefore fit the bill. Using RedneF's criteria:

It's harmful to your emotional and mental well being.

You pick it up from other people.

You can pick it up from things.

You can spread it to others.

It's resistant to treatment.

Even if treated, you can get infected again.

People can die from it.

 

Does ideology X fit the bill?

Indeed instead of religion, X could be socialism for example. In it's extreme form, state socialism is just as bad as fanatical religion. Yet many even on this form are liberal social democrats. Do they have a mind virus that in some leads to Maoism or Stalinism? Hell X can be devotion to your favorite football team.

 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
 Might as well ask if dying

 Might as well ask if dying for religion is any different than dying for freedom or democracy.  

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Might as

Sapient wrote:

 Might as well ask if dying for religion is any different than dying for freedom or democracy.  

I think the whole idea is to work to optimize discorse as a default so that fewer humans have to die for anything.

Getting the notion out that this is the only life humans have is important. If people lived their lives as if they were driving a car with a nuclear bomb on the bumper with a hair trigger, they'd drive more carefully.

Old age should be the goal of humanity. Differences are always going to happen, genetics and natural environment already reflect that. I think the best humans can do is work with what they have and not strive for utopias that they cant force on others.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Might as

Sapient wrote:

 Might as well ask if dying for religion is any different than dying for freedom or democracy.  

 

The difference isn't distinguished in the so called "definition"

 

You would have to revamp it to basically say "This is the definition of a virus EXCEPT for when it applies to something else, because...we like that idea....or something."

 


That's not how science works.

 

If you define a virus to include religion, you can't just throw out the other things that aren't religion that fit that definition.

 

You are defining too broadly to include religion, while also defining to narrowly to include nothing but religion. That's a contradiction.

 

 

 

 

 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
 /Should be named Cpt

 /Should be named Cpt Obvious.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:redneF

Brian37 wrote:

redneF wrote:

The brain is an organ. It needs a blood supply and oxygen. It can be injured. If it's infected by a virus, it can cause it to not function properly, cause further illness, or even death.

Viruses can be harmful to vital organs and can even cause death, once organs get infected.

This is religion.

It needs to be eradicated, not legally injected into vital organs.

It should be illegal.

Period.

 

It is very rare that an atheist scares the shit out of me, but you just managed to do that Red.

Utopia thinking does not work.

Strawman.

A world without any religion would still not be a utopia.

Just ask an animal in the wild.

Brian37 wrote:
I think it is impractical, to outlaw religion, even if I wanted to.

That's what you think.

I don't see any logical reasons to think as you do.

You are just about as bad as any theist on this board with your non sequiturs.

Brian37 wrote:
  I think the worst tactic atheist can use is force.

This is why you're not in high demand as a problem solver.

How do you think societies jail criminals? By asking them to attend jail resorts?

 

ragdish wrote:

Judging by the comments of Rednef, Sapient, Atheistextremist, etc.. that based on your notions of a mind virus, that any ideology can therefore fit the bill.

I've claimed that religions are a virus. I've not claimed that the price of tea in China is a virus. I've not claimed that other ideologies are not viruses, which is why I', not talking about them.

If you want to debate other ideologies, start another thread, but don't derail or hijack this debate.

 

If you want to make the positive claim that religion is not a virus, be my guest.

If you can't, then concede.

But stop building a strawman in this thread about your opinions on other ideologies.

 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
That's not how science works.

You don't even have the understanding or the discipline of proper debate.

I'm debating using logic.

If my logic is flawed, debunk it and win the debate, or concede that you cannot.

But simply coming in swinging with your 'that's not science' hammer, doesn't mean you've nailed the win.

 

The 3 of you can take your strawmen and start your own thread about other ideologies.

 

 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
defining to narrowly to include nothing but religion. That's a contradiction.

I know I've not done that.

Does that mean you agree with my claim?

If no, then show it, or concede, but don't build strawmen.

