Creating a Religion

[NoBigDeal]

I found it interesting that it can be very easy for a number of people-or maybe just one person, to come up with a religion.

 

Try and guess which religion this came from

 

"After you pass, your body is done, your soul shall move to the high heavens, on the tip of the universe, past everything known and unknown, sights seen and unseen, back into another world in which life would start over. Different times and different rules would make up of this new world, in which all deceased have traveled to."

 

Well, sounds like a religion, no? Well, seeing as how I made it up as I went, and I am only 13, I find it troubling how easy this type of thing can be.

 

So, I came here to ask people with brains...somewhat like mine, mostly larger, wider, but, what do you think? How easy IS it to create a religion? What religions do you think are made up, or do you think they ALL are?

 

I'd like to know....

 

Josh

[OpenMind5]

This is an interesting idea. It is easy to creat or think of a religion. This is the hard part....

 

1) finding people who will belive you

2) finding witnesses

3) Money (yes all religon needs money backing it)

4)Proof (may go with witnesses) like the bible

5) Making the religion apealing to all, not just a select few.

( I Sugest you visit http://www.inviciblepinkunicorn.com you will get a kick out of that place)

 

these are just 5 ideas. And of course you can make all this up...but it would take alot of time...and would it be worth it? thats the REAL question...

 

OP5

[Freethinker]

So there are two of these now?

As I see it, way back in the old days, cave man type, or tree type based on the latest info I have seen, ... anyway... animals, in this case early human animals, often pick an Alpha Male/ Leader based on physical ability. The guy that was left standing after a battle for control. THis became the obvious leader of the community. As intellegence developed, some humans woould start to recognize patterns. This plant helped that, this could be sharpened as a tool/ weapon, sunrise, sunset, seasonal changes ... Add to this, supposed connections such as making it rain, calls to the various forces of nature/ gods. This would set upa 2nd contest for power. One based on intellect. The smarter animal/ human would recognize patterns/ connections and would be able to make up others. This would set up two seats of power, one physical one mental.

 

Perhaps at times the brute and the brain would battle for control. The brute would surely win. The brain would figure out therefore that the best way to have a favored spot, be brought under the special protection of the brute would be to join forces. Suddenly a merger of church and state. This is reflected in all of recorded history. On rare occasions they may be the same person, but the vast majority of times, the brute and the brain were differrent members of the tribe. They worked together to maintain power. One by force, the other by spells and chants. When two tribes would battle, each with their own brute/brain combo, which ever would win, that brain's superstition would be brought to the front as he obviously had the better set of gods behind him.

 

We can see this thru history. It still exists today. The appointed Resident of the US White House "KNOWS" his god is stronger than the infidel's Allah. Thus he "KNOWS" he is in the right and anything he does in his self proclaimed CRUSADE against the non-Christians is justified.

 

But new religions are being started all the time. Joseph Smith found golden tablets left by Jesus in the US and started a religion. The Urantia was provided by divine inspiration even later. Wicca, while based on older Pagan concepts, is a new age version. Sun Myung Moon started the moonies. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi ... All it takes is some elaberate claims that can't be supported. Thus offering someone in need of a mental addiction any number of choices.

 

This spread of SUCCESSFUL new religious beliefs has been fairly unique in the last 1600 years. Once Christianity had been given political authority by Constantine in 312CE, the opposition started to be slaughtered, just as the bible says it should. Ignorace was enforced as part of the tenets of Christianity, just as the bible says it should. Thus Christianity was the first religion to spread and take control anywhere near as fast and strong as it has. But Society/ HUmans/ started to reject the ignorace of antiquated superstition during the Enlightenment. Humans decided, OUTSIDE of the existing Christian dogma, that killing others was wrong. That thought was new. It was based on SECULAR tenets. Humanistic drive. Since it was no longer fashionable for most Christian authorities and political leaders of Christian countries to just kill the opposition willy nilly, other religions started to florish. Along with Atheism.

 

Now non-belief is taking over the rest of the industrialized world. While new age "spirituality" is taking over the US. Starting a new religion in the US is simple. Just as nobigdeal originally posted. There is no longer the same level of direct physical threat. Though there is still, because of the extreme fundementalism of the Exec Office in the US, a strong governmental prejudice against anything that is not Christian Fundamentalism.

 

So create a new religion, it's easy, any nonsense with a good poem behind it will find a sucker somewhere. But watch out for the Feds!

[nemo]

You might consider watching out for people who type in caps instead of posting references, lest ye become the fulfillment of P.T. Barnum's prophesy.

 

I looked up religion at Merriam Webster's online dictionary (http://www.m-w.com). To my dismay, two of the four definitions for the word religion used some permutation of the word religion in the definition - amazing. The remaining definitions were:

• 
  
• Scrupulous conformity
  
• A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Using these definitions, it would appear that anything people believe that cannot be proven could be called religion. Things that jump to mind include all the cults and wakos metioned in the news, the overwhelming evidence that preceded the invasion of Iraq and the idea that Affirmative Action is working. A few other examples of potential religious ideas that are apparently beyond reproach are:

• 
  
• Abiogenesis
  
• Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
  
• A football team exists in either Detroit or Arizona

Not that I'm trying to push some kind of agenda, but I like playing devil's advocate (unless the idea of a devil / thereby a god / thereby definitive right and wrong existing offends anyone, in which case I'm just a guy who likes to see proof). A while back, I had a professor who believed in the Scientific Method, but also considered some topics off-limits to consideration. I was curious, so I tried to find the most supportive Abiogenesis site I could (http://www.talkorigins.org/faq/abioprob/abioprob.html), and verify their numbers. What I found was that they did an effective job of shooting down the creationist arguments they list, but inadvertently introduce exponentially more improbable circumstances for abiogenesis within their arguments.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (please correct me if I'm mistaken) can be oversimplified and paraphrased to state that the location of a quantum particle cannot be predicted with 100% accuracy because the act of measuring quantum particles involves the alteration of their movement. The site I'm using for reference is a quick introduction I just Googled from the University of Oregon (http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/208/jan27/hup.html). The problem I have with this argument is that Heisenberg is stating that something can't be done because the items in question are just too small. I could be wrong again, but I'm pretty sure that atoms were around long before someone discovered them during the 19th century (http://www.-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Ls7adisc.htm). I have no proof (sorry, I know that's a no-no), but I'm sure that America was there long before Lief Ericsson or Christopher Columbus (the idea that we actually have a holiday named after a guy who mistook native Americans for Indians [fire your translator] and then introduced Syphilis to the new world still amuses me) bumped into it... The point of this rant is that the fact that nobody has done something before does not mean that it cannot be done. Every few years, someone makes news as they put some stopping point on science and discovery - it amazes me that people still buy into this stuff.

 

Back to the intended subject of this post - FT, I'm no bible scholar, but I do know that the phrase "Thou shalt not kill" is in there somewhere; which tells me you are taking verses out of context - Ironically enough, this is how many cults have been started. This process of quoting religious text out of context is also how idiots who think it's okay to run planes into buildings consider themselves Muslims. The Koran actually outlines a pretty peaceful religion, despite its many different interpretations. I have neither intent nor interest in pushing any particular religion on you, but even you must admit t

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: nemo

I looked up religion at Merriam Webster's online dictionary. To my dismay, two of the four definitions for the word religion used some permutation of the word religion in the definition - amazing. The remaining definitions were:

• 
  
• Scrupulous conformity
• A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

A few other examples of potential religious ideas that are apparently beyond reproach are:

• 
  
• Abiogenesis

Please show us Abiogenesis fits even the remaining definitions.

A while back, I had a professor who believed in the Scientific Method, but also considered some topics off-limits to consideration.

I was just reading an article on this in the latest "Free Inquiry" magazine. On how various scientists draw lines in the sand as to where to stop using logic/ reason/ science...

 

One example given was for a Astronomy related web site. One visitor submitted a question about the validity of Astrology, to which, as expected, the site's response was to immediately attack it and state that it has no valid support and thus it is absurd to accept it. Yet when asked about god, suddenly something lacking any valid support no longer mattered and the warm fuzzy of diversity of opinion was the direction to take.

 

In another case, I was in a discussion on a philosophy of logic list (phil-L) with a ranking member of NCSE. This is an org that fights anti-science intrusion, esp Creationism, into public schools in the US. Yet he being a Catholic, refused to question transubstantiation.

 

Believers are always forced to draw this arbitrarly line somewhere.

 

But this has nothing to do with Abiogenesis being a religion!

I was curious, so I tried to find the most supportive Abiogenesis site I could and verify their numbers. What I found was that they did an effective job of shooting down the creationist arguments they list, but inadvertently introduce exponentially more improbable circumstances for abiogenesis within their arguments.

Such as?

[IrishEyes]

Believers are always forced to draw this arbitrarly line somewhere.

 

I read nemo's original remark to mean that non-believers are the ones to draw this arbitrary line. It's not surprising that we took it to mean totally opposite things, huh?

[IrishEyes]

But I do have to agree with nemo in that all three of the examples he has given (abiogenesis, HUP, and football teams in Detroit or Phoenix) are all things that are held to with ardor and/or faith. Going with webster, that would qualify them as religious.

 

Taking a look around the site, I'd say that makes almost every single one of us religious. Thanks, nemo!! I always knew FreeT and Unc were secret zealots, but I never had the proof until now! :>P

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: nemo

Back to the intended subject of this post - FT, I'm no bible scholar, but I do know that the phrase "Thou shalt not kill" is in there somewhere; which tells me you are taking verses out of context -

OK. I have no idea what a bible scholar is, as no one can agree on what the bible is in the first palce. This would indicate that since all side claim to ahve bible scholars, most of them have to be wrong....

 

But I am very well versed on the bible and it's history. Much more than most, Christians included.

 

I have to assume your comment is in connection to my posting

Once Christianity had been given political authority by Constantine in 312CE, the opposition started to be slaughtered, just as the bible says it should.

Yes "Thou shalt not kill" " is in there somewhere". In fact some translations, later ones which were intentionally changed to help resolve the contradictions in the bible, change it to "Thou shalt not MURDER"! But this does not in any way show that *I* am taking things out of context.

 

Does the bible state "Thou shalt not kill"? Yes

 

But it also states in MORE places that it's god wants it's followers to kill. Smashing babies heads against rocks, slaying those that will not believe, don't hold back from using the sword, kill your children if they don't listen to you, kill WOMEN that are unfaithful (but not men?)

 

What this shows is NOT that *I* am "taking verses out of context"t. But that the bible is filled with contradictions.

Ironically enough, this is how many cults have been started. This process of quoting religious text out of context is also how idiots who think it's okay to run planes into buildings consider themselves Muslims. The Koran actually outlines a pretty peaceful religion, despite its many different interpretations.

Just as with the Christian bible, the Koran is filled with all side of every issue. They both can be used to support all sides of almost any issue. If you want to have slaves, lots of stuff in there to support it. If you don't, lots of stuff to support it. If you want to kill, lots of stuff to support it. If you don't LESS stuff to support it.

 

Interestingly, one of the issues that the bible does not have contradictions on is that women should be subserviant to men.

 

And yes, the Koran tells it followers to kill the opposition. Muslems claiming Islam to be a religion of peace are just like Christian making the same claim for the bible. It requires that they only accept selected passages.

I have neither intent nor interest in pushing any particular religion on you, but even you must admit that the spread of religion in all its different forms has altered the geopolitical topography of the world like no other force.

"altered"? You bet! For the worse!

Keeping this in mind, regardless of any personal preference to religion or the absence thereof, the study of religion is an important one, and the misrepresentation of a religion - intentional or not - is more detrimental than simply admitting prejudice.

Which is exactly why I work so hard to expose the TRUE side of religion. Not the false warm fuzzy yada yada promoted so heavily today.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

Believers are always forced to draw this arbitrarly line somewhere.

I read nemo's original remark to mean that non-believers are the ones to draw this arbitrary line. It's not surprising that we took it to mean totally opposite things, huh?

Yes it is no surprise. Because if we look at what he ACTUALLY posted we do not find his referencing NON-believers at all. That is something YOU injected yourself.

 

What he related had to do with a Prof. He did not proved ANY details as to this Prof's religious views other than that the Prof DID support Scientific Methodology TO A POINT! To the point at which this person, religious philosophy undefined, draws the line.

 

So yes, once more we find that you read things based on what YOU WANTED IT TO SAY, rather than what it ACTUALLY DOES SAY. Same as our discussions on the bible.

 

I admire your consistancy.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

But I do have to agree with nemo in that all three of the examples he has given (abiogenesis, HUP, and football teams in Detroit or Phoenix) are all things that are held to with ardor and/or faith. Going with webster, that would qualify them as religious.

Then perhaps you can help him actually SUPPORT the claim? Or are you just so happy to have someone you think agrees with your POV that PROOF is not an issue?

 

Again, I admire your consistancy.

Taking a look around the site, I'd say that makes almost every single one of us religious.

And we have consistanly seen how adept you are(n't) at drawing logical conclusions.

[IrishEyes]

A little touchy today, FreeT??

[IrishEyes]

I didn't 'inject' anything. I simply said, to you, that I read it one way while you seem to have read it another way.

 

Or maybe you were just making that statement based on your own personal opinion, not based on anything that nemo wrote. As you pointed out, nemo made no indication of his prof's religious beliefs. If that is the case, then I was wrong. Please accept my most humble and sincere apologies!

[IrishEyes]

Then perhaps you can help him actually SUPPORT the claim? Or are you just so happy to have someone you think agrees with your POV that PROOF is not an issue?

 

rotf...

 

Help him support the claim? Come on, FreeT. He said that webster defines religion as 1)Scrupulous conformity; or 2) A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith; or 2 other definitions that use the word religion in some form. Using the definitions, his three examples all fit the definition of a religion, as they are all systems of belief or principles that are held to with ardor or faith. What more support is needed?

 

As for being happy that there might be someone that agrees with my POV that I will disregard proof, take a step back, ok. I think the thing you probably find most disturbing is that there is apparently a new Christian in the forums that is not going to be as easy to squash as you have recently become accustomed to doing. I think we are all probably looking forward to seeing what nemo will say next.

[nemo]

Abiogenesis fits into the religion category of religion on the basis of the second definition I provided.

• 
  A cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
  

As the only alternative to “In the beginning...” (I find it mildly annoying when people confuse evolution with the origin of life) I would think this would be a textbook example of a secular religion, or perhaps an anti-religion?

 

 

 

Lines in the sand... How do the lines you mention differ from HUP? Each is based upon supposed limitations of science, and at some point, asks you to believe in something that cannot be measured.

 

 

But this has nothing to do with Abiogenesis being a religion!

Take it up with Merriam-Webster, my friend; this is why I posted my resources.

 

 

 

Questions about Abiogenesis

 

Using the link I provided earlier in this thread, an example is given about how the Creationist's theories differ from the actual theories of abiogenesis by using the chart below:

 

<center></center>

 

 

Are they not disputing the mathematics of a large jump by introducing multiple new levels of chemical development that must be sequentially maintained?

 

 

 

 

Location

Abiogenesis would have to have occurred either on the earth's relatively dry surface, or deep below the ocean's surface. The most likely location being at the ocean's floor, near what are commonly known as 'black smokers', or underwater heat vents. The theory goes that the environment at this location is capable of sustaining abiogenesis through what is commonly referred to as a 'primordial soup'. This theory is a popular one, but since abiogenesis was proposed as a potential origin of life on this planet, submersibles have explored black smokers extensively and have found no 'soup'. Before we sent the submersible vehicles to the ocean floor, this was a closed environment. Where did the soup go?

[nemo]

Freethinker,

 

I too am interested in the eradication of all warm fuzzy yada yada - I have a story about that with regard to my first apartment and some seriously old spaghetti, but that's a bit off the subject.

 

 

I am glad you are well versed in the bible, that should help when I have questions. For the sake of continuity, I propose that we use the King James Version as a reference point, unless you prefer a different translation. This should reduce the number of 'kill vs. murder' misquotes or symantics battles.

 

 

My "in there somewhere" comment was a bit facetious - honestly not knowing where the ten commandments are and participating in this conversation would have revealed a level of stupidity that only my wife can attest to at the moment. I have no problem doing my own research, but would appreciate a point of reference for your comments about baby smashing, wife killing, etc, within the Bible and the Koran.

 

 

I noticed that you asked me if I was a Christian, as opposed to some other religion. Personally, I take issue with the practices of a number of formal religions (including some branches / denominations of Christianity) - do you have a particular interest / dislike for Christianity that I should know about?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

Help him support the claim? Come on, FreeT. He said that webster defines religion as 1)Scrupulous conformity; or 2) A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith; or 2 other definitions that use the word religion in some form. Using the definitions, his three examples all fit the definition of a religion, as they are all systems of belief or principles that are held to with ardor or faith. What more support is needed?

