Re: *******Does God Exist?*************

Acme Posting wrote:
> "Nes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> Acme Posting wrote:
>>> "Nes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
(...Continuing criticism of the "human" god, religion)

<snip - Pyramids>

> I would love to read biographies of common people in those times. I
> wonder if they wouldn't sound much the same as our discussion! Of
> course now we have Usenet so the future Usenet posters can look us up.

Yes, that would be a truly mind-blowing experience!

<snip>

> Paraphrasing to help me understand: "This general transformation of
> external creative forms is a sure sign that religious perceptions
> change according to circumstances." And the point is...

The point is that if "god" really were the creator of the universe, "his"
nature would be forever unchanging (as would that of the universe) which
then means that every religious person on Earth really prays to a graven,
heathen, mental image, for the human perception of "god" varies
historically, according to Man's changed material circumstances and his
socio-psychological adaptations to those same conditions. The proof of the
last bit can be easily established by looking at the way organized religions
ALWAYS regard the "gods" and dogma of other religions as the creations of
Satan, the Opponent. On the other hand, if "god" is a creation of the minds
of Man, "his" historic changes are understandable as a function of changed
human perceptions. Just another simple contradiction, solved by applying
Occam's Razor.

<snip arguments about the dynamic, dialectical, historic changes that "gods"
and religions undergo>

> Excellent support for your thesis. Religion programs faith over
> empiricism, and that habit of thinking can be transferred into another
> dogma. I've actually seen this to be a profound influence in brain
> programming.

Thanks. This is always a hard point to argue without stroking somebody the
wrong way.

<snip>

> I would say that religion must adjust to external cultural change. It
> does so very slowly, for instance resistance to female priests. I am
> surprised that mainstream religion doesn't incorporate cultural change
> and scientific discovery more quickly. In the U.S., lost a lot of
> membership due to this, I think.

Dogmatic changes in the ideological makeup of organized religions change far
quicker and more often than most people realize. But there is always some
(more often long than short) period of delay between the acceptance of new
or changed ritual, teaching, and practise into the daily workings of clergy
and hierarchy and its "official" acknowledgement. Often changes in religious
practises don't really become "officially" accepted as a part of
authoritative dogma or ritual, but they become incorporated into the "body"
of religion, anyway. The opposite process can also be seen to happen a lot,
where former very important religious dogma and ritual lose their
"popularity" or meaning and simply slip away into oblivion without anybody
ever taking the effort of ridding the religious "body" of its official
existence. All this happens as a result of the dynamic, dialectical
relations which religious communities have with the larger workings of
societies and cultures. This is the ordinary way for "gods" and organized
religions to reform themselves (and for clergy to avoid admitting they were
wrong about "god" because of some old doctrine becoming superseded). It is
NOT customary for the ordinary rank and file within organized religions to
pay a lot of attention to these matters. They always like to imagine that
their religion is dogmatically or authoritatively eternal and like "god"
above the influences of mere mortal men.

<snip>

> Where the goals of religion and the external political goals coincide,
> there is a coalition, such as the U.S. coalition I mentioned earlier.
> By definition they support one another to this extent. It's
> paradoxical that (I think) economic conservatives could care less
> about their fundamentalist friend's issues, yet those fundamentalists
> tend to be low income people. The slang word "chump" always comes to
> mind.

Too right, which brings to mind the question why "economic conservatives"
care unless they believe they have found a way to "buy" votes.

Here, some of my ignorance about the US and organized religions again
becomes evident. As far as I have managed to understand, the "chumps", as
you call them, poor people with bad educations and fundamentalist religious
affiliations, have recently managed a (sort of) break-through in social
status, thereby becoming a new lower middle class strata (petite bourgeois),
still fighting hard to hang on to their new status, of course. Is that
correct? If so, it would account for the interest of the "economic
conservatives" in them as voters and potential supporters. It might even
account for much of the news I have heard during the last decade about the
seeming ascendance that Christian fundamentalisms are and have been
undergoing, and their new influence on right wing politics. How does that
compute?

<snip debate over the meanings and functions of religious ritual>

> If the obsessive behaviour is motivated from without, I think that is a
> different animal. Saying prayers at bedtime (etc.) is motivated from
> without. For instance, if I caused you to wash your hands 50 times a
> day, that wouldn't meet the clinical test, would it?

