How do religions start?

[mistermack]

How do religions start?

New religions start with a convincing LIAR!!
These are people like Charles Manson, Jesus, Mohammed, and Budda .
You don’t have to be sane to be a convincing liar. In fact, it seems to help if you are a bit mental. People seem to be attracted to a bit of instability, and crazy staring eyes. That’s why these preachers deliberately work themselves up into a frenzy. And to start a religion, you don’t have to convince the intelligent people, you just need larger numbers of the less gifted. They will then subsequently bring up their more intelligent offspring to believe and not to question the crap you have spouted.

And incredibly, once you have started the lies going, others jump in with their own lies to fill in the gaps, often with what they think are the best intentions.
Here is a classic example of one single lie catching fire and spreading through a modern nation :

===========================================

In 1985, I went to Ireland on holiday on my motorcycle. As I rode through the countryside, I noticed a roadside grotto with a statue of the virgin Mary, ( They are quite common in Ireland ). There was a little semicircle of people just standing around staring at the statue.
A few miles on, there was another and it also had a little group of people staring at it. On my trip across the country, I passed many more statues, and nearly every one had a little group staring at it. When I arrived at my Aunt’s house, I told her what I’d seen, and she explained that someone had claimed to have seen a statue of the virgin move, in a small town called Ballinsptittle, down in county Cork. This was earlier in the week, and it had been reported on the television news. That was enough to ensure a little group of people standing staring at virtually every statue of Mary in the country, and there were hundreds of statues that were reported moving. And the original statue had thousands and thousands of visitors, and something like half of them reported seeing some movement.

The tv cameras were there, interviewing people and asking what they’d seen. Some said the statue swayed, and some claimed it began breathing. Others saw tears trickling from the eyes, and one old fellow reported seeing the face of the pope superimposed on the statue. The local police sergeant claimed he saw the statue actually levitate off its plinth.

They were all LYING. I’m not saying their intentions were bad, but it clearly doesn’t take much to get people to go all the way through exaggeration and imagination to outright lying. Especially when it comes to the paranormal. Look at all the claims to have seen UFOs, and to have been abducted by aliens. It seems that people will happily lie about stuff that they wish was true. Especially if it gets them a bit of attention.

This is the BBC report, now on youtube :
[youtubeuk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZjM83wZmWw[/youtubeuk]

===========================================

Why should people tell lies? This is the biggest weapon in a liar’s arsenal. I’ve been sucked in many times in my life, when meeting liars for the first time. You naturally believe people, if there is no obvious motive for lying. But some people lie and lie and lie. Especially when it comes to religion, or superstition. Have you ever used a ouiji board? You always get one or two people pushing the coin, or whatever, spelling out these weird messages, but they totally deny that they are pushing.
And what about the people who see UFOs? When they first started, we all wondered if they might have seen something. Now we all know they are just pathetic lying loonies.

===========================================

So religions start with liars. It’s that simple. But people will still say ‘why would they lie?’ . It’s the age-old weapon of the liars. People who are not habitual liars cannot get a grip on why someone would tell such huge lies, so the first instinct is to believe what they are told. Especially if the liar mixes in some very comforting lies that people WISH WERE TRUE. It’s as simple as that. Mix the habitual lies of some with the trusting nature of others, and religion is the inevitable result.

.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Some religions start with liars, like the Mormons. Some start with delusional people, who sincerely think they've had a religious experience. And some started when accumulated experience was formalized. There's rarely "one answer" to anything as complex as this.

[mistermack]

Some religions start with liars, like the Mormons. Some start with delusional people, who sincerely think they've had a religious experience. And some started when accumulated experience was formalized. There's rarely "one answer" to anything as complex as this.

See, it's the natural reluctance to accept that people are lying. You've got it too.
You'd rather say they are deluded. Some are maybe, fully blown schizophrenics, but they are not usually very convincing.
How many of the people in Ireland were genuinely deluded, or just lying.
( Lying to youself is still lying ).
.

[Pappa]

Some religions start with liars, like the Mormons. Some start with delusional people, who sincerely think they've had a religious experience. And some started when accumulated experience was formalized. There's rarely "one answer" to anything as complex as this.

Rastafarianism is a prime example.

I have heard of that idea [i.e., of Haile Selassie being the reincarnation of Jesus Christ]. I also met certain Rastafarians. I told them clearly that I am a man, that I am mortal, and that I would be replaced by the oncoming generation, and that they should never make a mistake in assuming or pretending that the human being is emanated from a deity.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=11324

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Some religions start with liars, like the Mormons. Some start with delusional people, who sincerely think they've had a religious experience. And some started when accumulated experience was formalized. There's rarely "one answer" to anything as complex as this.

See, it's the natural reluctance to accept that people are lying. You've got it too.
You'd rather say they are deluded. Some are maybe, fully blown schizophrenics, but they are not usually very convincing.
How many of the people in Ireland were genuinely deluded, or just lying.
( Lying to youself is still lying ).
.

Okay, I'm a historian, I assume people are lying about something whenever they say anything. Please don't assume I'm stupid because I don't agree with you.

[mistermack]

Okay, I'm a historian, I assume people are lying about something whenever they say anything. Please don't assume I'm stupid because I don't agree with you.

Ok, historian, if you're not stupid, you will know perfectly well that I didn't say that. So you must be deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote, for some strange reason.
Also, if you're not stupid, you will know that there is no black and white. People can start out lying, and end up believing their own lies.
Or they can be deluded, but know deep down they are just inventing. People drift in and out of 'sanity'. I'm giving the opinion that the vast majority of Religions start with a concious lie.
.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Okay, I'm a historian, I assume people are lying about something whenever they say anything. Please don't assume I'm stupid because I don't agree with you.

