Is Religion Just Making Stuff Up?

[james bond]

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.

I didn't get past your first sentence. This thread is ignorant, such as your first statement is a claim and you do not have anything to back it up. Thus, this thread is also hypocritical. Aren't you the person who "simply don't have the knowledge it must suppose to support it?"

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I didn't get past your first sentence. This thread is ignorant, such as your first statement is a claim and you do not have anything to back it up. Thus, this thread is also hypocritical. Aren't you the person who "simply don't have the knowledge it must suppose to support it?"

I'll have to get back to you when I learn how to speak babble.

 

[sayak83]

Religion is more than just storytelling, which is evident by these forums. Many people take it upon themselves to expand on those stories and derive things from the stories that really was never there in the first place. Religion itself is not just simply storytelling, which is the main reason I reject your comparison. Just calling religion storytelling is an incomplete picture, and, personally, I think it is clear that religion involves a fair bit of making stuff up.

"Still curious for clarification to the direct question posed, though:"

That question was rhetorical and meant as an insult, it did not warrant a response.

This forum is not normative. There are people with lots of wild personal speculations here that one does not hear ordinarily.

 

[james bond]

I'll have to get back to you when I learn how to speak babble.

I think I made myself clear. You're the one speaking babble as you have nothing to back it up.

For example, God has been described as a spirit. We all have a spirit. Else we would be dead. It's part of social science. Thus, a spirit does exist.

 

[james bond]

We have scientists who try to play God and revive the spirit. For example, I read about Larry King paying $150,000 to be frozen after he dies (cryonics). The belief is medical science will be able to him back to life after they find how to do it. We live because God gave us the spirit to live. Science is not able to do this. It's sci-fi.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

It is a bit myopic to center on whether there is support for the claims. Religion is more like a language than a thesis.

Why?

Religions make claims about reality. Why should they be treated any differently than any other claim about reality?

 

[Willamena]

Why?

Religions make claims about reality. Why should they be treated any differently than any other claim about reality?

It depends on how its interpreted whether it matters as a "claim about reality." For instance, mentions of the actions of a god could be seen as metaphorical depictions of the group mind of the people.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

It depends on how its interpreted whether it matters as a "claim about reality." For instance, mentions of the actions of a god could be seen as metaphorical depictions of the group mind of the people.

And how is that not a claim about reality?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I think I made myself clear. You're the one speaking babble as you have nothing to back it up.

For example, God has been described as a spirit. We all have a spirit. Else we would be dead. It's part of social science. Thus, a spirit does exist.

"For example, God has been described as a spirit. We all have a spirit. Else we would be dead. It's part of social science. Thus, a spirit does exist."

Then it must also follow that since bananas have been described as yellow, and cheese is yellow, it is part of science, thus the Moon must be made of cheese.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

This forum is not normative. There are people with lots of wild personal speculations here that one does not hear ordinarily.

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.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why?

Religions make claims about reality. Why should they be treated any differently than any other claim about reality?

They should not. Note however that there is hardly any discipline that does not make claims about reality. Even the arts do that.

In any case, it is hardly normal for a religion to be based on supernatural or miraculous claims. For all that some people insist on valuing those, they are ultimately marginal if not all-out aberrant.

There has been so much emphasis on what is ultimately aberrant that even the faithful have learned of "religion" as something unworthy and to be avoided. These days there are even strict dogmatists doing that.

I don't sympathise with that approach. There is no good reason to simply let the word rot into meaninglessness.

 

[james bond]

"For example, God has been described as a spirit. We all have a spirit. Else we would be dead. It's part of social science. Thus, a spirit does exist."

Then it must also follow that since bananas have been described as yellow, and cheese is yellow, it is part of science, thus the Moon must be made of cheese.

So you do not believe a spirit exists. Why? We all believe in a human spirit or that which distinguishes the living from the dead. That's why I can state this guy Larry King won't be coming back from the dead with certainty while you have a question mark above your head.

It's very popular with Frankenstein series which I prefer over the walking dead ones since it involves medical science; It involves replacing the brain with a fresher one. Do you want to donate yours in case you're going to die anyway in an accident mwahaha? The zombies are more theoretical physics of some catastrophic event taking place in deep space.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

It depends on how its interpreted whether it matters as a "claim about reality." For instance, mentions of the actions of a god could be seen as metaphorical depictions of the group mind of the people.

Even liberal versions of religions that tend to do that with parts of their scripture still claim the existence of a path to be followed and many still claim the existence of a supernatural being.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

it is hardly normal for a religion to be based on supernatural or miraculous claims

......what?

The vast majority of religions in the world are theistic and many of them are based on the existence of those deities or of a prophet of those deities......

Philosophies that have grown into religions are the exception not the rule.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

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.

Pretty much. Religion is in many ways the exact opposite of science in that it is based upon old traditions that never change and presupposes that ancient nomads somehow knew more about the universe than modern scientists do today, even though they had far less knowledge and resources to obtain their knowledge. Additionally, religion discourages the questioning of and revision of beliefs, while science encourages (and is in fact based upon) the constant questioning of previously established beliefs and the constant testing of hypotheses to see if evidence supports them. Also, religions make claims that are untestable because they have no basis in reality, while science is careful to only deal with the testable. So, yes I would say religion is essentially making stuff up. The unfortunate fact is that most people are not discerning enough to understand this, and still value baseless religious traditions above scientific discovery that actually has a basis in reality. Heck, around half of the people in the United States still do not accept the fact of evolution, even though massive amounts of evidence have accumulated to support it. For some reason these individuals prefer to believe that ancient middle Eastern mythology is somehow more valid than actual scientific research and observation.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

So you do not believe a spirit exists. Why? We all believe in a human spirit or that which distinguishes the living from the dead. That's why I can state this guy Larry King won't be coming back from the dead with certainty while you have a question mark above your head.

It's very popular with Frankenstein series which I prefer over the walking dead ones since it involves medical science; It involves replacing the brain with a fresher one. Do you want to donate yours in case you're going to die anyway in an accident mwahaha? The zombies are more theoretical physics of some catastrophic event taking place in deep space.

"So you do not believe a spirit exists."

Can you quote me saying such?

 

[LuisDantas]

......what?

The vast majority of religions in the world are theistic and many of them are based on the existence of those deities or of a prophet of those deities......

Philosophies that have grown into religions are the exception not the rule.

I think you are not looking at the matter with enough attention. There is a lot of very biased propaganda running around and it takes considerable effort to overcome it.

 

[YmirGF]

Shallow is something I certainly am not. I operate on multiple planes and in many dimensions.
To the truly shallow, this suggests that I am shallow.

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.

 

[icehorse]

The central claim of the atheist is that nobody can know anything the atheist doesn't know, and that anybody who does is merely egotistical and smug.

Not quite. My experience of atheists is that they simply want evidence. There is much we don't know but we believe because of reliable, repeatable evidence.

Next, I make a big distinction between Taoism and the Abrahamic religions. I would agree that "true believers" in the Abrahamic faiths are egotistical and smug.

 

[icehorse]

Interesting you bring that up, because divorcing the meanings of these two is a relatively recent phenomena in Western culture. I don't agree with the reasoning behind that divorce, in no small part because the reasoning applies very poorly to religions outside of Western (aka, Abrahamic monotheist) ones. I just plain don't use the term "spirituality." It's all religion to me, and that's how it was traditionally understood anyway. It's not "watering down" or "bending," and I see little benefit to describing disagreements about word usage in such judgmental terms.

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.

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.