No, it wouldn't. But the person unable to go to sleep unless having prayed
to "god" is ordinarily not compelled by circumstances to do that but by the
psychological need to go through some ritual in order to relax. Such
behaviour is indicative of other-directed motivation by the fact that
learning to believe in the power of prayer requires some effective
socialization (not to say, conditioning), yet, when this idea has become
internalized, prayer can turn into a self-directed activity, motivated by
need to obtain some immediate mental satisfaction or reward (like being able
to go to sleep).

<snip examples of religiousness as obsession>

> Ok, that is a good example of "religious" obsession motivated from
> within. Of course there is "group psychology" sometimes at play.

There is indeed. These two can work together, one strengthening the other,
in order to further reinforce and cement the obsessive and compulsive
psychological bonds that tie people to religion and "faith". Mental illness
as social contagion.

<snip some debate about the origin of consciousness and intelligence>

> Ok, I could substitute consciousness for "reason" in your context. But
> would you acknowledge that "consciousness" is one of those mentalistic
> terms that can defy analyisis? Like pornography, we know it when we
> see it, but can't define it.

Yes, I would certainly acknowledge that. Indeed, it is one of the strangest
aspects of human self-consciousness that it can abstract itself from its
"own" environment, the mental processes of the mind, and watch and interpret
these processes as if it were a detached and uninvolved observer. Thus the
mind can seek to define itself, and it can attempt to understand "reason"
and "rationality" based on abstract mentation - and it can attempt to define
itself in terms of consciousness, using it's self-awareness of its own
existence. The word STRANGE does not do this paradoxical state of affairs
enough justice!

<snip some arguments about the relative importance of intelligence>

> I agree in context. But regarding intelligence proper, I see a
> definite dividing line. My dog is intelligent in a number of ways, and
> has lots of talents superior to humans including emotion-like behaviour
> that might be interpreted as "conscious." But when the rope gets
> twisted around an object, that dog will never in its life figure out
> how to untangle it.

Correct, of course.

<snip>

> But, on the one hand, you might stretch that interpretation into
> survival value. And on the other hand, after humans have bred dogs to
> be human-like in certain respects, you might stretch some of their
> talents into non-survival value. So that the dividing line is not so
> clear regarding consciousness?
>
> This point is not high on my radar, just to point out that
> "consciousness" could be problematic.

Agreed, it doesn't play much of a role in this debate.

<snip>

> Oh yes, I agree to that. When I say that language is not a reliability
> problem in argumentation, I don't mean that language is not necessary
> including in solitary thinking. I think it certainly is. I question
> the analytical ability of anyone who has difficulty forming
> grammatically intact sentences.

Yes, so would I. There has to be somebody "at home"!

<snip>

> I agree that analysis requires consciousness (Duh!). But your examples
> v. animals are not compelling to me. Some animals are quite social, or
> have well-developed, or at least amazing (if narrow) social
> communication skills.

Yes, many animals have these mental capabilities. But is (abstract)
self-consciousness among them?

<snip opening debate over the principal differences between religious and
secular mental indoctrination>>

> Surely it happens there too. But in the services I've attended, there
> comes the moment of the sermon, where one listens attentively without
> distraction, and I intended to make that distinction re: the
> subliminal programming of (for instance) TV news where there is not
> necessarily a long period free of distractions. But upon reflection,
> perhaps my distinction is somewhat trivial.

No too sure about that. I do believe there is a qualitative difference
between religious and other (secular) kinds of mind-bending practices.
Religious indoctrination takes better (than advertisers and political
propagandists) advantage of the (learned, acquired, socially induced)
susceptibility many people have for authoritarians forms of indoctrination.
The reason has something to do with the fact that religions can concentrate
on some few core messages, through ritual internalized to become
self-motivating, self-regulating, self-affirming psychological effects of
the belief in some "god". Secular forms of indoctrination really can't
compete except in quantity.

<snip debate about the prevalence of existential (self-)doubt as a feature
of religious beliefs>

> Ok, we do agree on that (below), saying this subconscious tendency of
> reality to assert itself amounted to unconscious doubt,  requiring
> constant maintenance, etc.

