How To Identify A Hoax Religion

[cleanhippie]

[cleanhippie]

2. Project much?

[Buzz Clik]

4. Your stupid meme is designed to do nothing but piss people off.

It is not thought provoking or insightful. It's just dirt stupid, old, and worn out.

Is that your best? I certainly hope not.

[cleanhippie]

8. Your stupid post is designed to do nothing but piss people off.

It is not thought provoking or insightful. It's just dirt stupid, old, and worn out.

Is that your best? I certainly hope not.

[Buzz Clik]

11. Well, you just proved how serious you are with this thread. I sincerely apologize.

[cleanhippie]

12. Just following your lead.

[Buzz Clik]

15. No, you're demonstrating that you have nothing to offer.

Go to post #5.

[cleanhippie]

17. No, you're demonstrating that you have nothing to offer.

Go to post #1.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

152. actually this proves that religion has nothing to offer.

which is probably the biggest truth here.

[Angry Dragon]

16. Then debate it

[Buzz Clik]

19. Have you looked at his responses? He proved me 100% correct.

He just wants to be argumentative.

Bored on a Saturday morning, I guess.

I have better things to do.

Hoax religion. What bullshit.

I'd really like to hear why you think the OP has a shred of merit.

[Angry Dragon]

21. I responded to the wrong poster ..... my mistake ........... sorry

There are hoax religions
Just today on DU the great grandson of the founder of Scientology came out as it being a mind control organization

I believe it is up to all of us to question their religion
If your religion can not stand up to questions then it is time to question it even more

If my religion claims to have to true path to salvation then it will stand up to any questioning

[Buzz Clik]

23. Nice dodge.

Time for Saturday chores.

I'll check back on this thread when ... let's see ....


Oh, wait. That's a religious reference. Must be a hoax.

[Angry Dragon]

25. please reread my post #21 ..... I edited it

[cleanhippie]

28. "Hoax religion. What bullshit."

I take it that you disagree with the assertion in the OP. Why?

[Buzz Clik]

29. That's a great question!

One hour late. Too bad.

'Bye!

[cleanhippie]

31. Bye!

I was just waiting for you to calm down. It only took an hour. Maybe next time, instead of calling "troll" right out of the box, you open with something more substantive.

I'm here if you change your mind.

[mr blur]

34. Make yourself at home, you're among fellow-travellers here.

If you listen carefully you can hear the whining.

[patrice]

35. Agree. I hypothesize that it is designed to drive off high-level participation in the question &

leave behind only those who will repeat anything without understanding what they themselves are saying.

Similar to other attempts at "empowerment" which I have in the real world, which were really only exploitation of the disadvantaged, because the elements of knowledge and understanding that constitute the possibility of empowerment, the "fishing pole" if you will, are disregarded for a robot-meme's mask.

[okasha]

90. The OP is just another version of

We're right.

You'e wrong.

We're better than you are.

[patrice]

91. What's funny is that even from the athiest perspective OP content is not right. It's not a valid

ATHEIST case against religion.

[freshwest]

140. Yes, and it's unlikely to persuade anyone to change.

And it's like a coyote calling its pack to the kill, looking for kin.

Or in human terms:

If you agree with me, I'll give you a high-five! I know everything!

If you don't agree, (insert tiresome list of insults here) you suck!

[freshwest]

141. Patrice, that's right, but you may need to dumb that down for the viewing audience. Just sayin'

This forum is like opposing football teams.

[patrice]

142. Yes. I don't know how to supply so much that is missing. People MUST start reading more broadly.

I should try anyway, as you suggest freshwest, it's just that all of the crap is wearing away my trust.

I getting cabin fever. Looking forward to getting back out into the streets some more whenever that becomes possible again.

[freshwest]

143. Agreed, and hang in there. Not great outdoor weather here, either. I'll bet it's very cold there.

As far as my trust, it's at an all time low.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

5. No, that's a troll, cleanhippie

Don't pretend it isn't.

I could make the arguments against religion far better than you can, basically because I know what religion is all about. It's interesting that many atheists claim that knowing nothing about religion is perfectly acceptable -- they call it "the Courtier's Reply".

[cleanhippie]

9. You mad, bro?

[Angry Dragon]

10. I personally would like to see your arguments against religion

[cleanhippie]

14. Me too!

But we both know it will never happen.

[Angry Dragon]

18. Have faith

[rexcat]

188. Like that will ever happen...

[mr blur]

36. Ah yes, with your "MA in History of Religion (Harvard)", eh?

Enlighten us, O Wise One , tell us what it 's all about.

[skepticscott]

52. As usual, you have no clue

and don't grasp the purpose or meaning of the "Courtier's Reply" at all.

And in case you missed it, most atheists were religious believers first, and know the Bible and the tenets of various religions better than many pewsitters. In many cases, that's WHY they're atheists now.

[Leontius]

60. I love that story.

[cleanhippie]

66. I especially love the one about the guy who cannot post without personal attacks...

he constantly gets his posts hidden. It's a laugh riot!

