Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by arauca, Dec 6, 2013.
No, they had faith in the afterlife as a reward for defending Islam.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
American culture is media and entertainment driven, more than it is education driven. This fantasy push sets the example of what is prestigious and stylish to a degree that can trump common sense. Acquiring character is not as important as being a character. Our politicians are actors playing the roles of statesmen, due to the influence of the media over education. Gridlock is a way to avoid showing their complete lack of ability.
The women and children are easy to convince of almost anything, which helps sell goods and services for business and propaganda for politics. Currently this system works well with a wide range of influence over people who are herded and easily sheared by government and business. This efficient machine was not always the case. Let us go back.
The first hurdle that needed to be overcome, to set up the modern media machine, was downgrading the masculine aspects of culture, since this represented the common sense that allows men to see the lies of other men.
With most religions masculine or based on a patriarchy, they needed to undermine religion since this meant too much male common sense therefore creating a buffer to the women and children. Even if they could undermine religion with new role Hollywood created roles models, since males are male, you also needed to remove the male or father influence from the picture, so the boys don't have an example of common sense to grow up with. Common sense is not about education but about inference in the field. Without that skill, culture will replace dad with the Mr Media so they can learn herd conformity, thereby making them easier to manipulate via the media.
This required a break up of the family and the establishment of sexist laws that discriminate against the males, who did nothing in real time but was based on retroactive guilt of a stereo type. Dumb as a stump would fall for this after other things were in play. Controlling public education helped the cause since it allowed revisionist history, thereby distorting the data fields for logical inference. The new inference with stacked data would help reinforce the needs of the deception. It is like using a data field with extra weight on minor data points while ignoring the main data. Conclusions will change but not based on weighed reality. Fantasy takes over. It looks real but the curve is not real.
Other changes that were needed was to change the melting pot, which concentrated the best of all cultures into a single future. This was changed to diversity which promoted second and third tier ingredients that still keeps some cultures from even leaving the third world. This was useful since it helps to regress an advanced culture away from optimization back toward a third world average. In the third world, culture is such, that the herd has no control over the edicts of dictators, who will control their lives in as many ways as possible. This allows the propaganda to work easier since you can set up the robots for programming.
The biggest problem is the continual resistance from those who were not easily duped, by retained common sense. This machines did not work with the old school which included religions, which is why they could be be allowed to coexist.
Atheism plays a role in the deception. It sells itself as science but is irrational in terms of blind nature. It appears to make use of the female on-off switch. If a women loves a man, she will put up with anything, for long periods of time, including lying, cheating and abuse. Her love is unconditional and she will not see the wrong and the abuse in her relationship.
A women scorned is the opposite. She can see no good in her former mate, and has no sentiment for data that is contrary to her scorn. Even if the guy was good with the kids this will not be seen is she is scorned. She will even poison the well so the children side with her and pit them against her husband with her bitterness. The approach of atheism to religion appears to have been based on the emotions of a scorned women, who can't admit anything good about religion in a blind on/off switch sense. One needed to remove masculine common sense, since males would expect other males to man up and see reality as is. This was the biggest mistake of the entire plan.
That was sweet. Especially near Christmas, with the caroling.
The better lieder are often the more secular ones: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_composed_by_Franz_Schubert
You are more gullible, when lied to by men, than any woman in my life.
Christmas time is an economic miracle which secular atheism cannot even come close to duplicating. Based on free choice, without laws and enforcement, we all agree to give each other gifts, thereby creating a cooperative effort that generates a sizable fraction of the national economy. At the same time, businesses offer many of their best deals of the year allowing the gift givers one of the best times of the year to shop for each other. This ambiance of the giving all centers on family and friends, bringing together separated relationships from far away for some peace and good will toward man. It is all centered on the birth of a child.
The reason the America economy works so well is based on this template of trust, choice and good will. Once you add government, it is not about trust, choice or goodwill but distrust, regulation and force all of which downgrade the miracle.
You just listed a bunch of secular reasons why the secular holiday works.
I agree with Spidergoat.
Secular days of importance consistently have major economic impact. Memorial day, veterans day, labor day, Oktoberfest....
