I am skeptical that religion is a "mind virus"

ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I am skeptical that religion is a "mind virus"

Your average devout church-going Baptist most likely believes that the earth and the universe are 6000 years old and that we all came from 2 people akin to Brook Shields and Christopher Atkins in Blue Lagoon. That individual is also likely to be pro-life, pro-abstinence only sex-ed, homophobic and a hard-core anti-science rightwing loon. This individual is the unfortunate product of religious brainwashing instilled by his/her family and the immediate community. Yet contrary to Dawkins and Dennett, I am not convinced that he/she was infected and here's why.

This guy was one of the pioneers in revolutionizing our information age. He was a brilliant man with amazing forsight. Indeed there may never be another one like Steve Jobs in the 21st century. But he too was allegedly infected by the "mind virus". Granted he was a Zen-Buddhist and not a Christian or Islamic fundamentalist but he was religious.  Indeed, many atheists are reading this opening thread on their favorite Mac system. If Steve Jobs was infected with a mind virus, was his viral titer simply a lot lower than say Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman?

And for former theists who are now "cured" by education, how can they resist the mind virus and others cannot? Folks, it is quite entertaining to see religion as this insidious totalitarian virus that robs us of freedom and transforms us into mindless North Korean automatons but this is simply not the case. Indeed relgion does have the ability to brainwash and destroy an individual's capacity to reason but it is far from being analogous to an infection. If religion is like an infection, then any meme is similarly so. Football, violent films, porn, alcohol, socialism are therefore also like viruses? I think not. I am most certain that on this forum there is at least one intellectual who plays Grand Theft Auto, jerks off to Jenna Jameson, consumes beer to excess, a die-hard Steelers fan and believes that the rich should pay their fare share. I would hardly say that that individual's mind is infected.

 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Cpt. Pineapple

Cpt. Pineapple wrote:

 

A->B

A

Therefore B

 

A<=>B

B

Therefore A

 

 

NOT

 

It fits X definition ->  it's a virus

It fits X definition

But...it's not a virus because it's not religion or something.

Therefore religion is a virus but other things that fit X aren't because we said so.

Logic's mine you understand! Mine... all mine! Get back in there... down down down go go go mine mine mine. Uah hahahaha!

 

Who was maintaining that religion behaves like a virus, again? Oh yeah... that's right. It was redneF/Fender. Not really anyone else here. Certainly, religion/cults behave like a virus at times. In other instances, religions behave like a revolving door mall full of ideas to 'shop' for and use, and when failing that... to simply walk away from and no longer participate in.

There are other terms that one could apply here;

a cancer

a poison

an endoparasite

a toxic landfill (a superfund site?)

a funnel-web spider

a plague

fallout

an upstream papermill

et cetera...

 

Some of these may be more functional terms than others, with a "virus" being the most applicable. And yes, it does create an "us vs. them" mentality that sometimes prevents or hinders deconversion. It happens. It also happens that the least involved and least comfortable with religion deconvert rather effortlessly. I noticed Ragdish and others beat me to the punch on most of the terms I wanted use here, but as-of-yet they still bear repeating.

 

*quietly goes back to dealing with illness*

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)