Philosophically speaking, religion is a hoax

[CDNBear]

I think many of us confuse the word "religion" with the organization which supplies the defintions of the religion. Speaking from the perspective of what I know best, consider that there are two factors: there is the Roman Catholic Church, an organization that its' membership believes God created and others believe man created. It is a visible, thriving organization with a well established corporate set of policies and departments. Then there is the Catholic religion, or faith, and this differs and operates within and outside the organization.

I think your issues have been with the organization and not necessarily the faith, if you see what I mean.

Oh I do, hence my 180 with regards to you and your position, a venture in healing and calm, brought about by new experiences and being open to new views and a changing way of thinking.

The latter being the major contributor to the process. Dividing the where's and whatfores, into their appropriate places, has enabled me to differenciate between the actions and the message.

If we look at the message as apposed to the actions, there is no hoax, regardless of impurical data. The hoax lies within the interpretation and the actions. If one simply and blindly follows, without thought, then there lies the hoax. If ones sees something and feels something, their interpretation of that message or event is hardly baseless, nor a hoax.

A hoax, as much as I do feel that some with your organization do pertuate mythology above the message, to further an agenda, is not the message of the Church. It is in the acts of those that would use the Church to further their cause, but onto themselves, people such as yourself, do not perpetuate the hoax, you spread the message, there is no hoax in the message. As there is no hoax in my spiritual experiences.

Neither you nor I have shared our experiences to further an agenda or to sway peoples perception for personal gain, we have merely shared our perception of our faiths. That is not a decietful act, therefore it is not a hoax.

Lets look at what a hoax is...

hoax (h

ks) n. 1. An act intended to deceive or trick.
2. Something that has been established or accepted by fraudulent means.

tr.v. hoaxed, hoax·ing, hoax·es To deceive or cheat by using a hoax.

Now as I have stated, there are those that would use faith to this means, but it is not possible to generalize entire faith systems within this thinly vailed insult. To do so is border line idiocy.

 

[CDNBear]

That some people mis-use their religious beliefs for puposes which may be, and often are, contrary to that religions' doctrines, does not in and of itself negate the truth of the spiritual path.

Absolutely true!!! Bravo Padre!!!

 

[mapleleafgirl]

dosent suggesting something is a hoax imply that the originators did this in a deliberate fashion? its like saying, for example, that people like jesus or mohammed or who-ever purposely began a lie to fool people. it denies the possibility that they may have meant exactly what they said and intentionally wanted to educate people to their versions of the truth.

 

[mapleleafgirl]

Absolutely true!!! Bravo Padre!!!

are you two agreeing??? im speechless....

 

[CDNBear]

dosent suggesting something is a hoax imply that the originators did this in a deliberate fashion? its like saying, for example, that people like jesus or mohammed or who-ever purposely began a lie to fool people. it denies the possibility that they may have meant exactly what they said and intentionally wanted to educate people to their versions of the truth.

Absolutely maple!!!

And furthermore, without being able to take to task those that began the faiths, or have them present their data and/or defence in front of a jury, any and all accusations of fraudulent actions, is heresay, slander and and quite frankly a fraud onto themselves.

 

[mapleleafgirl]

Absolutely maple!!!

And furthermore, without being able to take to task those that began the faiths, or have them present their data and/or defence in front of a jury, any and all accusations of fraudulent actions, is heresay, slander and and quite frankly a fraud onto themselves.

thats what i think too. look at your own peoples spiritual stuff. if you started a cult on, i dont know the exact terms so dont think im being rude, the great spirit and that cult taught to kill everybody who wasnt say a huron indian, does that make the story of the great spirit untrue? i dont think so. take the crusades. does catholics killing muslims make the catholic faith a lie, or does it actually mean some people have used the name of that faith to justify their wrongs.

i think it is stupid to discredit the importance of faith in peoples lives and to claim that it is somehow a hoax. the majority of the people of the world have always had, and do have, some sort of religious belief system. it is comforting to them and why must it be wrong because some guy in a lab cant find god?

 

[CDNBear]

are you two agreeing??? im speechless....

Just because I have a problem with some of the actions within my experience with regards to the Church, that should not and on many occassions, has not dictated my use of knowledge and sense. I have agreed with sanctus on many issues, as well as a few other posters, who pretty much rub me the wrong way, here lies the difference between people like Dex, Curiousity, sanctus and I, and some of the petty posters around here, we do not have to have the same political agenda, position or faith to see virtue, truth or substance in someones posts or beliefs. I have given credit to posters who's political pointer is dyametrically apposed to mine, for being a good poster, for posting brilliant ideas, articles, opinion and so on. One should not let pettiness dictate ones acknowledgement of excellence, when one see it.

 

[CDNBear]

thats what i think too. look at your own peoples spiritual stuff. if you started a cult on, i dont know the exact terms so dont think im being rude, the great spirit and that cult taught to kill everybody who wasnt say a huron indian, does that make the story of the great spirit untrue? i dont think so. take the crusades. does catholics killing muslims make the catholic faith a lie, or does it actually mean some people have used the name of that faith to justify their wrongs.

i think it is stupid to discredit the importance of faith in peoples lives and to claim that it is somehow a hoax. the majority of the people of the world have always had, and do have, some sort of religious belief system. it is comforting to them and why must it be wrong because some guy in a lab cant find god?

