Jump to content

Intelligent Design, The Rich And Religion - What Religion Is Really For.


Sawu
 Share

Recommended Posts

After having done extensive reading, it is quite easy to see that religion is used by those in power to maintain their economic power and prevent socio-economic change. I sometimes hypothesize by and large there is a more nefarious underpinning to the whole Intelligent design movement, since anyone as educated as some of its members simply must know that the bible is fiction, and they are putting on a show to make themselves money. I wonder how much money ID'ists like Dembski, etc , make from the mass of ignorant christians out there.

 

Ever wonder why christians are to "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”?

 

The more one learns about history, the more you learn that religion is propaganda used by powerful rich men and women throughout history to keep their workers/slaves happy so they are less likely to revolt and to think for themselves, since the only real freedom to do what one wants is to have others maintain society and serve you while you do as you wish, so the only freedom, is economic freedom, and all other freedoms are secondary to that, since one can be controlled if one does not have economic freedom. Also religious proscribe morality so they wont steal from the rich owners and politicians and whatnot.

 

This part of religions real purpose, to keep the rich and powerful in power, enforce the social order, give a myth narrative of history, act as cohesive set of values for a society, also makes the poor plebians at the bottom who work like dogs throughout their lives thinking they got a sweet deal, when they reallly got screwed.

 

I became accutely aware of how easily people are brainwashed by it and that states and governments all throughout history used religion for this very purpose knowing its true nature all the while with their leaders pretending to give lipservice to it. Religion is a political tool that helps to pacify a society and the minds of a nation.

 

I certainly don't believe GW Bush is christian for instance, nor do I believe he has any inkling of belief in the bible or it's god. It's all a power play that has been acted out time and time again throughout history.

 

Comments welcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that organized religion's primary purpose is to keep the masses in thrall so that the rich and powerful can manipulate them.

 

What I've never been able to understand is this: I was about seven years old when I saw through the game. But if it's that obvious, why doesn't everybody see through it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed.

 

Who was it who said "Religion is the opiate of the masses."?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who was it who said "Religion is the opiate of the masses."?

Karl Marx

 

 

I think religion has developed over the millenia for a variety of reasons: to explain the natural world, our place in it, etc. And yes, it has and is used as tool to manipulate the masses. But I also believe that many people are sincere in their beliefs and might not even realize the psychological effect they are having on others.

 

:thanks:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think this raises an interesting point. I find it ridiculous to assert that all organized religion is ultimately for and toward the control of the masses. Like almost anything, religion can be manipulated and used for such control, but that does not mean religion is the culprit at all. The culprit is the one who utilizes it to this base aim.

 

Let's look at other such establishments for some perspective. Government is perhaps the most obvious example. Government, as many would agree, is not a bad thing. It organizes society, creates a way of deciding important issues and does many other things which are not inherently bad. However, I don't need to tell you how much government has been manipulated for the control of people, how much government has been used to oppress, deprive, murder and worse.

 

We can even consider science. Science, as most would say, is a great thing. Anyone who denies the importance of science is crazy or trying to sell you something. However, one can find many instances where science has been used for the most wrong objectives. One which springs to mind is when "science" supported the policy of eugenics. Science led to the existence of nuclear weaponry. Is that good? No. Does that make science bad? No.

 

The point is that things may be used for wrong things, but that does not make that which is being used guilty in any way.

 

That's just my take on it. Oh, and I'm about as left-wing as you can get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't really think that this argument applies to our society today. "poor plebians at the bottom who work like dogs throughout their lives thinking they got a sweet deal, when they reallly got screwed." i would be one of those poor plebians you speak of, but i can find nobody that has a reason to give me a "hope" to make me better assimilated into the society. i could see this argument working in a dictatorship or in olden times of slavery to keep the masses satisfied, but i don't think it really applies to our society.

