Social programming + the collapse of religion and values.

reply to post by mikegrouchy

I only ask that as the discussion continues stop toying with him and make it quick. Be merciful. The coup de grâce.

Not my philosophy. I respect it's yours. Agree to disagree. I think it should be beaten until it's utterly destroyed. And by that I mean unfounded beliefs. No, not the person. I don't mean to attack the person, and unless I am mistaken I don't believe I have.

Christians often say "hate the sin but not the sinner"

Well then we can hate the belief but not the believer.

FlyersFan

sk0rpi0n
TV is just one aspect of the medias mass hypnosis. Growing up/living in a society that has already been brainwashed by the media...can also leave one with the same effect.

Religion is just one aspect of mass hypnosis upon humanity. Growing up/living in a society that has already been brainwashed by religious leaders ... can also leave one with the same effect.

A bunch of what you call 'moral values' isn't all that moral.
Some of it deserves to be collapsing and disappearing.

Religions brainwash people. They use guilt. They use threats of hellfire. They claim to be a connection between God and man, and yet they provide ZERO PROOF that they actually are. In fact, most of what they spew can be debunked.

If a person is going to complain about the media and say it's guilty of social programming and the collapse of 'moral values' ... then it would be hypocritical not to acknowledge that religions have been guilty of the exact same thing. That some of the so called 'moral values' are devoid of negative on humanity.

Organized religions idea of 'moral values' ... put to death homosexuals for being born that way ... devalue women and brainwash them into being subservient to men ... lie and tell people falsehoods in history in order to bolster their claims about being a conduit between God and man (Noahs Ark, Exodus, Abraham, Muhammads 'revelations', Joseph Smiths 'revelations', etc) ... and some say 'go out and kill those who don't believe like we do' ...

You can't point your finger at the media and say it's 'collapsing values' without also pointing your finger at organized religions and admitting that some of their 'moral values' aren't really moral and those so called 'values' deserve to die.

I've made it rather clear in this thread that religion can also be influential on society, but there is also a huge differnce between religion and the media, when it comes to establishing social norms. The fact of the matter is that America had a completely different set of values and social norms only a few decades ago. All that was reversed and the media played a major role in doing so. Which is why peoples ''arguments'' on this matter is either (a)the parroting of the same mantra that the media programmed them them into accepting in the first place. Or (b) offering their subjective opinion that ''religion bad'' as a valid fact. Both can be dismissed as value-less.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


i didn't argue that Christianity is the only moral foundation, it just happens to be the moral foundation of Europe. I don't believe the bible is literally true, it is only an echo of God's word. Even the Jews, in Jesus' time, did not take it literally. it is too far back in history and has been added to and subtracted from too many times to be taken literally. The substance of it is true. Richard Dawkins takes it literally and criticises it on that basis: strawman. In doing this he characterizes religious people as fundamentalists. He misleads people as to what religious people believe. most religious people today would not say a witch should be burned. Dawkins is playing a sly hand, setting up the ultimate strawman.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

but there is also a huge differnce between religion and the media, when it comes to establishing social norms.

Explain how clearly! Or should I say lucidly

The fact of the matter is that America had a completely different set of values and social norms only a few decades ago.

And they [majority opinion] have been adjusted in accordance to the underlying American principles after deep reflection on these matters.

I bring you back again to an earlier point. It was once held as a majority belief women shouldn't have the right to vote. That changed. As we see it now, it was always unconstitutional

reply to post by EnPassant

i didn't argue that Christianity is the only moral foundation

Well then you failed to express your position because some of your posts clearly aimed as such. If you want me to post them I will.

I don't believe the bible is literally true

Good. Ill take note of that in future discussion. Also I respect that. It's a rational position.

The substance of it is true.

Is the substance of other religions true? And if so why don't you advocate them?

Richard Dawkins takes it literally

MANY Christians clearly state the Bible is the "infallible word of god". To deny many Christians don't is willful ignorance. I can link threads. Link articles. Link debates. All showing that the case. Wan't me to?

