It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The push towards materialism

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 10:56 PM
link   
I decided to message him abot it privately than fil up the thread with my confusion. So edit to remove this. I'm not trying to trol here check my history it's not what i do i'm just genuinely confsued, i apologise for asking for clarification on ATS


[edit on 14-4-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]




posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Imaginary........

You refuse to listen yet complain ENDLESSLY.
Please just go elsewhere.
No explanation I give or ANYONE else seems to suffice.
Just go elsewhere.
Or reread redneck's post.


I don't want to go elsewhere because i find this interesting. I like your originaly question i just want to be clear on it before i post yet again another opinion and you say i don't get it.

So why don't i make my position clear.

Are you saying that matierialism, in the sense of wanting posessions is the problem, or rejectiong spiritualism is the problem?



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 



Seriously, I think we've gotten the actual question nailed down. It's concerning materialism, as in the search for material things rather than spiritual things in life, but can easily be expanded to include the concept of materialism as a denial of a spiritual existence/afterlife, as those things are not material. And as such, it could include science over religion.



Sorry for the post consisting of a quote but that was all that was needed.
Redneck nailed it well.

[edit on 14-4-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Well I'm glad to see the question has been found again.
Now please stay on the topic of the thread.

The push towards materialism



Mod Note Please Review: Courtesy Is Mandatory


When members are rude, they not only discourage those whom they intend to hurt, but offend everyone who reads their rude posts, and make the discussion environment less pleasant for everyone.

To engage in stimulating, topical discussion we must minimize the disruption caused by off-topic digressions, and insults or other forms of personal commentary are always off-topic.



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by WraothAscendant
 


Right ok fine it's science over religion is your problem? Well that to me seems atheism over spiritualism (which was my whole issue in the first place
).

Ok so no, i don't think controlling a population is easier with a non religious population.

I would like to apologise for causing so much trouble here it wasn't my intent i was just confused what you meant, obviously just asking for clarification from you makes me a trouble maker, a problem and someone who wants to cause trouble
I've never done that in any thrtead but you take my actions as a trol or attacker.

My view is religion is the control structure, not atheism. Materialism however is a clear control mechanism.



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Ok.
How do you reconcile saying that, seeing as to how the fact that a threat of death takes on a whole different level of bad when you don't believe there is anything but oblivion waiting for you on the other side of death?

Sure there are some selfless types that wouldn't be fazed but that is hardly the whole of humanity.



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Ok.
How do you reconcile saying that, seeing as to how the fact that a threat of death takes on a whole different level of bad when you don't believe there is anything but oblivion waiting for you on the other side of death?

Sure there are some selfless types that wouldn't be fazed but that is hardly the whole of humanity.


Well that's the thing. Ok so lets take on both sides here.

First lets address the atheist side. Lets say there are no conseqenues other than your fellow man.

In this case the control mechanism would be the law, sadly though many people break the law and fear only the courts. Let me say the courts scare me far more than god, the idea of being imprisoned and my life forfeited is very scary. Especially if there is nothing after (as i'm agnostic) and i may be believiing the wrong thing, believing that there may be something.

Now lets say religion is right and the afterlife punishes you, well in this case people will still commit crime without the worrying of being punished after, they don't care. They may believe but they also believe in forgivness.

So as a control mechanism i think the legal system works to reduce crime far more than religion does because most religion state that once you have done your punishment you are forgiven at some point. Whereas the law means you only get one chance.

Oh about oblivion, well i would happily accept the idea of death being the end than 50 years in a prison cell. So that i would hope would stop many people from commiting a crime if they believed in only a physical existence.

[edit on 14-4-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

Are you saying that matierialism, in the sense of wanting posessions is the problem, or rejectiong spiritualism is the problem?


With Wraoth's kind permission...

I think the two go hand in hand. Spirituality exists outside of the material worlkd of science, and typically rejects possessions as important. When was the last time you saw a ghost, angel, demon, or poltergeist after a steak dinner?