Thanks, I shall remember that this is a tricky point to argue. Very useful
process.

<snip>

> Could you summarize how the First World needs to change, and why this
> so affects the Third World?

Sure. The First World needs to end its economic dependence on being able to
buy raw materials and cash crops from the Third World at "artificially" low
prices, induced by First World trade barriers, deliberate enforcement of
policies (on Third World nations) leading to overproduction and
semi-permanent price collapse, the inequitable workings of international
monetary institutions and banks etc. That would mean paying fair prices
which would allow Third World nations to develop socially and culturally
according to their own wishes, and which would make it economically viable
for Third World nations to peruse politics and comprehensive programs of
environmental protection and maintenance, thereby making economic
development environmentally sustainable and viable.

In my view, the main bit that First World nations could contribute to a
peaceful, socially equitable, and environmentally sustainable future lies in
ending centuries of traditional practices of economic exploitation and
military (and other kinds of) interventionism in Third World nations.
Instead, the nations of the First World ought to feel duty bound to repair
as much of the awful (historic and contemporaneous) damage as is possible,
and it ought to pursue future policies of mutually beneficial relationships
that would enable both Third and First World nations to engage in common
international policies for the preservation of peace and beneficial
development for all.

How to achieve all this is the difficult bit. Already, the First-Third World
economic divide has developed characteristics by which it becomes more and
more likely that unless viable alternatives to present practices are found
and enacted, this long suffered injustice by Third World peoples and nations
will lead to new global conflagrations, possibly even nuclear holocaust.
Will the First World be able to understand that? Will Western populations
become ready to share their wealth with poor people in "primitive" nations?
It does not seem likely, UNLESS something is done to counteract the
"natural" impulse of blind selfishness that is so common throughout the
wealthy Occident. A new Enlightenment which tries to educate the public in
such a way that it will really understand it's not "either us or them" but
"without them, no us" seems to offer the only way forward. And, no, I do not
believe that this Third-First World contradiction can be solved strictly by
structural economic means or reforms. This, in the current circumstances,
will only lead to even further economic exploitation and injustice - and the
obvious political reaction to that from Third World peoples and nations.

<snip Third World role>

> Well, what choice to they have in living (accepting) their relative
> plight? I suspect the average person would jump at the chance for that
> "evil" material opulence given the chance. I noticed some Western
> opulence upon the downfall of the Taliban.

Oh yes, indeed by the middle and upper classes in Third World nations,
Western views, fashions, politics etc. are very popular. That is an
indication of where their political allegiance lies, not with their own
societies and cultures, but with their own narrow self-interest. This
describes the class warfare dynamics of what happens politically and
socially in most of the Third World, and it is the primary means by which
the Occident keeps the Third World politically subservient and economically
oppressed.

<snip more bits about Third World>

> Good point. Among other things, I imagine our media exports do assault
> those cultures/religions.

Thanks! There is some of that (deliberate Western political propaganda aimed
at consumption in the Third World), obviously, but it is not very
economically important. Remember "Bay Watch"? That was the most popular TV
series all over the Third World for years. The episodes that were broadcast
were mostly two or more years old. And much of the dialogue was
incomprehensible to people even when add-lipped in their own languages. But
that didn't matter. For people in the Third World NATURALLY have the exact
same (cultivated) need for brain relaxing entertainment and fluff as do
people in the Occident. The economic imperative, the efficiency of Western
mass production methods, rules this reality. The social and mental
effectiveness of this kind of programming has to do with the inherent
readiness of ordinary people to accept certain "patterns", (nearly)
uncritically. Those "patterns" are really religious in origin, IMHO.

<snip, Down with cultural imperialism>

> I've been watching for your POV on that. I totally agree. Free choice
> must be preserved.

That's the only way forward. In order for people to believe in the promise
of the future, they have to be able to imagine a future which is to their
liking and which will empower them. When people cannot do that they will
turn to fundamentalisms and extremism - that is one of the eternal lessons
of history.

<snip>

> <http://paganwiccan.about.com/mbody.htm>
>
> Thanks. Maybe I will enter the pumpkin contest! <g> Are you sure this
> is entirely serious?

