Either Religions a conspiracy or Everything else is.

This is kind of a roll call type thread.

Me and a friend were argueing over what percent of conspiracy people believe in religion.



I figure there's 2 main camps amongst conspiracy peeps.



1: religion is all one big conspiracy to control us.


2: religion is the truth and pretty much everything else is a big conspiracy to control us and turn us away from god.




So what side do you fall on?



Try and help me keep count please!



1: religion is the conspiracy = 1


2: everything else is=0



If I'm forgetting a catagory please add it.

Religion can be seen as a amalgamation of ancient stories of man's emergence after the ice age. Though many of the stories of the bible may be true but their translation is most likely in error.

It is true that bad men have used and continue to use religion and other beliefs against its people, as a form of control. Should you dismiss religion altogether because of the people, no, do people practice religion properly? Probably no.

Dont be fooled either way. Listen to your self.

originally posted by: ArtemisE

...I figure there's 2 main camps amongst conspiracy peeps.
...
1: religion is all one big conspiracy to control us.

2: religion is the truth and pretty much everything else is a big conspiracy to control us and turn us away from god.

... So what side do you fall on?


Try and help me keep count please!

1: religion is the conspiracy = 1


2: everything else is=0



If I'm forgetting a catagory please add it.

Possibilities:
Category #3 - Everything, including religion, is a conspiracy
Category #4 - My particular conviction is a conspiracy...and everything-else isn't.

Will have to get back with "where" I might fit in the list...

Here is what I believe. There is some intellect that they call god. There are some sort of beings that people call angels or a bunch of other names. Religion is supposed to be a get together of people who believe the same, a meeting of the kind. An organized religion is not needed to believe in god nor to speak to him/her. Religion is needed to keep people civil though, and as a form of protection against others, sort of a banding of people to work together. Religion was also used in the past to provide food security for the members. It helped to promote people of a group to support each other. It is a fundimental of many societies.

Governments on the other hand are plagued with power hungry people and a lot of greed in those at the top. They support those of their kind, those that support them. Government and religion should be seperated to an extent, but we have gone overboard. There is nothing wrong with having "in god we trust" on the money. Those that argue it doesn't belong there don't have to use the money if they don't want to, they can move to another country if they are that disruptive, it is only money.

So put me in as impartial, without religion, most of us would not be here. Others would most likely be here, our ancestors would have been possibly killed. Look what you can do to improve religion instead of complaining what atrocities it has caused in the past, just make sure these things don't happen again. A lot of what is taught in religion is good, most religions have similar basic rules that structure societies. Some of these rules are not good, some of the way judgement is done is bad. That is what we have to work with.

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
Religion can be seen as a amalgamation of ancient stories of man's emergence after the ice age. Though many of the stories of the bible may be true but their translation is most likely in error.

It is true that bad men have used and continue to use religion and other beliefs against its people, as a form of control. Should you dismiss religion altogether because of the people, no, do people practice religion properly? Probably no.

Dont be fooled either way. Listen to your self.

Well said. It isn't so black and white as the OP would like it to be, and you have done a nice job of highlighting why. Religion has been used to control people for thousands of years. That doesn't necessarily mean that those who used it for control were adherents of it's principles, or that it has no value.

I'd star your post 10 times if I could

I.....

1) believe in God

2) despise "religion"

3) love conspiracies (Including religious ones)

a reply to: ArtemisE

Actually, I believe they're both right...can that be?

The definition lies in faith.

Religion is based on internal faith which is something that resides only within you - not something that can be controlled by anyone/anything.

Faith in society is necessary in order to progress and promulgate the species - everyone must agree to what must be done to be right for all humans.

My score: 1:1 or 0:0

a reply to: ArtemisE

Religion is what you make of it. Some people just don't know when they have gone a bit overboard and others can come to logical conclusions. Myself though, I use religion to help understand what is happening on the global scene and if one can do this they can also get a good idea of what may happen in the future also.

a reply to: ArtemisE

There is the complete absolute truth and there are those who would hide the truth.

There are religious people, occultists, scientists, humanists, radicals, spiritualists, political theorists and TPTB that hide the full truth and instead peddle their specific views of what they believe the truth is.

The whole absolute truth is simply beyond our conception. We "can't handle the truth".

Generally, if someone claims to be the Buddah, kill him, he is a liar. The Buddah said so himself.

Pontius Pilot asked at Jesus trial: "Que est veritas (what is the truth)?" The question is unanswered and pointedly so.

a reply to: jrflipjr

If religion is right then almost everything science has learned would have to be wrong. Atleast when concerning creation stories and flood myths.

If there's a kernel that's true, then why base whole life styles on it? And how could you ever know what's truth and what's editing? The logical one plus one answer is , that there are morals to the story but the super natural parts are just there version of marketing.

originally posted by: ArtemisE
a reply to: jrflipjr

If religion is right then almost everything science has learned would have to be wrong. Atleast when concerning creation stories and flood myths.