Control is easy if one uses the Pavlovian responses that are present in the animal brain. That's why we, as humans, have been able to take over the planet. We manipulate animals for our use. We have domesticated dogs and cats for companionship and assistance, cattle, pigs, goats, etc for meat, horses for transportation, oxen and mules for heavy labor... the list goes on and on. That's because we manipulate them using Pavlovian techniques until they do as we wish. A good example is the breaking of a horse. Initially the horse doesn't want to be riden; only after repeated attempts during which the horse usually feels some kind of pain the process of throwing off the rider, the horse gives up and allows the rider on its back.

But people are harder to control, because we have that inner self, that soul, that spirit, that will to be independent. Denying that inner self through materialism is the only way to control another person. And since we are creatures of habit, habits built around a color TV, a DVD player, electric power, a nice car, etc. can become so strong that they overshadow what's really important... the 'me' within us.

By taking away (or by perverting!) religion and spirituality, the same goal is accomplished. The inner self is discouraged, because those who have all the answers, who tell us how to interpret our spirituality, tell us to abandon it in favor of what is tactile.

Anyway, that's my take on it.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 11:37 PM
link   
*we posted the same time again redneck LoL and its more than ok if you chose to answer and your answer was GREAT*
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 



Eh.
I am not religious.
I don't believe in some great old man in the sky that judges our every step with some great pure unattainable by us ruler of perfection. And will damn us accordingly.
Never have. Most likely never will.
I won't bother going into my belief as that is not part of the conversation and I am honestly not seeking to covert anyone to anything.

And your not answering my question, sorry if I am just not understanding but I still see a side step here.

If all spiritualism was destroyed (as some like to claim it should be) and everyone believed that there was simply oblivion waiting for them after they die would that or would that NOT be an ideal situation of control for a ruler?

[edit on 14-4-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

Are you saying that matierialism, in the sense of wanting posessions is the problem, or rejectiong spiritualism is the problem?


With Wraoth's kind permission...

I think the two go hand in hand. Spirituality exists outside of the material worlkd of science, and typically rejects possessions as important. When was the last time you saw a ghost, angel, demon, or poltergeist after a steak dinner?


Wel that is a flawed idea, they may have no need for such things as they're already dead, whereas we need that steak to support our fragile existence, unless you want us all to die. I thik the two are very seperate or truly entwined depending on your belief.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
Control is easy if one uses the Pavlovian responses that are present in the animal brain. That's why we, as humans, have been able to take over the planet. We manipulate animals for our use. We have domesticated dogs and cats for companionship and assistance, cattle, pigs, goats, etc for meat, horses for transportation, oxen and mules for heavy labor... the list goes on and on. That's because we manipulate them using Pavlovian techniques until they do as we wish. A good example is the breaking of a horse. Initially the horse doesn't want to be riden; only after repeated attempts during which the horse usually feels some kind of pain the process of throwing off the rider, the horse gives up and allows the rider on its back.


Tht is very wrong in every way, some horses accept it right off the bat where as others refuse it. Horse training doesn't always involve pain in any way, in fact the best horse training can be a true bond between horse and person.

The current control mechanism in humans isn't pavlovian, it is misdirection. We are rewarded for ignoring, not association.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
But people are harder to control, because we have that inner self, that soul, that spirit, that will to be independent. Denying that inner self through materialism is the only way to control another person. And since we are creatures of habit, habits built around a color TV, a DVD player, electric power, a nice car, etc. can become so strong that they overshadow what's really important... the 'me' within us.


Humans have an inate want to belong not be independant in my view, they want to belong to society and currently our society is based around celebrities and possessing items, this has nothing to do with spiritualism. You can be atheist and completely seperate from society if you wish.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
By taking away (or by perverting!) religion and spirituality, the same goal is accomplished. The inner self is discouraged, because those who have all the answers, who tell us how to interpret our spirituality, tell us to abandon it in favor of what is tactile.


