Wich kind of population is easier to manipulate religious one or atheist one???..

[minamoto]

i--------------->.

recardless of society's level of edocation and culture and stuf like dat ...

wich kind of popolation is easier to manipolate ...a roligious one or a atheist one?????..

 

[salamander uchiha]

Neither, it's down to individualism vs collectivism. The difference is religion recognises indivudal rights and judgement, that leads to more branches, so it will be harder. The only atheist states I can think of were communist and they believe the collective overrules the individual. And Mao had his commie enforcers out there doing their things, the Soviets theirs etc. It seems it was a lot easier to manipulate the latter, but it also required iron will. That is if I was to pick one of the two.

 

[Chikombo]

Well some religous people think they should blindly do whatever their religion tells them to do no matter what so, if someone could manipulate the scriptures that's one thing.

I think religion can make people more sure of what to think of the world, I mean that in a positive way.

 

[Infant]

Theres falsely religious (in a way, these are the properly religious kind) and truly religious kinds. The same applies to atheists.

Falsely religious are those who are simply in it to look good, but dont really know/care about the foundationanl beliefs/doctrines. These are somewhat controllable as long as you know what practices they abide by or you know why they pretend as they do (social acceptance, political benefits etc). The truly religious (aka the spiritual) are impossible to control but nearly perfectly predicatable because of absolute principles that they follow. You cant tell them what to do, but you always know it. So you can work with/around them easier, but never control.

With atheists, its the opposite. Truly atheistic are very critical and cautious of things and so are difficult to manipulate to go to extremes, but you can influence their dialogue to manipulate them moderately. Falsely atheistic are mostly caught up in the idea of non-conformism and dont really understand much of the religion they're rejecting, so these notions are easily manipulated but the same sense of non-conformity means they can 'wake up' at any time to change teams.

In terms of ease of control, the truly religious are the most difficult, practically impossible to manipulate, but most straightforward to understand in patterns. The truly atheistic come next because they still have thay genuine factor, buttheir thinking can still be influenced. The falsely atheistic come next because the notions they play with are easily manipulated, but the nature of their game always gives them a chance of getting free. The falsely religious are the easiest because the very reasons of their pretence are usually tied to politics anyway and these reasons are so instinctive that they are unlikely to break free without genuinely supernatural intervention.

 

[minamoto]

Theres falsely religious (in a way, these are the properly religious kind) and truly religious kinds. The same applies to atheists.

Falsely religious are those who are simply in it to look good, but dont really know/care about the foundationanl beliefs/doctrines. These are somewhat controllable as long as you know what practices they abide by or you know why they pretend as they do (social acceptance, political benefits etc). The truly religious (aka the spiritual) are impossible to control but nearly perfectly predicatable because of absolute principles that they follow. You cant tell them what to do, but you always know it. So you can work with/around them easier, but never control.

With atheists, its the opposite. Truly atheistic are very critical and cautious of things and so are difficult to manipulate to go to extremes, but you can influence their dialogue to manipulate them moderately. Falsely atheistic are mostly caught up in the idea of non-conformism and dont really understand much of the religion they're rejecting, so these notions are easily manipulated but the same sense of non-conformity means they can 'wake up' at any time to change teams.

In terms of ease of control, the truly religious are the most difficult, practically impossible to manipulate, but most straightforward to understand in patterns. The truly atheistic come next because they still have thay genuine factor, buttheir thinking can still be influenced. The falsely atheistic come next because the notions they play with are easily manipulated, but the nature of their game always gives them a chance of getting free. The falsely religious are the easiest because the very reasons of their pretence are usually tied to politics anyway and these reasons are so instinctive that they are unlikely to break free without genuinely supernatural intervention.

but u can use religion to manipulate religious societies so easily ...no???..

 

[Infant]

but u can use religion to manipulate religious societies so easily ...no???..

How?

(Ultinately, it comes down to the distinction i made between practice-based and belief-based religious people)

 

[minamoto]

How?

(Ultinately, it comes down to the distinction i made between practice-based and belief-based religious people)

what u mean how???? its hapening for realz nowtayz..can't u see????..

 

[Infant]

what u mean how???? its hapening for realz nowtayz..can't u see????..

How does the process of manipulation work? To whom is it done?

Now look at the distinction i made between truly and falsely religious groups

 

[YowYan]

That highly depends on what kind of manipulation is at play here. And even then, there's this thing called individuality

 

[minamoto]

That highly depends on what kind of manipulation is at play here. And even then, there's this thing called individuality

there was a kestion i asked you but u ignored answering deleberatly bro...

 

[Chikombo]

I think if you tell people "A is religious", atheists might back away, and "B is not religious" Atheists might join, except the meaning could be the opposite, making us suckers.

 

[Infant]

I think if you tell people "A is religious", atheists might back away, and "B is not religious" Atheists might join, except the meaning could be the opposite, making us suckers.

Makes us trusting.

The one who abuses this trust is the fool, imo