Counter examples? Rebuts? Evidence to the contrary? Do you even have specific reasons?

Did you take the test and find out about an opinion you were unaware of?

Nothing?

In a organized debate, evidence that isn't examined is supposed to be considered true.

@Happy_Killbot

I think the similarities you’re seeing are due to the effects of human corruption rather than from anything that is inherently religious or political, and as such, also apply to every other human institution equally.

You make two very important points in the following quote, with which I agree fully:

“Instead, countless influential entities have hijacked our ability to think and behave as individuals via our tribal psychology to force us into our own corners, usually for their benefit more than our own.”

The two points are “hijacked” and “tribal.” If any such thing as an authentic religion, or politics (or business, or law, or yes, even science) could ever exist, it would be, and reliably has always been, immediately subjected to the corrupting forces of human cunning. (Science has the benefit of a self-correcting mechanism that other institutions don’t, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t assaulted regularly by the same self-serving impulses.)

Those drives which would become politics or religion are immediately hijacked by the power-hungry, and they do use natural, human, tribal identity-dependency as a “ring in the nose” by which to lead the herds.

But the common denominator here is corruption (that of both the perpetrators and the victims) rather than any structural similarities between religion and politics. For example, the institution we call “business” elicits similar behaviors as seen in fanatical loyalties to Chevy or Ford, or Coke vs. Pepsi, etc. It’s about identity. Us vs. Them.

@skado I suppose you could very easily throw in someones dedication to a particular company or band as being religious, although use of the product or employment at that company does not automatically qualify for someone to have blind faith in that product or organization.

It's much deeper than just tribalism and corruption although these are two important factors.

The same is true with political ideology, just voting for a specific candidate doesn't automatically warrant one to believe in the party or the leader as a pseudo-deity, however there are certain individuals who have a nearly unshakable affinity to their political beliefs, and that is the bottom line, that when your trust for something extends far beyond any practical reason and someone becomes locked into that type of thinking that I would call it religious.

In the Hindu and Buddhist religions there gods are more of an abstract idea, or a manifestation of some fundamental concept. In Abrahamic and pagan religions the gods are physical beings like us. Same as in the religion of political ideologies where their god is the idea itself and they worship at whichever news outlet they prefer.

@Happy_Killbot

Religion has been corrupt for so long it has become a euphemism for corruption, or at least for fanatical belief, but belief in non-existent entities is not inherent in religion, as you point out with the examples of Buddhism, etc.

The essence of authentic religion is its capacity to enable a nomadic, hunter/gatherer species to live in, and cooperate with, stationary groups larger than the 150 that was the upper limit in its ancestral environment. It’s not about whether that end is achieved by belief in fanciful myths or by intellectual apprehension of abstractions.

The essence of authentic politics is to arrive at public policies which distribute power as equitably as possible to the various interests in the population.

It’s not that those two essences bear no relation to each other, but they are distinct disciplines. What makes them look more similar than they are, is their capacity to become saturated with corruption and still function, at least in some nominal way.

@skado I think the points you make in your second paragraph strongly support the notion that politics is religious, as political factions allow many otherwise loosely connected individuals to work together.

The third paragraph I completely disagree with, as I see no evidence supporting that this is the case. In fact, there is a long running study from Princeton university that shows that political policies are created to benefit the rich, and that public opinion has no correlation whatsoever to what policies are made. This means that any political viewpoints or ideologies you have likely do not help the public unless they are wealthy. Anyone who has political beliefs must think that the viewpoints they have are best for the country, and believe that their vote actually matters. These are completely unfounded faith based assumptions.

There is faith in the consequence of having your viewpoints approved or not, similar to the eternal reward or damnation that awaits followers or sinners. If your side doesn't win, there is this irrational assumption the world will spiral into chaos.

@Happy_Killbot

I’m not denying that the corrupt versions exist and dominate our systems. I’m just not willing to allow the heavily corrupted versions to define the genres. I feel we must never lose sight of the ideals if we are to have a fighting chance at survival. That does not mean that I expect the ideals to ever be realized, but we need them as direction-finders in a world of overwhelming complexity.

@skado I'm saying that there is no such thing as a version which is not corrupt in some way. The ideals we look up to only serve to further the enslavement of those who desire them.

Take for example a revolutionary fighting to overturn a dictorial regime, only to kill half of his supporters and reinstate himself as the new dictator once everything is said and done. The revolutionary uses the promise of a better life as an ideal.

Democracies are susceptible to a similar vulnerability, although it tends to be peaceful. Charasmatic, loud, and influential individual can get a lot of people on their side and win an election by making promises that have little or no chance of being kept.

These ideals are a directly analogue to the concepts of heaven or hell. Many believe that if we work towards them that everything will be perfect and happy. The reality is the whole thing is a carrot on a stick, always in the future, never to be reached. When it is supposedly achieved it always unfairly benefits the people that led the movement.

The only difference is that the reward/punishment happens to this world, but that doesn't make it not religious because some religions such as Hinduism have concepts like karma that follow you both during and after life.

@Happy_Killbot

How does the ideal of seeking truth serve to further the enslavement of those who desire it?

@skado When the truth that is sought after is metaphysical, there are both infinite and no right answers. Take for example, the examples from my first point.

-one of the beliefs of Islam is that killing a homosexual is in their best interest because they will sin less.
-conservatives believe that a lightly regulated economy will lead to economic growth.
-Liberals believe that an unregulated economy will lead to abuse and human rights violation.

From a logical standpoint, all of these things are coherent, and true in a literal sense with the right assumptions.
For the religious example, if you define homosexuality as sinful, then killing homosexuals will prevent them from committing more sin, so if we assume that the after life relies on us committing as little sin as possible in this life, then killing them becomes an ideal.

The other two are are at odds with one another, so from a metaphysical standpoint only one can be true. If you consider economic growth to be the ideal, and said ideal is implemented you may see human rights violations, as things like slavery, substance abuse, and shady business practices will become the norm. On the other hand, a strictly regulated economy will not develop or grow very quickly, and as we have seen in many countries with centrally planed economies, may collapse under bureaucratic burden.

Following either of these truths will lead to destruction if blindly pursued.

@Happy_Killbot

You've talked a lot about undesirable qualities. Do any desirable directions exist?

@skado With the exception of maximizing universal information whilst keeping entropy within acceptable limits, I don't think there can be such a thing as a desirable direction, because it is always subject to change.

@Happy_Killbot

What do you mean by universal information?