Is Religion Just Making Stuff Up?

[icehorse]

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

In case you don't know, a spectrum called "The Dawkins Scale" has been created that assesses degrees of atheism. The scale ranges from 1 = strong theist, to 7 = strong atheist. A 6 on this scale is an atheist who allows an ever so slight chance of a deity.

I suspect that you're making the assumption that all atheists are 7's on the scale, and in my experience very few atheists are 7's, most are 6's. I am a 6.

 

[viole]

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.

Not necessarily. When I was religious, I did not make stuff up. I was following a book made up by someone else.

Ciao

- viole

 

[icehorse]

Religions reflect the distillation and evolution of diverse human knowledge, cultural practice and experiences and how these relate to the way we do/should perceive the world. This is also true of any guiding ideology or worldview.

I'm not sure that collective human experience is best described as 'making stuff up'.

I would say that your definition is true about to about 400(?) years ago. Since then, it's becoming less and less true. So the study of religion is important, but IMO religion is something that we retire gracefully and compassionately.

 

[LuisDantas]

And responding to @LuisDantas

I suspect we're just disagreeing over semantics. By my definition, religion tends to include belief in the supernatural. Notice that "religions" like Taoism are often referred to as philosophies, and the Abrahamic religions are almost never referred to as philosophies.

What can I say? Far as I am concerned, you have just enumerate common mistakes that should be overcome.

The word spirituality tends to be harder to define. When I see the Milky way it is awe inspiring, and I take that awe as a moment of spirituality. I don't need to believe in anything supernatural to experience and appreciate that awe.

Indeed. Supernaturalism is hardly advisable, within or outside of religion.

 

[icehorse]

What can I say? Far as I am concerned, you have just enumerate common mistakes that should be overcome.

I'm sorry Luis. I can't tell whether that means you agree with these definitions or not?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I heartily concur, @crowfeather

I have been described in many ways over the aeons, Crowfeather, but shallow simply isn't one of them.

I particularly agree with the operating on multiple planes and in many dimensions line. What most won't understand is that though I cannot prove such things directly, I do know of several legitimate methods to unblock aspects of personality that are hitherto unseen by the masses in general. I have had the good fortune to be the facilitator of these methods for several others over the years. Their experiences, while different from mine, wholly support my notions that there is far more to personality than we have led ourselves to believe.

So, my proof is that I can show folks HOW to unlock aspects of their own inner dimensions. If, after sampling the wares for a time, they think it's all an illusion or some strange dream, "Hey, I'm good with that," though, most have been deeply humbled by the gifts I have enabled them to give themselves.

I like how you claim you cannot prove it, then you claim to have proof. I can certainly tell I am dealing with an "enlightened" being.

 

[YmirGF]

I like how you claim you cannot prove it, then you claim to have proof. I can certainly tell I am dealing with an "enlightened" being.

It's proof with a caveat. Is that hard to understand?

I can't prove unequivocally that other dimensions exist, however, I can put your through several methods that might very well expand your understanding on the topic. If, afterwards, you think it's all crap. I'm fine with that.

 

[sayak83]

You are correct, we cannot use these forums to predict normal behavior; however, that includes the assumption that it is not normal behavior as well. At any rate, I think I am safe enough in considering the behavior here as an aspect of religion.

We can discuss pew surveys on religion to define the norms of religious beliefs and behaviors that are held by lots of people. Some of the wild speculative ideas here look akin to all the page 3 and celebrity gossip forum posts one comes across. If God and Jesus are celebrities, then one could classify these posts along the same lines.

Religious Landscape Study

Overall, regardless of the metaphysical basis of religious and charismatic experiences, they do occur and they are not simply made up. They are very strongly associated with human creative potential and innovative abilities and the rapid technological and cultural expansion of human cognitive abilities from around 50,000 years ago when they (our ancestors) gained decisive advantage over other human species on earth. There is clear evidence that the entire package from analytical thought to mystical experience was present in the earliest preserved expression of human cultural efflorescence.
Aurignacian - Wikipedia
Chauvet Cave - Wikipedia

Even if you look into recent works of psychology of religion etc. very few actually say it's make believe.

 

[Revoltingest]

I heartily concur, @crowfeather

I have been described in many ways over the aeons, Crowfeather, but shallow simply isn't one of them.

I particularly agree with the operating on multiple planes and in many dimensions line. What most won't understand is that though I cannot prove such things directly, I do know of several legitimate methods to unblock aspects of personality that are hitherto unseen by the masses in general. I have had the good fortune to be the facilitator of these methods for several others over the years. Their experiences, while different from mine, wholly support my notions that there is far more to personality than we have led ourselves to believe.

So, my proof is that I can show folks HOW to unlock aspects of their own inner dimensions. If, after sampling the wares for a time, they think it's all an illusion or some strange dream, "Hey, I'm good with that," though, most have been deeply humbled by the gifts I have enabled them to give themselves.

