Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
French Patriot

Were religions the first propagators of Fake News?

Recommended Posts

Were religions the first propagators of Fake News?

 

Fake News is considered to be lies or distortions of the truth. The first wholesale use of lies may have been religions.

 

Ancient temple inventions meant to fool people

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7BHvN6rZZA

What Do Con Artists and Religious Leaders Have in Common? With Maria Konnikova

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6DfJVjEMlc&t=4s

 

Do you think religions were the first propagators of Fake News?

 

Do you think that the term fraud can be applied to most supernaturally based religions?

 

Regards

DL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/20/2018 at 12:10 PM, French Patriot said:

Were religions the first propagators of Fake News?

 

Fake News is considered to be lies or distortions of the truth. The first wholesale use of lies may have been religions.

 

Ancient temple inventions meant to fool people

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7BHvN6rZZA

What Do Con Artists and Religious Leaders Have in Common? With Maria Konnikova

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6DfJVjEMlc&t=4s

 

Do you think religions were the first propagators of Fake News?

 

Do you think that the term fraud can be applied to most supernaturally based religions?

 

Regards

DL

Lying is an inherent characteristic in all humans so logic dictates lying preceded religion and religious belief at the individual level before it was passed on collectively through religion. I tend to think lying is a primal trait especially used by Alpha males to gain control of their packs. Religion is simply primates forming packs led by an Alpha male who lies louder than his subjects.  Interestingly with Baboons the Alpha is endowed with a very colourful and inflammed buttocks, just like religious leaders. The first liar was probably some Alpha trying to convince his next mate he would pay child support.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Rue said:

Lying is an inherent characteristic in all humans so logic dictates lying preceded religion and religious belief at the individual level before it was passed on collectively through religion. I tend to think lying is a primal trait especially used by Alpha males to gain control of their packs. Religion is simply primates forming packs led by an Alpha male who lies louder than his subjects.  Interestingly with Baboons the Alpha is endowed with a very colourful and inflammed buttocks, just like religious leaders. The first liar was probably some Alpha trying to convince his next mate he would pay child support.

You might be right, but Fake News is not quite just lying. It is lying to people who want to believe the lie enough to pass it on as real when they know it is a lie.

Regards

DL 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/20/2018 at 9:10 AM, French Patriot said:

Do you think religions were the first propagators of Fake News?

 

Regards

DL

No, they were the first attempts at organized systemic stupidity.

Practice clearly makes perfect.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/21/2018 at 7:37 PM, Don Jonas said:

Religions aren't based on anything supernatural. Everything is natural. That's what it's all about: the nature of our being.

Are you saying that all that is supernatural is human invention and therefore, natural?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, eyeball said:

No, they were the first attempts at organized systemic stupidity.

Practice clearly makes perfect.

I see it more as people ignoring common sense for their tribal natures that they appease.

More willful hypocrisy than stupidity,  but I can agree that that is not a good way to think and that they are a disgrace to the human race.

Regards

DL  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course there's a God. The evidence of that is in your very psyche. What differentiates your skull from a rock? The concept of God does. What makes your skull capable of love? That's Jesus.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Don Jonas said:

No, I'm saying nothing is supernatural.

Nothing exists that is supernatural, true.  There are no Gods or ghosts.

But to say nothing is supernatural is like saying there is no fiction.  Harry Potter and the Hobbits, Jason Bourne and Hari Seldon, none of them existed, but they were conceived of.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fiction is conceived in the human mind, which is perfectly natural invention. God is the force that created the universe. There's nothing supernatural about the existence of the universe. Again, nothing could be more natural.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Don Jonas said:

Of course there's a God. The evidence of that is in your very psyche. What differentiates your skull from a rock? The concept of God does. What makes your skull capable of love? That's Jesus.

No, that's wrong.  The brain differentiates a skull from a rock, and its chemistry makes it capable of love.  And hate and indifference.

Jesus really doesn't enter into it.  Any more, really, than Harry Potter and the Hobbits, Jason Bourne or Hari Seldon.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Don Jonas said:

Fiction is conceived in the human mind, which is perfectly natural invention. God is the force that created the universe. There's nothing supernatural about the existence of the universe. Again, nothing could be more natural.

God is fiction, so God is natural.  Okay.

That was my original comment in reply to you, differently put.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Don Jonas said:

Of course there's a God. The evidence of that is in your very psyche. What differentiates your skull from a rock? The concept of God does. What makes your skull capable of love? That's Jesus.

So you were just being a hypocrite by saying there is no supernatural, then saying that a supernatural Jesus exists.

Typical Christian two faced hypocrisy.

Thanks for showing how that hypocrisy expresses itself.

Regards

DL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

No, that's wrong.  The brain differentiates a skull from a rock, and its chemistry makes it capable of love.  And hate and indifference.

Jesus really doesn't enter into it.  Any more, really, than Harry Potter and the Hobbits, Jason Bourne or Hari Seldon.

Semantics. Jesus is love and love exists, so therefore Jesus exists. You can call it something else, but it's all the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, French Patriot said:

So you were just being a hypocrite by saying there is no supernatural, then saying that a supernatural Jesus exists.

Typical Christian two faced hypocrisy.

Thanks for showing how that hypocrisy expresses itself.

Regards

DL

You're saying love doesn't exist? It does and I can prove it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

God is fiction, so God is natural.  Okay.

That was my original comment in reply to you, differently put.

No, God is the force of creation and that can be proven by the existence of creation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Don Jonas said:

Semantics. Jesus is love and love exists, so therefore Jesus exists. You can call it something else, but it's all the same thing.

Basic disagreement.  Jesus existed, but so did Lord Nelson.  Neither were love.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Don Jonas said:

No, God is the force of creation and that can be proven by the existence of creation.

Basic disagreement.  God is not proven by the existence of creation.  Creation is real.  God is a figment of the imagination of people who needed something to explain the unexplainable about creation, before they figured out science.  Things used to hit the ground because God said so.  Now we know it's gravity.  Given time and the forebearance of nature, we will know all the answers.  And then God, as a human construct, can retire.

Let's not get into pantomime.  Not much point in continuing this argument.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, bcsapper said:
9 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Basic disagreement.  God is not proven by the existence of creation.  Creation is real.  God is a figment of the imagination of people who needed something to explain the unexplainable about creation, before they figured out science.  Things used to hit the ground because God said so.  Now we know it's gravity.  Given time and the forebearance of nature, we will know all the answers.  And then God, as a human construct, can retire.

Let's not get into pantomime.  Not much point in continuing this argument.

 

God is a word that describes the force that created the universe. The true nature of this force may be beyond our ken, but it is linked to our psyche and our capacity to generate love (ergo, we are created in His image).

Edited by Don Jonas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...