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

117. Oh, I understand the Courtier's Reply very well

It's a way of hiding the fact that you cannot attack religion in any meaningful way, so you just say "Courtier's Reply" and slink away.

The "Courtier's Reply" is merely a way of saying "I don't know what I am talking about, and this is fine".
The idea is that complaining about an atheist's lack of theological knowledge is no better than the courtier's complaint that the naked emperor's critics haven't read an imagined defense a sycophant might give of the naked emperor of Hans Christian Anderson's story: "Haven't you read the discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots?"

How does it work? Well, suppose an atheist is confronted by saying that his "objections" to Thomas Aquinas (or whomever) are as impressive as the fundamentalist's "chicken/egg" objection to evolution. What's he going to do? Say, "OK, I don't know the first thing about Aquinas. But I'm not going to let that stop me from criticizing him!" So he just says, "Oh dear, not the Courtier's Reply" followed by some derisive chuckling. Of course, his opponent will be baffled, wondering how saying "Courtier's Reply!" is supposed to excuse not knowing what one is talking about.

One of my main objections to this sort of thing is that Dawkins, P.Z. Myers et al correctly criticize creationists for their ignorance of evolution. They believe -- rightly -- that creationist ignorance of evolution is inexcusable in someone discussing evolution; but ignorance of theology is acceptable in discussing religion. In other words, your ignorance of subject X is bad; my ignorance of subject Y is OK. It's called "having it both ways". Or, as a better-known exercise in doublthink put it, "Ignorance is strength!"

[trotsky]

119. Nope, you don't.

Before any of your complex layers of theology can be piled onto a notion of god, is it not a fair point to establish existence of said god first? The apologist is putting the cart before the horse, and being unable to establish that first point, thus falls back to the Courtier's Reply.

Prove your god exists first, THEN we can discuss the intricacies of your complex, nuanced theology.

Are you up to the challenge, or will you give me the Courtier's Reply?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

120. Oh, I understand it VERY well.

It's a way of blowing off the FACT that atheists who use it are dodging their basic ignorance of the religion they are castigating. It means "I don't know enough about the religion I'm denouncing, and that is perfectly acceptable."It's blowing off questions from believers, by pretending that they don't mean anything.

It is basically dishonest.

Your blathering about "you prove there is a god" is, as you know full well, fatuous. But then, it's the sort of thing I have come to expect from the bigoted ignorant atheists here.

[trotsky]

121. Sorry but no, you absolutely do not.

Provide evidence of your god, then we can analyze the incredible gold threads and advanced weaving patterns of the fabric of your theology you've layered on top.

Until then, I'm justified in pointing out that your emperor is wearing no clothes.

And I don't need to be as vicious, nasty, and insulting as you are.

[HangOnKids]

128. If You REALLY Believe DU Is Full Of Bigoted Ignorant Atheists

Your very posting here is fatuous. And basically dishonest.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

137. I didn't say that DU is "full of bigoted ignorant atheists"

What I said was that atheistic bigotry is accepted at DU. On the thread about Dawkins saying that raising a child to be Catholic "is worse than child abuse", there were atheists agreeing with him. Were they slapped down for being "disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate"? Of course not. Was I slapped down for saying that they were being bigoted? Yes. Thus, it is clear that saying "X made a bigoted statement" is worse than X's bigoted statement.

As far as ignorance goes, I merely pointed out that the so-called "Courtier's Response" is simply a ploy by atheists who don't know enough about religion to argue about it intelligently by saying that nothing theologians say is meaningful. It is "basically dishonest&quot to use your phrase) in that it dismisses theology on an a priori basis before the discussion actually starts. It is a way for atheists to blow off their ignorance.

I have another objection to the way it is used by its inventor, PZ Myers. Myers is a biologist, and he correctly complains that many of the creationists he comes across are almost completely ignorant of evolution, and cannot discuss it intelligently. This is a perfectly legitimate complaint. Yet when it comes to theology, it's "Courtier's Reply" from him, not an intelligent discussion -- because he cannot give an intelligent discussion on the subject, given his ignorance.

To sum that up: Creationist ignorance of actual evolutionary theory is bad; atheist ignorance of actual religion is good. If I am feeling generous, I'd call that trying to have it both ways. If I am not feeling so generous, I'd call it hypocritical. I'd also call it special pleading.

Now, if you could bother to address what I actually say instead of making up a straw man (which is, to use your own phrase, "basically dishonest&quot , we might be able to discuss something. Until then, your posting here is fatuous.

[Act_of_Reparation]

158. Oh, please

This martyrdom complex is tiresome.

You think that religious beliefs--because they are religious--are afforded a special status which protects them from criticism. That you would call Dawkins a bigot for questioning the psychological effects of raising a child to believe in an eternal torment which awaits even the slightest transgression is in my mind no different than those who similarly ascribe bigotry to anyone who dares criticize the religious prohibition on homosexuality.

[Starboard Tack]

122. As they say "Nail meets head!"

Good job sir!

[trotsky]

150. Good job he got a post hidden?

You sure have strange taste in bedfellows.