What a shallow post from a shallow poster.
You look so 2 dimensional....achieving 3 only if time is included.

Btw, don't take the above as condemnation.
Those with more dimensions are so annoying....always wanting to talk about feelings & relationships.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

It's proof with a caveat. Is that hard to understand?

I can't prove unequivocally that other dimensions exist, however, I can put your through several methods that might very well expand your understanding on the topic. If, afterwards, you think it's all crap. I'm fine with that.

I am sorry, but I have no interest in your snake oil. I have listen to enough "enlighten" people do know that it is nothing but an indulgence in the ego which does not illuminate but shrouds.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am sorry, but I have no interest in your snake oil. I have listen to enough "enlighten" people do know that it is nothing but an indulgence in the ego which does not illuminate but shrouds.

People like their stories.
(I like mine.)
So let's be charitable.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I have a story for @crowfeather and @YmirGF

The Oracle of Delphi had revealed to one of his friends that Socrates was the wisest man in Athens, he responded not by boasting or celebrating, but by trying to prove the Oracle wrong.

So Socrates decided he would try and find out if anyone knew what was truly worthwhile in life, because anyone who knew that would surely be wiser than him. He set about questioning everyone he could find, but no one could give him a satisfactory answer. Instead they all pretended to know something they clearly did not.

Finally he realized the Oracle might be right after all. He was the wisest man in Athens because he alone was prepared to admit his own ignorance rather than pretend to know something he did not.

The Greeks - Socrates

The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing. - Socrates

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm sorry Luis. I can't tell whether that means you agree with these definitions or not?

I don't. I think that would be lending prestige to the malady as if it were a defining trait.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

People like their stories.
(I like mine.)
So let's be charitable.

Theirs is an indulgence in the ego and it blinds more than it reveals. If there is a privy of insight to being spiritually enlighten it is in realizing one is not spiritually enlighten.

 

[Revoltingest]

Theirs is an indulgence in the ego and it blinds more than it reveals. If there is a privy of insight to being spiritually enlighten it is in realizing one is not spiritually enlighten.

But they're gonna believe those loopy things anyway.
The only shot at converting them is to make the alternative feel comfortable.
Difficult though it be, friendly tolerance is the best method of subversion.

 

[icehorse]

I don't. I think that would be lending prestige to the malady as if it were a defining trait.

Sorry, I'm still not quite understanding. Can you tell me specifically the definition I made that you are disagreeing with? and why you disagree? thanks!

 

[Jeremiahcp]

We can discuss pew surveys on religion to define the norms of religious beliefs and behaviors that are held by lots of people. Some of the wild speculative ideas here look akin to all the page 3 and celebrity gossip forum posts one comes across. If God and Jesus are celebrities, then one could classify these posts along the same lines.

Religious Landscape Study

Overall, regardless of the metaphysical basis of religious and charismatic experiences, they do occur and they are not simply made up. They are very strongly associated with human creative potential and innovative abilities and the rapid technological and cultural expansion of human cognitive abilities from around 50,000 years ago when they (our ancestors) gained decisive advantage over other human species on earth. There is clear evidence that the entire package from analytical thought to mystical experience was present in the earliest preserved expression of human cultural efflorescence.
Aurignacian - Wikipedia
Chauvet Cave - Wikipedia

Even if you look into recent works of psychology of religion etc. very few actually say it's make believe.

"We can discuss pew surveys"

I don't see the survey covering the topic of this thread, so how is that useful in determining if this specific aspect is normal or not normal?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

But they're gonna believe those loopy things anyway.
The only shot at converting them is to make the alternative feel comfortable.
Difficult though it be, friendly tolerance is the best method of subversion.

I speak my mind and that is not changing. At any rate, I have no interest in converting people; not my job and in truth I don't really care what people believe. I trust that reason will win in the long run, as humans at their core are rational beings. It may take a few hundred years or more, but it will happen without my aid.

I never debate to try and convince my opposition, I have found that to be an incredible waste of time. I just do not care if people agree with me or not, their beliefs are their choice to make. I debate on forums as a way to pass the time.

 

[sayak83]

"We can discuss pew surveys"

I don't see the survey covering the topic of this thread, so how is that useful in determining if this specific aspect is normal or not normal?

We can identify what the beliefs are from a survey and then discuss if psychological research indicates if those beliefs are coming from actual experiences or created fantasies.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

We can identify what the beliefs are from a survey and then discuss if psychological research indicates if those beliefs are coming from actual experiences or created fantasies.

You are talking about extrapolating beyond the scope of the statistical studies. Feel free to make any case you want in doing so, but that is not much different than the current standards of this debate. However, if you just give me a website of information and say it is in there somewhere I will just simply ignore that.

I find it odd; however, that you seem to agree that there a process of "making stuff up" on these forums but yet you don't recognize the activities on these forums as a part of religion.