 

how do you come accross on your observation that GW is not really a christian? this is interesting you say this. he has made it known what he believes in numerous times. are you basing your assumptions on that he is rich or a powerfull person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't really think that this argument applies to our society today. "poor plebians at the bottom who work like dogs throughout their lives thinking they got a sweet deal, when they reallly got screwed." i would be one of those poor plebians you speak of, but i can find nobody that has a reason to give me a "hope" to make me better assimilated into the society. i could see this argument working in a dictatorship or in olden times of slavery to keep the masses satisfied, but i don't think it really applies to our society.

 

how do you come accross on your observation that GW is not really a christian? this is interesting you say this. he has made it known what he believes in numerous times. are you basing your assumptions on that he is rich or a powerfull person.

 

Yes I am basing it partly on the fact that he is a rich and powerful person, but I've also seen him on TV and he has a "gleam" in his eyes that tells you he's putting on a show for the public. That and he has a whole team of professionals with what kind of image he's to project, just like when he gives speaches or whatever, there's people who write that shit for him to say. It's similar to hollywood stars.

 

There are many double minded men, and the rich and powerful have been ruling mankind for centuries they would have learned a few things: When you are leading a nation or want to and you want votes... must pretend to believe what you constituents do. "When in rome, do as the romans do". Just because he says he does, doesn't mean on the inside he really does. It's the tactic of "believing your own bullshit". When you tell a lie, tell it as if you believed it.

 

Next if he was "really christian" he wouldn't have initiated the war in IRAQ, that's another big red flag, there are too many actions to list on why he isn't one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't really think that this argument applies to our society today. "poor plebians at the bottom who work like dogs throughout their lives thinking they got a sweet deal, when they reallly got screwed." i would be one of those poor plebians you speak of, but i can find nobody that has a reason to give me a "hope" to make me better assimilated into the society. i could see this argument working in a dictatorship or in olden times of slavery to keep the masses satisfied, but i don't think it really applies to our society.

 

how do you come accross on your observation that GW is not really a christian? this is interesting you say this. he has made it known what he believes in numerous times. are you basing your assumptions on that he is rich or a powerfull person.

 

Yes I am basing it partly on the fact that he is a rich and powerful person, but I've also seen him on TV and he has a "gleam" in his eyes that tells you he's putting on a show for the public. That and he has a whole team of professionals with what kind of image he's to project, just like when he gives speaches or whatever, there's people who write that shit for him to say. It's similar to hollywood stars.

 

There are many double minded men, and the rich and powerful have been ruling mankind for centuries they would have learned a few things: When you are leading a nation or want to and you want votes... must pretend to believe what you constituents do. "When in rome, do as the romans do". Just because he says he does, doesn't mean on the inside he really does. It's the tactic of "believing your own bullshit". When you tell a lie, tell it as if you believed it.

 

Next if he was "really christian" he wouldn't have initiated the war in IRAQ, that's another big red flag, there are too many actions to list on why he isn't one.

 

yes most presidential cadidates are affiliated with some sort of religion. but i don't think it is fair to judge his beliefs on this alone. i am not going to get into a political debate, but you can't judge him based on his actions. only God himself knows what his heart believes. if we were to judge everyone's faith based on thier actions, there wouldn't be a single christian left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a pretty Marxist arguement.

 

And Karl Marx was always full of shit. The rich and powerful used Marxism to keep the poor down and working.

 

 

It's true, no combination is deadlier then faith and force. The middle-east is a shining example of this.

 

But you see, America, the only moral country ever founded put a restriction on this. It's called the First Amendment, and the Bill of Rights. The Founders designed it so that religion, faith, can never force people to bend to it's will. After all, they were doing that for the Church of England all the time.

 

But that doesn't stop people from using similiar tatics in the culture.

 

0446532754.jpg Like this guy, he is a millionare. I don't think he was born into a rich family or anything, but he uses the "Word of God" to package a cheery, happy product he can sell to the public and make tons of money off of.