Dawkins will at times refute Christian claims under that light. Rightfully so.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


There has always been a battle between the reactionary/conservative minded and progressive minded people and they have fought over many things

Slavery
Woman’s rights
Poverty
Workers rights
Black rights
and Gay rights

And this kind of thing is still going on today; movements have formed in the UK to oppose conservative movements such as the BNP, there is even a group called Respect who have a goal of making sure Muslims are treat fairly

And the reason for all this is there is an inherent fairness in people


Before the Second World War America had an impressive and motivated progressive movement, for example it was the communist/socialist party that apparently forced President Roosevelt to create the American social services

It was only after the Second World War that the reactionary/conservative forces got into a position of power, perhaps because America’s main foe then was communist or perhaps because conservatives remembered how the progressives had forced social change but whichever it was, to be seen as a progressive became a bad thing

sk0rpi0n
Which is why peoples ''arguments'' on this matter is either (a)the parroting of the same mantra that the media programmed them them into accepting in the first place. Or (b) offering their subjective opinion that ''religion bad'' as a valid fact. Both can be dismissed as value-less.

Here's the intransigent center of your presentation:

(a) Any position that disagrees with yours is parroting, and value-less, according to your post.

(b) Any member offering a position that disagrees with yours is merely stating a subjective opinion, which is value-less, according to your post.

Ergo, no one here has anything or CAN have anything to contribute to the discussion, according to your post.

My question: Why did you post? To preach? To convert? To listen to your own "voice"?

Each of your postulations is BLATANTLY incorrect.

1. Religion is merely a different iteration of what we call now call media and was directly responsible for manipulating people's perceptions for millennia.

2. Morals and ethics are not REVERSED from any period of time in any culture. Some have a different position today than they had or their ancestors had some years ago, but obviously, and you yourself are the primary proof of this assertion: many if not most have EXACTLY the same "traditional" beliefs. For additional proof, since "homosexuality" seems to be your personal bete noire, reference any number of posts here at ATS using your same terminology of "degenerate" "perverted" "against nature" etc.

In short, prejudice and hypocrisy are alive and well; no need to worry about them being "reversed" any time soon.

Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by EnPassant

 

i didn't argue that Christianity is the only moral foundation

Well then you failed to express your position because some of your posts clearly aimed as such. If you want me to post them I will.

I don't believe the bible is literally true

Good. Ill take note of that in future discussion. Also I respect that. It's a rational position.

The substance of it is true.

Is the substance of other religions true? And if so why don't you advocate them?

Richard Dawkins takes it literally

MANY Christians clearly state the Bible is the "infallible word of god". To deny many Christians don't is willful ignorance. I can link threads. Link articles. Link debates. All showing that the case. Wan't me to?

Dawkins will at times refute Christian claims under that light. Rightfully so.

edit on 16-2-2014 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

If you want to understand how religion really is read Karen Armstrong. I believe all religion is an echo of truth and contains all the moral guidance we need. But all religions have been corrupted by unscrupulous people. Back in the day, a king in what is now northern Israel, commissioned the scribes to write a history of Israel. Likewise a king in the south commissioned his scribes to write their history. Later both works were collated into what we now know as the Old Testament. All kinds of propaganda and politically motivated items would have been added to these writings. The name of God would have been invoked to justify all kinds of wickedness. We cannot take them literally. I am not in favour of fundamentalism in theism but I am not in favour of Dawkins' fundamentalism either. He is misleading you and he is doing it deliberately. Dawkins is motivated by hatred. This should be enough to sound alarm bells.

Earlier I have advocated Buddhism.

Many Christians don't really live by the Bible as if it was literal truth. Those that take it literally are doing harm to the perception of religion.

Dawkins criticizes fundamentalism but he is as fundamentalist as they are. He is running with the hare and chasing with the hounds. He is a hypocrite. He pretends not to understand that religion is more subtle than the fundamentalist take on it. He understands very well, but he is playing a very sly game.

reply to post by EnPassant


Your point here still being that religion is the only reliable source of morality?

sk0rpi0n- ''but there is also a huge differnce between religion and the media, when it comes to establishing social norms''.

Explain how clearly! Or should I say lucidly

Religion greatly values the family unit. Religion is more than an account of what happened thousands of years ago, it puts things into practice by stressing on good behaviour. Like I said earlier, a theist operates from his higher spiritual self, i.e beyond his lower instincts when he refrains from indulging in what society says is ''acceptable'' because he sees it as going against his religious values. He has the ability to discern between what is right and that which is from a godless source. ________________________________________________ The mass media does NOT have a moral inclination, even though it portrays a false moral standard. It ranges from being amoral to immoral to downright godless. Yet it is highly influential, in shaping perceptions and rewriting social norms. The media is driven solely by profits and whats ''cool''... Yet it wields the power to shape perceptions and rewrite social norms. The media does not entertain the concept of a higher self, it operates by appealing to peoples lower base instincts...and it is designed to keep people chained to their lower instincts. When people run their societies on the godless medias standards of ''morality'', nothing good can be expected. In short, both religion AND the mass media are highly influential...yet are poles apart. Mother Teresa was a product of religion. Miley Cyrus was a product of mass media.

