Religion Should Personal and Private Like Sex?

[Prismatic567]

Of course not exactly as private as sex but religion should be kept to the minimum as far as being public is concerned and totally separated from politics and other social activities.

Agree?
If not, why?

[Karpel Tunnel]

I don't think religion should be a special case amongst ideologies. And once we decide that ideologies should be private then politics becomes nearly impossible.

But I don't know what this 'should
means

Is it legislative?

On what grounds does that moral should stand on? IOW how does someone demonstrate that that should is not ideological?

[Mr Reasonable]

Sex is private?

[Karpel Tunnel]

Sex is private?

Good point. It is certainly discussed publically, has legislation debated regarding it, and seduction and early stages of what leads to full intercourse are certainly public. One could argue that certain portions of religions - the individual's connection to God or sense of grace are ontologically necessarily private, while sex can take place publically in total.

Then on the issue of sex being personal....

it is obviously interpersonal.

And then even if group sex is not involved there are all sorts of professional and community discussions, educations, support groups, experts, panels, research, organizations, advocacy groups and media dealing with sex.

Sex is hardly private or personal, though most of us keep certain portions private.

If we include masturbation, which we should, then sex can be both private and personal, but in general it is not remotely restricted to this.

[Prismatic567]

I don't think religion should be a special case amongst ideologies. And once we decide that ideologies should be private then politics becomes nearly impossible.

But I don't know what this 'should
means

Is it legislative?

On what grounds does that moral should stand on? IOW how does someone demonstrate that that should is not ideological?

Bad rhetoric. I stated religion specifically and not ideologies.

The point here is religion is driven by a very powerful force as near to the impulse to breathe.
One good exemplar is that of the extent Abraham was willing to do for this religion, i.e. the willingness to kill how own son as a sacrifice to God [which is an illusory thing].
The moral ground of basic human dignity is no human being can kill another human being, period. If done the killer has to provide solid justifications or else should be punished.
However the reality is religious believers has been killing in the name of their religion and their God [which is an illusion], e.g.



and the whole loads of evils and violence committed in the name of God.

I believe the consequences of the above very huge loads of evils and violence is because religions has been made too public, e.g. Islam and Christianity, where the specific religion is made openly in politics, education and social functions. e.g. prayers are done everywhere, demonstrations, Muslim apologists are succumbing to the demands of Muslims to do their weird things.

As far as sex is to be private, it is not the norm for people to be naked, perform foreplay or masturbate openly in every social function, before each dinner, etc.

Where possible this should legislated and accompanied by education on the bio-mechanisms and psychology of religions.

[Karpel Tunnel]

I don't think religion should be a special case amongst ideologies. And once we decide that ideologies should be private then politics becomes nearly impossible.

But I don't know what this 'should
means

Is it legislative?

On what grounds does that moral should stand on? IOW how does someone demonstrate that that should is not ideological?

Bad rhetoric. I stated religion specifically and not ideologies.

I don't know what you are trying to say with 'bad rhetoric' since that would mean something like I used language poorly or ineffectively. Yes, you stated that you thought religion should be private. I said I did not think it should be a special case, which is what, as you say here, you were suggesting.

I don't see how one type of ideology can be banned and not others, and given that other ideologies have been incredibly damaging, a legislative body would have to explain why this was not discrimination. Why for example, communist ideology, should not be also banned. And ironicly communism did, in some coutries ban or drive underground religions.

As far as sex is to be private, it is not the norm for people to be naked, perform foreplay or masturbate openly in every social function, before each dinner, etc.

It is normal for them to talk about it, to have gay pride marches, which are based on the sexual choices of gays and tend to include sexual dancing and more. It is common to have very sexual dancing at clubs, making out in public, in other words clothed foreplay.

One can try to legislate in relation to secuality and sex. One can have stores with sexual devices, films.

Yes, intercourse is generally private. And people tend to be private (though often with other members of their church or group) with their rituals.

[Prismatic567]

Sex is private?

Good point. It is certainly discussed publically, has legislation debated regarding it, and seduction and early stages of what leads to full intercourse are certainly public. One could argue that certain portions of religions - the individual's connection to God or sense of grace are ontologically necessarily private, while sex can take place publically in total.

Then on the issue of sex being personal....

it is obviously interpersonal.

And then even if group sex is not involved there are all sorts of professional and community discussions, educations, support groups, experts, panels, research, organizations, advocacy groups and media dealing with sex.

Sex is hardly private or personal, though most of us keep certain portions private.

If we include masturbation, which we should, then sex can be both private and personal, but in general it is not remotely restricted to this.

By private I do not mean to the extent of being kept as an absolute secret.
Of course, if religion is to be private like sex, it can still be discussed academically, in specific institution and so on, but not that openly as done currently.