[Starboard Tack]

157. So what? I shouldn't agree with someone who had a post hidden?

Are you fucking serious? Like you never, ever agreed with skepticscott, right? Like you never , ever agreed with cleanhippie, right?
I agreed with FA on one post and you come scurrying to accuse me of having strange bedfellows.
Nice one Trottles!

[trotsky]

161. It's fine to agree with someone.

It's not very cool to praise someone for being abusive. ("Good job!&quot

But you go on encouraging the behavior you want to encourage. Don't let me stop you.

[Starboard Tack]

166. And what was abusive about that post?

[trotsky]

169. You go right on praising the behavior you want to see.

Like I said, I'm not going to stop you.

[Starboard Tack]

170. And you go on making false accusations and sowing seeds of discontent.

And what does "Like I said, I'm not going to stop you" supposed to mean? Didi someone appoint you Censor-in-Chief? Delusions of grandeur perchance?

[trotsky]

172. So says the guy admonishing against...

"false accusations and sowing seeds of discontent."

Stay classy, ST.

[Starboard Tack]

174. You got it!

[Goblinmonger]

154. Some smart guy once said about a person who got posts hidden in religion

He appears to be more interested in personal attacks and disrupting, than contributing.

Rather than applaud a similar situation with someone from the theist side, I would think that person would want to not be a hypocrite and actually call out both sides. But, some people just don't always make sense.

[Starboard Tack]

159. Did the post I responded to get hidden? Right, I thought not.

Did I miss something here? Was there a personal attack in this post?
I call out those who show intolerance of people because of their beliefs, or lack of belief. I don't take sides, because I don't see a line between theists and atheists. Being an atheist, to me, does not mean attacking theists for their beliefs.
I call out intolerance when and where I see it. I call out abuse, when and where I see it. You, of all people, should know that.

[intaglio]

145. There's no point in attacking "religion" as it is meaningless

The attacks are against the beliefs. Believers spend much of their time ignoring or excusing the blatant hypocrisies and contradictions in their system of belief. They are aided by scholars unafraid to fabricate justifications for the tricks of the mind practised by those believers.

You allow that Dawkins and Myers are correct in their castigation of creationists but fail to see that the time worn babble that comes from "theologians" can be attacked because of its ignorance of logic, philosophy and, all too often, history. How often have you heard that irrational piece of nonsense the "Kalam Cosmological Hypothesis" uttered as a foundational argument by theologians? How many theologians practise "Presupositionalism", pretending that you have to presuppose a deity to argue against the existence of that same?

[RC]

162. Bingo!

That has been my expiration also.
Although I have met some with little to no religious training. In either case, none of them have ever been Conservatives.

[cleanhippie]

110. Still waiting to see your arguments against religion....

or was that just bullshit?

[mzteris]

3. Um...It says

Religion?

[cleanhippie]

111. Great point!

I missed it yesterday. Well done!

[lastlib]

6. If it worships something or someone, it's a hoax religion.

[MotherPetrie]

7. Amen!

[patrice]

38. This is a pathetic case instead ofthe real case AGAINST religion-interesting that you don't knowthat

I am pretty effective in regard to what constitutes the real reasons to oppose religion, because, unlike some, I do look at both sides of any question as honestly as I can.

The sort of stuff we see in OP does REAL DAMAGE to the reasons one should either reject religion or be skeptical about it.

If I didn't know what I know about this board, I would say OP was written by an ANTI-ATHEIST troll, the case it presents in support of atheism or against religion is THAT BAD.

[MotherPetrie]

64. I loved the graphic in the OP and I'm sending it to an athiest friend of mine.

I am not an athiest nor am I believer. I do think every religion is in effect a hoax.

[Left Turn Only]

13. Religion Is Dangerous.

Your post is delightfully succinct. In a nuclear-armed world, religion is very dangerous, and I am embarrassed when leaders in our country make overtures to fictitious entities. When will we grow up and realize we are the ones who are in control, and that there isn't anyone outside our reality that will step in to help us or side with one group or another. Living your life as if there is another one waiting for you is a dangerous scenario for a person in charge of weapons that can destroy the planet. Our actions create consequences that have nothing to do with a god. Since all life on this planet grew together, we must be very careful not to break the connections that keeps life going, and God will not step in to repair our mistakes.

[Angry Dragon]

20. +37

[amuse bouche]

104. Bravo

Could not agree more

[humblebum]

22. Same old thing day in and day out, huh hippie? nt

[patrice]

26. Some internet critters don't know a flying-phuck what they are talking about & don't care. nt

[patrice]

24. Points 1-5 are the traits of rationalism NOT faith. Wouldn't the ineffable by its very nature NOT

engage in the quid-pro-quo emotional economics that you describe; ergo any religion characterized by the negative traits you list 1-5 would possibly be a truer religion than something that meets your criteria.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

49. Holy crap, that's one of the forehead-slappiest posts I've ever read at DU

The sky is orange, up is down and Karl Rove is a liberal. At least using your logic.

