# data[].attributes.body
The Museum of Hoaxes is a website created by Alex Boese in
1997 in San Diego, California. It is a resource for reporting and discussing contemporary and historical hoaxes and urban legends. The site contains a broad range of examples and demonstrates how ambiguous the category is  (Fleming, O'aCroll 2010). Also, it points out a visible increase in the number of hoaxes after the Internet became accessible.

Alex Boese (2002) defines a hoax in a very broad sense - he refers to a hoax as a sensational and purposeful act of deception that attracts the attention of the public. He distinguishes hoaxes from other small everyday acts of deception in its purpose to attract the public attention. According to Boes,e there are four features that make a hoax successful: first, a hoax has to fall within the limits of what we think might be true; second, a successful hoax has to be startling or sensational, it has to demonstrate creativity; third, many successful hoaxes will take advantage of our tendency to believe whatever reinforces our preexisting notions of what should be true, or what we want to be true.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Stories about the island of Hi-Brazil circulated around Europe for centuries, telling that it was the Promised Land of the Saints, an earthly paradise where fairies and magicians lived. The island was said to be somewhere in the Atlantic, off the coast of Ireland. Based on this information, cartographers of the late-medieval period frequently placed the island on maps. And many explorers even attempted to find it. More...

During the early 15th Century, when a neighboring abbey claimed a portion of the land of Crowland Abbey (located in the Lincolnshire Fens of England) as its own, the Crowland monks presented legal authorities with a volume known as the Historia Crowlandensis, or History of Crowland, to document their historical ownership of the disputed lands. The History was accepted as legitimate, and the Crowland monks won their case. It wasn't until the 19th Century that historians realized the History was, for the most part, an invention. It contained numerous anachronisms, such as referring to monks who had supposedly studied at Oxford, long before the University was founded. It also claimed that many of the monks had lived to ages well past 100. Such longevity would be hard-to-believe today, let alone in the Middle Ages. More...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Stories about the island of Hi-Brazil circulated around Europe for centuries, telling that it was the Promised Land of the Saints, an earthly paradise where fairies and magicians lived. The island was said to be somewhere in the Atlantic, off the coast of Ireland.

# data[].attributes.headline
Similarities between songs and copyright laws- case of Sam Smiths 'Stay With Me'

# data[].attributes.subject
Similarities between songs and copyright laws- case of Sam Smiths 'Stay With Me'

# data[].attributes.body
Sam Smith acknowledged the similarities between his song 'Stay With Me' and the 1989 Petty/Lynne song 'I Won’t Back Down' and confirmed that after the lawsuit "Stay With Me" is now co-credited with Tom Petty and Jeff Lynne. However, he also states that the similarity was a complete coincidence and that the artists came to the amicable agreement to avoid further legal processes.

This example shows how problematic plagiarism of ideas (Resnik 2012) and copyright is. The Definition of a copyright assumes that there is only one originator of literary, artistic or music material, whereas these people came up with (or at least there a probability) with similar ideas, materials on their own independently. Here, the question could be asked to what extent an artistic piece has to be similar/different that it would be credited to an earlier originator?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
UPDATE: In a statement given to Rolling Stone, Sam Smith's reps acknowledge the similarities between the songs and confirmed that "Stay With Me" is now co-credited to Tom Petty and Jeff Lynne. " Not previously familiar with the 1989 Petty/Lynne song, the writers of 'Stay With Me' listened to 'I Won't Back Down' and acknowledged the similarity," the statement read. "Although the likeness was a complete coincidence, all involved came to an immediate and amicable agreement in which Tom Petty and Jeff Lynne are now credited as co-writers of 'Stay With Me' along with Sam Smith, James Napier and William Phillips."

EARLIER: Turns out, everyone agrees with Tom Petty's lawyers. Sam Smith's "Stay With Me" sounds oddly similar to Petty's "I Won't Back Down," and Smith will now have to pay him royalties for the song.

HuffPost Entertainment contacted a representative for Smith; this post will be updated if and when they respond.

Back when Smith's smash single came out, many listeners drew comparisons between the two tracks. In a story on Medium, Ed Rex even noted that there were identical notes, chords, rhythms and pitches.

According to The Sun, the two musicians settled the dispute out of court back in October, but the details emerged this weekend. A 12.5 percent writing credit was given to Petty and singer-composer Jeff Lynne. The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers now lists Smith, Petty, Lynne and Jimmy Napes as chief songwriters of the song.