[Karpel Tunnel]

By private I do not mean to the extent of being kept as an absolute secret.
Of course, if religion is to be private like sex, it can still be discussed academically, in specific institution and so on, but not that openly as done currently.

OK,but we can discuss sex much more than academically. We can try to get people to have sex with us. We can write books about sex. Make films and videos. And so on including processes mentioned above. Making religion parallel to sex in this context might conceivably eliminate public prayer - which in the analogy could possibly be considered analogous to the sex act. But otherwise religion's public/private would be unchanged. Most public religious behavior is talk. And we sure talk about sex.

[Prismatic567]

I don't think religion should be a special case amongst ideologies. And once we decide that ideologies should be private then politics becomes nearly impossible.

But I don't know what this 'should
means

Is it legislative?

On what grounds does that moral should stand on? IOW how does someone demonstrate that that should is not ideological?

Bad rhetoric. I stated religion specifically and not ideologies.

I don't know what you are trying to say with 'bad rhetoric' since that would mean something like I used language poorly or ineffectively. Yes, you stated that you thought religion should be private. I said I did not think it should be a special case, which is what, as you say here, you were suggesting.

I don't see how one type of ideology can be banned and not others, and given that other ideologies have been incredibly damaging, a legislative body would have to explain why this was not discrimination. Why for example, communist ideology, should not be also banned. And ironicly communism did, in some coutries ban or drive underground religions.

As far as sex is to be private, it is not the norm for people to be naked, perform foreplay or masturbate openly in every social function, before each dinner, etc.

It is normal for them to talk about it, to have gay pride marches, which are based on the sexual choices of gays and tend to include sexual dancing and more. It is common to have very sexual dancing at clubs, making out in public, in other words clothed foreplay.

One can try to legislate in relation to secuality and sex. One can have stores with sexual devices, films.

Yes, intercourse is generally private. And people tend to be private (though often with other members of their church or group) with their rituals.

Note the current contrast between the openness of religion in comparison to sex.
My point is to bring the openness of religion in all aspects of life down to the same level of openness allowed for sex in general [Western and Eastern].

I believe it is not difficult to legislate the practices of religion within politics, governments, formal education [except for relevant knowledge of it], social functions, etc.
e.g.

White House Ramadan Observance President Trump hosted an iftar dinner at the White House. The iftar is the daily evening meal eaten by Muslims to break their fasts during the holy month of Ramadan.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?446634-1/ ... observance

The above and all other religious activities should be stopped in the white house and with all other religious related official activities everywhere.

I understand the above cannot be stopped immediately but efforts should be initiated to eventually stopped all such religious activities.

The long run objectives it to get rid of ALL religion and religiosity and replace them with foolproof spiritual developments approaches to manage the inherent cannot-be-got-rid-of 'zombie parasite' within the brains of humans.

[Karpel Tunnel]

If you mean, let's legislate so that religious talk is treated like the sexual act: allowed, but not to be visible for others who have not specifically chosen to be present when it happens. IOW religious talk or rituals is treated under the law like the sexual act and thus talking about religion publically would be like public sex...that is doable.

It does go against fundmental Western values, where we are generally allowed to talk about anything. Obviously you think it is worth restricted freedom of speech this much, but if this is what you meant, then I can at least imagine how the legislation would work.

I think it is a bad idea to cut back on freedom of speech to this degree, and that the law has enough teeth to deal with conspiracies to commit violence, etc.

I also think it is problematic to legislate against one type of speech (related to one ideology) when other ideologies are allowed to be spoken of freely.

[Karpel Tunnel]

The long run objectives it to get rid of ALL religion and religiosity and replace them with foolproof spiritual developments approaches to manage the inherent cannot-be-got-rid-of 'zombie parasite' within the brains of humans.

I don't know what you mean by spiritual developments, but it is an odd choice of term. The words 'spirit' and 'spiritual' have to do with religious beliefs. The words have to do with non-material portions of reality as opposed to the physical/material. Philosophical development, ethical development, moral development, cognitive development. Those terms make sense for someone working from a scientific, materialist philosophical position. To speak of foolproof spiritual development or spiritual development of any kind is hypocrisy. I realize this can be based on a misunderstanding of the word, but there is no reason for someone from a scientific perspectiv to use a word based on the idea that there is non-material entities. And there are perfectly good alternatives that do not have the contradiction, such as the ones I mentioned above, others being possible.

[Prismatic567]

If you mean, let's legislate so that religious talk is treated like the sexual act: allowed, but not to be visible for others who have not specifically chosen to be present when it happens. IOW religious talk or rituals is treated under the law like the sexual act and thus talking about religion publically would be like public sex...that is doable.

It does go against fundmental Western values, where we are generally allowed to talk about anything. Obviously you think it is worth restricted freedom of speech this much, but if this is what you meant, then I can at least imagine how the legislation would work.

