I'm not a scientist or a psychologist I'm afraid, but an engineer. I am, however, more than happy to give you my two pennies.

I honestly think a lot of the grass-roots hostility is built up around sexual repression. It is a strong impulse, and to create an internal conflict within a person there is probably not a better one to target. Anyone who has a strong sexual urge and has been without for a while would probably agree that it is difficult to think of anything else at times. I must admit to putting forward ideas from the world of fiction and non-fiction, not my own. Peoplewatching by Desmond Morris dallies with this concept. George Orwell wrote ficticious dystopia but, I believe, understood the power of control through sexual repression.

It is a great way to foster a sense of deep unworthiness, as (I imagine) anyone with the misfortune to suffer erectile dysfunction would attest. Of course it is the religion supplying the unworthiness, in order to create unfulfilment. This may then be exploited by offering an alternative.

Looking at the Magdalene asylums of Ireland and Australia, it seems that the cruelty perpetrated on the poor inmates was partly as a result of the nun's own sexual frustrations.

As a means of control it does have a drawback, in that the repression can lead to irrational angers and hatreds.

It is probably not completely sexual, as religion instills other facets of unworthiness into its victims, such as teaching them that they sin uncontrollably and are not worthy of god. To someone who has been brought up from the beginning in this environment, it must be particularly distressing.

In short, I think that by focussing attention on the negative emotions (love of jesus or love of god only coming after the subject has had the crap knocked out of them), people are thinking and behaving negatively. Some of the most awful people I have met were devout catholics.

Maybe somebody better qualified can tell me if I am talking shit or not?

Part 2.

Ahh, yes, sexual control. I completely forgot about that one.

Ironically, the best live analogy between humans and other animals (in other words the best display of evolution, though I'd rather it didn't happen that way) is precisely religion. Think about it this way: What does an alpha male/female (depending on the case) mostly desire? Well, since it is the alpha of the pack, obviously its genes are most adapted, and therefore wishes to pass them on. What else does it want? To make sure that others don't (as much as possible, of course).

When it comes to displaying such tendencies, religion excels, and it should be obvious for everybody. Wait, I know what just hit your mind: high priests had (~ve) to keep celibacy. True... but do they do it? History shows otherwise. Thinking that at a certain time, the great religious leaders were actually the tribe chiefs/kings/emperors... and it's sure as hell they didn't keep to it. Actually, Christianity seems to be one of the few religions in which clerics are not to marry (and not even throughout it all), and that was from totally different reasons.

Not only that, but religion generally fosters a sense of shame even on the "worthy". Making people ashamed of their own reproductive functions is a heck of an invention: since the sexual urge is the second strongest instinct a human has (first one is self-preservation, including fear/horror reactions and adrenaline triggers), supressing means that such a human's brain has quite a lot to work at. Its inhibition becomes more and more visible as generations pass (since it is clear that no inhibition is singular), and such people become more and more interiorized, therefore submissive. Which is the aim of it all.

Furthermore, attempts have been made (quite a few successful) to overcome even the first strongest instinct. Think about circumcision, self-mutilation in Islamic regions at different occasions, etc. Results were people so submissive, that they can almost be diagnosed with environmental dependency.

Indeed that is a very good example. It is a side effect of the human process of learning, which I shall describe through an analogy with monkeys:

Put two monkeys in a cage. Also put a banana that, when touched by one of the monkeys, triggers an electric shock in the other. Most naturally, both monkeys will learn to a) not to touch it and b) not to let the other one touch it. Remove one monkey and put another one which is oblivious to the whole thing. Obviously, the "old" monkey will prevent the new one from touching it. Given enough time, remove the "old" monkey and put a new one inside. You will notice that the monkey that has never experienced being shocked or shocking through touching tha banana will also prevent the new one from touching the banana.

Someone just had to start through example ("sin houses", equivalent of present day "hell houses&quot... and it is enough for the others to start applying it themselves. The Magdalene Laundries, from my knowledge, were never OFFICIALLY attributed to the church. Even if some were, again from my knowledge, many actually didn't have any connection, being instituted by communities.

...but given enough time, through the process shown above, the other "sheep" will learn that such angers and hatreds are sins/abominations (because, heh, the priests have foreseen such events and took care of them), and therefore they must be cast out. The religious leaders, in many cases, don't even have to do anything: the communiy will take care of everything (and as a live example: I don't think it is priests that puncture tires in the USA, on the cars that have non-religious symbols).

The only thing that religious leaders have to do is step in from time to time, just in case one of the followers starts wondering "hey, wait a minute, why was I not allowed to touch that banana, again?"

Taking out the self-esteem of one is actually only a preparation for mind control. It is already common knowledge that a strong willpower will not be controlled (or perhaps he/she will be, but only after severe struggle, and only if he/she agrees with what he/she is asked, at least partly). But a low self-esteemed human has no such strong willpower. First step in submissing large masses is to show them how low they are, and to give them "a way to go higher". That "way" is only apparent, since, with religion, it is the other way around, but, through ignorance and despair, it is "the only way".

I'd rather say "fanatic Catholic", or, as we have a phrase here, "more Catholic than the Pope". And no, you are not talking shit.

Good luck and a clear mind. Do let us know when it's ready.

