Some of them, such as Hinduism and Zoroastrianism, require you to be born into the worshipping body and don't allow converts. Others, such as Buddhism, do not promote proselytizing as Christro-Islamic ones do. If I recall, one can be a Buddhist/something else, but Christianity and Islam are exclusive cults. Nothing else combines the "you must find other converts" with "you can belong only to our cult".

I don't understand why people think that the rapid spread of Islam/Christianity must be attributable to some positive quality. Malaria spreads quickly too.

It's been interesting to think of Christianity and Islam as retroviruses to society. They take over cells, use the cells to make more copies of themselves and spread to other cells, and even suppress immune responses.

Well...the 'positive attribute' varies from every person point of view. Surely people will not adopt a religion if (from his point of view) is considered a bad thing.

Which reminds me of another question, is religion during ancient history a GOOD thing?

Spare me your mindless relativist bullshit. Was Nazism good from "their point of view" too?

Let's see - there's an army with all sorts of weapons and resources staring at a pack of unarmed peasants who, up until then, were doing pretty good. In fact, the peasant just wish the army would go away as they want nothing to do with these newcomers or their beliefs.

The army says "You will convert to our religion or we will kill you. Slowly. And horribly. We will kill you after raping your women, disemboweling your --"

"Alright! Alright! We convert!"

Now, what does the peasants' point of view on the new religion have to do with whether or not they "adopt" it? In fact, both Voudoun and Santeria are two New World religions that are really an adaption of African Ife and a smattering of other African and indigenous American and Carribean beliefs spackled over with enough Christianity to keep its practitioners from being killed outright by European Christian overlords.

Why would someone "convert" to a religion that has no appeal to them? To stay alive. To prevent horrible things from happening to their loved ones. Stuff like that.

That's one thing I could never understand...can't you simply pretend that you have 'converted'?



Do you think that Hitler and his followers will believe that nazisim is evil by themselves and gladly accepted the concept of it?

Technically, malaria is an infiltrating parasite rather than a virus. It enters a blood cell, multiplies rapidly until the parasites consume all of the resources in the cell and it ruptures, and then they spread out through the bloodstream in search of other cells to infect.

Wow. It's rare to see someone so goddamned stupid that such a simple point could fly over his mottled head.

Err...what? I thought your point was challenging me about the fact that Nazis believe that their 'belief' was good?

The point was fucking obvious. It was challenging your claim that people won't adapt a religion they see as bad when it's pretty blatant they'll convert to anything if someone presents a credible threat to inflict massive amounts of pain and suffering on them. Then you have fun stuff like Stockholm Syndrome.

---

"If God didn't want us to masturbate, he would've made our arms shorter."

Like what I mentioned a few post behind...can't people just pretend that they has converted? Certainly you can lie about it?

What are you, fucking stupid? Rhetorical question, I know ...

One generation can pretend. But after its children and their childrens' children have all been officially indoctrinated in this religion, do you still think it will just be "pretend"?

Yes. Will you fucking read AND COMPREHEND what people are posting? Go back and re-read what I put in large bold lettering for your benefit.

I also suggest you look up "Inquisition" in the historical context. That is what CHRISTIANS did to CHRISTIANS they suspected of less than acceptable belief and thought - do you fucking think they would have been any more merciful to the converted? Do you think converts aren't watched? It's not enough to merely do lip service on Sundays, the invaders will make sure you aren't sneaking off into the woods to do things the old fashioned way.

Not to mention the practice of taking aways peoples' children to assimilate and indoctrinate them into the overlords' belief systems and customs, something done to indigenous peoples through the 20th Century in places as far apart as North America, Africa, and Australia. This kills off the native religion quite effectively since when the old converts are gone the knowledge of the old ways is gone, the children having been indoctrinated from infancy in the new ways.

Look up "Stockholm Syndrome". Then you might actually comprehend what's being talked about.

---

"If God didn't want us to masturbate, he would've made our arms shorter."

Ok...I will see what is it about.

In regards to Darth Wong question...how on earth can I 'help' myself in well noticing the obvious? I have a hard time trying to understand what is most people actually talking about...you can call me slow...I guess.

wasnt the Spanish inquisition orginally started to deal with converted Jews and Muslims who were suspected of secretly still practising the old religion ?

so much for "pretend".

Better Marketing!

---

"Single-minded persistence in the face of futility is what humanity does best." Tim Ferguson

I looked up Stockholm Syndrome. It's a little odd. Since Ray's comprehension skills are a bit rusty today, I'll explain it to him in small words.

Stockholm Syndrome is what happens when kidnapped people start to feel sympathetic to the people that kidnapped them.

The connection with religion in this case is that people who are forced into a religion may start to relate to it, and eventually may start to follow the religion sincerely when they would have never done before.

Yes, that's true. The idea of Christianity causing Christians to rupture, expelling memes to prowl through dark city nights looking for other humans to infect is amusing, but I was trying more to compare Christianity to a virus that infects society. Specifically, it suppresses (or tries to) education that could work toward eliminating it -- hence, the comparison to retroviruses suppressing immune responses.

Maybe a better comparison could be sickle-cell anemia. Christianity, and religion in general, had a use back then but once things got better it became a harm rather than a benefit.

Most schools of Buddhism actively discourage proselytizing of the same sort as Christianity or Islam. Buddhists are called to lead by example. You don't try and "Sell" Buddhism to others.

Also, it lacks people telling you what to do most of the time. Siddartha founded Buddhism on the principle that the lay person could find enlightenment in themselves and didn't need clergy. As a consequence it means you really have to think about yourself, your spiritual ideals and your views on the world.

People don't always like that. Makes them feel dumb when they have to think and suddenly realize they have no thoughts of their own.

Indeed. The more one studies people, the more one realizes that despite all the rhetoric about "individualism" and "freedom", most people want to be led through life by the nose.

Was religion ever a benefit? I mean, was religion ever a required stage we had to go through before we discovered science? I know that Christians would like us to believe so, but is it actually true? I remember reading somewhere (sorry, can't remember where) that someone thought that religion was required to transition between small tribal groups and larger nation-states. Frankly, I don't think this is the case, as there is no evidence that theocratic nations are any more successful than secular ones. I suppose the argument was based on the claim that although secular nations are no worse off (and often better off) than religious ones, that secular nations could not have formed, and that secular nations had to start out religious and then secularise. I think I remember a distinct lack of evidence to support this idea, however.

I'm not sure if it's a required stage, but I am aware of no, and I mean NO as in ZIP, civilization that did not have religion in some form or another, whether it'd be monotheistic like Christianity, polytheistic like Greeks, or more shamanic like many African or Native American religions, or spirit and ancestor worship like some Asian countries.

Religion is, in my view, two things: authority, and comfort. Like I mentioned before, it makes people feel better, and it's a convenient opiate through which to control the masses and compel people to do things without necessarily massive force of arms, although that quite often went together with the priesthood. The high priest figure is prevalent throughout human history, from shamans to the pope and so forth.

I think religion's influence is decreasing today, but the allure of the "spiritual" or the comfortable feeling it brings still exists, and I know there are things that are religion in all but name. Even believing in zodiac horoscopes is a sort of religion.

In the end, it makes people believe that they're not entirely in control of their destiny, that there are higher forces at work. It's not bad to believe there are higher forces at work, but it also makes people feel less responsible for whatever happens in life.

So and so behaves a certain way? Oh that's cause he's a Leo, or a Scorpio, etc. People don't really want to be responsible for themselves and their own behaviors, so stuff like destiny, fate, horoscopes, which are really just religions, give them the impression otherwise.