It seems to me that the religious or spiritual idea is the greatest way of conforming, so it's the greatest control mechanism. Maybe if we talked about individualism then that would be different. Individualism involves all religions, all ideas and all thought, and is surely the way of ultimate freedom.

[edit on 14-4-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 11:55 PM
link   
Let me make my point very clear.


Atheists

You can have some atheists who are very in favour of materialism, they want the latest fashions, the latest gadgets and all items they can obtain. These people sadly miss the important issues in life, they forget politics, they forget life they just want as much stuff as they can obtain.

then there are the spartan atheists, they care little for possestions, they are interested in science, life and helping humanity, which may include green issues.

Religious

The religious people are exactly the same, they may have the same materialism or the same wanting to help humanity. Both of them could easily be controlled.

The only hope is to try and find your personal path, whether it be religious, athiest or agnostic. A society that thinks for inself will always be harder to govern, and a society that is based around many beliefs is a soceity that truly thinks for itself.

[edit on 14-4-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 



Wel that is a flawed idea, they may have no need for such things as they're already dead, whereas we need that steak to support our fragile existence, unless you want us all to die.


Would be flawed if you took it as you obviously did.
He wasn't talking about someone already dead.
And yea you need food to support our fragile existance.



Tht is very wrong in every way, some horses accept it right off the bat where as others refuse it. Horse training doesn't always involve pain in any way, in fact the best horse training can be a true bond between horse and person.


Not wrong in every way. If the horse resists it does have to be broken (if one wishes the horse to be ridden) which does involve at least a minimum pain.
And some horses will resist all comers.



The current control mechanism in humans isn't pavlovian, it is misdirection. We are rewarded for ignoring, not association.


Nope. Wrong again.
It's a combination of multiple control mechanisms.
Sometimes false associations are used.
You know, all muslim are terrorists.
Ummm all blacks are gangsta or druggies.
Not just one approach will work in every case.



Humans have an inate want to belong not be independant in my view, they want to belong to society and currently our society is based around celebrities and possessing items, this has nothing to do with spiritualism. You can be atheist and completely seperate from society if you wish.


I underlined where I agree.
I disagree the rest.
Materialism as the word is referenced here has spiritual impact as in the lessening of spiritualism as the material takes over all importance.
The NOW rather than the future.



It seems to me that the religious or spiritual idea is the greatest way of conforming, so it's the greatest control mechanism.


You talk about conformity as if it only pertains to spiritual things.
You can conform to anything. Even nonconformity.
You can conform to atheistic ideals.
As popular culture around the time I was in high school shows.
You know spew the same lines mindlessly about how this or that band is a sell out etc etc etc.
Just for ships and giggles. Here is the definition of conformity.


1. action in accord with prevailing social standards, attitudes, practices, etc.
2. correspondence in form, nature, or character; agreement, congruity, or accordance.
3. compliance or acquiescence; obedience.
4. (often initial capital letter) compliance with the usages of an established church, esp. the Church of England.
5. Geology. the relationship between adjacent conformable strata. Compare unconformity (def. 2a).

Source: Conformity @ Dictionary.com



Maybe if we talked about individualism then that would be different. Individualism involves all religions, all ideas and all thought, and is surely the way of ultimate freedom.


Kinda agreed. But individualism isn't all inclusive as you seem to think.
Extreme individualism can be extremely bad.
As it breeds intolerance.



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
You talk about conformity as if it only pertains to spiritual things.
You can conform to anything. Even nonconformity.
You can conform to atheistic ideals.
As popular culture around the time I was in high school shows.
You know spew the same lines mindlessly about how this or that band is a sell out etc etc etc.


Now that i find unfair becuase i already said that atheists can conform, maybe you missed that in my post. I already said that religious and non religious people conform. Please don't misquote me, i already made a clear post on how reliigous and non religious people can conform or not conform.