"Stay With Me" has sold almost four million copies worldwide and was one of the biggest tracks of 2014. It is nominated at the forthcoming Grammys for Best Pop Performance and Record of the Year, so it's a good thing Tom Petty wouldn't, uh, back down.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sam Smith Will Pay Tom Petty Royalties For 'Stay With Me'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
UPDATE: In a statement given to Rolling Stone, Sam Smith's reps acknowledge the similarities between the songs and confirmed that "Stay With Me" is now co-credited to Tom Petty and Jeff Lynne. " Not previously familiar with the 1989 Petty/Lynne song, the writers of 'Stay With Me' listened to 'I Won't Back Down' and acknowledged the similarity," the statement read.

# data[].attributes.body
Another great illustration of how ambiguous copyright is and how people share collective creativity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Axis of Awesome - 4 Four Chord Song (with song titles)

# data[].attributes.body
Last February a mock store of Starbucks opened in Los Angeles and is nearly identical to a typical Starbucks cafe just with the word 'dumb' inserted before every menu item, the brand name on the cup etc.

The interesting part of the hoax is that the coffeehouse is legally registered as a piece of parody art, so it is allowed to do both, make fun of 'Starbucks' and use its trademark for business purpose.

In media 'Dumb Starbucks' was described as a hoax, however, it is a great example of how problematic it is to define something as a hoax (a problem discussed by Fleming and O Carroll 2010). In the first place, the intention of the author was not revealed, so it is hard to say whether it should be defined as a performative hoax or an actual business strategy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Could the whole "Dumb Starbucks" thing just be an elaborate publicity grab? The man behind the Los Angeles sensation that is "Dumb Starbucks" revealed himself on Monday as the star of a Comedy Central show who insists he is committed to his bizarre parody business model.

Nathan Fielder, star of "Nathan For You," stepped out as the CEO of the coffee shop and addressed camera crews and curious Angelenos Monday afternoon outside his uber-popular storefront dubbed "Dumb Starbucks."

But the limelight might be fading for the parody shop now that the LA County Department of Health Services has slapped the store with a notice of closure for operating without a valid public health permit.

The store popped up seemingly out of nowhere in a Los Feliz strip center Feb. 7 in the storefront that once housed the now-defunct Gastronomico.

#DumbStarbucks was the top trending hashtag on Twitter in Los Angeles. The pop-up coffee shop took social media by storm as hundreds of Angelenos tweeted about their fascination with the "dumb" business, including some who waited in line for hours just to get a peek.

"As long as we're making fun of Starbucks, we're allowed to use their corporate identity," Fielder told the crowd.

Fielder's show, "Nathan For You," is a docu-reality comedy show in which Fielder uses his background in business to offer up new, non-traditional business strategies.

Despite the revelation of the Dumb Starbucks owner's comedy background, Fielder would not say whether the store was part of his show.

The show's slogan, "Real People. Real Business. Results Not Guaranteed" is in line with Dumb Starbucks' online fact sheet that maintains the store is, in fact, a real business.

But Fielder has been known to stage elaborate hoaxes, including a YouTube video showing a pig rescuing a baby goat -- which was actually staged with animal trainers and crew members. The video had more than 8 million views as of Monday.

The logo adorning the Dumb Starbucks storefront and coffee cups is that of the actual Starbucks, but with the word "dumb." The same protocol applies to the entire menu, down to the "dumb" tall, grande and venti sizes.

The imitation coffee chain, aware of its mind-boggling business model, claims its existence at 1802 Hillhurst Avenue is allowed thanks to "parody law" in a Frequently Asked Questions list posted via Twitter.

"By adding the word 'dumb,' we are technically 'making fun of Starbucks, which allows us to use their trademarks under a law known as 'fair use.'"

The FAQ goes on to explain, "Although we are a fully functioning coffee shop, for legal reasons, Dumb Starbucks needs to be categorized as a work of parody art ... But that's for our lawyers to worry about. All you need to do is enjoy our delicious coffee!"

Confused yet curious consumers took to Twitter as they lined up outside the coffee shop in question on Saturday and Sunday.

"Are your dumb coffees still free today?" @LukeOneil47 asked.

"That does it, I'm opening a parody coffee shop called 'Not Dumb Starbucks," @Abobrow said.

"'It may be fake but the work is real' (overheard from the dumb Starbucks baristas),'" @TheBrockyRoad tweeted with a picture of an employee complete with a green apron and black hat with the logos for - you guessed it - Dumb Starbucks.