I think it is a bad idea to cut back on freedom of speech to this degree, and that the law has enough teeth to deal with conspiracies to commit violence, etc.

I also think it is problematic to legislate against one type of speech (related to one ideology) when other ideologies are allowed to be spoken of freely.

Speech is freer but I don't see there is absolute [anything goes] freedom of speech in the Western World.

I believe the concept and idea of the separation of religion from politics and be easily abstracted from serious open debates on the issue. On this the majority in parliament has to be convinced it is acceptable. The same can be done with other aspects of life.

As I had stated it is not expected to be easy especially in the short term but we must come up with strategies with a vision to achieve the above objectives, i.e. keeping religion as private as possible.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Of course not exactly as private as sex but religion should be kept to the minimum as far as being public is concerned and totally separated from politics and other social activities.

Agree?
If not, why?

I guess I also think it would be odd to think that religion should be kept as private as sex. I see little connection between the two. I understand from other threads that you see religion as coming from primal parts of the brain. But so does eating.

[Fixed Cross]

Of course not exactly as private as sex but religion should be kept to the minimum as far as being public is concerned and totally separated from politics and other social activities.

Agree?
If not, why?

Hey, why don't you keep your ideology private, you pervert!

[Karpel Tunnel]

Speech is freer but I don't see there is absolute [anything goes] freedom of speech in the Western World.

Sure.

I believe the concept and idea of the separation of religion from politics and be easily abstracted from serious open debates on the issue.

I generally want religion separate from government, certainly in any formal way. But I am much more concerned with corporate control of what is meant to be democratic. This dwarfs any religious affect on government in the West.

And there are ideologies in this also.

[Prismatic567]

Of course not exactly as private as sex but religion should be kept to the minimum as far as being public is concerned and totally separated from politics and other social activities.

Agree?
If not, why?

I guess I also think it would be odd to think that religion should be kept as private as sex. I see little connection between the two. I understand from other threads that you see religion as coming from primal parts of the brain. But so does eating.

Hunger [eating], sex, security, water, are of the same deep primal level, but the fundamental religiosity drive is one level below.

The point is the deeper the primal level for any primal impulse, the greater deeper intensity is its association with primal evil. This is how the sexual drive can lead to mass rapes [horror of horror] and an individual raped which is bad enough.

The religio drive which more primal than sex and when combine with primal tribalism [us versus them] can trigger genocides [and a whole load of other evil] and religionist perceived threats to their religion.
Note the consequences when even because of MERELY the drawing of 'cartoons' had triggered a worldwide spread of evil, violence and killings across the World.
I have highlighted how forceful and terrible the religio drive is where I gave examples of Abraham willingness to kill his own son, the ongoing suicide bombers doing their thing for an illusion [God is illusory and an impossibility].
No doubts there are good from the religio drive but the cons are heavily weighted against the pros.

When and if religion is confined to be personal and private the tribalistic and group/mob effect is greatly reduced. IF one mad religion believer went wild and kill others, it will not set off a chain reaction that stretch across society and the World. e.g.

6 Stabbed at Jerusalem Gay Pride Parade by [an] ultra-Orthodox Jewish Assailant
https://www.haaretz.com/6-stabbed-at-je ... -1.5381368

There is no immediate chain reaction to the above.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Hunger [eating], sex, security, water, are of the same deep primal level, but the fundamental religiosity drive is one level below.

Setting aside how one could know this and why it is not present in animals, who have all those needs and brain counterparts, so why would religion which occurs in humans be lower since it must therefore later evolved, generally called higher functions....

it now makes no sense to have us guided by sex. And since sex and hunger are on a par, in your schema, we have no reason to model religion, as far as privacy, on sex rather than food.

The point is the deeper the primal level for any primal impulse, the greater deeper intensity is its association with primal evil. This is how the sexual drive can lead to mass rapes [horror of horror] and an individual raped which is bad enough.

The sex drive can only lead to mass rapes with ideas. And it is no longer just a sex drive, like you have in animals, it is, generally a political act, based on racism, or some other category only humans can come up with.

The religio drive which more primal than sex and when combine with primal tribalism [us versus them] can trigger genocides [and a whole load of other evil] and religionist perceived threats to their religion.

How can something ONLY PRESENT in humans be more primal than something found in the animal kingdom?

Note the consequences when even because of MERELY the drawing of 'cartoons' had triggered a worldwide spread of evil, violence and killings across the World.

Try to get animals to be violent with cartoons.

I think you are making a category error. You want to judge religion as being primal and here more primal than basic life supporting urges and needs. But actually religions are complicate cognitive processes requiring parts of the most recently evolved parts of the brain. Like any belief system. Just as neo-conservatism, which may be driven by primal urges LIKE ALL OUR BEHAVIOR, can justify going to war for oil, new markets, the money to be made off privatizing the army, etc.

