From: "bramble" 

On 28 mar, 16:20, "CE"  wrote:
> > My point is that religions are just a sort of brainwash to start
> > with.  Later on, they could get a huge momentum thanks to the power of
> > the state.
>
> Ah, well, then my answer to that is that religious belief is not
> the result of mindless drones simply following the dictates of their
> masters. In many cases, religious belief has spread in opposition to
> the wishes of the socio-economic elites and even against the existing
> laws. During the early days of the church, for example, Christians
> were hunted down and killed. And in some countries, it is illegal
> even  today to be a Christian. Believers in those countries meet in
> secret.
> But the religion itself carries on and spreads.

I commented about that in other message.  They are drones, as you said. 
They had been  tamed into believing a doctrine.  If they are well
conditioned, they can give their life for the cause.  You can see the
Muslim suiciding with explosives to kill the enemies of their god.
Is it that you need a better testimony than this?  These muslim martyrs are
not drones?  If they are not drones, what are they? I the truth of a
religion were to be based on the existence of suicidal martyrs, the Islam
would be the truer religion nowadays.  Do you accept this premise?

Let me see the rest of your message.


> Even if we were to accept, for the sake of argument - that people
> profess a belief because they are simply and perhaps unconsciously
> imitating the behaviour or following the wishes of the ruling elite -
> this position would still be problematic. There would be no way for
> us
> to know whether atheism and agnosticism are the result of people
> freeing
> themselves from religious indoctrination or merely the result of yet
> another indoctrination into the wishes of their new secular masters.

In another post I was talking about that great churches, spread over
several nations, were political constructions.  This can not be more clear.
 So in many countries religion is Roman Catholic, in other is Anglican,
Luteran, Islam Shiit, or Islam Sunite or other.  You see? Is this politics
or not?

> Under the proposed sociological model, it
> would be just as valid to claim atheists and agnostics are merely
> following the dictates of a capitalistic elite in a secular society -
> and not really the freethinkers they feel themselves to be.

Atheist and agnostics are most times people that had been pissed off badly
by the pastors of his own church, so they had the need to desert and flee
his church.  So after a time of being pissed off,  "they start to look
for reasons" and  "they look for arguments" to oppose their
fucking church leaders.

On the other hand, you can imagine also, that there is not any baby that is
born plainly Evangelical, or Baptist, Mormon, Presbiterian, Catholic,
Islamic, Hinduist, Shintoist, Leninist or Marxist. No any baby is born with
a religious affiliation, is he?
 It is the same with the language.  Not any baby is born with a
predisposition to speak Chinese,  English, or Japanese.  Do you agree at
least with this?  They have to learn to speak that way with the help of his
parents.

Do you think my arguments are stupid?  Think about it, if you are still
able to think.  In case you could, I will understand you had gone very far
and beyond any rational recovery. Bramble

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag