Is Religion Just Making Stuff Up?

[crowfeather]

False only to one who labels it false.
I observe. I notice. Few can perform these simple feats.

 

[McBell]

False only to one who labels it false.
I observe. I notice. Few can perform these simple feats.

Sad that you count the hits and ignore the misses.

 

[QuestioningMind]

False only to one who labels it false.
I observe. I notice. Few can perform these simple feats.

What you observe and what you notice is blatantly false.

 

[arthra]

One of my most central criticisms of Religion is that people simply don't have the knowledge it must suppose to support it claims. In other-words it seems like a bunch of people just making stuff up. So is religion just making stuff up?
*** Feel free to make arguments for subjective centered knowledge, but know that I reject all claims of "spiritual enlightenment" or the like. I find people who assume they have some type special transcend insight egotistical and smug.

Jeremiah... I don't think it's "made up"... Religion has had profound effects on society and you can verify this by historical examples...It's not about people sitting around making things up. People make up a lot of things but rarely do you hear of someone with a specific goal willing to offer their lives for a just cause. The effects of religious values and principles are serious matters not "make-believe".

 

[crowfeather]

I'd say we've done this, now, wouldn't you?
...flaps away, cackling...

 

[Akivah]

Then you are not an atheist. An atheist is a religious zealot that can not do other than create conflict.

You're going off the deep end here. First, atheist are not religious anything. Second, people that identify as atheist do not have the exact same opinion on any topic. Third, conflict can be created by any people that disagree.

 

[Pudding]

One of my most central criticisms of Religion is that people simply don't have the knowledge it must suppose to support it claims.

Which religion?

By "people", you're refering to all people who either follow the same or different religion without any exception?

Which claims?

In other-words it seems like a bunch of people just making stuff up. So is religion just making stuff up?

Please explain what do you mean by "making stuff up".

Which religion?

*** Feel free to make arguments for subjective centered knowledge, but know that I reject all claims of "spiritual enlightenment" or the like.

I see.

I find people who assume they have some type special transcend insight egotistical and smug.

Why does people who assume they have some type special transcend insight gives you the feeling they're egotistical and smug?

Please share here the complete list of special transcend insight you're referring to.

 

[Nous]

One of my most central criticisms of Religion is that people simply don't have the knowledge it must suppose to support it claims. In other-words it seems like a bunch of people just making stuff up. So is religion just making stuff up?

What exactly has, e.g., Advaita just made up? Or Taoism?

 

[Nous]

I think there is a great deal of fallacious false dilemma in the idea of "religion" vs. "non-religion". There are a variety of religions or religious philosophies, and they are somewhat different from each other, but similar to lots of other intellectual disciplines.

 

[Sunstone]

...but know that I reject all claims of "spiritual enlightenment" or the like. I find people who assume they have some type special transcend insight egotistical and smug.

I find your willingness to assume you know that people like the Buddha were "egotistical and smug" for claiming to have had a certain kind of experience to be fascinating. I know a lot of people who know little or nothing about such experiences share your opinion of them. But why does it bother you that some people have had -- or claim to have had -- experiences you haven't? Wouldn't it be more logical -- and much less arrogant and emotional -- to merely point out that such subjective claims are not compelling evidence of anything for those of us who have not had such experiences?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I find your willingness to assume you know that people like the Buddha were "egotistical and smug" for claiming to have had a certain kind of experience to be fascinating. I know a lot of people who know little or nothing about such experiences share your opinion of them. But why does it bother you that some people have had -- or claim to have had -- experiences you haven't? Wouldn't it be more logical -- and much less arrogant and emotional -- to merely point out that such subjective claims are not compelling evidence of anything for those of us who have not had such experiences?

You are painting a broader stroke with the term experience than what I was referencing, and in doing so you are trying to remove it from "spiritualism" and relate it to the more mundane. That, Sunstone, is clever straw-man, but still a straw-man.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

What exactly has, e.g., Advaita just made up? Or Taoism?

I am not sure why you think I would have any desire to talk to you.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Sorry, it probably isn't clear how I approach the notion of storytelling. I come at things from the angle of bardic traditions, where storytelling means far more than what many people in my culture associate with it. Getting into that probably isn't necessary at this time. It's certainly true that the nature of religion transcends even this understanding of storytelling, but since we are talking about the elements of religion that are criticized as "just making stuff up," it seems to me that the narrative components of religion (aka, the storytelling) are what is relevant to the discussion, not the other things, right? Or do you see this notion of "just making stuff up" as being relevant to the other aspects of religion, like its community and social functions?



It wasn't intended as an insult at all, nor is it rhetorical. I ask the question because the phrase "making stuff up" is typically derogatory or negative and is therefore going to impact how people respond to the question (myself included). I'm trying to figure out if the derogatory framing is deliberate or not, and I can't do that without making either an assumption or just asking you for clarification. I prefer asking for clarification to making assumptions about someone's intended meaning.

"since we are talking about the elements of religion that are criticized"

A single element that I am criticizing. I think that is an important distinction to keep in mind.

"what is relevant to the discussion, not the other things, right?"

I am not sure what you mean by, "the other things, but the "stories" are relevant in answering the question: At what point is it making stuff up?

"Or do you see this notion of "just making stuff up" as being relevant to the other aspects of religion, like its community and social functions? "

I don't understand this question, I am not suggesting the communities or social functions are made up, those are real events. However, there is probably a great deal of making stuff up in those areas.

How about an example: The creationist claim that the banana was made to fit in the hand. That is making stuff up, as it expresses an understanding of God's intent when He made the banana. They don't know God's intent for the shape of the banana they made that up.

 

[osgart]

of course religions of the past are fiction with political motives too. It's amazing that people honestly buy into them.

having a moral code survives our humanity but religious codes are adversarial to non conformists.

religion in history and today is tyrannical and delusional. when were they ever harmless, never.

spirituality isn't religion . that should be obvious.

Religion needs to be redefined as to it's lawful allowances as to what a religion constitutes.

conversely I shouldn't have to conform to naturalism either.

 

[Sunstone]

You are painting a broader stroke with the term experience than what I was referencing, and in doing so you are trying to remove it from "spiritualism" and relate it to the more mundane. That, Sunstone, is clever straw-man, but still a straw-man.

You're being illogical Jeremiah, unless you are prepared to argue that an experience of, say, nirvana, is not an experience.

 

[whirlingmerc]

One of my most central criticisms of Religion is that people simply don't have the knowledge it must suppose to support it claims. In other-words it seems like a bunch of people just making stuff up. So is religion just making stuff up?

*** Feel free to make arguments for subjective centered knowledge, but know that I reject all claims of "spiritual enlightenment" or the like. I find people who assume they have some type special transcend insight egotistical and smug.

Yes and no.... there is a great deal of much of religion from the imagination of man and some from God. Jesus said in Matthew 15:13 that 'every plant that was not planted by my heavenly father will be rooted up' That suggests there are plants not from God but plants from God.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

You're being illogical Jeremiah, unless you are prepared to argue that an experience of, say, nirvana, is not an experience.

You are the one being "illogical". I never once argued it was not an experience, you didn't pay attention to my words. My conflict is with the supposed privy of insight. I said, and I quote from the OP, "spiritual enlightenment". . . . Not "spiritual experience." You are the one that decided I was talking about an experience, which was the the straw-man. Now if you want to make a case that a non-religious person can't have a "spiritual experience" and reach the same depth of understanding as a believer then feel free to make another thread; I already said I reject those claims.

 

[Revoltingest]

One of my most central criticisms of Religion is that people simply don't have the knowledge it must suppose to support it claims. In other-words it seems like a bunch of people just making stuff up. So is religion just making stuff up?

Yes.

There...that's done.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Yes.

There...that's done.

Are you making that up?

 

[Revoltingest]

Are you making that up?

I call it "opining".
It's based upon the observation the many conflicting religions, most of which are mutually exclusive.
It smells like there's no true religion.