Religion simply cannot be more primal than hunger. There is no neuroscientific reason to think that. It makes no sense in terms of evolution. It makes no sense given the types of cognitive activities that go into religion and even in the examples you give, such as the cartoons, where interpretations of meaning well beyond any other animal's abilities come into play. It requires symbolic thinking, deduction, linguistic skills, etc. (none of which indicating it is good or cool or especially intelligent). Hunger and sex do not require such complicated cognition - though these days we tend to mix all these things in.

Religion, like many other homo sapien type phenomena with higher cognitive functions involved, allows one to override primal functions. In fact religions have often taken this on as a central role: judging and controlling primal functions, hence their rules about sex, eating, emotions, including anger, and EMPATHY. Religion can allow one to categorize another person as necessarily evil despite all the personality qualities and similarities that other person might have and which might make you hesitate to harm them. It shuts down primal drives.

In your model primal drives seem to be bad. Apart from the fact that they are neutral as a rule, they also include desires for intimacy, seeing one' self in others, empathy, love.

One of the problems with religion is its hatred of what is primal, emotions, desire based in us.

Other idealogies, including corporate idealogies which pose a much greater threat than Islam, neoconservativism, the huge state communisms as some examples, also have a great hatred of the human body, its emotions and drives, each having its own way to enslave, exploit, control and deny these facets of the human.

Of course primal drives can lead to horrible acts, but they tend to be very local, interpersonal, and temporary.

To get mass killings, you must manipulate the primal drives with the parts of the brain that evolved past other primates.

There is absolutely no reason to develop policies around religion based on policies around sex. Hunger is even more primal than sex. Without food (and water) you cannot procreate. Yet, we have policies around hunger that allow for public eating, pretty much every culture having events where we revel in it.

None of the above means that religion is just fine. I just don't think your arguments for why sex should be the model make any sense. I also think you misunderstand the problem. It is not the primalness of religion that is the problem, it is the higher cognitive facets of it that are the problem. These certainly use and guide primal urges for both good and for ill, but the problem lies at levels no other animal has the advanced capacity to be affected by.

Neo cons and corporations know that they need to appeal to primal emotions to con some people, but they are smarter than most religions since they know to present themselves as rational and science based, and pay scientists to make it seem this way. The threats from their indifference to humans and any life dwarf religion's threat. Whether via AI, nanotech, gm, their indifference to care - at the very least - and willingness to do whatever to increase their wealth and power, is much more of a threat. Yes, they are also driven by primal desires, but these desires are being manipulated by ideas about what one must have to be happy. IOW ideology twisting, controlling and channeling primal drives in directions that are irrattional and will never satisfy the neo-cons, but also a threat to us all.

I am no fan of organized religion, but they are not the major players any more.

[Prismatic567]

Hunger [eating], sex, security, water, are of the same deep primal level, but the fundamental religiosity drive is one level below.

Setting aside how one could know this and why it is not present in animals, who have all those needs and brain counterparts, so why would religion which occurs in humans be lower since it must therefore later evolved, generally called higher functions....

it now makes no sense to have us guided by sex. And since sex and hunger are on a par, in your schema, we have no reason to model religion, as far as privacy, on sex rather than food.

I am not trying to link religion to sex in general.
My point is to draw attention to the fact that religion is driven from deep in the brain and because of its potential link to evil, religion should be kept private and personal.
As I had stated, if religion is made private and personal, then there will be no widespread evils and violence from believers like the below;



I will not dispute comparatively hunger is more dominant that sex but roughly they are around the same level, but the religio drive [existence] is more deeper than hunger and sex. For religion sake people are willing to fast for days and be celibate.

I believe you missed the point that all our cognitive and reason activities are grounded on the primal drives.

You keep insisting that religion is driven significantly by our cognitive functions.

You mentioned you are familiar with Damasio? Note,

In recent years, Damasio has become increasingly interested in the role emotions play in our decision-making processes and in our self-image. In several widely popular books, he has shown how certain feelings are cornerstones of our survival. And today he argues that our internal, emotional regulatory processes not only preserve our lives but actually shape our greatest cultural accomplishments.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -emotions/

According to the Damasio, our cognitive functions do not function independently but are significantly influenced by our emotions. In a way the 'deeper' limbic system is a critical factor that determine how the cortical parts of the brain function. e.g. reasoning, decision making etc.

Damasio presented cases where a person higher cortical functions are intact but when certain emotional parts are damaged, the smart person cannot function effectively.

Note The Case of M in Damasio's Book,
How Only Being Able to Use Logic to Make Decisions Destroyed a Man’s Life
https://www.thecut.com/2016/06/how-only ... a-man.html

Damasio specialty is on emotion so he did not go deeper into the more primal drives of survival, and the various primal instincts.

