Philosophically speaking, religion is a hoax

[CDNBear]

Waitaminit. First you say it's religion that is the hoax. Then you say it's the people that use the religions.
Personally, I cannot fault a philosophy because of the failure of its followers. I think that's a fool's game.

True enough, I stand corrected.

It isn't the rock group I hate(lol), it's ther fans.

My point was, that the foundation is rarely a hoax, it is in the use of what it formed in the ideology of the faith, to subjugate and or hold hostage the people, that perpetrates the hoax.

 

[CDNBear]

CdnBear- Please, not now.

huh???

I'm playing nice!!!

What more do you want???

 

[L Gilbert]

You make sense and that is absolutely true maple.

I wrote a paper on religion years and years and years ago, I have mentioned it here before, the jist of it was, that even athiests deep down inside have a faith of some sort, if they didn't, they could not find meaning in life, not would they be able to function within the constraints of society.

It may not be a spiritual faith, but it is a faith of some sort that drives us all.

I don't think so. I have hope for some stuff, but I have no faith. The purpose of my life is to live it, there's no faith in that, just the intent to carry it through with the hope that I can enjoy all of it.
Curiosity and fun are what drives me.

 

[lieexpsr]

It's impossible to convince you of anything, your mind is obviously made up. Such being the case, I fail to see the reason why you started this thread, other than to prove to yourself, you know better than others.

Religion isn't about proof, it's about faith. If I want to believe in the flying spaghetti monster, it is my choice. People have trouble believing proven events with ample data to back it up. People believe what they want to believe.

Well that's fine with me if you choose to not take part. I'm going to refuse to accept faith and if that makes my position untenable for you then we would get nowhere anyway. Be happy with your beliefs and I will talk to the people who are not completely satisfied with their faith in religion. The fact is, if a person is content to go with his faith then he has no business on this thread anyway. The fact that he is on this thread clearly indicates that he is at least subconsciously questioning his beliefs, if not totally consciously.

 

[CDNBear]

I don't think so. I have hope for some stuff, but I have no faith. The purpose of my life is to live it, there's no faith in that, just the intent to carry it through with the hope that I can enjoy all of it.
Curiosity and fun are what drives me.

But is that not a belief? Live, f**k, frolic and by merry? That would be your construct of a meaning of life, a belief a faith?. Note I didn't mention a belief in a greater power in my original post.

 

[L Gilbert]

It's impossible to convince you of anything, your mind is obviously made up. Such being the case, I fail to see the reason why you started this thread, other than to prove to yourself, you know better than others.

Religion isn't about proof, it's about faith. If I want to believe in the flying spaghetti monster, it is my choice. People have trouble believing proven events with ample data to back it up. People believe what they want to believe.

Yup. Most people cannot be objective enough to vary from their views about life and its contents.
As J K Galbraith said once, "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."
I've spent my life training myself to go with the evidence and that has usually cost me my views on things, but I place a higher value on reality than I do on my simple opinion.

 

[CDNBear]

The fact is, if a person is content to go with his faith then he has no business on this thread anyway.

Umm, respectfully, it is comments like that, that draw attacks. If you think back to yesterday, your bout with a Mod was over content, not participation. Anyone willing to constructively participate is welcome in any thread.

The fact that he is on this thread clearly indicates that he is at least subconsciously questioning his beliefs, if not totally consciously.

Umm, no, it indicates a desire to discuss and share. Not everyone is closed minded or a closet athiest.

 

[lieexpsr]

I have to apoplogize, as I did not clarify that by first nations, I was referring to BEFORE the christian religions got their hands on them and started to systematically wipe out the religion that existed before they arrived. What's left is pale shades. And yes, they are currently irreverent toward nature in some circles, but the purest forms of their spirituality are based in reverence for nature. I've learned a lot about how to fish, hunt, and gather plants, from some of my family and it is all based hugely on conservation. But again, the religion can only be as perfect as the people practising it.

Your point that some first nations beliefs are based on a reverence for nature may be worth considering but I think there is a logical reason why they needed to have that reverence. But I'm not so sure it even exists and I would need specific examples in order to believe. I think it is more likely that they evolved and learned to do what was necessary to survive. I would call that evolution as opposed to reverence. Don't try to complicate these primitive people's actions and reactions to nature any more than necessary.

Have you seen the movie, 'the Gods must be Crazy' or something to that effect? A coke bottle falls out of the sky and it becomes an object of worship. This should afford you a good understanding of the basis of primitive religions. Simply ignorance of the modern world and the airplane from which it came. No more, no less.

 

[gc]

I'ld have to respectfully dissagree.

Anchient faiths/religions had an excellent grasp of the workings of both celestial and seasonal changes, used both astronomy and earth sciences to live at one with what they lived within. That's not to say that anchient faiths/religions, didn't come without hocuspocus, but I would assert that they had better grip on the reality of natural workings then the Churches of the middle ages of Europe. And in some cases all the way up until science of the 19th and 20th centuries caught up to what was already common faith practice in many third worl indigenous faiths as well as North American and Middle Eastern, prior to the advent of a formalized Church.

They may have had excellent knowledge about astronomy, but did they have excellent knowledge about DNA & evolution? Seems to me most religions try to answer the question of "why/how are we here?". Science would say, evolution. You are probably right about them having more knowledge than the churches of the middle ages....but there must be some aspects of the faith/religion that would go against science, otherwise I wouldn't exactly call that a religion. I'd call it ancient science.

 

[lieexpsr]

I find that kind of funny that you jumped on ariadne for generalizing atheists as unintelligent, while you generalize the religious as fearful. Where exactly is the difference there? okay on to the discussion....

Many of the scientists I know have discussed scientific research into what happens to all of the energy in our bodies when we die. What I've always heard was that science has yet to account for all of our bodily energy, even taking into account heat from decomposition, etc. I find it intriguing to ponder what the scientific explanation for that extra energy will eventually be. I find it hard to dismiss the idea that we have residual energy that is left from our bodies.

Well if you go back and read the applicable then you will see that I didn't exactly jump on Ariadne for calling me stupid! It's good that you are pondering some questions and so now take the next step and find out the answers. I would suggest that science has an answer for your above question. In fact I know it does but it's not my object to get into it here. I've given you the link, use it, all 15 hours if you want to start understanding.

 

[L Gilbert]

You're completely right that the number of followers doesn't signify a hoax. The more I think about it, as I've stated in further posts, atheism follows the path of a young religion. An upstart fighting for validity. And I'd have to pose the same question of you as I have of the OP, "Which religions are based on fantasies?" There are so many Gilbert. I know you don't believe in a god, but, not all religions are based around that.

Taoism is a philosophy not based on gods. Confucianism is another. The majority, however, have a basis in fantasy.

"If Atheism is a religion, then health is a disease!" - Clark Adams

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Samuel Clemens

Robert G. Ingersoll - "In Nature, there are neither rewards nor punishments, there are consequences."

 

[lieexpsr]

Not everyone is closed minded or a closet athiest.

Please, the personal attacks!

 

[CDNBear]

Your point that some first nations beliefs are based on a reverence for nature may be worth considering but I think there is a logical reason why they needed to have that reverence. But I'm not so sure it even exists and I would need specific examples in order to believe. I think it is more likely that they evolved and learned to do what was necessary to survive. I would call that evolution as opposed to reverence. Don't try to complicate these primitive people's actions and reactions to nature any more than necessary.

Have you seen the movie, 'the Gods must be Crazy' or something to that effect? A coke bottle falls out of the sky and it becomes an object of worship. This should afford you a good understanding of the basis of primitive religions. Simply ignorance of the modern world and the airplane from which it came. No more, no less.

Ok, I have to take exception with the bulk of this post...
First off, as I have already pointed out, there was a whole lot more then mere survival going on. Aztec calender, Stonehenge, Pyramids, Temples of South America. There is math going on here, that you may not even understand.

Primitive peoples? Really is that how you honestly feel or are you still trolling. We the Six Nations had a Constitution, long before the US or Canada, in fact it was the inspiration of the US Constitution. It was also the Constitution of the longest surviving, participatory Democracy in history. That's a lot more then mere primitives could muster.

