How should religion be replaced from society?

[Mole]

do we need a replacement of religion?

For 200,000 years we have had a deep need for trance. And religion has supplied this need.

Our need for trance still remains but is now being fulfilled by things other than religion.

 

[Coriolis]

For 200,000 years we have had a deep need for trance. And religion has supplied this need.

Our need for trance still remains but is now being fulfilled by things other than religion.

You are on to something here.

 

[Mole]

Trance and the Naive

You are on to something here.

A trance can be induced by any repetition. And religious ritual is replete with repetition. And in our prosperous societies today we have many opportunities for repetition, from shopping, to TV, to surfing the waves or surfing the internet.

Edward L. Bernays, the father of American propaganda, or public relations as we call it today, discovered this in 1928 with his book, "Propaganda". To read, "Propaganda", click on - www.whale.to/b/bernays.pdf

It is wise to learn that as we enter a trance, our critical mind starts to go to sleep and we become suggestible.

Religion took advantage of this and introduced their doctrine and dogma to us while we were suggestible in a religious trance. Today the advertisers introduce us to their products and services while we are suggestibe in a TV, movie, or cell phone, or an ipad, trance.

Most of us have not learnt to be aware when we are entering or leaving a trance, and so we have not learnt when we are suggestible.

And indeed most of us haven't learnt how to stop being put into a trance involuntarily.

This is painfully obvious on Central when the naive try to counter suggestion with logic.

 

[Lark]

A trance can be induced by any repetition. And religious ritual is replete with repetition. And in our prosperous societies today we have many opportunities for repetition, from shopping, to TV, to surfing the waves or surfing the internet.

Edward L. Bernays, the father of American propaganda, or public relations as we call it today, discovered this in 1928 with his book, "Propaganda". To read, "Propaganda", click on - www.whale.to/b/bernays.pdf

It is wise to learn that as we enter a trance, our critical mind starts to go to sleep and we become suggestible.

Religion took advantage of this and introduced their doctrine and dogma to us while we were suggestible in a religious trance. Today the advertisers introduce us to their products and services while we are suggestibe in a TV, movie, or cell phone, or an ipad, trance.

Most of us have not learnt to be aware when we are entering or leaving a trance, and so we have not learnt when we are suggestible.

And indeed most of us haven't learnt how to stop being put into a trance involuntarily.

This is painfully obvious on Central when the naive try to counter suggestion with logic.

What if your entire premise is a suggestion and you're in a trance?

The whole thing smacks of the splinter/mot and plank parable/analogy at this point Victor.

 

[Mole]

What if your entire premise is a suggestion and you're in a trance?

You have hit on an interesting point. For the way we deepen a trance is to induce another trance within the first trance. And to go deeper we induce a third trance within the second trance. So by then we have three degrees of trance, with each trance nestled within the previous trance like a russian doll.

And then it really does start to get interesting. For by the time we get down to the fourth trance, what we experience does seem to be reality.

For instance, we might say transubstantiation is a fourth level trance.

And this is the interesting point, for, can we distinguish between the reality of a fourth level trance and the the reality of the waking state? And the answer is no.

So you may well be right, I may well be in a fourth level trance. And for this reason some say that reality itself is a trance.

However I am content to maintain the distinction between waking reality and the reality experienced at the fourth level trance.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Instead of religion, we should have people attend lectures once a week by people who have studied the ways of atheist thinking.

We should also have people distribute leaflets in bus-stations extolling the benefits of a god-free life style.

Atheism seems to be mostly concentrated in the first world, so we should find some way to fund people to go to other countries to spread the joys of skepticism.

Christopher Hitchens books should be in every hotel room. Preferably, it should be one that mentions Islamofacism.

It would also be great if we could find some way of exocommunicating people who aren't sufficiently atheist. Like, maybe they watched the Life of Pi or something.