[cleanhippie]

51. He is really, really angry with me!

In every single one of his posts, even in his responses to invitations to discuss the OP itself, he chooses instead to attack me personally. I'm beginning to think that it is me that gets him so upset. My mere presence here seems to be fueling his hatred.

[trixie]

54. What the ?????/

[DryRain]

115. I read that post over and over 3 times.

I still cannot find a singe phrase, let alone an entire sentence that makes sense in any possible way. My brain is just getting exhausted trying to imagine what possible Christian "religion" is out there that doesn't conform to at least two of those five "traits", simply by defining itself as a "Christian" religion.

[Comatose Sphagetti]

27. You go, cleanhippie...

You obviously hit a nerve with some of your responders. Keep it up.

[cleanhippie]

30. I'm always amazed at how questioning an idea produces such outrage.

You would think I personally insulted someone's mother or something.

[Comatose Sphagetti]

32. Agreed

I would expect this kind of angry knee-jerk response at free republic, but not here.

[Leontius]

61. Oh please

Not defending free republic or its posters, there is so much knee jerking that goes on here too it makes you want to look for the electrodes connected to some people.

[Buzz Clik]

58. Oh, bull shit.

Your sole motivation was to produce outrage.

So fucking childish.

[cleanhippie]

65. For all your bluster and blather in this thread, you have said nothing of substance and have only

attacked me personally.

Childish, indeed.

[Buzz Clik]

67. You had the chance for a discussion, but you mocked me instead.

And you started another bullshit thread on the same subject this morning.

Do you think we're all fucking morons and you're the smartest guy in the room? (rhetorical question. If you answer it, you're the moron)

[cleanhippie]

70. Your very first response was a personal attack. Your. Very. First. Response.

and every response since has been a personal attack. You want I should respond to your childish personal attacks instead? Sorry Charlie, that's on you.

Morons aside, when you can figure out how to control your emotions and have a discussion without personally attacking me, I'll be here.

Have a nice day.

[Buzz Clik]

74. You keep waving goodbye, but you just cannot leave it alone.

And you merely follow. You never lead.

No substance or even an attempt at it.

And you have not even chosen a worthy target. Religion? Really? Look at your avatar -- same shit. What do you do when not on your computer? Pour gasoline down anthills?

Nah, I've got you pegged. An empty, transparent shell.

[cleanhippie]

75. It's my OP. Why would I leave it? You, OTOH, are free to scurry away at anytime.

It is also amusing to see your hatred manifest this way. You really, really hate me, don't you?

[mr blur]

93. ...Easily done.

[patrice]

33. Too bad it isn't an authentic representation of the issue & it's related questions, so it could &

probably does, do more damage than good in terms of persuasive effect for the case that it purports to represent.

I could say more about how, possibly, this level of stuff shows up here, but the example we are referring to is so bad that I suspect I could hurt someone who is just out of their league and doesn't know it.

[cleanhippie]

37. What would be "an authentic representation of the issue & it's related questions"?

You can continue to complain that you don't like the question or you can give your opinion on why it is wrong and what would be more accurate.

What shall it be? Complain or discuss?

[patrice]

39. I suggest that you go do some BROAD reading on the subject, while I go do some housework.

And broad means BOTH perspectives honestly have a chance, rather than canned ideology filtering everything you read, BOTH perspectives, because that's what an authentic rationalist would do.

If you claim to be a rationalist, I suggest you begin with readings in the philosophy of science/empirical rationalism and specifically, in terms of the processes and procedures of what we call science, what constitutes the nature of "Proof" (including why someone might place " " around that word.)

I'm not here to give you stuff to take elsewhere, tell them and yourself to do their/your own thinking.

[cleanhippie]

42. I take it you are gonna go with keep complaining then?

Unless I'm missing it, I don't see where you talk about anything but me and what I should do, in your opinion.

Anything on why "it isn't an authentic representation of the issue & it's related questions", or are you just going to continue to berate me?

[trixie]

55. They will never get it

People who belive in fantasy will never, ever get it.

SANTA CLAUS IS NOT REAL

[Comatose Sphagetti]

41. "...I could hurt someone who is just out of their league and doesn't know it."

Really? Arrogance of the first degree.

[patrice]

96. You have a problem with people being confident of their skills? Hmmm, that's interesting.

[patrice]

98. & Reading comprehension? I said that I'm uncomfortable with the possibility of hurting someone.

So, to prove that I'm not arrogant to you, I should go into detail about what an inadequate piece of work OP is.

Pardon me, while I refuse to exploit someone in the same manner in which others apparently don't have the slightest reservations.

Have a nice life.

[muriel_volestrangler]

100. "I suspect I could hurt someone" - that could be the funniest post the Religion group has ever seen

I don't think I've ever seen anyone here make themselves look quite so absurd as you have done.

[mr blur]

92. Careful you don't fall off that high horse

and land in some of the horse shit that seems to follow you around.