 

That's not oppressing anyone. People buy into his crap volunatarily. He's just taking advantage of a market demand for cheery God-inspired books.

 

 

It's truly amazing how many books and authors there are based off the Bible. God must be pissed with all these people ripping him off. :wicked:

 

But the problem is we live in a democracy where anyone can get elected into office and impose their will on people. The seperation of powers that we have prevents one person or office from being able to completely control. It is after all "We The People...."

 

So religionists, who are part of the people, see a world where people contradict what they are saying. So know they found they can force the people to accept their believes. Not all people who believe this are rich or powerful. It's a way from them to acquire power, and in people like Billy Graham, Joel Osteens, Ken Hovind, and Ken Hams case, money. Even though according to the Bible, the desire for money is the root of all evil.

 

But it's okay because God wants you to live your best life now and he will forgive you later.

 

But selling things to people to raise money for the church is as old as the church itself. The church used to sell "Get Out of Hell Free" tickets called indulgences back in the Dark Ages.

 

Now they sell everything from study guides to work-out plans to music records to television shows. All marked with the brand of God.

 

And to say money and power are their goals is mistaken. Getting themselves into heaven is. Some just see that they can use the church and later, the ballot box as a means to achieve worldy wealth. The worship Mammon and Jesus at the same time, even though Jesus adviced against this.

 

Jesus and Marx had alot in common. Give you soul to God and/or Heaven and/or Paradise... Give you soul to that State and/or Greater Good and/or class-free, super Utopia... or whatever.

 

Your arguement is false. Many non-religious people have risen to power and great amounts of wealth who have no wish of controlling the people or keeping anyone power and working.

 

Economic freedom goes hand and hand will all freedom -- individual freedom, individual rights. Ulimate freedom is the freedom of the individual to choose for himself how he wants to live, as long as this doesn't infringe on the rights of other people.

 

This is the embodiment of the country called the United States of America founded 230 years ago. This is the reason why religion can never and sould never be used as a tool to oppresses people.

 

But like I said, it's more of a means of giving wealth and power to people who do not have it, not to maintain it.

 

In short, don't listen to Jesus or Marx and then you'll be okay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a pretty Marxist arguement.

 

And Karl Marx was always full of shit. The rich and powerful used Marxism to keep the poor down and working.

 

That's just a pathetic assertion and anyone who knows anything can tell you that much. That someone says they adhere to a political philosophy does not make the ideology guilty of their actions. You think Stalin was actually about Communism? He killed the majority of the communists in his country; he was about himself and his power and nothing more, he just had to pay empty and fake lipservice to communism because he knew he was supposed to.

 

Using your logic, "freedom" is responsible for German expansion and occupation before and during WWII. :lmao:

 

That's not oppressing anyone. People buy into his crap volunatarily. He's just taking advantage of a market demand for cheery God-inspired books.

 

No, you're missing the original point. First, established religion is often associated with those in power, those who maintain the status quo. I can give you more than a few examples of this, but I'm sure you can figure it out. Anyway, because it does contribute to this status quo, one which is often unacceptable, this leads to the idea that religion does control the masses (I disagree).

 

Actually, your example is somewhat invalid. Why? Because books being sold is a symptom of religious fervor, not a cause of it. The idea originally put forth identifies and criticizes the latter.

 

Jesus and Marx had alot in common. Give you soul to God and/or Heaven and/or Paradise... Give you soul to that State and/or Greater Good and/or class-free, super Utopia... or whatever.

 

Your arguement is false. Many non-religious people have risen to power and great amounts of wealth who have no wish of controlling the people or keeping anyone power and working.

 

Economic freedom goes hand and hand will all freedom -- individual freedom, individual rights. Ulimate freedom is the freedom of the individual to choose for himself how he wants to live, as long as this doesn't infringe on the rights of other people.

 

What are you talking about? Marx argued for the pursuit of an equitable society through the state, he said that it was best for the government to create justice. So no, it's really not the same. At all.