My point is the forms of religions are reducible to the emotions and deeper still to the primal religio drive which is deeper than the hunger, sex and other instincts. As I had stated, it is almost as near as the impulse and the need to breathe.

The sex drive can only lead to mass rapes with ideas. And it is no longer just a sex drive, like you have in animals, it is, generally a political act, based on racism, or some other category only humans can come up with.

You got it wrong here.
I am sure when a group of men attacked another group [tribe] of people 100,000 years ago it is likely all [or most] the women were raped. There were no political elements like we have have today. The significant factor here is the unmodulated primal sex drive.

I am not recommending legislation.
Until religion are got rid of naturally, the average human must be educated and have their awareness raised to the level that they understand the biochemical, neural and psychological mechanisms of religion so that they voluntarily accept it as private and personal, like how the average person deal with sex at present.

[Karpel Tunnel]

I am not trying to link religion to sex in general.
My point is to draw attention to the fact that religion is driven from deep in the brain and because of its potential link to evil, religion should be kept private and personal.

Right but then eating is driven from deep in the brain and we tend not to require it is private.

I will not dispute comparatively hunger is more dominant that sex but roughly they are around the same level, but the religio drive [existence] is more deeper than hunger and sex. For religion sake people are willing to fast for days and be celibate.

Atheists will fast and be celibate for other reasons, in fact reasons coming not from primitive parts of the brain, but from modern parts of the brain. People control, test, restrain primitive parts of the brain - a phrase I dislike - with the modern parts of the brain for all sorts ABSTRACT ideals and goals. Ones that no animal will use. No animal would decide to fast to cleanse their system or as an anti-aging techinique or for religious reasons. Here you seem to be arguing that since people will fast for religious reasons this indicates that religion is more primitive than hunger. But this is ridiculous. To fast for religion or for reasons that non-religious do this, requires higher cognitive functions around meaning and relationship and symbols that are not primitive and not possible in any other species as far as we know. Just as religious and non-religious people can suppress aggression and dominance behavior in the name of ethics or ideals or pragmatic consequentialism. The fact that people use ideas to suppress urges does not mean that these patterns are more primal. In fact it is precisely the opposite. This doesn't mean they are necessarily good. One can have bad ideas and many urges that get suppressed need not be. One need only look at some of the ways religion has taught people to hate their own drives to see this.

I believe you missed the point that all our cognitive and reason activities are grounded on the primal drives.

That was a point I made to you.

You keep insisting that religion is driven significantly by our cognitive functions.

Which is undeniable. I have also stated that the primal drives are involved.

In recent years, Damasio has become increasingly interested in the role emotions play in our decision-making processes and in our self-image. In several widely popular books, he has shown how certain feelings are cornerstones of our survival. And today he argues that our internal, emotional regulatory processes not only preserve our lives but actually shape our greatest cultural accomplishments.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -emotions/

Sure, I knew this.

According to the Damasio, our cognitive functions do not function independently but are significantly influenced by our emotions. In a way the 'deeper' limbic system is a critical factor that determine how the cortical parts of the brain function. e.g. reasoning, decision making etc.

I've said this elsewhere.

Damasio presented cases where a person higher cortical functions are intact but when certain emotional parts are damaged, the smart person cannot function effectively.

Yup.

My point is the forms of religions are reducible to the emotions and deeper still to the primal religio drive which is deeper than the hunger, sex and other instincts. As I had stated, it is almost as near as the impulse and the need to breathe.

Nope Damasio does not support this. Of course the primal drives are present, as they are in all endeavors. Damasio pointed out that all sorts of mundane activities and higher choice activities get messed up if you damage the limbic system.

This cuts against your point. It is not just activities that you consider irrational, but rationality in general that depends on the limbic system.

If you want to reduce religion to the primal drives, you then have to reduce all activities to primal drives.

The sex drive can only lead to mass rapes with ideas. And it is no longer just a sex drive, like you have in animals, it is, generally a political act, based on racism, or some other category only humans can come up with.

You got it wrong here.
I am sure when a group of men attacked another group [tribe] of people 100,000 years ago it is likely all [or most] the women were raped. There were no political elements like we have have today. The significant factor here is the unmodulated primal sex drive.

You're being sure is not evidence. Further the concept of tribe was present. But even those tribal encounters were local and not systematic. Nothing like the intentionally political rapes of those in Bosnia, where the idea was to psychologically undermine the enemy - the other group - by not just raping but impregnating the enemy women. We are not talking about after the heat of battle raping the women in a tribal group. We are talking about lining them up and coldly organizing systematic rape. That depends on higher cognitive functions, planning, and symbolic thinking, and psychological insight into the effects of women appearing again with their people pregnant with half enemy babies.