And the kicker: New Years Eve
Now, if you want to say that pagan holidays dont produce major economic impact. I argue there is a direct correlation of the number who practice the faith to the economic result.
What I notice most about those that claim a belief in God/Jesus/Bible/Religion is that they believe in the belief.There is a difference between a belief in a belief and a direct belief.Not only that but the majority of American believers dont know anything of the history of their beliefs past the common crap you always hear about.I notice more and more part time church goers compared to past generations.Further if you were to follow self confessed Christians around for the week you would see them and their actions no different than a Secularist.Simply watch what people do rather than what they say.
Good point. I used to visit Morocco regularly and you could hardly get into the bar for the locals, and they weren't drinking coke.....
I just saw your sexist post.
Women are more gullible than men, eh?
Because women can't see lies as well as men, despite being generally more socially aware.
Patriarchy, and patriarchal religion, are good, eh? Because men are better than women at detecting bullshit? Except in religion, of course.
Because obviously women have no common sense.
Sounds like you have an axe to grind.
What are you talking about? An evil cabal controlling education .... somehow.
Who is a second-tier or third-tier ingredient? Obviously you have certain people in mind.
Clearly you know a lot about all women. On-off switch eh? It's a good thing that you, as a man, aren't impeded by that particular disability.
How is your religion working for you?
I'm wondering - what is it that flicks the on-off switch in these irrational women from devoted love and putting up with anything to scorn and rejection of even the good?
You realise that this is quite mad, don't you?
I feel the question should be: "is religion losing ground in America?"
And given how the US is founded on secular principles, surely US society should become more secular. I only mean to say that the way I read the title suggested to me as though you feel it is a bad thing, when I would disagree.
Merged 5 posts
Yeah, i agree with you
I dont know if you saw heaven, but truelly, i don't think there's any heaven here on earth or in the universe
But its just my opinion.
Peace is impossible, yes because there's always someone who wants to eat more than the other, and control and more power. The peaople who represent us now are more hungry then they never been before. Sad but true.
Of course they're dissatisfied, because anybody who's religious does'nt accept an non-believer (or hatiest)
it's like the phrase: "If you're not with me, then you're my enemy." Is that make sens? Anyone!
Wellwisher, i'm pretty sure that politics started from religion, do you concur?
heytogl -- you don't need to make 5 posts! use the edit button
I have a question for my American friends. There is separation of church and state in the US, right, so how comes you get a tax deduction for donations to a church? Isn't that unconstitutional?
I'm not American but there isn't really much separation of church and state - that is just what is in their constitution (yet many Americans don't know this or have been convinced otherwise by right-wing organisations and media).
Tis funny how much the US clings to its constitution on matters such as gun 'rights', yet flagrantly disregards it when it threatens the emergence of a Christian state (or whatever they are pushing for now).
Holy crap! I mean, just, holy crap!:bugeye:
Is belief moral to God when he can be omniscient?
I'd assume they have charitable status, just as they do in the UK. Nothing inconsistent about that, that I can see.
Well, that's a point I suppose, but I was looking at it from a US point of view since that's what the thread is about.
In the UK The CofE is established, and the Queen is head of both, so it would be different. I don't know if other religious groups can be charities, like muslims or hindus.
Why would a church be a charity anyway? Obviously if it combined charity work with religion, that's fine, but suppose it's just a place of worship? Why would that constitute a charity? Surely it's just a business like any other, and why would donations be tax-deductible?
Anyway, I was hoping for a US perspective really.
There is little in the constitution on "the separation of church and state". That phrase is not in the constitution.
What is in the constitution is -
First amendment of the constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States...
So based on these statements, I don't think tax deductable contributions to a church would be unconstitutional unless it did not apply to all religions.
Well no, it's not a business if it is non profit-making.
In the UK the Catholic Church has charitable status and that has nothing to do with the Queen. I presume other non-proft making religious organisation are treated similarly. I would expect the US to take the same view.
I must say I think you are struggling too hard to make this into an example of hypocrisy or double standards.
Separate names with a comma.