 

Put up, or shut up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Memes is pretty much

Memes is pretty much synonymous with distinct ideas or concepts, as far as I can tell, except some people use meme when they are emphasizing the spread of ideas and comparing them to genes.

Calling religions "mind viruses" is just calling them memes that are "bad." Mind virus seems an unnecessarily offensive term though.

Yes, redneF is willing to go farther on the totalitarian route than most of us.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Given we're speaking metaphorically

 

 

it all seems rather a moot point. As for Red being totalitarian about the god thing, I think most people let their eyes skip over the immorality of religious doctrine in a way they'd never do if these ideas had some other source.

Religions get special treatment, are protected from too-robust criticism, wash their hands of the crimes of the past.

If we were talking about a new right wing political movement that called for the murder and torture of members of the 'evil' political left where would you all stand then? 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: /Should be

Sapient wrote:

 /Should be named Cpt Obvious.

 

I know it's obvious that you're being vague in your definitions.

 

 

 

RedneF wrote:

 

You don't even have the understanding or the discipline of proper debate.

I'm debating using logic.

If my logic is flawed, debunk it and win the debate, or concede that you cannot.

But simply coming in swinging with your 'that's not science' hammer, doesn't mean you've nailed the win.

 

The 3 of you can take your strawmen and start your own thread about other ideologies.

 

Actually no, YOU'RE the one without a clue.

 

What you're doing isn't debate using logic

 

THIS is logic

 

A->B

A

Therefore B

 

A<=>B

B

Therefore A

 

 

NOT

 

It fits X definition ->  it's a virus

It fits X definition

But...it's not a virus because it's not religion or something.

Therefore religion is a virus but other things that fit X aren't because we said so.

 

Not only that you pull out this:

 

RedneF wrote:

If you want to make the positive claim that religion is not a virus, be my guest.

 

That's not a positive claim, it's a negative one. If I say something exists or has property X, that's a positive claim and needs to be proven. The negation of that is a negative claim. I don't have to prove a negative claim, a POSITIVE claim, such as "memes this way" or "religion is X" needs proof because they are positive claims.

 

I'm making the NEGATIVE claim that religion isn't a mind virus in you definition of the word, and the religion as a mind virus doesn't add anything new, and can even hinder progress towards the actual study of religion.

 

 

The last part, of hindering the progress is a POSITIVE claim. The comments in this thread are good evidence for it. You're defining "virus" and "religion" incoherently.

 

You're defining and re-defining to promote your biases, not find truth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

 

it all seems rather a moot point. As for Red being totalitarian about the god thing, I think most people let their eyes skip over the immorality of religious doctrine in a way they'd never do if these ideas had some other source.

Religions get special treatment, are protected from too-robust criticism, wash their hands of the crimes of the past.

If we were talking about a new right wing political movement that called for the murder and torture of members of the 'evil' political left where would you all stand then? 

 

 

 

 

We've already had this discussion AE.

 

 

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I s'pose I don't have to ride my hobby horse today.

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

 

it all seems rather a moot point. As for Red being totalitarian about the god thing, I think most people let their eyes skip over the immorality of religious doctrine in a way they'd never do if these ideas had some other source.

Religions get special treatment, are protected from too-robust criticism, wash their hands of the crimes of the past.

If we were talking about a new right wing political movement that called for the murder and torture of members of the 'evil' political left where would you all stand then? 

 

 

 

We've already had this discussion AE.

 

 

But these the destructive elements of ideas are what Red is talking about as being viral. If the ideas had no negative impact there'd be no point in eliminating them. 

I can't help thinking Anders Brevik's epistle, which has been obliterated from the Internet and thrown into a black hole for naughty thinking is no different from sections of the bible and the koran.

These hate-filled religious teachings of moses are taught in school. Why not Brevik? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:You're

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

You're defining and re-defining to promote your biases, not find truth.

Oh, STFU.

I've given strict definitions of a virus. I've not redefined anything.

Religion fits the definitions to a 'T'.

We even have 'doctors' to make our brains 'healthy'.

It's the 'truth'.

Get over it.