Just because I disagree with your idea that religion comes from mroe primal drives than eating and sex - for which there is absolutely no evidence in neuroscience and your evidence based on religious suppression of those urges does not work - does not mean that religion is good. Bad ideas can do all sorts of damage. And I do not think that religion is only higher cognitive functions - I have mad this clear in responses to you elsewhere, here or at Philosophy Forums. Of course it manipulates primal drives and these gives the kinds of passion, for good and for ill, that drive religious people's acts in the world.

Our primal drives are present in all of our activities, sublimated, generally under control. They are involved in both you and me here. You no doubt see a threat to humanity in religion and are reaction with both passion and logic to try to counter this threat. Empathy, which is also a primal drive, is likely invovled in your motivations. The fact that primal drives are involved is not a criticism in itself. It is what acts we are performing and what ideas are channeling our drives that play a huge role in determining if the effects are ones we want or not.

I hate many facets of the organized religions. I would not want to live somewhere with Sharai laws, or Christian theocratic ones as they used to be more present. You and I differ, no doubt, on certain fundamental metaphysical and ontological issues, but this does not mean I disagree with all or even many of your criticisms of Islam, say. I don't think your neuroscience based attack is sound, however. And I think it will tend to baby and bathwater. I also do not see it being applied to other ideologies, including ones I consider currently more dangerous and having much more power behind them.

[Prismatic567]

I am not trying to link religion to sex in general.
My point is to draw attention to the fact that religion is driven from deep in the brain and because of its potential link to evil, religion should be kept private and personal.

Right but then eating is driven from deep in the brain and we tend not to require it is private.

I am not sure of your point here.
My point is where there are already evident of evil consequences linking to any primal drives, e.g. primal religio drive to terrible evil and violence, then it would be wiser to keep it personal and private. As I had stated the results are obvious, if religion is kept private and personal, then we will not have widespread evil and violence from SOME evil prone Muslims.

Hunger is primal but the manifested consequences are not widespread evil and violence. Nevertheless we should always take note primal hunger, note the French Revolution.

I will not dispute comparatively hunger is more dominant that sex but roughly they are around the same level, but the religio drive [existence] is more deeper than hunger and sex. For religion sake people are willing to fast for days and be celibate.

Atheists will fast and be celibate for other reasons, in fact reasons coming not from primitive parts of the brain, but from modern parts of the brain. People control, test, restrain primitive parts of the brain - a phrase I dislike - with the modern parts of the brain for all sorts ABSTRACT ideals and goals. Ones that no animal will use. No animal would decide to fast to cleanse their system or as an anti-aging techinique or for religious reasons. Here you seem to be arguing that since people will fast for religious reasons this indicates that religion is more primitive than hunger. But this is ridiculous. To fast for religion or for reasons that non-religious do this, requires higher cognitive functions around meaning and relationship and symbols that are not primitive and not possible in any other species as far as we know. Just as religious and non-religious people can suppress aggression and dominance behavior in the name of ethics or ideals or pragmatic consequentialism. The fact that people use ideas to suppress urges does not mean that these patterns are more primal. In fact it is precisely the opposite. This doesn't mean they are necessarily good. One can have bad ideas and many urges that get suppressed need not be. One need only look at some of the ways religion has taught people to hate their own drives to see this.

Your bringing in atheists who fast for health and other reasons is off the point.
I am not concluding fasting infer religion is a deeper primal than hunger.
My point is, for any primal drive, people are willing [subliminally compelled] to go to the extreme to conform or act along with the primal drives.
Note the recent full month of Ramadhan dawn-dusk fasting by Muslims. Consciously most of these Muslims would not fast for one whole month. They think they are doing it voluntarily but somehow their religio drive compel them to do it subconsciously and subliminally.
It is only after this internal primal compulsion that they use their higher cognitive power to suppress the hunger instinct when it is triggered.

You keep insisting that religion is driven significantly by our cognitive functions.

Which is undeniable. I have also stated that the primal drives are involved.

My point is in term of weightage the primal drives is 90% while the conscious part is merely 10%.
Note the common 'subsconscious mind is 90%, while conscious mind is 10%' and this is often represented by an iceberg floating in the ocean.

My point is the forms of religions are reducible to the emotions and deeper still to the primal religio drive which is deeper than the hunger, sex and other instincts. As I had stated, it is almost as near as the impulse and the need to breathe.

Nope Damasio does not support this. Of course the primal drives are present, as they are in all endeavors. Damasio pointed out that all sorts of mundane activities and higher choice activities get messed up if you damage the limbic system.

I did say Damasio does not support it because his focus is on emotions and thus did not venture below the limbic system.
If you look at the anatomy of the brain beyond the limbic system is the lower brain and brain stem which are responsible for the primal drives, re instincts.

This cuts against your point. It is not just activities that you consider irrational, but rationality in general that depends on the limbic system.

If you want to reduce religion to the primal drives, you then have to reduce all activities to primal drives.