Why of coourse who would ever need more supprot than a random claim made on some BBS? Especially when it is cooberated by someone else repeating it on the same BBS.

 

You do have a strange idea of what makes for acceptable proof compared to what is just personal opinion.

 

Both of you have now made the same CLAIM, but the only supprt either of yoou have presented is your own personal opinion. Give details, FACTS. Remember the things you don't care to deal with in other areas. Well we would like to see some of them here.

 

besides your personal opinion, show us how

ardor or faith

are primary thought processes used by science in accepting the predictablity of the models developed using Abiogenesis and HUP.

 

Remember, if something is supported with sufficient factual evidence, "ardor or faith" are not only not needed, but excluded.

 

Prove to us the Abiogenesis and HUP do not provide us with the most accurate models to fit available data and provide the most accurate predictions. Show us what is better.

I think the thing you probably find most disturbing is that there is apparently a new Christian in the forums that is not going to be as easy to squash as you have recently become accustomed to doing. I think we are all probably looking forward to seeing what nemo will say next.

So far neither he nor I have made a big deal oout of it. YOU have. I asked because of a specific approach I have learned to recognize as part of a Christian POV. It was a chance for me to test it's accuracy. It is still 100%.

 

I look forward to nemo's reply. I enjoy open intellectual discussions with anyone. But it gets tiring to keep asking for factual support for claims and never getting any. So far I ahve no reason to believe nemo will take that path. We've asked for support for his claims, we'll let him show us what he has. It could be interesting for all.

 

You don't have to play the divider card.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: nemo

Abiogenesis fits into the religion category of religion on the basis of the second definition I provided.

• 
  A cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
  

As the only alternative to “In the beginning...” I would think this would be a textbook example of a secular religion, or perhaps an anti-religion?

OK, we have a problem here. We were looking for facts, for evidence, verifyable support, not more personal opinions. YOU and many others may regard these ideas as true, but that dose not MAKE them true.

 

You start with the Argument Fallacy of Bifurcation. Also referred to as the "black and white" fallacy, bifurcation occurs when one presents a situation as having only two alternatives, where in fact other alternatives exist or can exist..

 

You want to claim that either we either accept Abiogenesis or the BIBLICAL Creation has to be true. There are many many other possible explanations. Even if you could overcome the massive evidence in support of a natural abiogenesis, you would still have to prove that your myth has more evidence to support it and offers better predictability than all the others.

 

This offers nothing in the way of FACTUAL support for your claims. It is just YOU expressing YOUR opinion. A narrow view that ignores thousands of options without giving any facts for any of it.

(I find it mildly annoying when people confuse evolution with the origin of life)

Yes it is a common problem. We spend much time here trying to get it straightened out. Irsih refuses to accept the difference. She considers it nit picking to try to get people to usnderstand the difference and use appropriate termonology. I'm glad your on our side.

Lines in the sand... How do the lines you mention differ from HUP? Each is based upon supposed limitations of science, and at some point, asks you to believe in something that cannot be measured.

What can't be measured in HUP? It offers a great deal of very usable, highly predictable outcomes. Like I said before, computers would not exist if we did not understand QM and HUP. Transistors are based on the principle of HUP and the electron changing energy states.

 

Perhaps you can show us the biblical math for determining barrier voltages? The one that gives better predictability then HUP?

But this has nothing to do with Abiogenesis being a religion!

Take it up with Merriam-Webster, my friend; this is why I posted my resources.

No, you posted their definition for religion and then YOUR personal opinion that Abiogenesis and HUP fit it.

 

We have been asking for PROOF to support it. Not more personal opinion.

Questions about Abiogenesis

See? This is one of the problems with Creationists. They can;t understand that things change after 1600 years! We see as part of the claim presented that:

This theory is a popular one, but since abiogenesis was proposed as a potential origin of life on this planet, submersibles have explored black smokers extensively and have found no 'soup'. Before we sent the submersible vehicles to the ocean floor, this was a closed environment. Where did the soup go?

Yet we now know this is a LIE. Submersibles HAVE gone to the deepest depths of the Ocean floor and found primordial life forms there. Enzymes living off of the sulpher vents under conditions that we would think violates the conditions needed for life. Even more, other life has formed in a symbiotic relationship with the enzmes,. Living off of the by products from the enzymes processing the sulpher and helps the enzymes funnel the sulpher to them. It is a tube, NOT a tube worm.

Are