And they [majority opinion] have been adjusted in accordance to the underlying American principles after deep reflection on these matters.

I bring you back again to an earlier point. It was once held as a majority belief women shouldn't have the right to vote. That changed. As we see it now, it was always unconstitutional

womens voting rights were upgrades made to accomodate the growing role of women in society. It is a harmless secular matter and did NOT take away from the moral matter of women being loyal wives and good mothers. There is no co-relation between a secular matter like womens voting rights and letting gays take on the role of a woman as the ''spouse'' of another man or the ''parent'' of a child. Like I said before, people often use civil rights flavored language to argue in favor of homosexuality..but thats exactly the kind of language the media used in the first place.

Gryphon66....

1. Religion is merely a different iteration of what we call now call media and was directly responsible for manipulating people's perceptions for millennia.

I have always acknowledged that religion is influential when it comes to shaping societies. I have also mentioned the differences between religion and mass media. I just did so again in my previous post directed to user lucidlunacy.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Yes, and then, in almost every case, you immediately reverse yourself, e.g. from your response to Lucid:

Sk0rpi0n
I've made it rather clear in this thread that religion can also be influential on society, but there is also a huge differnce between religion and the media, when it comes to establishing social norms.

The only "differnce" is that your posts favor religions' established social norms and don't favor what you consider "media" has done.

Your posts favor what was viewed as the "status quo" and THAT was clearly established by the manipulations of religion.

In short, your posts claim they're the same but then immediately claim that they're different.

That this doesn't cause painful cognitive dissonance in your post is evidence of the strength of the inherent contradictions.

@ racasan....There has always been a battle between the reactionary/conservative minded and progressive minded people and they have fought over many things

Slavery
Woman’s rights
Poverty
Workers rights
Black rights
and Gay rights

And this kind of thing is still going on today;

As always, people use civil rights flavored language to push the idea that ''homosexuality should be accepted because we changed certain things regarding x,y and z''. The media also pushed the idea using the same tactic.

sk0rpi0n

@ racasan....There has always been a battle between the reactionary/conservative minded and progressive minded people and they have fought over many things

Slavery
Woman’s rights
Poverty
Workers rights
Black rights
and Gay rights

And this kind of thing is still going on today;

As always, people use civil rights flavored language to push the idea that ''homosexuality should be accepted because we changed certain things regarding x,y and z''. The media also pushed the idea using the same tactic.

Let's leave the civil rights comparisons to the side then:

The gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered, who are American citizens have rights because they are American citizens.

Please explain to us how one American citizen should be treated differently before the law than another.

Equal rights don't spring from sexuality, but from citizenship.

Do your rights spring from your sexuality? If not, why do you want to limit other people based on theirs?

@Gryphon66....
The only "differnce" is that your posts favor religions' established social norms and don't favor what you consider "media" has done.

I have considered what the media has done... I.e-Reshape societies perceptions. Whether or not it was for the better is highly debateable, hence this thread. Yet, non-theists insist that certain changes are ''right'' by default,

Your posts favor what was viewed as the "status quo" and THAT was clearly established by the manipulations of religion.

societies can be either run on religious values.... Or on what the media portrays as a ''moral'' standard.

@ Gryphon66... Let's leave the civil rights comparisons to the side then:

The gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered, who are American citizens have rights because they are American citizens.

Please explain to us how one American citizen should be treated differently before the law than another.

Equal rights don't spring from sexuality, but from citizenship.

There were always American citizens decades ago who were homsexual. They kept a low profile because of societal norms that defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. They went from that to parading in the streets and marrying and adopting and beating up Christians because of changes that took place. The issue of ''citizenship'' does not mean people redefine things like marriage and family.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Why is their marriage your problem? Why is their sexuality your business? And what does any of this have to do with morality in a secular society?

@AfterInfinity....Why is their marriage your problem? Why is their sexuality your business? And what does any of this have to do with morality in a secular society?

Its the same reason why religion is the problem of those who don't believe in it. The good news for you is that I am powerless to change anything.

@Gryphon66...

In short, your posts claim they're the same but then immediately claim that they're different.

They are the ''same'' when it comes to power of influence. They are ''different'' when it comes to morality.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


I don't see homosexuals trying to ban heterosexual marriage or whining that prayer in schools hasn't been made a part of the official curriculum. Even so, I don't see how that reflects declining morality in a secular society.