Of course revelation isn't accepted anymore. It's a self-defense mechanism for religion. If revelation was to happen even to this day, would the current day religious leaders simply step back and let "the new Son of God" take over? Well I doubt that. The story of Jesus himself is probably the best example ever! This is one further proof that religion's ultimate purpose is power and control.

New religions can only take ground where the ground laid by other religions (or lack of) is shaky. Where faith is strong and clerical control is severe, new religions have absolutely no chance of success. Generally, new religions (and this is a personal observation) take hold of young people (for obvious reasons) or of people in more or less despair (again for obvious reasons)

...but do keep in mind that it depends on context and the natural desire that people have. Peaceful areas do not encourage agressive preaching (for instance you won't find agressive preachers in Romania's villages). Also I don't claim to know for sure, but it doesn't seem that Buddhists are agressive preachers. The case is different in the USA, but I really don't want to state the reasons why I think it is that way.

Again, it depends on context. I don't see much of Romania's orthodoxy in more peaceful areas of the coutry being overtaken by the very militant J.W. Unfortunately this also applies to militant atheism as well.

I'd put my money more on adaptability to local conditions than agressiveness. After all, even from an evolutive perspective, not always the most agressive are the most succesful. The most successful are the best adapted to their environment.

This one is perfectly true. And the more mythic this fear is, the better the effect. Fear needs to have an object that is not tangible, nor observable. Because if a religion would be based on fear of pigeons, for instance, it would slowly die out as people would come to realize that their object of fear is tangible, can be studied and ultimately that there's nothing to fear. If we are to apply the same to Abrahamic religions, how the heck is one to study life after death? Actually, the attempts (mediums, ghost hunters, etc.) are much creepier than the possibility itself.

...which can easily be proven considering statistics on the faith of the highly-educated.

Given enough time, the "sheep" will start believing for sure that clerics are infallible. And they will start defending that type of doctrine (an example was dmar198 here on the forums, that argued that the Catholic Church did nothing wrong in tis existence, if some of you remember the thread).

I'd rather be having atheist missionaries than wiping out civilizations just to kill off religions, but anyway, you are right here.

Thank you for your opinion, thingy. It was both interesting and rational. I'm going to cling on to one piece of what you said and go forward from there.

You reminded me about something with your "increased numbers": the contact between religion and "increased numbers" of crimes, disasters, etc.

Part 3

A very interesting challenge to all religions has always been accurate prediction of events. It might sound surprising, but prediction of events (both religious and non-religious, for that matter of fact) is a must. And that for two reasons: one as to give a certain tangible socio-economical significance to religion (for example: had the Egyptian cults not specialized in anticipating the floods of the Nile, transforming them into "blessings", through their almost perfectly accurate predictions that saved both lives and crops, perhaps many adherents in that area would lose their faith more in despair over not being able to please the gods whatever they did than else; religion would have seemed unnecessary), and two, to maintain what I'd like to call a "scare factor".

The "scare factor" can be explained in biological terms as the percentage of adrenaline discharges when thinking of different predicted events in that particular religion or in statistical terms as the willingness of that population to listen to whatever the preacher tells them. The choice is yours, and the more intelligent should have already found the connection between the two.

Predicting events fits in the picture because of the "calm before the storm" effect. Essentially, if it is too calm for a long period of time, people will start wanting something. People will "wish to see some action", and the more aggresive the religion, the more intense this wish is. A religion that promotes a concept of god(s) connected to bad things as well (such as crime, disasters, etc.) must have something "bad" from time to time, as too much peace builds in, and once it explodes, the ability of the clerics to contain that explosion isn't very certain.

So basically, religions had to be able to predict. That was very simple when it came to predicting floods of the Nile. Very simple in comparison to predicting major events, such as the end of the world, of course. But what happens in the more difficult cases? Clearly, a precise date/schedule cannot possibly be put to such an event beforehand. Getting it totally wrong might not mean the end of that religion, but it will definitely mean the end of mind control over many of the "sheep", at least for a certain while. The first element of religious prediction (and the only one we will study in this part) thus surfaces: vagueness.

Ancient religions had (~ve) predictions that are so vague, they can even be interpreted to predict Harry Potter. What happens when religions meet face to face with modern-day news media? What happens when religions meet face to face with the realities of our time? The answer is simply: mass paranoia. Ranging from the like of "The end is near!" to "I believe Jesus will return within my lifetime!"

What the "sheep" don't realize is that today's realities are far from being new. You listen to an old guy on the street saying "Back in my days, people were peaceful! We didn't hear of that much crime and disaster around!" Well sure you didn't, gramps, you had no TV. You had no way of knowing that in some far-off country two rival princes fight for the crown, using whole armies in the process. You had no way of knowing that your neighbours a few countries away are sacrificing humans. You had no way of knowing about the "prima noctes" tradition. You had no way of knowing that a hurricane is sweeping the coasts of the Indian Ocean. Of course, this has been exagerated a bit, but you understand my point. And so, the idea that people are increasingly sinful and the end gets nearer and nearer, when, it seems to me, the world is heading towards exactly the opposite, is perfectly credible.

However, the prediction must soon meet reality. Religions might have been able to fool generations into believing the end is near, but that can't last. enter the dragon, yet again: the calm before the storm. Generations of people expecting something to happen will at one time burst out, noticing that for hundreds of years... nothing happened.