You're quibbling over whether we can define 'thoughts that exist' as organisms. You are the one trying to 'narrow' the definition to suit your own bias.

They're all part of the 'natural' world. They all 'exist'.

What about 'poison'?

We've been calling religion a poison as long as I can remember. That's not an organism. Do you want to narrow your definition of what a poison is?

Knock yourself out.

You don't have the authority to tell me how to define things.

Deal with it.

 

There's some 'food' for thought...( pun intended )

 

It's time for you become a bit more rational, cpt_

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 462
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Can we all get along folks.

Can we all get along folks. What prompted me to write the opening thread was to seriously piss off Red to the point of orgasm and spray that atheist jism on Reverend Phelps. I think I've succeeded. But seriously, what got me thinking about the mind virus was the whole nature/nurture issue. Why are some people more prone to dangerous ideas than others? I've heard the phrase "for a good person to do bad things, that takes religion". But that seems to apply to only a sub-population of theists. Certainly Martin Luther King did not fit the bill of a good person transformed into a suicide bomber. But why doesn't that happen to all theists? If our genes hardwire us into flawed neural networks that are prone to swallowing bullshit, does it not stand to reason that some are more likely to fall prey than others? Many folks on this site come from families who are fundamentalist Christians and yet you are immune to the indoctrination. It is tempting to say to someone like Reverend Pheps, "pity he wasn't an atheist, he would have been such a better person." How can you be sure of that? Could his innate predispositions instead allow some other bullshit doctrine to be downloaded into his brain? Indeed having a genetic make-up that determines your degree of resistance to dangerous cultural BS does not IMO jive with the "mind virus" analogy. Rather, "mind cancer" is a better analogy. Not everyone who drinks like a fish will get esophageal cancer. But Christopher Hitchens likely had a genetic predisposition to gastroesophageal reflux. Alcohol taken to excess in those unfortunate individuals exponentially worsens the reflux resulting in the pre-cancerous Barrett's esophagus and then esophageal carcinoma. Doesn't religion work the same way? It poisons the mind of a lot of people in the same way that certain diets and lifestyles can lead to cancer. But many also drink and feel fine. And those like Steve Jobs can be exposed to the religious BS (and yes Red, whether you agree or not, Zen Buddhism is a supernatural doctrine that fits the bill of religion) and turn out great. Your thoughts?

Ding-ding!!! Alright Red, come out fighting!!! Give me your most vicious "I'll take your argument, make you swallow it, drill ya one in the gut and then make you vomit forth your crappy ideas and let you drown in your puke!!!!" come back. Or you could be nice for a change? Naaaaaah!!!! This site wouldn't be fun anymore.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:It's time for

redneF wrote:

It's time for you become a bit more rational, cpt_

Too clouded by emotion she is.  

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:It's time for

redneF wrote:

It's time for you become a bit more rational, cpt_

 

 

 

 

Yeah how dare I apply logic and scientific thinking to this? I'm such a bitch.

 

 

ragdish wrote:

Can we all get along folks. What prompted me to write the opening thread was to seriously piss off Red to the point of orgasm and spray that atheist jism on Reverend Phelps. I think I've succeeded. But seriously, what got me thinking about the mind virus was the whole nature/nurture issue. Why are some people more prone to dangerous ideas than others? I've heard the phrase "for a good person to do bad things, that takes religion". But that seems to apply to only a sub-population of theists. Certainly Martin Luther King did not fit the bill of a good person transformed into a suicide bomber. But why doesn't that happen to all theists?

 

 

 

BINGO

 

We project our own beliefs onto religion. If MLK is a moral person, he'll be a moral Christian. If Hitler is an immoral person, he'll be an immoral Christian.

 

 

ragdish wrote:

And those like Steve Jobs can be exposed to the religious BS (and yes Red, whether you agree or not, Zen Buddhism is a supernatural doctrine that fits the bill of religion) and turn out great. Your thoughts?

 

 

 

LOL if it didn't mess him up, than it's not religion silly.