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.

 

[CDNBear]

There is one thing that monumentally seperates those that have experienced their chosen faith, seen things beyond explanation and live by a code that is older then themselves, and those that would insult and negate them, while hyping science or their religion as their proof, that is that those that follow their faith because of there spiritual experiences are genuinely true to themeslves and speak from the heart or soul, while the latter generally just apes what someone else thought up.

Questioning is one thing, being combative and ignorant, is another.

 

[I think not]

karrie- All religions are hoaxs. That is my starting postion and you are welcome to try to convince me and others that you know of some which are factual and based on something more substantial than mere faith in sky fairies.

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.

 

[karrie]

You may be quite wrong to assume that the first nations peole were irreverant toward nature. Somehow all the evidence I see tells me that they aren't exactly all irreverent toward nature!

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.

 

[karrie]

Karrie- Your signature quotes Douglas Adams. Did you know that he was Richard Dawkins best and closest friend before Adams' death? Have you read the 'Salmon of Doubt'?

No, I didn't know that and I don't think I've read the 'salmon of doubt' no.

 

[karrie]

Numbers of followers of philosophies do not signify hoaxes.
As far as hoaxes go, I'm not exactly sure of religions can qualify as hoaxes unless they were designed to fool people rather than be of assistance to them. That's a tough accusation to prove.
Are religions based on fantasies? I'd have to say yes: on hoaxes, I can only say maybe.

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.

 

[karrie]

if not for the sky fairy believers fear of death and dying they would have no reason to practice their silliness. Best to let it go and understand that the molecules that make up your body will live on forever.

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.

 

[lieexpsr]

Hoaxes? How so? Define a hoax? You fail to appreciate the ingrained embodiment of man's need to identify himself with a spiritual connection. It is common in every culture and every society. It is not a hoax, it is a means of defintion and, for many, life. Some may well consider vasrious elements in science to be a hoax. Some consider parts of government a hoax. Your definition is self-serving and self-centred, and does not take into account the pyschological well-being of the spiritually inclined. In an effort to champion Science, let us not forget that it too, like religion, seeks to define the world around us.

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

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.

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.

And yes, science attempts to define the world around us but it doesn't rely on faith to do that. Unfortunately for you, religion attempts to brush off inconveniences by falling back of faith. Now let's start by you giving me an understanding of where you are coming from and you telling me which small minority religion you are going to rely on for your arguments.

 

[marygaspe]

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

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.

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.

And yes, science attempts to define the world around us but it doesn't rely on faith to do that. Unfortunately for you, religion attempts to brush off inconveniences by falling back of faith. Now let's start by you giving me an understanding of where you are coming from and you telling me which small minority religion you are going to rely on for your arguments.

Just jumping in as it seems Sanctus is not on line. You asked him where he was "coming from". He's coming from a Catholic perspective. You're newer, so maybe you don't recognize the "regulars" yet. Sanctus is a Roman Catholic priest.

 

[gc]

which religion? which part? what's your exact definition? Humanity has created religion all throughout history. In virtually every population, a religion has arisen. Bringing people together, creating a moral standard, trying to explain the things we sense yet can not explain. Atheism is in a minority, it is a small group in human history. which is the hoax?

Religion has been the majority in history only because there was no other explanation back then. It is human nature, apparently, to want to understand how the Universe works. Hundreds, or thousands of years ago, people didn't have as good of an understanding of the Universe, so they made stuff up and believed it. I guess it's better to believe than to know you don't know. Recently, though, religion is either being modified or abandoned by many people as more information comes out. For example, evolution. How many people believe in evolution vs. how many people believe in creation as stated by the bible, koran etc.? I wouldn't call myself an "atheist", I'd call myself a "scientist", and I fully accept that my beliefs may change as science progresses.

 

[L Gilbert]

As for religion being a hoax, I have to agree. Hell I've only said it a couple hundred times to sanctus, hell I even made the poor Padre tell me to F**K myself. I have questioned the exsistance of God all my life. But in the end, I realized that it wasn't religion I was dismissing, it was the people who touted the lines and condemned all the non beleivers in their faith.

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.

BTW, for those of you that are confused, the definition of hoax from Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: 2hoax
Function: noun
1 : an act intended to trick or dupe : [SIZE=-1]IMPOSTURE[/SIZE]
2 : something accepted or established by fraud or fabrication

 

[CDNBear]

Religion has been the majority in history only because there was no other explanation back then. It is human nature, apparently, to want to understand how the Universe works. Hundreds, or thousands of years ago, people didn't have as good of an understanding of the Universe, so they made stuff up and believed it. I guess it's better to believe than to know you don't know. Recently, though, religion is either being modified or abandoned by many people as more information comes out. For example, evolution. How many people believe in evolution vs. how many people believe in creation as stated by the bible, koran etc.? I wouldn't call myself an "atheist", I'd call myself a "scientist", and I fully accept that my beliefs may change as science progresses.

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.

 

[lieexpsr]

dosent suggesting something is a hoax imply that the originators did this in a deliberate fashion? its like saying, for example, that people like jesus or mohammed or who-ever purposely began a lie to fool people. it denies the possibility that they may have meant exactly what they said and intentionally wanted to educate people to their versions of the truth.

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.