[patrice]

95. The truth isn't a high horse. OP is wrong, not even supporting the case FOR atheism. nt

[cleanhippie]

112. HOW is it wrong? You have blustered all over this thread saying that, but have yet to support it.

Stop attacking ME, and support your assertion.

[patrice]

114. I'll not let you exploit me, cleanhippie& it'd be better for you, great rationalist that you are, to

learn SELF-critique. So figure out how it is wrong yourself.

[cleanhippie]

116. IOW, you cant't or won't. Either way youv'e done nothing but attack ME.

Thanks for clearing that up. You stay classy.


And have a nice day.

[mr blur]

118. You appear to live on another planet, far away from here -

Perhaps "the truth" is different there. Words would certainly seem to have different meanings on your world.

[flamingdem]

40. What if the diety possess a human being?

This can be witnessed or experienced by followers of many African religions and their new world versions: Vodou, Santeria, Palo etc.

[cleanhippie]

43. Is that actually a deity possessing a human?

How could one know for sure?

[flamingdem]

45. I've seen this several times and it's quite amazing

so I wouldn't discount what's going on or dismiss it as fakery.

In general it is arrogant to assume we know everything about this world.

People who have the ability to be possessed have been imaged and their brains really do undergo changes. It's a talent at the least, a real event in potentiality.

[cleanhippie]

46. I do not doubt you have witnessed something strange.

But how could you know it is a deity?

[flamingdem]

47. Of course it's culturally defined

but one could use their intuition to determine if it's an act or something more. There is no clear cut answer since if it is a diety in their culture who are we to say it's not. The proof is that they can suddenly speak other languages, i have no direct experience of this, can burn themselves without pain, I have seen this, and direct themselves to healing and other concerns. My personal experience is that a possessed person described someone to me with accuracy, your mileage may vary.

If you want the answer to that question you could start by reading Maya Deren's book on her work in Haiti and many other anthropological texts.

[cleanhippie]

48. At risk of sounding redundant...

Why is a deity the first and foremost explanation for this? Might there be other, more plausible possibilities?

[flamingdem]

53. As you know there is no one answer

because that is not my culture and how should I know?

Of course an outsider would doubt the whole thing. If one is an atheist even more so.

It's about ones relationship to culture and the divine and the answer is multi faceted.

[cleanhippie]

62. I think you are spot on regarding the culture.

Although, I'm unsure there is such a thing as "the divine", so I have difficulty accepting that as an answer with any validity at all.

[flamingdem]

63. I take it you're an atheist!

As were most anthropologists who write on the subject but when dealing with other cultures it's best to keep one's own views, and they are just views not facts, out of the way for interpretation purposes.

[tama]

97. I'm quite positive there's no such "thing"

aside from culturally deified material objects, with or without "the". And also the words "God", "deity" "divine" are all already cultural products, not universal concepts with exact translations in other languages and cultures. What can be said, I believe, that there are various experiences, practices and interpretations of. And attempts towards meaningful generalizations and more holistic comprehension.

So we can for example use comparative methodology, are there common elements in Haitian "divine possessions", what Latin word "inspired", Finnish "haltijoitunut" etc. refer to, in all their variety. And/or subjective(/asubjective) experiences one could try to relate some of those meanings.

More approaches you take, more experiences you gather, the more comprehensive your view of a phenomenon tends to get, do you agree? There's vast amount of literature, all kinds of studies from many angles, and more and more research is being done. But how does it really feel, to be "possessed" or some other word? Can I experiment and experience some aspects of those? Are there limits to what we can experience?

How do I really want to feel and experience, and what choice do I have?

In regards to the "question" implied in OP, my suggestion for rule of thumb would be: if you have questions and seek answers, but want to avoid hoaxes, seek from those who may or may not be willing to talk about their own experiences, but any case advise not just to take their word for anything, but to see and experience yourself what their traditions/practices/methods may offer.

[ZombieHorde]

84. You have clearly never heard of Gary Gygax.

He is the most obvious example of a deity possessing a human being.

[cleanhippie]

86. Are you KIDDING me?

I was a D&D nerd back in the day!

[ZombieHorde]

87. Then you should know at least one human has been possessed by one or more deities. nt

[Silent3]

106. Isn't it more the other the other way around?

Gary Gygax creates and possesses the deities.

[ZombieHorde]

107. You just might be right. Perhaps Gygax is UltraGod! nt

[patrice]

44. Starting to form hypotheses here re $20.@hr. internet-writers & people looking for FREE-SCHOOL

curriculum, assessment, & evaluation for NOTHING but YOUR time, your skills, and your knowledge base, all, because they obviously don't have it themselves.

Working hypothesis #1: Typical exploitative "Libertarian" bull- .

[cleanhippie]

50. This OP really has you angry, doesn't it?

In every single one of your posts, even in your responses to invitations to discuss the OP itself, you choose instead to attack me personally. I'm beginning to think that it is me that gets you so upset. My mere presence here seems to be fueling your hatred.

If it is simply me that you despise so much, why not just put me on ignore? Why the need to attack me personally over and over?

