No. It's a simple observation of human theistic nature.Ah, so you agree with the OP's hypothesis, not because it reflects your beliefs but because the assumptions, inferences and conclusions are supported by impeccable research.
Cult Evolution
- Thread starter (Q)
- Start date
Yes lets, do you believe that in their 70,000 years of separate development, they have evolved into a subspecies? That their social development reflects their biological development?
A culture built on false conceptions as those offered from indoctrination cannot possibly survive, unless the culture stagnates completely, with no further civilized advancement whatsoever taking place. No new ideas are to be entertained, especially if they are faced with indoctrinated conceptions, made evident for example, with the Creationism vs. Evolution argument.
Feeling good about ourselves is not a bad thing, is it?
When you say "it was feasible," do you mean, 'it was naturally selected?' Can you explain that?
At the time of this posting, there were 29,164 pieces of research from only a single subject. There are many subjects here.
Firstly, "false conceptions"? False according to whom or what?
And secondly, in traditional religions, there is a lot of leeway. There is the religion that is being preached, and then there is the religion that is being practiced. Apparently, practitioners of said religions do not have as much problems with that as do outsiders.
This is not necessarily bad. Take primitive tribes who haven't changed their ways of life for hundreds of years: they do very little damage to the environment and they are capable of adopting to natural changes to some degree.
It depends on the intentions behind this "feeling good".
Sometimes these intentions can be harmful.
Just that it was feasible, it payed off within a particular situation in time and space.
In an almost 'knee-jerk' style reaction, the indoctrinated theist will begin a salvo of fallacious arguments targeted at exaggeration to extremes. This is most likely a cult defense mechanism triggered to go off, similar to a hypnotist planting a suggestion of a word that triggers an involuntary response.
A false conception would be creationism, false according to fact.
The preached and the practiced are identical when it comes to childhood indoctrination. If there are large differences in what is preached and what is practiced, that would only serve to demonstrate the utter hypocrisy of the religion, and the utter cruelty and abusive nature of the indoctrination.
I have always said that those who wish to go live in a cave are free to do so. I would most certainly like to see the hypocritical theists do so first.
Sorry, I don't buy it.
Cult indoctrination MUST demand the complete acceptance of the improbable and irrational tenets professed by the cult. Within these boundaries of forced acceptance, the concept of hypocrisy becomes meaningless as fiction becomes fact, leaving the indoctrinated oblivious when faced with it.
The evolution of social constructs is probably not Darwinian, or only Darwinian.
Other possible theories of evolution, rejected for species etc, would apply to such things as religions.
Lamarckian, for example.
The role of "adaptation" in Lamarckian theory is much different from its role in Darwinian theory.
Other possible theories of evolution, rejected for species etc, would apply to such things as religions.
Lamarckian, for example.
The role of "adaptation" in Lamarckian theory is much different from its role in Darwinian theory.
Good question CC, I probably didn't give that as much thought as I should have. I'll need to think that one through some.
You mean the definition of fact? Or, are you claiming creationism is fact?
If you've also been indoctrinated into cult thinking, you should understand that it's not your fault and that you can reverse the indoctrination and free yourself of the abuse. It's never too late.