Are all religions based on conspiracy theories and lies?

[Hardkill]

I just read Leo's blog "The Devil Wrote The Bible" and it reminded me how I've lately been thinking that all religions have been based on conspiracy theories.

What if Abraham's claims about God were based on his own persuasive abilities rather than divine revelation?

What if Jesus was simply a deluded charismatic individual who persuaded others he was the Son of God?

What if Muhammad was a charismatic leader who convinced his followers he was a prophet divinely inspired by Allah?

[Leo Gura]

No. They come from mystical experience. But that limited experience is filtered through a corrupt, ignorant, and deeply biased mind.

Edited Saturday at 06:35 AM by Leo Gura

[Hardkill]

47 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

No. They come from mystical experience. But that limited experience is filtered through a corrupt, ignorant, and deeply biased mind.

You mean Abraham, Jesus, and Muhammad, were all corrupt, ignorant, and deeply biased, right?

I am very skeptical of mystical experiences being real.

Edited Saturday at 07:22 AM by Hardkill

[zurew]

7 hours ago, Hardkill said:

I am very skeptical of mystical experiences being real.

Even if we grant you that all mystical experiences are delusions, the arguments for God will still stand and even if you can poke holes in those arguments, you will need to provide atheist arguments that end with the conclusion that 'God doesn't exist'. Otherwise , at best you will only establish that its more reasonable to be an agnostic rather than a theist.

There are some good atheist arguments that work againts some special version of God (if God has a specific set of traits) but I don't know any argument that will refute the whole category of theism.

[Davino]

12 hours ago, Hardkill said:

I am very skeptical of mystical experiences being real.

Case 2

[Davino]

Bhagavad Gita reflections by Alan Watts (case 3)

 

[James123]

15 hours ago, Hardkill said:

You mean Abraham, Jesus, and Muhammad, were all corrupt, ignorant, and deeply biased, right?

I am very skeptical of mystical experiences being real.

Not the Prophets, but people who follow them are corrupt. 

[Hardkill]

42 minutes ago, James123 said:

Not the Prophets, but people who follow them are corrupt. 

Of course all of their followers were corrupt fools, but none of the prophets showed any real proof of ever being connected to God in any way.

[Fadl]

1 hour ago, Hardkill said:

Of course all of their followers were corrupt fools, but none of the prophets showed any real proof of ever being connected to God in any way.

You’re being a bit harsh .. very few people in history have had this level of influence, and most of them were prophets.

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Hardkill said:

none of the prophets showed any real proof of ever being connected to God in any way.

You are speaking nonsense.

No one needs to prove anything to you.

Edited Sunday at 02:57 AM by Leo Gura

[Raze]

3 hours ago, Hardkill said:

Of course all of their followers were corrupt fools, but none of the prophets showed any real proof of ever being connected to God in any way.

How could that be proven?

[Yimpa]

28 minutes ago, Raze said:

How could that be proven?

By whipping out my big fat holy book 

[Hardkill]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

You are speaking nonsense.

No one needs to prove anything to you.

 

5 hours ago, Yimpa said:

By whipping out my big fat holy book 

Then, anybody can get away with lying about it as long as they are persuasive enough.

[zurew]

20 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

Then, anybody can get away with lying about it as long as they are persuasive enough.

and what is that an argument for?

[Oeaohoo]

12 hours ago, Hardkill said:

Of course all of their followers were corrupt fools, but none of the prophets showed any real proof of ever being connected to God in any way.

The proof is in the pudding: if I started a religion on a whim, based on nothing, it would never catch on because it would lack depth and profundity; on the other hand, when somebody speaks from mystical (anagogic) insight, their words are susceptible of an indefinite development, and that is what a religion is. Naturally, the further one falls away from the source, the more distorted this insight becomes — hence the decrepitude of all organised religion in our time.

 

[Atb210201]

You know none of the prophets actually wrote any scripture themselves.

The written scriptures we have today are all written after each prophet died.

Edited Sunday at 12:40 PM by Atb210201

[zurew]

39 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

Naturally, the further one falls away from the source, the more distorted this insight becomes — hence the decrepitude of all organised religion in our time.

By 'one falling away from the source' do you mean something like - getting lost in the propositional domain (getting lost in arguing and in searching for the best arguments for or against God and hardcore focusing on whats in a given holybook and how to properly interpret the book) rather than focusing on having a mystical experience and establishing a genuine relationship/connection and deriving the insights from there?

Edited Sunday at 01:07 PM by zurew

[Davino]

1 hour ago, Atb210201 said:

You know none of the prophets actually wrote any scripture themselves.

The written scriptures we have today are all written after each prophet died.

That can be the case with the Abrahamic tradition

While it is common for scriptures to be compiled by followers posthumously (due to illiteracy), cases like those of Adi Shankaracharya, Guru Nanak, Hildegard of Bingen or Laozi show that many texts are actually writen by educated mystics who directly authored foundational texts. 

[Oeaohoo]

36 minutes ago, zurew said:

By 'one falling away from the source' do you mean something like - getting lost in the propositional domain (getting lost in arguing and in searching for the best arguments for or against God and hardcore focusing on whats in a given holybook and how to properly interpret the book) rather than focusing on having a mystical experience and establishing a genuine relationship/connection and deriving the insights from there?

I meant more the source of a given religion, in other words the Revelation bestowed upon a particular mystic. This is one reason why, contrary to progressivism, Mohammed says: “Be patient, for an era will not come upon you but that what comes after is worse, until you meet your Lord.”

Since this Revelation comes from a timeless place, though, if one managed to plunge the same depths oneself then I suppose it might be equivalent. However, it is unlikely that one would thereby become the source of a religion, especially nowadays… For example, whatever genuine mystical experiences the founder of this forum has had, there is never going to be a religion of Actualized.org. 

[Atb210201]

1 hour ago, Davino said:

That can be the case with the Abrahamic tradition

While it is common for scriptures to be compiled by followers posthumously (due to illiteracy), cases like those of Adi Shankaracharya, Guru Nanak, Hildegard of Bingen or Laozi show that many texts are actually writen by educated mystics who directly authored foundational texts. 

Yes I was talking about Abrahamic Religions thanks for the correction.