[Starboard Tack]

123. Good post. Looks like you are having a moment of clarity.

Kinda sums up what you are all about.
I especially love this bit "If it is simply me that you despise so much, why not just put me on ignore?"

[cleanhippie]

125. Hey buddy!

Thanks.

[Starboard Tack]

131. No problem. Keep up the good work.

[cleanhippie]

138. You bet! Your approval means so much!

[Starboard Tack]

139. So sweet!

[socialindependocrat]

56. Religion is like playing the lottery...

You put up your money and you pray and hope and pray and hope...

And all the same crap happens just the way it would have.

People who believe in religion should read your post and
be glad that they have faith in the Holy Spirit that comforts
them every day.

I used to go fishing but I see you catch your share right here on the tube.

and it's Sunday, too.

[dipsydoodle]

57. They're the ones

to which all of who belong are not necessarily happy to be or remain so.

Google "How To Identify A Hoax Religion" for similar images......nothing to see here , move along, move along.

Other than that I care somewhat less than nothing on the subject - sfa in fact.

[madrchsod]

68. not this crap again....

[cleanhippie]

113. I know, right?

[EvilAL]

69. It'd be interesting to

have someone actually have an answer for the question. To me it's obvious that most, if not all, religions fall into those categories. Good luck getting anyone to admit their religion is a hoax. Just because it may be a 4000 year hoax doesn't make it any less of a hoax.

[cleanhippie]

71. Look at the hatred and outrage is has produced here!

I think it's commonly referred to as Cognitive Dissonance.

[EvilAL]

73. People can't answer it

without going against their beliefs.. It fucks them up, so they get mad.
Maybe one of them in their wisdom can show atheism is a hoax, now that'd be something.

[pinto]

85. I can't speak for any institution, yet it could be argued in personal terms that neither

belief nor disbelief are hoaxes. Hoax implies an obscured intent, whatever the framework.

Belief and disbelief, theism and atheism, are both personal convictions with a broad range of other opinions along that spectrum. They seem to be primarily personal convictions. Don't think that hoax is pertinent in that personal context.



(ed for grammar and some clarity)

[EvilAL]

88. True, and

the list above implies intent for monetary and other reasons.

[BlueJazz]

81. I'd like to argue with you sometime but you never seem to post anything that ...

..I don't fully agree with...
You do that just for spite..don't you ?

[cleanhippie]

83. I do, BlueJazz, I do!

You got me!

Thanks for the support.

[mike_c]

72. agreed, 100 percent....

The god nutz seem to have their knickers in a wad about it, though.

[Xipe Totec]

76. Is this a trick question? nt

[cleanhippie]

77. Nope. And so far, no one has been able to answer it.

Instead they attack me for asking the question.

[Xipe Totec]

78. The answer is, they all are. nt

[cleanhippie]

79. That would seem to be the case.

[Xipe Totec]

80. See? It is a trick question! I knew it!

[Exultant Democracy]

82. Asking for money and promising a reward in the afterlife it was the first scam invented.

Telling people that their is something wrong with them and you have the divine answer to their problems is perverted, disgusting and highly profitable.

[cleanhippie]

89. +1

[DryRain]

94. Seems as if no one can answer that question. But...

But it seems lots of folks want to comment on this topic, and upon the character of the OP, anyway.

Strange how that works.

[dimbear]

99. Since the pro side here seems paralyzed, let me help you out a bit. Real witnessed miracles,

a real verifiably present god:

Miracles of Vespasian. Witnessed and historically recorded by many reliable people, with the god (Vespasian himself) right there and palpable.

The best recorded miracles in history. The religion: Imperial Cult of Rome.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

130. Is this sarcasm?

Vespasian had tons of propaganda written about him (namely by Pliny the Elder), alluding to his "miracles". It's not based in any sort of fact... It's based on the financial rewards the authors received.

[dimbear]

134. The inaugural miracles, when Vespasian first ascended to the emperorship, witnessed by a crowd

of reliable witnesses. No doubt about those, well, except for them being faked.

So, yes, it is sarcasm.

[rug]

101. Imgur is almost a good a source of theology a reddit.

[amuse bouche]

102. People worship

more than 3 k Gods. How does one pick the 'real' one?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

103. This is why I am a secular humanist UU

who studies Buddhism (also non-theistic if you want).

I can't deal with non-logical and non-consistent belief systems.

[Zoeisright]

105. Absolutely perfect.

And there are enough religion nutz on this thread to prove you made your point very very well. They scream and throw temper tantrums and feces when you hit a nerve.

[cleanhippie]

109. Notice how BuzzClick and Patrice both attacked me personally, over and over and over.

Even when invited to discuss why the OP had upset them so much, they continued to attack ME.

Feel the love! Jesus is proud!

[Kolesar]

126. Do you have a feeling of accomplishment, then? eom

[BlancheSplanchnik]

108. as a Buddhist...

I like this.

I have a good friend, also a Buddhist, who grew up Episcopalian. ..altar boy, Sunday school, the whole shtick. He knows the Bible in depth so his arguments critiquing diety religion are terrific. I'll have to show him this OP.

