Are some religions just memetic control mechanisms?

Judging from the word "parasite", I would have to disagree with a brief explanation. I do understand your use of the word and its intent. That said, I can understand how one might interpret "religion" in the analogy used here. Morality or rituals could possibly be viewed as such, but that might possibly negate the use of "faith" as used in the definition. Just to further think along this line, does faith have to be part of this "meme"?

The immediate release of neurochemicals may possibly be necessary for an animal's happiness. I see happiness as a state of mind moreso as I grow older. The short-term immediate happiness does happen often, but ultimate happiness seems to have an art to it. Individuality allows each of us to paint our own personal picture of what we see as happiness in our minds as we mature, regardless of what we are taught. Individuals greatly differ, as we know studying mbti and psychology. Some people are much more easily led down the path of their ancestors and friends than others, just as some people tend to question and try to discern what they feel to be truth or happiness.

Eternal bliss is a great motivator and has been for many moons, but it just doesn't play that big a part in some people's ideals. That ability to see things and feel things the way they are instead of the way they appear or sound will lead some people down a path of helping others, for instance, with no regard whatsoever for that eternal reward; it has become a part of the picture they have painted in their mind to achieve happiness. Their living the way some see as religion is a spiritual mindset based on love for their fellow humankind. Love, too, is and always has been a great motivator.

I would guess love and fear to be the two biggest motivators. If "to love"
in this manner designated one to be spiritual, then they may have garnered what they needed from that which had been taught them into what religion is supposed to be all about. Thus, "feeding" from the "parasite" instead of the "parasite's" feeding from them.
I shall give this more thought. Interesting, to say the least.

 

I agree most people may want to do this to show their ultimate "love". There are those that can help others because that is the way they feel they should act, though they may be few and far in between, even knowing the one or ones they are helping will not change the way they feel toward their own given faith.

I feel, mainly from personal experience with self, we are able to use reason with our respective faith, though that may possibly be or not be a rarity.

 

Basically, all of them. I wish there was a religion that encouraged homosexuality and abortion because we really need some population control as well. These religions were established in a time where babymaking was important...now babies can be found on the side of streets in poor neighborhoods.

 

That argument could be made, but it negates my prior proposal's trying to infer "even knowing the one or ones they are helping will not change the way they feel toward their own given faith" as being one that had been influenced by a faith-based religion's teachings already; acknowledging they still may have been(and most likely were) inherently kind and empathetic toward one another before said influence.
The reasoning I mentioned was not to justify one's faith, but rather to reason with what one had been influenced with. One must prove in one's own heart, mind, and soul(reason); "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind what is that good and acceptable, and perfect will of God." The afterlife does not come into that equation and, for argument's sake, can become of little if no importance compared to how one treats others based on their new faith.
Self becomes last; others, first.

 

You need not cite evidence, as the exceptions are more what I speak of than the rule. I will agree most people to be influenced through religion with promises and/or fears regarding the afterlife in a manner to influence their decision-making process through fear and/or desire. As one of the exceptions, it is difficult to argue against the rule. I will state the possibility one of those things you cited from your source to be "illusions" cannot be proven without doubt to be false until the given time might arise. It is therefore a choice to call it an illusion, just as much as it is a choice to believe it. The future is not ours to know.

I fear war, pestilence, famine, hunger, disease, and the likes will keep humanity in check. Abortion is a sad means of contraception and an uneducated excuse for birth control, though I can understand its use in
bizarre rarities like rape, incest, and possible loss of life of the mother.
:sorry: I know those who have had them and am sorry for the way I feel if it hurts anyone's feelings or reminds someone of a bitter past. No spider web: just wanted to argue another side that is not against all abortion.
Sad the "meme" led us to this subject. However, the way I feel is a great example of how a person can reason with their respective religion and come to their own standard or belief.

 

Religion becomes a method of control, when it causes individuals who believe it to go out, and control others who don't fall in line with it.

 

Slavery has not vanished from the earth, though it may be "mutating" toward the total abolition of it. It may be more underground than before to try and hide itself. An attempt is being made to end the subjugation of women worldwide, but there are forces out there still fighting for the subjugation of women....unfortunately.
You must forgive my forgetting the Darwin connotation you mentioned, as I do not give that much thought. I can give room for a type of "evolving" in the mente of humankind. I shall attempt trying to hold onto that concept for your thread's sake, if for nothing else.
I do not see the end of the role of women as it was as a forced way of change in Christianity. I will cite, "There is neither Jews nor Greeks; bond nor free; male nor female; for all are one in Christ." I may have to edit that for its proper quote. I am surprised racism was not mentioned.
Homosexuality may never influence religion as much as its feeble attempt to influence law. It was prevalent back in old Bible days: remember Sodom and Gomorrah? There has also been a feeble attempt to influence law regarding the use of illegal drugs and their legalization. Those issues raise the "morality" flag, which is not part of this thread and not indigenous only to religion; though that can be and has been argued in the past with much effort.
Food for thought: could homosexuality and abortion be parasites of some part of humanity trying to force their way on the world and religion to rid the world of religion and/or morality so they can further mutate?
I see this battle joining with other battles as a type of war fought without guns and bombs, further explaining why the fight against guns and bombs has entered the picture. Two views of how life should be are at war, silently being fought in our schoolbooks, courts, media, and our streets.
It may be quite possible each side views the other as parasites, I could guess.

 

I've always questioned the difference between spreading religion and anti-religion...

In essence both kinds are telling people how to live their lives and by what rules.

 

Controling others as in trying to make them live acording to someone elses will. Mostly by imposing laws in their view of the world (this forcing people to believe a certain way). If someone tell you "you are to believe, or you are going to hell" then that counts as control, because that isn't an option, that is saying "believe or else", which isnt a choice to me, that is fear tactics.

If parents want to teach their children religious belifs that the hold, then it is their choice to do so. Most of the time, if religious zealots try to force it down on their children I feel very angry at them for doing so. Nevertheless, it is not my place to say how they should raise their children, no matter how much I disagree with it. They arent hurting their children, and the children to have an option to believe or not (though that doesnt always happen, and wont happen until they are teenagers or beyond). It is the parents choice and by me telling them to stop, makes me no better then if they had said something to me.

Calling people names and being vocal by saying people who don't believe are "unworthy" or something to that effect, isnt controling. That is being single minded and prejustice against a group. They have a right to believe that (no matter how much I disagee). It only becomes problamatic if they attack me as an individual and try to control me that way, or to try to control us as a group. Of course it is possible people could take it too far and become "overly vocal" and begin distrupting peace. And why would it be wrong to extend special treatment to those in a religious group? All groups give special treatment to those in a group, there is nothing wrong with that what so ever.

The last three examples you listed are methods of control, because that is trying to restrict people's livelyhoods as a group, which is unfair. I do understand that there is no way to see if someone is voting leglisation by their internal religious values or not. However, the outcome of such results usually are. I have no solution to that problem, I do however know that it is wrong. War is a method of control, you know that as well as I do, so is killing, touturing, ect.