Fielder explains in a YouTube video how he was able to market "Dumb Starbucks," and describes the stunt as "a real business I plan to get rich from." Watch below:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
"Dumb Starbucks" Forced to Close After Owner Revealed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Could the whole "Dumb Starbucks" thing just be an elaborate publicity grab? The man behind the Los Angeles sensation that is "Dumb Starbucks" revealed himself on Monday as the star of a Comedy Central show who insists he is committed to his bizarre parody business model.

# data[].attributes.body
This talk makes an argument very similar to the one purposed by Peter York in the Guardian article (2015) about the trendiness of the concept of authenticity.  Both scholars are suspicious of the concept of authenticity, especially, in the context of marketing and criticise it for being too vague.  Pine asserts that authenticity is the new consumer sensibility and that the future consumerism will be based on providing experiences rather than goods or services. Pines criticism towards such mass customisation and marketing of authentic experiences is based on the notion that there is no such thing as inauthentic experience because authenticity is an internal process.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Customers want to feel what they buy is authentic, but "Mass Customization" author Joseph Pine says selling authenticity is tough because, well, there's no such thing. He talks about a few experiences that may be artificial but make millions anyway.

# data[].attributes.body
Boese A. (2002) interviewed by Emery D., published in 'San Francisco Gate' 19th December (http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/The-Bunk-Stops-Here-An-interview-with-Alex-2745041.php)

Bubandt, N. 2009. ‘From the enemy’s point of view: violence, empathy, and the ethnography of fakes’. Cultural Anthropology 24, 3: 553-588.

Fleming, Chris and John O'Carroll. 2010. ‘The Art of the Hoax’. Parallax 16, 4: 45-59.

Gieryn, Thomas F. 1983. ‘Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from NonScience:Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists’. American Sociological Review 48 (6): 781–95

Irons, William. 2001. ‘Religion as a hard-to-fake sign of commitment’. In Evolution and the capacity for commitment, edited by R. M. Nesse, pp. 292-309. New York:Russell Sage Foundation. (http://www.williamirons.net/wpcontent/uploads/2011/06/Religion-as-a-Hard-to-Fake-Sign-of-Commitment.pdf)

Resnik, David B. 2012. ‘Editorial: Plagiarism: Words and Ideas’. Accountability in Research 19 (5): 269–72.

Reeves, M. 2013. ‘Clean fake: authenticating documents and persons in migrant Moscow’. American Ethnologist 40, 3: 508–524.#

York, P.. 2015. ‘Against authenticity’. The Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/02/points-of-view-peter-york

# data[].attributes.headline
'I Origins' - scientific vs. spiritual beliefs

# data[].attributes.subject
'I Origins' - scientific vs. spiritual beliefs

# data[].attributes.body
A film about a molecular scientist who believes in science in disapproves of any religious beliefs. Ironically, after a successful discovery that proves the evolution, the main character faces events that prove him that a spiritual phenomenon exists, but it can not be scientifically verified. This movie touches upon the aspects of how the boundary between science and religion is drawn.

The endless conflict between religion and science reached the crescendo with the debate over evolutionism/creationism.  According to Turner (1974) this is a professional conflict over authority and prestige.

According to Tyndall (Tyndall in Gieryn 1983: 784-785), a Victorian 'statesman for science'  there are few distinguishable features between sciences and religion: first, science is empirical whereas religion is metaphysical, so religion can not be verified; second, science is skeptical because it respects no authority other than the facts of nature whereas religion is dogmatic,(science is more successful because of its willingness to abandon all preconceived notions, if they be found to contradict the truth) ; thirdly, science is supposed to be objective, free from emotions, private interests, bias and prejudice whereas religion is subjective.

I found the film interesting because it illustrates the opposite to what Tyndall argued. It shows that science is, in fact, a belief system and that scientists are biased. It points out that the spiritual phenomenon can be observed it's just that scientific methods fail to verify and explain it. It also shows how dogmatic and arrogant science is, the main character is not willing to change his understanding.

# data[].attributes.body
In this is a fascinating talk in which Rupert Sheldrake questions and challenges the current scientific dogmas. He demonstrates how science evolved from a method of inquiry into a belief system. He illustrates his point by providing examples of how the constants of the speed of light and the gravitation had changed over time across different places and how in a lot of cases they are not challenged and questioned by scientists. This provocative talk was banned from the ted.com website and has opened up a debate about what counts as a scientific process.

The talk is a part of a wider debate about the relationship between science and ideology (Gieryn 1983).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion @ TEDxWhitechapel

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CC-BY-NC-ND (c) TED (http://www.ted.com) This video and Graham Hancock's "The War on Consciousness" (http://youtu.be/s42vuf0ahU8) were initially released by TED but later withdrawn, and then reposted with significantly constrained availability.