In general ALL [with some exceptions, e.g. in madness, etc] activities are reducible to the ultimate primate drives, i.e. survival instinct, the Will to Live.

The sex drive can only lead to mass rapes with ideas. And it is no longer just a sex drive, like you have in animals, it is, generally a political act, based on racism, or some other category only humans can come up with.

You're being sure is not evidence. Further the concept of tribe was present. But even those tribal encounters were local and not systematic. Nothing like the intentionally political rapes of those in Bosnia, where the idea was to psychologically undermine the enemy - the other group - by not just raping but impregnating the enemy women. We are not talking about after the heat of battle raping the women in a tribal group. We are talking about lining them up and coldly organizing systematic rape. That depends on higher cognitive functions, planning, and symbolic thinking, and psychological insight into the effects of women appearing again with their people pregnant with half enemy babies.

Note the principle 90%-subconscious 10%-conscious apply here.
If those in Bosnia happened to be infected with a virus that damage their primal sex drive mechanism in the brain, they will NOT be be raping the women beside torturing and killing them or otherwise.
So the critical factor for rape is the primal sex drive within a given circumstance.

Just because I disagree with your idea that religion comes from more primal drives than eating and sex - for which there is absolutely no evidence in neuroscience and your evidence based on religious suppression of those urges does not work - does not mean that religion is good. Bad ideas can do all sorts of damage. And I do not think that religion is only higher cognitive functions - I have mad this clear in responses to you elsewhere, here or at Philosophy Forums. Of course it manipulates primal drives and these gives the kinds of passion, for good and for ill, that drive religious people's acts in the world.

My point is the majority of people are ignorant of the primal drives that compel the majority into religion.
What I am trying to express is for religious believers to understand all [or most] their activities in relation to religion are driven by a religio primal drive. Thus they have to admit why they go to church every Sunday is because of primarily a primal drive and secondarily a traditional thing.
It is the same when someone feels like killing non-believers or be a suicide bomber, they must be able to link such intentions to their subconscious mind i.e. to the primal religio drive and not because there is a God that command them to do so!

[spiderbat]

I think it should be one of those things that is openly known, but should be frawned against bring up in a public setting that isn't strictly meant for the discussion. What I mean is say it's openly known that I am x religion and someone is y religion, neither of us should bring it up unless we are at a religious gathering for such.

As far as the evilness of religion, that is something that is subject to interpretation and isn't always a religious motive. There are "evil" people in every religion that interpret what they do as being right or wrong based on personal bias and understanding. Hence why there are so many subsects of Christianity.

[Prismatic567]

I think it should be one of those things that is openly known, but should be frawned against bring up in a public setting that isn't strictly meant for the discussion. What I mean is say it's openly known that I am x religion and someone is y religion, neither of us should bring it up unless we are at a religious gathering for such.

Agree.
More so that it should not infiltrate the political and other non-religious social sphere.

As far as the evilness of religion, that is something that is subject to interpretation and isn't always a religious motive. There are "evil" people in every religion that interpret what they do as being right or wrong based on personal bias and understanding. Hence why there are so many subsects of Christianity.

Re religion, there is the possibility of misinterpretation by those who are evil prone but you missed the point where the religion itself, especially Islam is inherently, intrinsically and glaringly evil & violent.

The main message of the Quran is, for Muslims to be assured of a place in Paradise they have to obey the words and commands of Allah to the best of their ability. Killing and oppressing non-believers dictated in the Quran is not an impossible task for the majority of Muslims. Their prophet Abraham was very willing to kill his own son for Allah.

In the case of Islam the majority of Muslims are ignorant of or misinterpret the true essence of Islam which is intrinsically evil and violent. The majority of Muslims just do the basic and assumed Islam [claimed as a religion] like all other religions is supposed to be peaceful.

If you are doubtful of my point, I suggest you read the Quran thoroughly to understand its real messages and the intended objectives. (nb: I have spent lots of time researching the Quran).

The OT has loads of evil elements but the NT has abrogated ALL evil elements with an overriding maxim, i.e. 'Love Your Enemies.'
The main Buddhist Sutras and the Jain texts do not contain any leading evil elements.
The Bhagavad Gita has some evil elements which are vulnerable to misinterpretations.
Judaism's OT has loads of evil elements but it has a very loose hold on Jews.

[spiderbat]

As far as the evilness of religion, that is something that is subject to interpretation and isn't always a religious motive. There are "evil" people in every religion that interpret what they do as being right or wrong based on personal bias and understanding. Hence why there are so many subsects of Christianity.

Re religion, there is the possibility of misinterpretation by those who are evil prone but you missed the point where the religion itself, especially Islam is inherently, intrinsically and glaringly evil & violent.

The main message of the Quran is, for Muslims to be assured of a place in Paradise they have to obey the words and commands of Allah to the best of their ability. Killing and oppressing non-believers dictated in the Quran is not an impossible task for the majority of Muslims. Their prophet Abraham was very willing to kill his own son for Allah.