In our current climate i find religion is the majority, according to figures i can find, i don't like conformity as a while but it's the innate human trait. Whe a human doesn't conform they tend to get upset, depressed and even violent. Hapiily some people can handle it quite well, but they are the rarity.



Maybe if we talked about individualism then that would be different. Individualism involves all religions, all ideas and all thought, and is surely the way of ultimate freedom.


Kinda agreed. But individualism isn't all inclusive as you seem to think.
Extreme individualism can be extremely bad.
As it breeds intolerance.

Lol well that is obvious, all extremism is bad, i have yet to find any extremism that isn't bad, even people who exxtremely believe in doing no harm to others will encourage their beliefs by hurting others until they agree.

[EDIT

My whole point that both atheists AND religious people wil land can confroma nd netiehr provides a mechanism for perfect control over the other. So your arguement about being obsessed with the world we can touch and feel being a control mechanism is only half right as the other half can also be used to control.

Basically it comes down to the individual, those that can be controlled willingly, those that can be controlled without knowing it and those that completely go off the grid and are very random. These people can be religious, atheist and agnostic.


Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Kinda agreed. But individualism isn't all inclusive as you seem to think.
Extreme individualism can be extremely bad.
As it breeds intolerance.


That's an interesting view but i'm not sure i agree. Extremem individualism means simply that, being individual, some woul be racists, some would be accepting of all people. the point of individuality would be the wide spectrum of humanity so i don't think it breeds intolerance. It depends on how the individual reacts, are they isolationist or inclusionist?



[edit on 15-4-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 



Now that i find unfair becuase i already said that atheists can conform, maybe you missed that in my post. I already said that religious and non religious people conform. Please don't misquote me, i already made a clear post on how reliigous and non religious people can conform or not conform.


And your, once again, blowing things out of proportion. At will it seems.
I cut and pasted your post and answered it.
Any misquote was not at my end.



In our current climate i find religion is the majority, according to figures i can find, i don't like conformity as a while but it's the innate human trait. Whe a human doesn't conform they tend to get upset, depressed and even violent. Hapiily some people can handle it quite well, but they are the rarity.


Sometimes friend. Religion has very little to deal with spiritual matters a good deal of the time. As you well know.



Lol well that is obvious, all extremism is bad, i have yet to find any extremism that isn't bad, even people who exxtremely believe in doing no harm to others will encourage their beliefs by hurting others until they agree.

My whole point that both atheists AND religious people wil land can confroma nd netiehr provides a mechanism for perfect control over the other. So your arguement about being obsessed with the world we can touch and feel being a control mechanism is only half right as the other half can also be used to control.


Considering the fact I never argued that?

I won't bother going over it again.
Reread the thread.



Basically it comes down to the individual, those that can be controlled willingly, those that can be controlled without knowing it and those that completely go off the grid and are very random. These people can be religious, atheist and agnostic.


Rambling?
Sorry just not making much sense here.
I am not easily controlled neither am I "off the grid" as you put it.
Such nice neat categorization doesn't work for the real world. No matter how much it looks great on paper. Kinda like communism.

[edit on 15-4-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Rambling?
Sorry just not making much sense here.
I am not easily controlled neither am I "off the grid" as you put it.
Such nice neat categorization doesn't work for the real world. No matter how much it looks great on paper. Kinda like communism.



It wasn't rambling and it certainly wasn't nice and neat categorization, just because you can't understand it don't go equating it to communism (now who's blowing things up). If you understood what i said you would see it was extremely open to all sorts of people.

Don't worry i won't post again because you don't want a debate, you want agreement. If i'm still getting your question wrong then why not repost it more clearly? Would that cause you so much harm? I just can't be bothered with it anymore, guess i'll take myself elsewhere even though i was just trying to contribute to your thread.

EDIT


Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Considering the fact I never argued that?
I won't bother going over it again.
Reread the thread.