# data[].attributes.headline
Epic hoax response by BrewDog owners to fake Brew Dog in China.

# data[].attributes.subject
Epic hoax response by BrewDog owners to fake Brew Dog in China.

# data[].attributes.body
The link from a BrewDog blog provided underneath is a 'letter to the owner/manager' of fake Brew Dog pub in China. This post could be interpreted as a hoax according to definitive features outlined by Fleming and O'Carrol (2010). It the first place, it is an aesthetically sophisticated act of trickery. Secondly, it has a strangely moralising quality and the author could be seen as a latent teacher. Furthermore, it is public and the deception is fuelled by a certain resentment (Fleming, O'Carrol 2010: 45-49). The genius of the author's response lies in the way he pins fake Brew Dog as a prove of craft beer revolution, he thanks for choosing their brand instead of some mass production brand and notes that he and the addressee share a mutual passion for great beer. Additionally, comments under the post contain mockery of China/ Chinese, population. One of the comments below the post poses a great question: How BrewDog's attitude would differ if such fake pub was established in in the UK?

# data[].attributes.headline
Stopfake.org - a fact-checking website that helps to uncover fake information about the events in Ukraine

# data[].attributes.subject
Stopfake.org - a fact-checking website that helps to uncover fake information about the events in Ukraine

# data[].attributes.body
Stopfake.org is an online community of volunteer journalists, developers, translators etc.  who share a goal to check facts, verify information, and refute distorted information and propaganda about the events in Ukraine covered in the media.

The most interesting and useful feature of the website is a column called 'How to Identify a Fake' that provides a reader with a list of tools and methods that help to identify fake videos and photos online.

Stopfake.org  relates to the course topic 'fake documents' in two ways. First, the circulation of 'fake news' (about Ukraine in this case)  generates similar effects as those described by Bubandt  (2009) in his paper about the power of fake documents (fake leaked letters). According to Bubandt, fake documents (news) have potential to bring a sense of belonging to a nation, they induce imagination and allow one to see and understand the enemies point of view. To put it simply,  it allows to reproduce and legitimate power by exposing potential threat. Second, most 'fake news' busted by the website community are from the Russian media. Reeves (2013) described a system of documentary uncertainty and suspicion prevalent in Russia. I believe phenomenon described by Reeves could be extended further from any legal documents to all publicly displayed information in urban Russia. Stopfake.org then provides some examples of 'unclean fakes' that are easy to bust and equips the public with tools it needs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A significant percentage of information on high-profile events (the confrontational situation in Ukraine, in our case), does not correspond to reality. The root cause of this is the use of such information for governmental propaganda purposes: in this case the news stories are used not to inform the public, but to impose certain opinions on them, which is generally beneficial to one side or another. This document will attempt to highlight the main methods used for identification of lies in mass media.

Let us begin by agreeing that we'll attempt to work only with proven facts, and not with statements by either side. For example, if the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs makes a statement on some event in Ukraine, while the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs or Ministry of Defence denies said statement, then we find ourselves in a classic scenario of "word against word"; two interested parties say that which benefits them. For this reason our [website] has so few refutations of verbal statements: they are possible only when someone contests information that is beneficial to them (for example, when Donetsk militants denied their seizure of "Grad" multi-rocket-launcher systems, which was reported by channel LifeNews, loyal to them). Therefore we shall try to speak of only facts.
Photo-fake
This is a more popular type of fake, but also it is easier to dispel. Using the Internet, it is usually possible to establish the credibility of any photo within a matter of seconds. As it turns out, however, most users are incapable of this; they instantly believe any "screaming" photo.

There are a number of ways to ID a photo-fake. If you use Google Chrome you simply need to right-click on an image and select the option of searching for the image in Google.

If you use a different browser (one without this default image-search option), you can install a special plug-in; there are many. For example, a very useful one is Who stole my pictures. The benefit of this plug-in is that it can search not only on Google, but also on Yandex, Tineye, or all three at once.

If you do not have Chrome and do not have the option of installing a plug-in, you can do without them. You simply need to have two tabs open in your browser: one tab contains the page with the subject image; the second tab contains the Google Images page. Go to the first tab, and use your mouse to grab the subject image, then drag it to the second tab, and finally drop it into the search bar of the Google Images page.

This way you can also search for images from your own hard drive: simply drag-and-drop the image file into the Google Images search bar.

