Religion, the biggest hoax ever

reply to post by requireduser


I want to thank-you for giving me a good laugh this morning.
People of faith don't think like the rest of you,thank G-d for
that!

reply to post by Darkmask


I can think for myself and I don't have to be told what to do!
I listen to others,search for facts then make my decisions.

Originally posted by Bullcookies
Religion is a crutch for the weak and corrupt.

This has been the best post so far,I nearly spewed coffee
all over my computer screen.
Religion as a crutch gives a person the support they need to endure
to the end.They know that they are not walking alone in the darkness.

reply to post by requireduser


I am a lady of faith and trust me,there is NOTHING timid
about me! I left a church because I had issues with their
beliefs.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


You wrote:

["God is understood as being the ultimate reality with the physical universe being merely a projection."]

Some individuals or groups 'understand' this based on their own subjective premises. And while I personally find the title-inclusion of 'hoax' on the over-generalizing and harsh side, I have little doubt about some theist methodologies being hoaxes (consciously or from ignorance).

Quote: ["In other words, God exists outside our 3-Dimensional universe... outside of the sequence of time."]

Only on theist premises. In a rational context this is just an assumption.

Quote: ["If God has the power to create the universe merely by will alone... and grant us with sentience, it means God is sentient."]

'IF' is such a small word, but with big consequences. Anyway this opinion is not strictly logical. Sentience could be a random result of growing complexity.

reply to post by mamabeth


You wrote:

["People of faith don't think like the rest of you,thank G-d for that!"]

Considering the dissension and and un-uniform 'absolute' answer presented by 'people of faith', they don't appear to be thinking like each other either.

Which eventually would put this thread into an epistemological perspective.

reply to post by bogomil


Hi.
You respond with my (attempt at) defining God saying its based on "theist premises".
Fair enough...it is on theist premises (Since we believe in God).

Im curious to know what your definition of God is... or at least, what is your understanding of God?

Many atheists I have come across describe God as "an invisible man in the sky" and such. (obviously on "atheist premises", but whatever)

reply to post by sk0rpi0n



You wrote:

["You respond with my (attempt at) defining God saying its based on "theist premises".
Fair enough...it is on theist premises (Since we believe in God)."]

If you can make this clear, when you present your own perspective, I have ofcourse no objections, and I would actually defend your right to present your subjective perspective (intellectually honest as subjective).

Quote: [" Im curious to know what your definition of God is... or at least, what is your understanding of God?"]

Such an answer would be based on other peoples' claims on the subject, as I consider 'god' as an abstract fabrication. If I was to refer to the concept 'primary source' the best 'label' I could give it is "unknown" (in the daily-usage of 'unknown', not any theist semanticism).

Quote: ["Many atheists I have come across describe God as "an invisible man in the sky" and such. (obviously on "atheist premises", but whatever)"]

The agnostic-atheists are here referring to theist positivistic/'gnostic' claims, not to an agnostic-atheist 'definition' or 'anti-definition'. There are however 'premises' involved as you imply. These premises are concerning methodology.

reply to post by bogomil


(I said) Im curious to know what your definition of God is... or at least, what is your understanding of God?"

Such an answer would be based on other peoples' claims on the subject, as I consider 'god' as an abstract fabrication. If I was to refer to the concept 'primary source' the best 'label' I could give it is "unknown" (in the daily-usage of 'unknown', not any theist semanticism).

Fair enough... at least for me.
So long as you dont question my understanding of God while at the same time, holding that "God hangs out in the sky" ... fair enough.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by bogomil

 

(I said) Im curious to know what your definition of God is... or at least, what is your understanding of God?"

Such an answer would be based on other peoples' claims on the subject, as I consider 'god' as an abstract fabrication. If I was to refer to the concept 'primary source' the best 'label' I could give it is "unknown" (in the daily-usage of 'unknown', not any theist semanticism).

Fair enough... at least for me.
So long as you dont question my understanding of God while at the same time, holding that "God hangs out in the sky" ... fair enough.

Deal for the duration.

Originally posted by Darkmask

My first suspicion was that you are saying it to troll for stars and flags..

reply to post by Frira

 

I come to ATS for information, discussion and debate. I honestly don't care much about stars and flags. ATS isn't a video game.

Some have deeply spiritual experiences, and of those, religions, theology, and the the metaphysical is a meaningful language-- expressing concepts and idea familiar to their own experiences.

This being the religious person.

On the other hand are those who do not perceive such things-- and when they encounter those who do-- such sometimes become very uncomfortable by the very alien nature of those experiences-- alein to their own perceptions.

According to you, this would be me. I must disagree. It is the religious person who displays these characteristics to those who have no religion.

Well of course you feel that way-- of course you believe you are right. But you neither seek to tolerate nor persuade; but and instead, it is easier for you to assume that anyone who disagrees with you is inferior and you created a thread to say so.

I merely pointed out that I can do likewise. And you did not like having a mirror held up to you. Quick! Look away! But then again, you were not supposed to like it-- just as people like me were not supposed to like your post. This surprises you?

You write from a position of not experiencing religion as truth, rather than what you have experienced. My experience will not convince you, and I do not try. But neither can your lack of experience convince anyone. Therefore, you either needed to state how smart you are by stating how gullible all others are, or you sought stars and flags.

So, how would go over if I tossed out a thread on my IQ, SAT, Graduate exams, academic awards, etc. and then claimed that only someone as brilliant as I am could possibly begin to understand religion? But you see, I don't believe my experience is connected to my intelligence-- but I warn you, my intelligence does not hinder, but enhances, my religious beliefs. Only a fool believes otherwise.

reply to post by Frira


You wrote:

["but I warn you, my intelligence does not hinder, but enhances, my religious beliefs."]

