Philosophically speaking, religion is a hoax

[L Gilbert]

Depends on what your religion is I guess. Many Christians, for example, are dogmatic in their beliefs that the word of the bible is correct. Others modify their beliefs (as I said earlier) and others abandon them all together. If you keep modifying your beliefs to fit with science, would you really call that religion?

Definition of "religion" according to Princeton University:

a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him "
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

I see nothing in there that precludes a religion from changing with the times.

 

[lieexpsr]

Depends on what your religion is I guess. Many Christians, for example, are dogmatic in their beliefs that the word of the bible is correct. Others modify their beliefs (as I said earlier) and others abandon them all together. If you keep modifying your beliefs to fit with science, would you really call that religion?

Exactly! They have to take it all or nothing. After all, it is the word of god isn't it?

 

[L Gilbert]

.........but I don't think you can make the case that it's a hoax.........

He hasn't so far.

 

[lieexpsr]

Sliced bread's not really that great.

I haven't been able to get the link in your OP to load, and I doubt I'd sit through 15 hours of video anyway just to justify contributing to this thread. I'm quite familiar with Dawkins' works though, and I doubt that he's proven your claim. You haven't either. A hoax is a deliberate attempt to deceive others by people who know that what they're saying is not true. Most religious people aren't like that, they're quite firmly convinced that what they're saying *is* true, they're not knowingly trying to trick anybody. You can make a case that religion is false, a delusion--which is what Dawkins does--self-deception, wishful thinking, and all kinds of other things indicating it has nothing to do with reality, and I'd probably agree with most of it, but I don't think you can make the case that it's a hoax. The essential element of deliberate deception's not there.

The 15 hours is not by Dawkins, it is just posted on his site. The 15 hours is by some of the most highly esteemed scientists in the world in several different branchs of science. There are even a few religious wackos who are given their say and who are not laughed at or humiliated in any way. That takes a lot of self-control among that group.

 

[L Gilbert]

Mr. Gilbert- Here's one on condom use and Aids.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html

That is not proof that the absence of condoms causes starvation. Besides, Africans were starving long before the RCC mumbled something about condoms.

You are defending the undefendable just for the sake of being in disagreement with me. Now I know you are not a very nice man! ;-)

lol
I really don't give a crap what some pissant thinks of me or what it thinks it knows about me. BTW, that's not why I disagree with you. I disagree with you because you are wrong. Grow up.

 

[lieexpsr]

Would you like a few more links which call religion a hoax Mr. Gilbert? After all, you rely on links from the interenet to make 'your' points.

I think I won't bother for now unless you keep being persistent and pesky about the use of the word. And I think I will sign off now that the hornet's nest is sufficiently stirred up. Smell ya later Jillbear.

 

[L Gilbert]

nice quotes Gilbert, but, you know posting a quote from someone who agrees with you doesn't make something true right? Especially when you post quotes that are as scientifically unsound as the last one. lol.

I don't offer quotes as proof of anything. I offer them as a source of humor.
I posted something scientifically unsound? Musta been a joke then.

Seriously,

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathm_rel_religion.htm

http://www.atheists.org/faqs/atheism.html

 

[karrie]

I thought so, too.

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

interesting links Gilbert, thanks

 

[lieexpsr]

Just a quicky which came up first of many.

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/342/

Enjoy!

 

[L Gilbert]

Would you like a few more links which call religion a hoax Mr. Gilbert? After all, you rely on links from the interenet to make 'your' points.

I think I won't bother for now unless you keep being persistent and pesky about the use of the word. And I think I will sign off now that the hornet's nest is sufficiently stirred up. Smell ya later Jillbear.

Just because you can find other people that call religions hoaxes doesn't mean they are any more accurate than you. I would like to see evidence that religions were developed with the specific intent to deceive. I have asked that and you keep obfuscating, emitting vagueries, and red herrings.

 

[L Gilbert]

interesting links Gilbert, thanks

My pleasure.
My view is that anti-atheists like to call atheism a religion just to piss atheists off.
Um, definition again:

a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Atheism doesn't apply.

 

[WilliamAshley]

Religion is a very real part of various cultures that exist globally and within Canada. Relgion is beleif, as real as any other type of belief. Just because your faith rests somewhere else does not disprove someone elses experience, unless you say that you see the world the way everyone else does, and that is not a moral approach to life, imo.

While science may demonstrate repetition of occurance in perspective to understanding of physical occurance, it rests solely as a theory, and not an engineered eternity. If you are denying that there is no logical basis to reality then you are denying god, but in doing so you are abandoning logic itself -- the framework and you become nothing more than a stimulus response robot working within facts with no grounded purpose in existance.

While varous cultures have different religious opinions, none are no more true or false from the perspective of a beleiver. So you may worship science as a type of unknown discordian beleif, I am quite confident and in beleif of a creator.