I have seen the movie "The Gods must be crazy", it was humourous. Your equating that to the spiritual beliefs of indigenous peoples is not only insulting, but further exposes the bigotry you exposed in other threads.

 

[CDNBear]

Please, the personal attacks!

Are you that vain that you think that was about you???

Oh brother. Unless I stamp your name on it, it ain't to you, get over yourself.

 

[L Gilbert]

I find that kind of funny that you jumped on ariadne for generalizing atheists as unintelligent, while you generalize the religious as fearful. Where exactly is the difference there? okay on to the discussion....

I thought so, too.

Many of the scientists I know have discussed scientific research into what happens to all of the energy in our bodies when we die. What I've always heard was that science has yet to account for all of our bodily energy, even taking into account heat from decomposition, etc. I find it intriguing to ponder what the scientific explanation for that extra energy will eventually be. I find it hard to dismiss the idea that we have residual energy that is left from our bodies.

Energy dissipation is simply chemical reactions between the materials that make up our body and the surrounding materials. Death is simply oxygen deprivation and cell degradation.
About the body's energy;
http://library.thinkquest.org/C0122781/science/common.htm
The science;
http://library.thinkquest.org/C0122781/science/whydie.htm

 

[lieexpsr]

And once again L Gilbert, you need to go back and read the applicable post to see that I didn't exactly jump on anyone. I did indeed mention the fact that Ariadne was calling atheists stupid. As to whether I care all that much, I don't, even though it was meant to call me stupid for being an atheist. I think you people need to get over that and I'm sure you will when your brains cook up something better to talk about. ;-)

Especially you as you appear quite capable.

And thanks for supplying the links. I find it too time consuming to do that and it's nice to have someone who will do it for me.

 

[L Gilbert]

Hoax defined: A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing something false is real.

Yup. But, explain how you know that the intent was to trick people rather than explain phenomenon or give people a philosophy to ponder.

 

[L Gilbert]

I'ld have to respectfully dissagree.

Anchient faiths/religions had an excellent grasp of the workings of both celestial and seasonal changes, used both astronomy and earth sciences to live at one with what they lived within. That's not to say that anchient faiths/religions, didn't come without hocuspocus, but I would assert that they had better grip on the reality of natural workings then the Churches of the middle ages of Europe. And in some cases all the way up until science of the 19th and 20th centuries caught up to what was already common faith practice in many third worl indigenous faiths as well as North American and Middle Eastern, prior to the advent of a formalized Church.

Actually he is partially right, Bear. Shintoism, paganism, Taoism, Confucianism, etc. used their limited knowledges of science to try and explain nature. It's religions like Judaism and Islam and Christianity that brought on the faith in fantasy stuff.

 

[L Gilbert]

No, that's not the intent at all. Many modern day religious leaders are content to make amendments to god's word (the bible) in order to reconcile the bible with what we now know to be true. Let's consider any of the fairy tales of the old testament and I won't name any particular one because you should be aware of all of them. Therefore these leaders are perpetuating the hoax. (lieing to and fooling people) In fact very few religions continue to struggle with reconciling the truth now and have made the necessary amendments. One of the biggest religious minorities, the catholic religion is full of it. There is only 'one version' of the truth and you are not at liberty to pick another version which suits your own persoal preference you see.

CdnBear- Please, not now.

Again, I ask how do you know the purpose was to lie and to intentionally fool people.

 

[lieexpsr]

Yup. But, explain how you know that the intent was to trick people rather than explain phenomenon or give people a philosophy to ponder.

I think I have already covered that. Modern day religious leaders are just as aware as you and I that their religious beliefs pose problems for themselves. They understand that their followers are incapable of a deeper understanding and therefore it is lies by ommissions. For example, don't think about the fact that the earth is millions of years old, just accept with faith that the bible is the literal word of god. Do you really think that highly educated people are not aware of the problems?

Nobody has disproved my contention that religion is a hoax but if you are stuck on the word then use another more suitable if you like. Let's not waste a lot of time on this o.k?