Yes, it is indeed serious, though I can easily understand why you would
believe the opposite. No, I'm not kidding, Viccan is a new popular religion
(with ancient roots) in the UK - though that's factually not very precise,
for Viccan isn't really organized and has no central dogmatic theology or
belief system like organized religions usually have. I guess Viccan could be
called a "disorganized religion", which is one of its main attractions to
the British, so it appears.

> And is it not just one of the weird niches that a
> small percent of any population will always fill? It seems you've
> answered below.

Viccan started out as a "weird niche", as you say. But in my (not very
informed) judgement it's now past that stage and has achieved a sort of
permanency and social acceptance among the public. It does not appear too
unlikely that it'll become even more popular as an anti-establishment choice
in the years to come.

>> Well, I know next to nothing about Viccan (sorry about the spelling
>> error) except it's becoming more and more of a popular alternative to
>> the Anglican Church in the UK (and perhaps Canada). This seems like a
>> good place to start.

> <snip examples of bad morality in U.S. I blame on liberals>
<snip attempt to say where the moral ills of a society originate>

> Well almost nobody wants their children to see some of this
> programming, and I wonder how some fundamentalists societies view our
> exportation of music videos and computer games. It seems most everyone
> would agree it is a problem to solve. Yet I see no rational political
> movement to solve it in the West. Converting everyone to
> Fundamentalist Christianity seems quite a lot of overkill when a
> reasonable censorship law would probably do the trick.

Overkill, indeed. I suppose in the US this problem nexus will likely be
understood as a case for or against the constitutionally guaranteed rights
of freedom of expression (unless specific intent to harm somebody can be
proved)? If that is true, then I'm reasonably sure this issue won't find its
resolution in the current political climate, for the potential judgement and
banning of socially offensive media products would possibly lead to a
politicising of the whole question, making lots of people afraid that
politically oppressive consequences would follow. If this is true, the
reason for that has to be that the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of
expression is under (political, economic?) attack already, probably as a
result of a radicalization of society and a weakening of centrist political
forces.

Your question, how do "...some fundamentalists societies view our
exportation of music videos and computer games?" is not easily answered, I
believe. So much depends on local circumstances and on the standing the US
has with each specific people and/or nation. Naturally, some societies view
the steady import of cheap US mass media products as a danger to their own
culture. But the opposite attitude is also common - as is indifference. The
previous example with "Bay Watch" is a good example of all that. Oh, there
were Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Hindu etc. clergy all over the World who
deplored it for its obvious flaws. I deplored it, too, although not for
religious or ethnocentric reasons. Yet, that product was fashioned in such a
manner that nothing in it (even the semi-bare babes) could really give
offence to anybody. "Bay Watch", from a marketing point of view, was a
brilliant product! It was completely inconsequential and fluffy and so
easily consumed by viewers as candy-floss by children in an amusement park -
and about as healthy and nourishing.

<snip social hierarchy>
><snip stuff about Aristotle and the "executive mind">
><snip agreement about the psychology "privileged position" - thanks>
><snip acknowledgement - thanks>
><snip my "wordy" <g> explanation of my defensiveness>

<snip Guessing about seeming disagreement over Aristotle's view of humanity>

> Well, not exactly. I see many liabilities of science, and my problem
> isn't specific to science. I am only focused on psychological theories
> that attack 1) discussion such as we're having as if our language and
> interpretation of our experience was unreliable to do so,
> acknowledging that there will of course be confusion, but which
> confusion is easy to remedy by asking for clarification. For instance,
> if we wanted to spend the time (I suggest we don't <g>), we could
> choose to drill down into this logic issue and understand our
> respective positions much more precisely than required to be
> sufficient to our general discussion. And 2) that we cannot relate our
> experience to the objective universe because we are each a universe of
> our own perceptions and imaginings (or something along those lines).
> When you criticized scientists as being "deluded" I inferred that it
> was in one of these two ways. Now reading ahead, I feel you have made
> a friendlier distinction.