Is there any need of 'warning' anybody?

And as to intelligence leading this or that way, it's personal. In my case my intellect leads me increasingly away from religion.

When you say 'religious beliefs' do you MEAN beliefs and not 'faith'. I'm asking because there is a difference, and it would be useful to know, if you are precise on this.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by Frira

 

You wrote:

["but I warn you, my intelligence does not hinder, but enhances, my religious beliefs."]

Is there any need of 'warning' anybody?

And as to intelligence leading this or that way, it's personal. In my case my intellect leads me increasingly away from religion.

When you say 'religious beliefs' do you MEAN beliefs and not 'faith'. I'm asking because there is a difference, and it would be useful to know, if you are precise on this.

Yes, there is need to warn-- a need to warn persons who assume that disagreeing with them is foolish. As tired as the OP is of "waiting for people to wake up," I am tired of being assumed to be stupid for being a believer-- not only having faith, but a faith in cooperation with a community of faith with specific doctrine, discipline and worship practices (which, I think, answers your last question).

There is always someone smarter than me and more well read than me, but I do not brow-beat people because of my background and ability, but neither do I deny my background and ability (superhuman as it may be!) Furthermore, not only am I not a stupid Christian, I am also not a passive one. There is no pacifist doctrine to which I subscribe, and confronting those who presume otherwise is fun. And you share that with me, I think.

And I agree with you-- intelligence, contrary to the OP's view, is not the issue. Bogomil, you know that experience and reason, combined, can and does lead people to different conclusions. I respect yours, you apply both (although I am still anxious to hear more). I respect the OP's but he has assumed that my version is not worthy of respect, and implies that I am either a sheep or an elite. He is wrong. I am neither, although I could be either at will.

Yesterday in face to face discussion, it was about a lowly fisherman being "too ignorant" to write what is attributed to him in Scripture. Today, I get a reply from the OP who implicitly claims that the "too ignorant fisherman" while in exile, is somehow an "elite." Damned if I do, and damned if I don't-- it depends on which non-believer has confronted my beliefs with false assumption at the time-- two extremes, same logic which does not allow me the middle.

I don't like being on the defensive (who does?), and there is no reason to place me on it-- I do not threaten or debase people who do not believe as I do (as the OP has done). But there is probably reason why I was voted "most likely to die by gun shot." I don't respond well to insults and I don't plan to learn how to do that.

reply to post by Frira


It's getting late here, so for the duration making a long story relatively short and compressing things.

Any manifestations of the constellations of warrior-king-priest-messiah-'god' options,.... whether they are only verbally aggressive, extra-parliamentary or openly physically violent..... are no friends of mine. And to be honest, I have no trust in such ideologers. There has been a great deal of machiavellian maneuvers coming from that direction, similarly to the more mundane monopoly-seeking ideologies, so in this context my trust is to be 'earned'.

Quote: ["I respect yours, you apply both (although I am still anxious to hear more)."]

Thanks.

But I try to avoid taking 'active' positions on behalf of my own preferences, except when it comes to egalitarian principles and the inclusion of science/logic, when science/logic is hijacked. In the context of another more suitable thread it will be possible to take a closer look at that.

Naturally I fail often in keeping my own standards though.

Quote: ["I respect the OP's but he has assumed that my version is not worthy of respect, and implies that I am either a sheep or an elite. He is wrong. I am neither, although I could be either at will."]

Better to stay factual in a flexible, non-tactical way then. Talking AROUND things, never getting TO them (or being glib, as I sometimes am) only have a limited purpose, in situations when meaningless semantics lead to dead ends and the sandbox bullying takes over.

Quote: ["Yesterday in face to face discussion, it was about a lowly fisherman being "too ignorant" to write what is attributed to him in Scripture. Today, I get a reply from the OP who implicitly claims that the "too ignorant fisherman" while in exile, is somehow an "elite." Damned if I do, and damned if I don't-- it depends on which non-believer has confronted my beliefs with false assumption at the time-- two extremes, same logic which does not allow me the middle."]

Some of the fisherman interpretation-options have a very bad name. It's not surprising, that mankind is slow to forget.

Quote: ["I do not threaten or debase people who do not believe as I do (as the OP has done)."]

This is not the time or place to hold up mirrors. As it is, this forum is already pestered with pop-psychologists using mental diagnosing as tactical gambits. So sorry, it's not because I would object to such 'mirroring' on principle, but because it doesn't belong here.

They know that they are not walking alone in the darkness.

reply to post by mamabeth
You see,...this is pretty much the whole reason religion exists. Most people don't even want to consider for a moment that when you die you just cease to be. It IS the only logical answer. That is what makes life so precious. You don't continue on afterward.

I also think it is the human ego as well. The mind just can't accept that someday the lights will go out and there will be nothingness. All that was you the individual is over.

reply to post by Darkmask

You see,...this is pretty much the whole reason religion exists.Most people don't even want to consider for a moment that when you die you just cease to be. It IS the only logical answer. That is what makes life so precious. You don't continue on afterward.

I also think it is the human ego as well. The mind just can't accept that someday the lights will go out and there will be nothingness. All that was you the individual is over.

"when you die you just cease to be. It IS the only logical answer"

Either you cease to be OR you dont just cease to be and your consciousness survives physical death.

The only way to know for sure is to experience death. Till then, holding that "you just cease to be" is as much guesswork and speculation as saying "you dont cease to be".