 

[karrie]

Depends on what your religion is I guess. Many Christians, for example, are dogmatic in their beliefs that the word of the bible is correct. Others modify their beliefs (as I said earlier) and others abandon them all together. If you keep modifying your beliefs to fit with science, would you really call that religion?

I wouldn't say that its status as a religion would disappear simply because it evolved, no. If that was the case, we'd have no religions now at all. Christianity is NOT what it used to be. Its practises have changed, and simply become new religions, or different versions of the old one, such as the Catholic church after Vatican II.

 

[L Gilbert]

Just a quicky which came up first of many.

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/342/

Enjoy!

This guy's opinion is your proof that condom defficiency is the cause of famine in Africa? Hilarious.

http://www.umass.edu/history/courses_grad/2001-2002/301syllabus.pdf

http://links.jstor.org/journals/03617882.html

http://links.jstor.org/journals/00218537.html

http://www.fhi.net/fhius/ethiopiafamine/history.html

http://web.bu.edu/history/mccann.pdf

http://www.aworldconnected.org/Research/pubid.2890/research_detail.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine#Famine_in_Africa

I suppose in a really vague, primitive, and absurd way, if no-one was ever born in Africa, there wouldn't be human famine there. But that has nothing to do with your claim that religions are hoaxes. Actually, it has nothing to do with religions or hoaxes.

 

[karrie]

I don't offer quotes as proof of anything. I offer them as a source of humor.
I posted something scientifically unsound? Musta been a joke then.

Seriously,

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathm_rel_religion.htm

http://www.atheists.org/faqs/atheism.html

It struck me right away, the last quote you had posted which stated that in nature, there is no such thing as reward or punishment, only consequence. The only reason it stuck was because I just finished my exam for the psych unit on reward and punishment in animal behavior.

 

[L Gilbert]

It struck me right away, the last quote you had posted which stated that in nature, there is no such thing as reward or punishment, only consequence. The only reason it stuck was because I just finished my exam for the psych unit on reward and punishment in animal behavior.

Oh. Toldja they were funny.

 

[sanctus]

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

Your premise has already failed than. You assume that those who are the prophets or teachers of a particular faith are inclined to deceive people into beliefs they themselves do not adhere to. First, you cannot prove that Jesus or buddha or any other spitirual leader did not also believe those things they were teaching, and secondly you cannot prove they were teaching in order to deceive. Certainly Jesus alone did not benefit from his presumed deception, as you label it.

It suits religious beliefs perfectly IMO but I won't waste time by dwelling on that point. Call it ancient superstition if that suits you better. I do appreciate man's need to identify with a spiritual connection but I am saying that we can rise above that need. Not all people are capable of rising above it as even 15% of the most learned people in the world (PHd's) are religious in some sense. Although those who are involved with the sciences need to put their religious beliefs on the back burner so to speak because their beliefs can't be reconciled with their scientific knowledge. Even a geologist would have a lot of trouble working in his field if he literally accepts the earth to be 6000-10000 years old wouldn't he.

15%, 20%, any per cent. We are not talking of statistics. We are talking about people and what they value. And all the pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo you postulate will rationalize the beliefs systems of people who are spiritually inclined. Nor do you percentages indicate the level these religious beliefs have for brining a sense of purpose and moral value to the lives of the people who do follow them.

But first of all before we go too much further I need to know where you are coming from. If you are a true believer then you are forced to interpret your bible literally. If you are something less than a literal believer then you need to tell me so I can show you how you have taken the socalled word of god and spun it to suit modern understandings of our world. So let's get that out of the way first because I am not going to let you have it both ways.
.

My interpretation of the Bible depends on me and the Church, not you. You are a non-believer. You do not set the standards by which I must or must not accept the tenants of my faith if you are not a member of that faith group. What I am or am not is also not the point, the point is people and faith, and your false claim that religious belief is somehow a hoax.

Interesting that for a non-believer you select a Protestant interpretation of Biblical literalism.

 

[talloola]

I don't believe that religion was started long ago as a "hoax", but I do believe that along the way,

and even in this day, there are spin-off groups who start up religions, as a hoax, to deliberately

hood-wink others, and collect their money.

 

[sanctus]

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?

No, it has already been well established that your original point is false. What no one has been able to do is educate you enough to admit it.

Modern day religious leaders certainly do not see their beliefs as being problematic.This is a rather amazing claim for you to make and I challenge you to support this absurd statement with at least one quote from one religious leader who doubts the authenticity of his particular faith. You seem to place a great deal of your evidence on what "educated" people have to say, ignorning of course those educated people that do not support your premise. Do you think the Holy Father is an uneducated man? but of course, we must not accept his opinion for his beliefs do not satisfy your assertation that he is perpetuating a fraud upon the membership of the Church.

 

[sanctus]

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.

Your lack of knowledge about Catholic theology and doctrine is quite evident based on your comments. I assure you that the root of Catholic doctrine and dogma has not changed one iota in 2,000 years.