 

Moving on, of course no one is saying that religion is the single path to wealth and power. Was that said? The fact that people use other means of consolidating wealth does nothing to weaken the argument. Furthermore, practically all of those people (the secular rich) do wish to control the people, for that only perpetuates their wealth and power. That's a given, and anyone who tries to deny it is beyond wrong. When someone makes money off of other people's labor and when that same person wants to keep making money in that fashion, yes, it does result in the control and subjugation of others.

 

Lastly, economic freedom is not beneficial or right at all. True freedom does not come with a price tag, freedom is not available only to those who can afford it. Economic freedom means people have the ability to exploit others, selfishly amass endless wealth while denying it to people who need it, put their greed before the needs of the many, put the "I" in front of the "we" and many other terrible things. Economic freedom translates to oppression and injustice of the worst sort; it means the freedom to screw over a worker, it means the freedom to establish a monopoly, it means the freedom to hold needed and deserved wealth out from the reaches of others. THAT is wrong, and THAT is the opposite of justice.

 

This is the embodiment of the country called the United States of America founded 230 years ago. This is the reason why religion can never and sould never be used as a tool to oppresses people.

 

But like I said, it's more of a means of giving wealth and power to people who do not have it, not to maintain it.

 

In short, don't listen to Jesus or Marx and then you'll be okay.

 

Unwrap the flag from your eyes and look at the country you're talking about. How many atheist presidents have we had? How many states bar atheists from holding public office (at least 8, if you were wondering)? How much does religion dominate public discourse? How much does religion control politics? Answer those questions and you'll get a small glimpse of reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many states bar atheists from holding public office (at least 8, if you were wondering)?

 

Do you have a source for that?

 

Because a law banning atheists from public office would be unconstitutional according to the first amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

he has a "gleam" in his eyes that tells you he's putting on a show for the public
.

 

:lmao:

 

 

 

 

 

Next if he was "really christian" he wouldn't have initiated the war in IRAQ, that's another big red flag, there are too many actions to list on why he isn't one.

 

So :scratch: Let me see if I have this right. If GW was a Christian, then he wouldnt have tryed to protect your freedom to criticize him. Food for thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Religion exists for many reasons, but the initial point that it is a means of control is very valid. People first realised this in the classical age, priests and kings where always using religion, but not until the Greek Sophics did people start to doubt both religion and authority. The likes of Plato wrote primarily in order to preserve the status quo (a “Noble Lie” he called it), and since then you have had those you believed, (the masses) those who didn’t (the educated) and those who saw it as useful, (politicians and others)

 

The others are the “Dark Epicureans” those who through learning realised religions was bunk but decided it was the most effective way to control the masses, and so stuck with it. Julius Caesar, the later Emperors etc, all showed they where atheists, but used religious authoritarianism that went with pagan traditions to maintain control. They admitted this, so not only are those in power just using religion to control you, but there is a possibility they may not even believe it at all, as can bee seen in leaders for over 2 thousand years.

 

When Christianity started, it too was authoritarian; based as it was on middle-platonic idealism, “all authority is from god” is one of the earliest and most dangerous Christian ideas. But later when they re-invented Jesus as a champion of the underdog that emphasis was forgotten, until those in power took Christianity as their faith, and used it to cement power the same way the pagan emperors did, then the authoritarianism of Christianity’s origins came back into fashion.

 

Since then it has been used by every King, and Emperor or the Western world to maintain power, that was indeed it primary effect of Europe for over a thousand years, keeping the powerless out of power. Liberals, who focus on the egalitarian Jesus of Christianity’s “recruit the poor” phase seem unaware of the inherent authoritarianism in Christianity, despite the “Lord”, “King” “Father” and “God” language in the NT.