Ok, historian, if you're not stupid, you will know perfectly well that I didn't say that. So you must be deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote, for some strange reason.
Also, if you're not stupid, you will know that there is no black and white. People can start out lying, and end up believing their own lies.
Or they can be deluded, but know deep down they are just inventing. People drift in and out of 'sanity'. I'm giving the opinion that the vast majority of Religions start with a concious lie.
.

I agree with the black and white bit, which is why I'm objecting to you saying all religions start out as people lying. We agree it's never simple, yes? But making a sweeping assumption about anything is usually a bad idea, and never a good one.

[mistermack]

I agree with the black and white bit, which is why I'm objecting to you saying all religions start out as people lying. We agree it's never simple, yes? But making a sweeping assumption about anything is usually a bad idea, and never a good one.

Fair enough, but I would never have used the word all, or tried to give that impression. But I would claim that the huge majority of religions start that way.
Did Manson believe the crap he was spouting? Maybe he did, now and then, with the right drugs on board. But mostly I think he just didn't care, and just enjoyed the attention.
It's not even clear if Jesus even believed he had any connection with 'God'. We only have what people wrote about him, and if you look at the avalanche of invention in Ireland following that event, you can see what could have been invented after Jesus' death.
I was there in Ireland at the time, and was watching people on the TV news, and even listening to them talking. I know pure invention and wishful thinking when I see it and hear it. When you asked them a question, you could see the invention going on, in their faces. It really was incredible.
.

[Pappa]

It's not even clear if Jesus even believed he had any connection with 'God'.

Nothing at all is clear about the life of Jesus. There's not any real evidence he even existed, and even if he did, it's unlikely any of the stories he appears in actually happened at all.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I agree with the black and white bit, which is why I'm objecting to you saying all religions start out as people lying. We agree it's never simple, yes? But making a sweeping assumption about anything is usually a bad idea, and never a good one.

Fair enough, but I would never have used the word all, or tried to give that impression. But I would claim that the huge majority of religions start that way.
Did Manson believe the crap he was spouting? Maybe he did, now and then, with the right drugs on board. But mostly I think he just didn't care, and just enjoyed the attention.
It's not even clear if Jesus even believed he had any connection with 'God'. We only have what people wrote about him, and if you look at the avalanche of invention in Ireland following that event, you can see what could have been invented after Jesus' death.
I was there in Ireland at the time, and was watching people on the TV news, and even listening to them talking. I know pure invention and wishful thinking when I see it and hear it. When you asked them a question, you could see the invention going on, in their faces. It really was incredible.
.

I'd be interested in seeing studies that look at exactly how religions start.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I agree with the black and white bit, which is why I'm objecting to you saying all religions start out as people lying. We agree it's never simple, yes? But making a sweeping assumption about anything is usually a bad idea, and never a good one.

Fair enough, but I would never have used the word all, or tried to give that impression. But I would claim that the huge majority of religions start that way.
Did Manson believe the crap he was spouting? Maybe he did, now and then, with the right drugs on board. But mostly I think he just didn't care, and just enjoyed the attention.
It's not even clear if Jesus even believed he had any connection with 'God'. We only have what people wrote about him, and if you look at the avalanche of invention in Ireland following that event, you can see what could have been invented after Jesus' death.
I was there in Ireland at the time, and was watching people on the TV news, and even listening to them talking. I know pure invention and wishful thinking when I see it and hear it. When you asked them a question, you could see the invention going on, in their faces. It really was incredible.
.

I'd be interested in seeing studies that look at exactly how religions start.

Read Breaking the Spell by Dan Dennett. He devotes about a quarter of the book to religion's origins - and its social and evolutionary significance - and lists a lot of additional sources in his bibliography.

[mistermack]

It's not even clear if Jesus even believed he had any connection with 'God'.

Nothing at all is clear about the life of Jesus. There's not any real evidence he even existed, and even if he did, it's unlikely any of the stories he appears in actually happened at all.

I wouldn't agree there. But it depends what you mean by 'real evidence'. I think the letters of Paul are real evidence of a real person, and of real followers. They are too detailed, and written too soon after, to be 'Robin Hood' kind of legends.
Of course, I wouldn't claim 'real evidence' is the same as 'real proof'.

I would agree about the stories to some extent, except that what Paul wrote would have had to generally reflect facts, he was obviously an intelligent man with a big ego, and would not have wanted to invite ridicule.
.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

It's not even clear if Jesus even believed he had any connection with 'God'.

Nothing at all is clear about the life of Jesus. There's not any real evidence he even existed, and even if he did, it's unlikely any of the stories he appears in actually happened at all.

I wouldn't agree there. But it depends what you mean by 'real evidence'. I think the letters of Paul are real evidence of a real person, and of real followers. They are too detailed, and written too soon after, to be 'Robin Hood' kind of legends.
Of course, I wouldn't claim 'real evidence' is the same as 'real proof'.

I would agree about the stories to some extent, except that what Paul wrote would have had to generally reflect facts, he was obviously an intelligent man with a big ego, and would not have wanted to invite ridicule.
.

So you don't think Paul was a liar then?

[Pappa]

I'd be interested in seeing studies that look at exactly how religions start.

I'd be interested in starting one and seeing how much money I made.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'd be interested in seeing studies that look at exactly how religions start.

Read Breaking the Spell by Dan Dennett. He devotes about a quarter of the book to religion's origins - and its social and evolutionary significance - and lists a lot of additional sources in his bibliography.

I said "seeing". tl:dr