Well, I see. Now I understand your concern much better. No, (your point 1)
I'm NOT out to put down the empirical and logical processes that go into
scientific work and lead to scientific discoveries and new ways to
understand objective reality. And no, (point 2) I'm not a classical agnostic
(of ancient convictions), because I basically believe (contrary to the
ancients) that objective reality is knowable, by the processes of science,
by human experience, generally, and that aspects of reality can be the
object of MEANINGFUL language exchanges between individual human beings. One
of my prime problems with ancient agnosticism has always been how they
explained human interaction with nature and with other human beings. Well,
they didn't except to postulate that this aspect of existence was
"immaterial". Hardly a defensible position, IMO. But I still prefer being
called an agnostic to being labelled an atheist, who's just somebody that
doesn't BELIEVE in "god".

Your concerns about the status of scientific understanding and the
scientific tradition seem well justified to me. So much of the wider social
debate is given over to irrational promotion of short-sighted policy goals
(scoring "points" in the media) that even the materialistic sciences  come
under attack. The debate over neo-Darwinism and (the current evolved version
of) the Theory of Evolution in US primary and secondary educations delivers
a good example. Again the underlying explanation appears to me to have to do
with a radicalisation of society and politics, and, following that, of
social, scientific debate, where tolerance and the acceptance of "deviant"
points of view are in short supply or even completely missing.

<snip scientists easily become an elite hiding in "ivory towers">

> That is something quite different from my issues on the subject. I
> haven't given it much thought. I realize that there is a strong debate
> on this subject within (and without) the scientific community itself.

Yes, there is indeed a strong debate over this issue, and it has been going
on as long as (at least) the Industrial Revolution. To my mind the central
point of the ongoing argument is this. Science has the potential to help
humanity in managing its own affairs in a self-directed, sustainable, and
equitable manner. Its discoveries may help Man progress. Of course, the
exact opposite is also true. Science may help enslave Man even more to his
own social constructs, making self-directed, sustainable, and equitable
development even more difficult than if society had remained Feudal or
Tribal. Where does science (meaning, the whole of the international
scientific community) stand today, between those two opposites? Well, my
view is that science is mainly in the service of oppressive social
constructs (the modern techniques of psychological conditioning have been
the result of scientific laboratory experimentation and theorizing,
specifically aimed at managing society, purposefully ordered by governments
and other authoritarian social constructs), an obstacle to the development
of Man, a potential danger to humanity's very existence, and that this has
to change (there are lots of contemporary scientists who are NOT like this,
of course!).

<snip accusation of elitist arrogance and dogmatism>

> Ok. Cast in those terms I have no problem with it. I don't think you
> mean to characterize proven science as dogma. But there is a lot of
> unproven science in "science."

Yes, and yes, to both your points. To possibly refine this a bit more I'd
say, scientific dogma, whether axiomatic or proven, is fine and has to
occupy its all-important central position at the centre of any science.
There is nothing wrong with dogma, per se. But being dogmatic is quite
different. To become dogmatic a scientist (or anybody) has to develop a
certain religious belief in the eternal and universal validity of the
scientific dogma to which he adheres. Thus dogmatism is basically a
reactionary (and arrogant) selfish attitude that works as a psychological
obstacle to the proper development of new hypotheses and new dogma - which
dogmatic people naturally believe will NEVER happen, but it ALWAYS does!

<snip short speech to scientists>

> Ok I see that as an argument about the direction of science, perfectly
> legitimate. I think the main counter-argument would have to do with
> the unpredictability of some science. One definition of science is
> "performing experiments so that other experiments may be performed."
> <g>

Sure, scientists never really know what they'll find out next. New
discoveries will always lead to new dogma and new theorizing which might
again lead to new discoveries. On and on this dialectical renewal of science
goes. This cannot be changed unless science is censored, which is profoundly
counter-productive and not a viable option in my view (humanity is simply
too dependent on scientific management of society and nature). Thus the
option that remains is one of choosing what scientific discoveries ought to
have wider societal, economic, and environmental impact and how this should
be realized in practical terms. It would be possible to imagine that a
society governed by reason instead of fear would not build an atom bomb
though it scientists may have discovered all the practical uses of nuclear
fission.

<snip "coincidental probability">

> I seems so. The big fat problem with "coincidental probability" is the
> issue of "independence." I.e. isolating from cross-correlations, third
> factors, etc. Roughly speaking, it oftn (usually?) can't be done in
> the real world.

