Why are most religious people so easy to manipulate? (serious)
-
Fittiest just means most adaptable to their environment.
No, it means most fit for the environment. If the environment changes, a species can become less fit to the point of dying off. Adaptability just means the species is more likely to stay "fit".
-
Survival of the Fittest isn't failing, it just doesn't follow what you'd like to be "fittest". If a person is more reproductively successful because they're religious, guess what, that makes them "fittest". It really doesn't matter if it's stupid and illogical, just that it succeeds.
No, because that's not fit to the environment as in actual living space environment. Humans have largely removed themselves from the natural environment, so we are no longer nearly as subject to survival of the fittest in the way it's meant to apply to a changing species ala darwinism.
Besides, Idiocracy like behavior only further proves my point, it doesn't prove the environment is magically different.
-
I misread the original quote as being from Terry Pratchett and as I was reading your comment I was like "No way in hell, what is this guy talking about?".
Good heavens, no. Terry Pratchett is more than capable of nuance, subtext, and a love for his characters that goes beyond propping up his own fantasy.
-
I'm watching Apocalypse in the Tropics documentary on Netflix about evangelicals and politics in Brazil and it's mind boggling. Why do the religious people just blindly do whatever the pastors tell them?
when you believe one outlandish thing, it's easy to be convinced of others. On top of that one of the main tools religions have is fear. Make people believe in some horrible fate, then convince them the only way to avoid that fate is through doing exactly as you say.
-
Another related question: Why are people seemingly more inclined to become more religious as they age?
fear of death?
-
I'm watching Apocalypse in the Tropics documentary on Netflix about evangelicals and politics in Brazil and it's mind boggling. Why do the religious people just blindly do whatever the pastors tell them?
South Park sang it best.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm3mDatFpNE
Joseph Smith was called a prophet
(Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb)
He started the Mormon religion
(Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb).
(Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb)
Joseph Smith was called a prophet-(Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb)
Many people believed Joseph
(Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb)
And that night he-ee saw an angel
(Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb)(Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb)
Joseph Smith was called a prophet
(Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb)(Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb)
He found the stones and golden plates
(Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb)
Even though nobody else ever saw them
(Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb)(Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb)
(Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb)
And that's how the Book of Mormon was written
(Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb)
(Dumb dadumb dumb dumb dumb dumb)
(Dumb dadumb dumb dumb dumb dumb)
(Dahumb dahumb dumb dumb dumb dumb)
(Dumb dumb dumb dumb duuumb, duuumb.)Martin went home to his wife
(Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb)
And showed her pages from the Book of Mormon
(Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb)Lucy Harris smart smart smart
(Smart smart smart smart smart)Martin Harris dumb dadumb-
Lucy Harris smart smart smart
Martin Harris dumb.
So Martin went on back to Smith
Said the pages had gone away
Smith got mad and told Martin
He needed to go pray
(Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb)(Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb)
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb.
-
No, because that's not fit to the environment as in actual living space environment. Humans have largely removed themselves from the natural environment, so we are no longer nearly as subject to survival of the fittest in the way it's meant to apply to a changing species ala darwinism.
Besides, Idiocracy like behavior only further proves my point, it doesn't prove the environment is magically different.
No I'm sorrry, "the environment" is just everything around you. Your house is the environment, new york city is nature. These distinctions are made up in our heads but deep down there is no essential difference between your house and a tree, or the city you live in and a forest. We haven't seperated ourselves from anything, we've just changed it. Changing evolutionary pressures doesn't mean we've somehow unmoored ourselves from it, traits are still being selected for and against it really doesn't matter how anyone, or thing cares about it. It MAY end up getting us all killed, but the process will continue anyways and the "fit" will continue to reproduce more successfully than the "unfit". It's not that I don't agree with you that the things that get selected for aren't what I'd consider good, or that will make us happiest as a species. It's merely that natural selection as a process will not "care" about what we care about because it is a process, nothing more.