If there's a kernel that's true, then why base whole life styles on it? And how could you ever know what's truth and what's editing? The logical one plus one answer is , that there are morals to the story but the super natural parts are just there version of marketing.

That is not true at all. The debate ultimately goes back to the big bang or the origins of the universe, and ultimately Science has failed to answer the big question. The vatican is on record as acknowledging the big bang, so to say science must be wrong as far as religion is concerned is absurd.

Religion, or more aptly, Spirituality, fills a human need that science can never compete with. Extremists on either side will scream that the two are incompatible, but the rest of us remain in awe of the machinations of a divine universe, completely content to study it's workings while contemplating the spiritual implications of it all.

a reply to: DeadSeraph


The absence of a scientific answer to what was before the Big Bang . Is not validation of the Hebrew religion. You cannot reconcile the Christian or Jewish creation story with what science has learned. For every one thing that fits... There's ten that don't.

Look at it this way. Two nights ago using a spotting scope I saw the Andromeda galaxy in the northeast sky. Now without using any unit of measure try to image just how far away it is. You can't do it no matter how hard you try-it's so far away that the human mind can't process, or understand, the distance. You see the 3 stars that form the hunters belt and try to image how far Andromeda is from there-can't do it.

Religion is the same thing however it's based on faith of the unknown. I have been in 3 different life or death situations-two of those I had given up all but a spark of hope. My mind continually sought comfort from a deity no matter how hard I tried to keep it out of my thoughts. It is instinctive whether we like it or not.

Anyone who claims to have no religion just has not been in the right situation. We seek comfort, it's instinctive, and involuntary. I have been there and I know it.

Put me down in both columns. Virtually everything religious and nonreligious
is a conspiracy against the Truth.

A little poison in a glass of milk is doubly dangerous. It
only takes a little bull# to mess up both science and religion.

a reply to: ArtemisE

a reply to: spooky24

I think it's more human nature to hope then to believe in a god or gods. In those near death situations I would say it's our hope that everything works out.

I was electrocuted by a 210 line in a boat house. Was there fixing his dock. While in ankle deep water. I grabbed the suspension cable hoisting the boat out of the water and got STUCK. Still don't know how the suspension cable was charged....but it was about a minute before my buddy knocked me off it with a 2 by 4. My only thought as my eyes closed was...well this is how I go, at least it doesn't hurt..( there was the most intense vibration imaginable, but no pain) after it was over all I wanted to do was see my kid and her mother.


Honestly at the time I was still Christian.... Maybe heading towards agnostic at that point. I had no feeling of divinity, nor did I have a feeling of evil.


IMHO with all the brain washing from childhood we all recieve , it's no suprise our mind goes there in high stress situations.

a reply to: ArtemisE

Either/Or scenarios is the faulty premise in your logic. It can also be both, or neither.

a reply to: ArtemisE

I see your point. However, I would argue that somewhere (likely between the two), lies the truth. Science is based on theories, and religion is based on faith. In both cases, humans don't actually "know" the absolute truth. - we have faith in each premise based on different approaches to understanding. We rely on the idea that some things are predictable based on the uniformity of nature (inductive reasoning) yet we have faith that there are other options.

The classic example here is the observation that all swans ever observed are white, leading to the conclusion that all swans are white. This was a reasonable conclusion until black swans were discovered.

A question to consider: Will the sun will rise tomorrow?

a reply to: jrflipjr

That's an inaccurate creationist talking point. Not blasting you, it just is.

Faith could be compared to a hypothesis, not a theory.


A theory is a mountain of evidence that leads to a conclustion.


Faith is belief with a lack of evidence.


In science a theory is a collection of facts that lead to a conclusion. A theory is better then a fact to science.

Creation scientists know the difference. They know they mean hypothesis... But evolution and gravity aren't hypothesis. There proven.

a reply to: ArtemisE

Thanks for the great discussion. Honestly, I'm exploring this for the first time publicly
("...but I didn't want to be drunk in public." - Ron White)

Yeah, I've seen the arguments, but at the end of the day, I believe everything we know as humans is derived from a sense of faith - whether it be scientific or religious.

I think the arguments between creationists and scientists are essentially the same, but for some reason, there are those who are trying to prove one over the other. I don't think it's necessary.

All science is theory until something comes along that changes the variables. The earth was flat until someone found out it wasn't. Nothing travels faster than light....for now. So, essentially we have faith in fundamental laws of science...until something comes along that changes it.

Fact - a truth known by actual experience or observation. (all swans ever observed are white, leading to the conclusion that all swans are white. This was a reasonable conclusion until black swans were discovered.)

Theory - a coherent set of propositions that explain a class of phenomena, that are supported by extensive factual (refer to "fact" above) evidence, and that may be used for prediction of future observations.

Hypothesis - a testable proposition explaining the occurrence of a phenomenon or phenomena, often asserted as a conjecture to guide further investigation.

a reply to: jrflipjr

Fair enough. But there are no repeatable predictable experiments in religion. Hell you kinda made my point with your definition of hypothesis. Faith since it's not testable doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis. So they arnt the same.