 

[Riva]

Instead of religion, we should have people attend lectures once a week by people who have studied the ways of atheist thinking.We should also have people distribute leaflets in bus-stations extolling the benefits of a god-free life style. Atheism seems to be mostly concentrated in the first world, so we should find some way to fund people to go to other countries to spread the joys of skepticism.Christopher Hitchens books should be in every hotel room. Preferably, it should be one that mentions Islamofacism. It would also be great if we could find some way of exocommunicating people who aren't sufficiently atheist. Like, maybe they watched the Life of Pi or something.

Hilarious! However when/if a 'few' edits are done to the post, it sounds/is agreeable. First world countries you said which have a higher percentage of athiesm. There is a reason for it. First world countries have better imlementation of law compared to 3rd world nations. Where there is law there is less corruption, where there is less corruption there seems to be wealth, security and 'equality'. These are (and more) what people seem to seek the most in religion and what people who migrate (from third world countries) seek the most. (The only major point missing here is the question on afterlife.) There seems to be an inverse-corelation between religion and law. So rather than distributing leaflets of advantages of a god-free world they could distribute leaflets encouraging people to abide by the law. And as to weekly lectures or religion, which tries to answer the ways of life, something such as psychology/therapy which is tested, scientific and deals with the ways of life could be used. And as to skepticism, I have nothing better than that crossing my mind.

 

[Elfboy]

Or should I rephrase - How should religion be eradicated from human society?
Science should take religions' place at schools and schools should eradicate religious teachings completely, this I believe is the 1st and the best step towards eradication of religion (or faith).
But how is it even possible?
Since starting a thread on an MBTI forum wouldn't lead to it happening, should we consider that it is for 'shits and giggles' and come up with a few ideas?
Psychotherapy maybe?
Teach psychology or counselling sessions at school (one on one) or maybe even group therapy sessions?
Frankly I doubt I'd ever be comfortable at a group therapy session though it seems to have its benefits, so one on one counselling sessions for students?

the pretentious ignorance of some radical atheists astonishes me for several reasons (key words "some" and "radical")
1) most of them don't understand religion at all (no, going to a shitty bible study with scripted conversation topics does not count as understanding religion)
2) they polarize religious people who would otherwise have no problem with science, pressure them to choice between the two and paint them as the bad guy. then they wonder why religious leaders become more and more dogmatic. it's common sense. if you marginalize people for their beliefs
3) if religious leaders who pressure people to convert to their religion are one side of the coin, dogmatic atheists who pressure people to abandon religion are the other side. both are pressuring the other side to adopt their beliefs, but radical atheists have this arrogant notion that they have transcended belief. fyi, you haven't, or else you would not fight for atheism so dogmatically.
4) many atheists ignorantly look over prominent figures in history who used religion as a tool to help and inspire people. ever heard of Martin Luther King Jr? Mother Teresa? Francis Collins (head of the Human Genome Project, Director of the National Institutes of Health, a devout Evangelical Christian and author of the New York Times Best Seller The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief") Do you honestly belief any of them need(ed) psychotherapy?
5) they believe they can change human nature.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

5) they believe they can change human nature.[/QUOTE]

Yes, many people are inclined to pursue dogmatic belief systems and unite behind charismatic leaders. There will always be those who must have beliefs they are certain of, and don't tolerate others questioning those beliefs, and who are eager to succumb to a hive mind. I see the New Atheist movement aping some of the worst aspects of religion. I can't see how this could be the case unless there was some root in social psychology.

You'll notice that Soviet Union suppressed religion, and people just started worshiping Marx and Lenin instead.

 

[EEW]

That is a good question. But would be the outcome just as good?
Some people need religion.
Some don't.
But it doesn't mean that if for certain people relilgion seems 'unneccesary' that it should be eradicated. (no offense , just saying)
I think it is okay to teach religion in certain schools, after all, there exist schools without the option 'religion'.

To answer your question: that would take a looooong time, regarding the depth of relgion its influences in humanity its history.