Yes. And since the main topics of this debate are social in nature, having
to do with human society, history, science and a host of similar subjects,
it would be very hard to isolate individual strands of causality which would
not somehow be reliant on the wider social context. It would be impossible,
right? Still, I feel this is a highly gratifying exercise. Despite the
"wider social context" there are always many obstacles to reasoned dialogue
to overcome - that's my experience, at least.

<snipping bits of the "fog"-metaphor>

> Agree. And one wants one's children to be normal and accepted in the
> interest of general personality health, however society defines that
> at the time.

<snip more about the "fog">

> Yes. The "fog" is a very real thing. But if you always live in one
> place, one sub-culture, you might never realize it. Suggesting that
> increased mobility might help a culture towards your desired goal.

It surely will. For people in the Occident I'd recommend visiting Third
World nations (Asia, Africa, and Latin America) and other Occidental nations
in both hemispheres. But travelling is expensive, unfortunately.

<snip yet more about the ethnocentric "fog">

> Am I correct in assuming that in Europe there is an over-enthusiasm
> with political philosophies? Here in the colonies, we rarely sit at a
> bar discussing Kant and Marx. I am given to believe that it is almost
> a religion in certain sub-cultures of Europe. OTOH, aren't there
> locations in Europe mostly devoid of religion? I would be surprised if
> there were not.

Oh, no, that's a romantic image which dates back to the -40s and -50s and
earlier, to the cafés in Paris frequented by people like the brilliant
Existentialist philosopher Jean Paul Sartre and his famous wife, Simone de
Bouvoir. Even further back, the cafés on the Left Bank of the Seine had a
great reputation for being the "in" place for advangardist artists from all
over Europe to gather. Some of the most famous artists from the late 19th to
the mid 20th centuries have lived in Paris on the cheap while they
experimented and matured and sought to establish their reputations. A good
example would be Pablo Picasso. To this day, specific cafés in central Paris
are preferred hunting grounds for the intelligenzia, like authors, poets,
political commentators, philosophers etc.

In most of Europe (outside some parts of central Paris) cafés are regarded
as places of gossip and, for some of the more expensive ones, as places
where the well-to-do go in order to put themselves on display. Any
self-respecting prestigious theatre or museum etc. will have its own café,
where coffee, mocca, espresso etc. is served with artful confectionery. More
mundane places have bars, where they sell drinks, beer, fast-food, snacks,
and candy. You get the picture.

<snip Orwell's utopian nightmare>

> Lately I see it. And I hear "1984" creeping into political
> conversation much more than ever before. But I don't see it as the
> major problem in the West. If someone asked me that, I'd probably say
> nuclear/biological terrorism and lack of a sufficient energy policy
> since the '60s.

Well, those are issues, vitally important issues. Society is ALWAYS in
crisis in relation to some vital issue. So in my view the main problem is
not that contemporary society faces critical issues, but HOW it goes about
managing them and dealing with them. If society reacts in a deliberate,
self-directed, rational way then it doesn't really matter how serious the
issues are, society is doing its level best to solve or overcome them or
deal with them (which is all that is humanely possible). On the other hand,
if society reacts to the issues in a (exagerated) fearful, aggressive,
irrational way, society is really just preventing itself from dealing with
the issues and is actually running the risk of aggravating or even
escalating the potential risks that those issues may entail. This last is
how religion basically functions, IMO, conditioning irrational fearful
patterns of reaction to psychological effects of real life issues, and it is
the main reason why I have picked on religion as the principal culprit
responsible for conditioning the public and society to such unreasoned and
blindly emotional behaviour.
<snip launching the question, Where does modern mind control practices
originate>

> No. I gave some examples of news items that would not have been
> accepted here 20 years ago. And with that acceptance has been a
> coincident rise in religious "politics" (if not numbers). This is,
> again, support of your POV.

Thanks.