In the case of Islam the majority of Muslims are ignorant of or misinterpret the true essence of Islam which is intrinsically evil and violent. The majority of Muslims just do the basic and assumed Islam [claimed as a religion] like all other religions is supposed to be peaceful.

If you are doubtful of my point, I suggest you read the Quran thoroughly to understand its real messages and the intended objectives. (nb: I have spent lots of time researching the Quran).

The OT has loads of evil elements but the NT has abrogated ALL evil elements with an overriding maxim, i.e. 'Love Your Enemies.'
The main Buddhist Sutras and the Jain texts do not contain any leading evil elements.
The Bhagavad Gita has some evil elements which are vulnerable to misinterpretations.
Judaism's OT has loads of evil elements but it has a very loose hold on Jews.

This statement proves my point entirely. You interpret it as evil, so much so that you just mentioned Abraham strictly being an Islamic prophet even though he is also a Christian prophet who was supposed to do the same thing is the Christian texts. I consider myself Buddhist but I'm not blind to the fact that people still do evil things as and for Buddhism. You could interpret Islam and Christianity as being inherently evil. Their god is all seeing and all knowing past, present, and future but created Lucifer and all the other things that people considered to be evil and punishes his creation for them doing everything he made them to do and everything he knew they would do. You're proving the point that evil is interpretation and you could yourself be considered evil for the way you interpret another's religion.

[Prismatic567]

As far as the evilness of religion, that is something that is subject to interpretation and isn't always a religious motive. There are "evil" people in every religion that interpret what they do as being right or wrong based on personal bias and understanding. Hence why there are so many subsects of Christianity.

Re religion, there is the possibility of misinterpretation by those who are evil prone but you missed the point where the religion itself, especially Islam is inherently, intrinsically and glaringly evil & violent.

The main message of the Quran is, for Muslims to be assured of a place in Paradise they have to obey the words and commands of Allah to the best of their ability. Killing and oppressing non-believers dictated in the Quran is not an impossible task for the majority of Muslims. Their prophet Abraham was very willing to kill his own son for Allah.

In the case of Islam the majority of Muslims are ignorant of or misinterpret the true essence of Islam which is intrinsically evil and violent. The majority of Muslims just do the basic and assumed Islam [claimed as a religion] like all other religions is supposed to be peaceful.

If you are doubtful of my point, I suggest you read the Quran thoroughly to understand its real messages and the intended objectives. (nb: I have spent lots of time researching the Quran).

The OT has loads of evil elements but the NT has abrogated ALL evil elements with an overriding maxim, i.e. 'Love Your Enemies.'
The main Buddhist Sutras and the Jain texts do not contain any leading evil elements.
The Bhagavad Gita has some evil elements which are vulnerable to misinterpretations.
Judaism's OT has loads of evil elements but it has a very loose hold on Jews.

This statement proves my point entirely. You interpret it as evil, so much so that you just mentioned Abraham strictly being an Islamic prophet even though he is also a Christian prophet who was supposed to do the same thing is the Christian texts. I consider myself Buddhist but I'm not blind to the fact that people still do evil things as and for Buddhism. You could interpret Islam and Christianity as being inherently evil. Their god is all seeing and all knowing past, present, and future but created Lucifer and all the other things that people considered to be evil and punishes his creation for them doing everything he made them to do and everything he knew they would do. You're proving the point that evil is interpretation and you could yourself be considered evil for the way you interpret another's religion.

You seem to have missed all my points.

Where did I state Abraham is strictly only in Islam. Yes, Abraham is mentioned in the OT but that is in the OT which is abrogated by the NT. As I had stated the NT has an overriding pacifist maxim, which accept the Ten Commandments and critically 'do not kill your enemies.' Note the words in bold above.

On the other hand there is no overriding pacifist maxim to curtail the evils, killings and violence commanded in the Quran, i.e. the core of Islam. Thus Islam is inherently evil and violent. In the case of Islam is not a matter of subjective interpretations by Muslims but evil and violence are sanctioned by Allah specifically and clearly in the Quran.
Have you ever read the Quran and if yes, read it fully and thoroughly?

Yes, Buddhists are humans and SOME will be evil and violent due their human nature. But such evils has nothing to do with Buddhism itself which is totally pacifist. There are some very insignificant verses in the Mahayana sutra that contain evil elements but there are merely 'needle in the haystack' and no Mahayanists has quoted them to kill anyone.
There are Buddhists [Theravada] who commit violence in Myanmar, Sri Langka, etc. but they did not do it in the name of Buddhism or the Buddha. Has any 'Buddhist' who committed evil quoted verses from the Sutras or shouted Buddha-u-Akbar?

Suggest you reread my post again.