[Walk away]

127. Do you really think that folks who believe in gods and such are going to be convinced by...

arguments, logic or humor? They are adults. They know that science exists. Reality is right outside their windows. They want to believe. Many are desperate to believe and so they will... until they want deal with the real world.

[tama]

133. Not all believe

that reality is just outside the window. But that the experience of looking is just as real as what is seen, and how one feels when looking.

Scientific paradigm has been largely concentrated on the external reality outside the window. Turning that paradigm into metaphysical belief that only what is outside the window is real, is quite an other thing.

[Walk away]

135. What's on the inside is commonly called Biology. That's a science too. na

[tama]

136. Are you talking to Biology? nt

[Kalidurga]

129. You had me at the first point...

God is either A. Not real which is why he has never been verified. Or B. God is real and he is a sick mofo giving people the ability to think then punishing them for it when they do.

Talking about the xian god. I don't know about a lot of the others.

[Riftaxe]

132. What is the point of this?

You need to mock other people's beliefs because your life is so pathetic it is the only way you can feel superior?

I don't believe in any religion or deities, but hardly feel the need in going out of my way to abuse those who do, and *gasp* can appreciate the things of art and beauty that those followers of the various beliefs have generated over the centuries.

I suppose you will come back and blah blah war, death in name of religion without even the slightest recognition that mankind has hardly needed religion as a motivating factor for behaving in such ways....

In the end, you're just a sad person.

[rug]

144. I'll tell you what's wrong with this cartoon.

It's the problem with all cartoons that attempt to make a theological point.

It simply states that for a religion to not be a hoax, it must conform to scientific evidence.

That's why it must use the words, credible (two times), unverifiable (two times), documented, measurable, unsubstantiated, questionable, groupthink, and justification.

A legitimate question would be whether religious belief can be determined by the scientific method. But that has been done to death and is not nearly as combustible as your cartoon.

[Meshuga]

146. Is it a hoax when people (including the leadership) genuinely believe in the religion's concepts?

A "Hoax Religion" is a religion where its leadership knows that there is no deity, knows that "miracles or supernatural events" didn't happen but still say they happen, knows that there is no such thing as reward/punishment for belief/disbelief but still preaches that there is reward/punishment for belief/disbelief, etc.

But in most religious groups (I dare say most but I don't know true intentions and beliefs of every religious leader), membership and leadership seem to genuinely believe in their concepts. So, it is difficult to classify these religions as hoax religions. Religious followers may be wasting their time (especially if they are spending time reinforcing beliefs that do not bring reward or punishment) but the religion is hardly a hoax.

Perhaps some religions began as "hoax religions" (i.e., some group came up with a belief system to control the population or for some other political gain) but these religions evolved into belief systems with time and their followers/leadership seem to buy it.

[SarahM32]

147. A hoax religion gives its clergy theocratic power, wealth and domain.

A hoax religion gives its clergy theocratic power, wealth and domain. However, a hoax religion is generally a distorted version of greater religion.

For example, the Byzantine and Roman Catholic version of Christianity which led to the Dark Ages, the Inquisitions, the Crusades, and to all the subsequent centuries of military industrial imperialism, was a hoax religion.

The Anglican Protestant version of Christianity wasn't all that much better, and neither are many of the theocratic versions of Protestant Christian denominations that we have today. And theocratic Muslim versions of Islam and theocratic "Orthodox" versions of Judaism would also fall into the same category.

That, however, merely means that the three Abrahamic religions have, to various degrees, been coopted by hypocrites who have distorted their religion to suit their own self-interests -- not to serve the God of Abraham, Jesus and Muhammad.

Remember, Jesus of Nazareth said that he came to usher in an age of conflict and division, and he said that at the end of the age hypocrites would be claiming to "do many wonderful works in the name of the Lord" even though they actually "work iniquity."

What is needed now in the world is truthful education, because the truth really will liberate and empower us.
.

[tama]

149. Greek Orthodox

AFAIK Greek Orthodox didn't have Inquisition or Crusades but were victims of both. But besides the point.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

153. as if humans needed his help to have conflict or division.

I just hope I am still alive when we make first contact with alien life. The resulting Religious mania will be especially fun to watch.

[SarahM32]

163. You miss the point. He merely foresaw the conflict and division.

That's what prophets do. They don't actually say that God causes trouble or disasters or anything of the sort. The prophecies of bad stuff were made by prophets who could foresee how and why greedy, egocentric, ethnocentric Man would screw things up.

And they were right. Just look at the state of the world. Greed and vanity are rampant. We have rumors of war, wars, "natural" disasters, geological disasters, and environmental disasters, most of which were and are man-made disasters, and horrible conflict, violence, death and destruction.

All these things, however, were foretold as occurring prior to a big change, when the modern prophet's message is finally recognized and acknowledged.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

164. considering how those things ALREADY ALWAYS HAPPEN,

even someone with the mental capacity of a Tea Party member could be a prophet. Or in most christians' cases, Profit.