-
No I'm sorrry, "the environment" is just everything around you. Your house is the environment, new york city is nature. These distinctions are made up in our heads but deep down there is no essential difference between your house and a tree, or the city you live in and a forest. We haven't seperated ourselves from anything, we've just changed it. Changing evolutionary pressures doesn't mean we've somehow unmoored ourselves from it, traits are still being selected for and against it really doesn't matter how anyone, or thing cares about it. It MAY end up getting us all killed, but the process will continue anyways and the "fit" will continue to reproduce more successfully than the "unfit". It's not that I don't agree with you that the things that get selected for aren't what I'd consider good, or that will make us happiest as a species. It's merely that natural selection as a process will not "care" about what we care about because it is a process, nothing more.
That is an insanely dumb way to look at what environment is as far as darwinism is concerned. It's like pretending being on a ship in the middle of the ocean is the same as swimming out there.
Only one of these conditions is meant to apply to the process of evolution and darwinism.
-
People with a highly metaphysical worldview are easier to deceive and manipulate because their normal logic barriers have already been broken down - ie, if you already believe that the earth and everything on it was created by an omnipotent superbeing in six days, it's not much of a further leap to believe that demons are making you horny.
aka: you gotta be dumb to be religious in the first place
-
That is an insanely dumb way to look at what environment is as far as darwinism is concerned. It's like pretending being on a ship in the middle of the ocean is the same as swimming out there.
Only one of these conditions is meant to apply to the process of evolution and darwinism.
"meant" what do you mean by "meant"? who meant? why did they mean for that? You're not making sense, you're ascribing special properties to manmade enviorns and acting like they're polluted, bad, or different in some essential way. That manmade enviorns are polluted, harmful, or otherwise damaging is just incidental, they don't HAVE to be that way, you cannot just assume that they're innately worse than "natural" enviornments, they're just different. I just want to understand how you think "manmade" is any different from the effort ALL fauna and flora makes to change their enviornment to suit their needs. Is it "natural" the bees build hives? Is it "natural" for beavers to damn creeks? Were trees "meant" to alter the soil chemistry around them to fight off competitors? Did bryophytes defy nature's will by evolving a waxy cuticle to survive in locations untouched by plants before they evolved? Humans, nor any other animal whatsoever was "intended" to live somewhere or some way. This a fundamental error so many people make when talking about the ecology of our planet, there is psuedo-religious way of looking at things and ascribing of anthropocentric values. None of this has a purpose, none of it has a goal, none of it has an intent, or a desire, or any sort of human-like trait.
-
aka: you gotta be dumb to be religious in the first place
Religion isn't the only arena that has charlatans, manipulators and con artists.
-
I'm watching Apocalypse in the Tropics documentary on Netflix about evangelicals and politics in Brazil and it's mind boggling. Why do the religious people just blindly do whatever the pastors tell them?
Imo, because they expect God/Source/whatever to be a cosmic vending machine, without doing any internal work on themselves, or external work to make manifest the world they envision, with a large Side-Order of blame, shame, and guilt, scattered, smothered, and covered with greed, vengeance, and distraction (addictions included).
-
Religion isn't the only arena that has charlatans, manipulators and con artists.
No, but it's certainly a big draw. People looking to the collection plate to buy absolution, buy better health, a better life, whatever…that already believe in magic are far more easily manipulated. Religion has always been attractive to charlatans, grifters, and even warmongers and hatreds. You an far more easily get people to hand you power and money with religion.
-
Their entire worldview depends on blindly believing things that don't make sense and are unverifiable
They are trained from a very young age to accept anything an authority tells them.
This is how I look at it mostly. I also think, and statistics show as well, that religious folks are less intelligent on average.. partly because they are taught a bunch of nonsense.
-
I'm watching Apocalypse in the Tropics documentary on Netflix about evangelicals and politics in Brazil and it's mind boggling. Why do the religious people just blindly do whatever the pastors tell them?
For the abrahamitic religions, I'd say that the problem is the age of their texts. Their metaphors and the societies they were created in are so outdated that in order to live by the texts, which have to be followed since they are the only cornerstone everything is built upon, you need specialists that are authority figures like priests who you have to trust as a laiman in order to learn what the texts meaning is. Because not everyone can devote themselves to theology.
-
I'm watching Apocalypse in the Tropics documentary on Netflix about evangelicals and politics in Brazil and it's mind boggling. Why do the religious people just blindly do whatever the pastors tell them?
In a word: gullible. Full stop.