 

So I agree, for all religion’s many facets’, history shows its primary use as cementing the classes, that is not a leftist spin, but the reality my studies constantly demonstrate. In fact Abrahamic monotheism is the only type I know of that started out authoritarianism from the very beginning, (or at least in Judaism’s case post Deuteronomy) the rest being folk legends, hijacked by those in power in later centuries. From ancient Egypt to the Republican party, their god’s always stand for one thing above all, the status quo. Hence the way the left, rebels, scientists, individualists, freethinkers, and non-believers are always demonised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many states bar atheists from holding public office (at least 8, if you were wondering)?

 

Do you have a source for that?

 

Because a law banning atheists from public office would be unconstitutional according to the first amendment.

 

Some state constitutions do bar atheists (and other religious groups) from holding public office (including Arkansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennesse and Texas). They are ignored today, of course, but they do illustrate a point, and that should not be dismissed.

 

Yes, they are unconstitutional and if they were challenged they wouldn't be permitted by a reasonable Supreme Court (Clarence Thomas thinks that states can declare official religions, by the way). Again, they illustrate a point, and that was how I used them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So :scratch: Let me see if I have this right. If GW was a Christian, then he wouldnt have tryed to protect your freedom to criticize him. Food for thought.

 

What? What are you trying to say?

 

If you had any small clue as to Bush's policies, you'd know that he's suppressed dissent at every turn. Just look at how public his "town hall" meetings are (where you basically have to be a Republican to get in). Just look at how dissenting views were shut out from sight in the run-up to the war in Iraq. Just look how his administration outed a covert CIA operative in retaliation for the operative's husband's criticism of Bush's policies. Just look at reality.

 

How, in any way, did he ever come remotely close to "protecting" anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again.

 

 

The First Amendment prevents church and state from joining.

 

 

I wrote a lenghty post yesterday but I accidently erased it by refreshing the site. So I haven't had time or the general motivationt to write another one.

 

No ones going to listen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How, in any way, did he ever come remotely close to "protecting" anything?

 

not since 911 has there been a terorist attack on US soil. i would say that is protection. i can name 2 different terroist attacks on US soldiers while clinton was in office, and did nothing about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

not since 911 has there been a terorist attack on US soil. i would say that is protection.

 

That's because your beloved Bush gave in to Bin Laden and withdrew Us troops from Saudi-Arabia. Hence no more attack, as that was their only essential demand, do your homework. Also if your W (presuming he wasn't behind 9/11), really was heroicly protecting the US from Al Qaeda, then where are the thrawted attempts? (On US soil) there have been no attacks because they haven't tried to attack, as Bin Laden himself said. Mass murderer he may be, but at least unlike your "president" he doesn't lie.

All your W has done is make it easier for terrorists to attack, for e.g. the colour code system, name another country that tells terrorists when the nations securuty is on low? Name another country that would threaten every country but the one most of the terrorists where from? Name another country that would re-elect a man who had personal ties both to the Saudis who funded the terrorists and the guy who leads them? Only in America.

 

i can name 2 different terroist attacks on US soldiers while clinton was in office, and did nothing about it.

 

Listen to much Rush or O'Reilly? :Hmm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't really think that this argument applies to our society today. "poor plebians at the bottom who work like dogs throughout their lives thinking they got a sweet deal, when they reallly got screwed." i would be one of those poor plebians you speak of, but i can find nobody that has a reason to give me a "hope" to make me better assimilated into the society. i could see this argument working in a dictatorship or in olden times of slavery to keep the masses satisfied, but i don't think it really applies to our society.

 

how do you come accross on your observation that GW is not really a christian? this is interesting you say this. he has made it known what he believes in numerous times. are you basing your assumptions on that he is rich or a powerfull person.

 

 

Warnings came in August of 2001 that Al Quaeda was planning an attack on the US. Bush ignored them, meanwhile pushing for tax policies that benefit the rich at the expense of wage earners. After 9/11 he pushed for those tax policies all the more. More wealth is concentrated in the hands of fewer people than at any time since, I don't know, the turn of the last century. If your income is primarily from wages you are getting screwed, freeday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.