[formercia]

151. When I partake of the Body of my Lord

I know it's going to be good Pasta

In the name of Pasta, Sauce and Holy Meatball

Ramen

[hrmjustin]

155. Don't like religion much do you?

[Taverner]

156. Slaves never celebrate their chains like that of the religious

[hrmjustin]

168. Ok Well we all have our views.

[cleanhippie]

160. Don't like reality much do you?

[hrmjustin]

167. I did not mean it as an insult.

I think you are a good advocate for the atheist and agnostic side. And yes I do like reality. Religion in moderation is fine. Fundamentalism is not good at all.

[0zone]

165. Very simple answer to this threads question...

..all religions are hoaxes!

I have never seen any proof of any religious claim that their god(s) exist.

[cleanhippie]

171. It seems that simple, doesn't it? But cognitive dissonance coupled with years of brainwashing...

Produces the outrage demonstrated in this thread.

It's really quite sad.

[0zone]

179. Man has, and still does, worship many different gods

Man has created thousands of gods through history. There is the ancient Tree God, The God of the Running Brook, and of course Jesus. All of them can't be true. If there is only one true god then 99.9% of the others are hoaxes. Kinda hard picking out the real god from a thousand imposters, especially when He is in hiding.

[humblebum]

173. Maybe if they have to rely consistently on mocking others and constant ad hominems to

give their own beliefs a token of legitimacy. No, excuse me. That's radical atheism.

[Act_of_Reparation]

175. I'm not sure you understand what "ad hominem" means

An ad hominem fallacy is a personal insult used in lieu of addressing an actual argument.

For example, and ad hominem fallacy would look like this,

Argument: "All religions are hoaxes, here's why..."

Ad hominem fallacy: "You have to rely consistently on mocking others to give your own beliefs a token of legitimacy."

Look familiar?

[humblebum]

176. Oh I think I do.

[Act_of_Reparation]

180. Evidently not

Otherwise, I suspect you would not have made one while incorrectly accusing cleanhippie of doing the same. It is, in my experience, that most people try to avoid blatant hypocrisy.

But, to the point, cleanhippie's argument is that religion is a hoax. How is it you intend to shoehorn this into the definition of "ad hominem".

[humblebum]

181. Years of experience with cleanhippie and company.

[another_liberal]

177. I worship trees . . .

I worship trees and cats. Of course I worship cats. At least they are all real.

[Arugula Latte]

182. You are my fellow traveler.

That's what I worship, as well.

And the sun. The sun gives life, and it exists.

Cats and sun. The ancient Egyptians were on to something. If they'd had more lush surroundings they probably would have added trees to the list.

[another_liberal]

190. Yes,

Watching a grove of tall trees as the wind sways their limbs, one can feel as if in the presence of something far greater than oneself.

[AtheistCrusader]

191. And I've never seen a tree pass around a collection plate...

[dimbear]

193. Our simian ancestors found food and shelter in trees, hence they elicit that response. The actual

reason cathedrals have spires.

[another_liberal]

194. Fascinating theory.

I like that image.

[vrp]

178. Thought provoking!

Being a secular humanist, I'm very much in line with this. I think those who are angered with the argument presented fully understand that religion cannot be proved, it is based on faith alone. I fully support the right of anyone to believe as they choose, as long as they keep it to themselves and other like minded people. This is a good argument for those who believe that public money should be used to support religious believe, as in schools etc.

[ZombieHorde]

183. If someone is terribly upset or emotionally hurt,

and they pray to their deity for emotional healing, and then they feel better, is that a sign the religion is not a hoax?

[gcomeau]

184. Only...

...if anyone praying to anything they want didn't have the exact same effect.

It's the act of going through the motions that makes them feel better, not any supernatural magic healing response to it. That doesn't reduce the hoax aspect of religion any more than the placebo effect turns fake medicines into real ones.

[ZombieHorde]

185. Do you think praying to Thor would make you feel better during hard times?

Do you think praying to Thor would make a Christian feel better during hard times.

I bet not.

Many Hindus believe all theists are actually praying to the same god. They believe god takes on many, many forms, which is why their monotheistic religion looks very much like a polytheistic religion. So to them, that wouldn't really matter.

[gcomeau]

186. If you believed in Thor it would.

Just like writing letters to Santa makes kids happy.

[Apophis]

187. A logical answer to an illogical question.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

189. "False" is not the same as "hoax" - most religions are propagated by people who believe them.

I'm reasonably confident that Mohammed and Joseph Smith were both hoaxters, not just misguided (their claims were too specific and too well-documented to be genuine mistakes), and many other founders of religion may well have been, but most people who promote religions genuinely believe them to be true.

[AtheistCrusader]

192. Promote or found?

Because I have absolutely no way to verify the veracity of this:

"most people who promote religions genuinely believe them to be true."

In the context of people who are intimately involved in the founding of a church, or faith system, or splinter sect, or what have you. The people who join might believe, but how in the world can I figure out if the founders of even major religions are honest believers?

Even the biblical character of Peter, who can say if he actually believed?