-
I'm watching Apocalypse in the Tropics documentary on Netflix about evangelicals and politics in Brazil and it's mind boggling. Why do the religious people just blindly do whatever the pastors tell them?
wrote last edited by [email protected]A lot of churches are cults. The Jehovah's Witnesses put their religion before their own kids and shun them. They'll pass on a blood transfusion for their religion.
So yeah, mind control is a real thing. -
"meant" what do you mean by "meant"? who meant? why did they mean for that? You're not making sense, you're ascribing special properties to manmade enviorns and acting like they're polluted, bad, or different in some essential way. That manmade enviorns are polluted, harmful, or otherwise damaging is just incidental, they don't HAVE to be that way, you cannot just assume that they're innately worse than "natural" enviornments, they're just different. I just want to understand how you think "manmade" is any different from the effort ALL fauna and flora makes to change their enviornment to suit their needs. Is it "natural" the bees build hives? Is it "natural" for beavers to damn creeks? Were trees "meant" to alter the soil chemistry around them to fight off competitors? Did bryophytes defy nature's will by evolving a waxy cuticle to survive in locations untouched by plants before they evolved? Humans, nor any other animal whatsoever was "intended" to live somewhere or some way. This a fundamental error so many people make when talking about the ecology of our planet, there is psuedo-religious way of looking at things and ascribing of anthropocentric values. None of this has a purpose, none of it has a goal, none of it has an intent, or a desire, or any sort of human-like trait.
No, not toxic traits. Literal, absolute, augmentations to survivability.
I agree that THE WORD "environment" applies to them.
You need to understand that they ARE NOT "the environment" as applied to darwinism/survival of the fittest. They are augmented and artificial, and that removes humans from natural evolution, which is the entire point being made. Humans changing their environment so much as to have wholly separate spaces with wholly separate conditions than nature removes humans from the natural order of events of the planet's biome. Yes species still change under artificial conditions. The point is humans are more subject to artificial conditions than natural. At least until natural conditions get bad enough.
-
No, not toxic traits. Literal, absolute, augmentations to survivability.
I agree that THE WORD "environment" applies to them.
You need to understand that they ARE NOT "the environment" as applied to darwinism/survival of the fittest. They are augmented and artificial, and that removes humans from natural evolution, which is the entire point being made. Humans changing their environment so much as to have wholly separate spaces with wholly separate conditions than nature removes humans from the natural order of events of the planet's biome. Yes species still change under artificial conditions. The point is humans are more subject to artificial conditions than natural. At least until natural conditions get bad enough.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I just have to disagree that there IS a dichtomy between what could be defined as natural and unnatural in this case. I just cannot see that it is a particularly meaningful difference between what is being categorized as "natural" and "unnatural". I fundamentally believe it to be something that's more emotionally relevant to people than meaningful in a material sense. Also, I particularly loathe when people use emotionally charged language to describe natural processes, nature really does not give a single shit about morality or ethics or the things we value, it's not a "good" or a "bad" thing outside of the human lens, everything happens for material reasons and nothing more.
Quick post-script, if you're the one downvoting my posts that's kinda disrespectful, I thought it was an interesting conversation I wasn't telling you to "shut up and agree with me" or anything. If that wasn't you then I apologize for suspecting you. -
I just have to disagree that there IS a dichtomy between what could be defined as natural and unnatural in this case. I just cannot see that it is a particularly meaningful difference between what is being categorized as "natural" and "unnatural". I fundamentally believe it to be something that's more emotionally relevant to people than meaningful in a material sense. Also, I particularly loathe when people use emotionally charged language to describe natural processes, nature really does not give a single shit about morality or ethics or the things we value, it's not a "good" or a "bad" thing outside of the human lens, everything happens for material reasons and nothing more.
Quick post-script, if you're the one downvoting my posts that's kinda disrespectful, I thought it was an interesting conversation I wasn't telling you to "shut up and agree with me" or anything. If that wasn't you then I apologize for suspecting you.There is a dichotomy in how humans survive vs how a wild animal survives. That's the entire point. Humans are subject more to our own BS than natures' BS (for now). That's the entire point. Humans haven't evolved to survive Earth better for millenia, but to survive each other better. The game has shifted, and that's the entire point.