<snip more about the origin of modern mind control>

> Good question. I've looked for an answer, and have not found anything
> convincing. What is changed? Well, there is private ownership of cable
> news and talk radio, and most (even some conservatives) agree they are
> pushing a conservative point of view. Regarding more traditional
> outlets, I've heard in debate on this issue about 2 effects: 1) the
> need to appear "balanced" so that one strikes middle ground between
> two opposing sides. Well, if one side is extreme, then that moves the
> "middle" towards that extreme. And 2) Commercial needs. A certain
> viewership is highly motivated, thus from the media outlet's POV
> overrepresented in criticism, letters to the editor, etc., etc. Human
> nature and commercial realities dictate a movement in the radical
> direction. I should add that I've heard some conservatives agree
> more-or-less with this (though I suspect most wouldn't) but consider
> it fair in light of the previous liberal domination of the media
> (which is correct; most liberals agree with that too). Lately, one
> could add the dominance of the Republican government, but I am talking
> about the general rise in this trend since the 80's.
>
> None of the above fully explains the phenomenon to me, so I read your
> explanation about religion with interest.

A fine short review of the media landscape. The reason why none of the cases
you mention allow for any specific conclusion might be because they could
all be viewed as examples of the same basic social phenomenon. Political
debates, news in the media etc., from having been "anchored" to specific
practical issues, subjects, politics, events etc. of the time, have left
reality behind and have now become purveyors of certain partisan political
points of view which are seen as more important than the material reality of
the issues at stake. This, I have to stress again, is what ordinarily
happens to public debate in societies which have become politically
radicalized in some way. The parts of the public which gobble such bilge are
to be regarded as having surrendered their personal critical faculties in
order to conform to some ideology or "dominant view". That is a PROFOUNDLY
religious exercise, which they, most of them, will already have practiced
performing in religious contexts.

<snip religious mind control is the originator of all modern mind control>

> Very interesting. It must have been so easy with the public totally
> unaccustomed to such in the mass media (not that it hasn't gone on
> forever in more localized fashion).

Yes, it was. The first major propaganda victory of 1914 was the British
invention of the "Rape of Belgium". History books in Europe propagated that
lie for more than fifty years. I think, it still persists in the UK (how
about the US?), today, in standard history teaching literature. But the
Imperial German Army didn't "rape" Belgium in 1914, but it violated the
German-Belgian neutrality pact, which was a war crime even back then, of
course.

<snip comments about net.kooks and other unbalanced people who flock to the
leader with the most irrational appeal>

Yes, I cannot but agree with your concerns. Isn't the main difficulty to
define sanity in such a way that it's inclusive of everything sane and
exclusive of everything irrational? To attempt that in a comprehensive
manner would be practically impossible and perhaps even indicative of a
certain obsessive-compulsive need for security - not too rational in itself.
No, what I would suggest in order to begin unravelling all the psychotic
knots and neurotic fears of society is to engage the wider public in the
social processes, enabling them to influence their own lives and giving them
a stake in the basic ordered functioning of society. Something like a
participatory democracy would be fine. Then a sort of "miracle" can happen.
The people who have become active in this way will find their own level of
communal understanding, which will be based on the need to understand and
react to reality as they see it. That makes this part of the public able to
learn and to grow and to maintain mental health. Such a process would never
become exclusive (if properly maintained) of anything on principle, yet it
would "automatically" exclude kooks, psychopaths etc. from gaining power and
influence (they wouldn't feel welcome or comfortable). Why? Because in order
to tolerate psychopaths taking control, people would have to give up their
own newfound freedom and hand it over to the madmen. As long as ordinary
people, a good majority of any society, are actively engaged in forming
society and their own lives in the above manner, society will be
(reasonably) safe from excessive authoritarian forms of control and
management. But when a proper democracy turns into a fake "demonstration
democracy", this becomes a real and present danger. The way to maintain
public participation is to wean them of their passivity, which is primarily
a function of religious mind-bending practices.

> It seems we have more-or-less made an overview. Maybe we should
> replace these long posts with a summary of points where there remain
> substantial differences. I'll attempt it if I have time.

Sorry, I should have read this bit first. Again, I've just piled it on. Yes,
I agree, our debate has by now touched on much of what relates to this
subject of "god" and religion. It would be fine with an overview. I'll see
what I can do, too.

This message is only about 6.000 words long. Some sort of improvement,
right?   :-)

Nes