Then what did you argue? Because the thread is titled "The push towards materialism", i've reread it and still don't quite get what you mean by materialism. When i ask for a clear question you refuse and insult me, not a good way to debate is it.

[edit on 15-4-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

Wel that is a flawed idea, they may have no need for such things as they're already dead, whereas we need that steak to support our fragile existence, unless you want us all to die. I thik the two are very seperate or truly entwined depending on your belief.


I think you misunderstand me. I was not referring to ghosts as the only spiritual beings, but using them as an analogy for that part of ourselves which is spiritual. Of course our bodies need food. But food alone is not enough for us, since we contain that spiritual aspect. Ghosts do not need food because they have no bodies.


Tht is very wrong in every way, some horses accept it right off the bat where as others refuse it. Horse training doesn't always involve pain in any way, in fact the best horse training can be a true bond between horse and person.


A poor choice of words on my part. Allow me to explain further.

Pain can be more than physical torture. In human experience, pain can be applied in its widest definition to physical pain, mental pain, and emotional pain. Clinical depression is not physically painful, but it can be extremely painful mentally; trust you me on that example.

Of course you are correct in the reference to the bond that ultimately exists between horse and rider. But that bond does not always exist at the beginning. The process of breaking a horse is, indeed, breaking. It is the breaking of the independent spirit of the animal so the new bond you mentioned can form. And some form of negative feedback (pain) is usually required to accomplish this.


The current control mechanism in humans isn't pavlovian, it is misdirection. We are rewarded for ignoring, not association.


You are true in some of the cases. There are many methods of control being attempted as we speak, directed towards different types of people. In order to get someone to ignore a thing (faith, for example), it is wise to substitute a new thing (something shiny).


Humans have an inate want to belong not be independant in my view, they want to belong to society and currently our society is based around celebrities and possessing items, this has nothing to do with spiritualism. You can be atheist and completely seperate from society if you wish.


I personally know of no atheist who would separate themselves from society, but that could be due to my limited knowledge of atheism. As a Christian, from a Christian background, you will forgive me if my knowledge on that subject is lacking in the details.

In my experience, humans do tend to group together; we are a societal species. Yet the grouping typically surrounds a belief system or lifestyle, and becomes more profound when confronted with opposing viewpoints.

An example: gun rights advocates do tend to band together, but in a loose way. Hunting trips,etc. may be undertaken regularly, but as a group, gun rights activists are not always even talking about their common belief. They act as true individuals, not as any organized group. Yet, allow a perceived attack on their right to carry a gun occur, and the group will quickly close quarters and become active in order to protect their 'way of life', thus no longer acting as individuals.

That belief in the right to carry a gun is an individual choice. The grouping you refer to does not manifest itself clearly until that individuality is threatened. And here we come full circle to the control issue: it is easier to control groups rather than individuals, so it would make sense to threaten certain beliefs enough to create the grouping effect between individuals.


It seems to me that the religious or spiritual idea is the greatest way of conforming, so it's the greatest control mechanism. Maybe if we talked about individualism then that would be different. Individualism involves all religions, all ideas and all thought, and is surely the way of ultimate freedom.


And here we come full circle again. Once a group of individuals has closed rank in response to a perceived threat, yes, the concept of religion is a very powerful tool for control of that group, since it is typically a common thread in a small society. But it is only effective if the leader of the religious group is one of those who wish to do the controlling, and if the individuals within that religion see a perceived threat to their individuality.

It is not akin to a bunch of sheep who blindly follow the lead no matter where it leads, as many on this forum propose, but rather a loose association that follows the template of banding together in a tight group only when a perceived threat to their individuality appears. In this light, it would appear to me to be very ironic that recent attacks on traditional marital definitions, religious symbols, religious holidays, etc. are a mechanism for not destroying the religion under threat, but for controlling it effectively.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 15 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Delete me please mods.

*meaning this post*

[edit on 15-4-2008 by WraothAscendant]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join