As a result of this method you can examine two very important aspects. The first is whether the image is original, or if has been subject to photo-editing software. In our example it is evident that the image has been modified to include enlarged flames, so as to depict a post-bombardment City of Donetsk.

The second aspect is the image's date of publishing, and its true subject matter. For example, you can see whether someone is trying to portray the war events in Syria as those of Ukraine.
Video-fake
Working with such a fake is much more difficult than with images, considering there is no simplified search method. If you suspect that a video's authenticity is questionable you can try one of these methods.

First of all, if you are watching a YouTube window plug-in on some site, go to YouTube itself, in order to gather more information on the video (do this by clicking on the YouTube logo in the bottom right-hand corner).

For example, using this method, we can discover that the news from Russian [mass media outlet] Komsomolskaya Pravda (Eng: Komsomol Truth), about Yatsenyuk & Turchynov getting booed on 2014 Victory Day, is actually falsified: this video was placed on YouTube a year ago; Yatsenyuk & Turchynov were still in the opposition, and were received unfavourably by members of the Communist Party.

Of course, such basic lapses are few. If there are no obvious signs of a video-fake, we recommend that attention be drawn to the following. If there is a recent date in the very title of the video, and that particular video has been uploaded to YouTube multiple times over a short span of time, then there is high probability that the video is a fake. Select a version of the video with the highest amount of views, and read the comments by other viewers; there is a high probability that some of the viewers have seen the original, and may have even posted a link to it.

Furthermore, pay attention to the details in a video: names of objects; car license plates; street signs. Such factors can often be used to determine what is truly taking place. For example, we used this method to discover that the yacht "Video Azimut 46" (which, according to the Russian NTV channel's news story, was supposedly a gift from a local businessman to Odessa militants for the purpose of coastal defence), is actually a rental; it was rented by the news channel personnel to create the falsified story.

One more method: verbally describe what you see in the video, and search for the description on YouTube or Google. For example, there is a rapidly spreading video fragment, titled [trans. from Rus.] "message to the Kiev junta from a mother of a fallen soldier 14 05 2014". However, having searched for [trans. from Rus.] "message from a mother of a fallen soldier" you will easily find the complete video, from which it is clear that the mother is addressing Vladimir Putin; she asks him to cease military action in Ukraine.

Another method: make a screenshot of a more prominent part of the video, and place it in Google Image search, using the method described earlier. There is a possibility that someone used the video in some news, or used such a prominent screenshot as an image somewhere. This way it is possible to uncover the original source.
Witness Statements
Often it is difficult or impossible to evaluate validity of witness statements, but there are exceptions.

Pay close attention to witness statements: are there actual confirmations to the journalistic claims made, or are they speaking on some general subject matter (which the mass media would later use in their own interests)? For example, in the above-mentioned story with the yacht, NTV channel personnel also tell of another businessman (a Donetsk flight instructor), who donated a plane to the militants. As it turns out, the instructor was actually answering questions on airplanes and skydiving, and had not donated anything to anyone. Later, he even recorded a video-address on the matter.

Another such example is a story by news channel Russia Today, which tells of Jewish people fleeing Kiev due to anti-Semitism of the new Ukrainian government. The channel's personnel even showed how Rabbi Mihail Kapustin is packing and saying that he's forced to escape the oncoming danger. However, if you listen to his words, you will discover that he somehow doesn't say which side he's afraid of, exactly. If you dig deeper, you will further discover that he's not a rabbi of a Kiev synagogue, but a Simferopol synagogue; he had earlier publicly come out asking for defence of both Ukraine and Crimea from Russia. Now, he is fleeing Crimea due to the new Russian government.

Furthermore, pay attention to the actual witness: have you seen him/her before? For example, the famous " travelling performer " Maria Tsipko regularly gives witness statements to mass media, acting as a resident of Odessa, Donbass, or any other hot spot.
Western Mass Media News
This move is often used to strengthen the truthfulness or authority of any given message. Nevertheless, among such news there is a huge amount of fictional claims from marginal websites, which ought to be examined. For example, Russian news outlet Vzglyad (Eng: View), which calls itself a "business newspaper", wrote that the USA refused to accept the bodies of 13 CIA agents, allegedly killed in Ukraine. With this, the publication references a western website by the pretty title of "The European Union Times". If we visit this site, we will discover that the link gets redirected to another site: WhatDoesItMean.com, a very famous and quite a marginal resource; it regularly publishes creations of a fictional character by the name of Sorcha Faal.

Having researched this writer, we discover that he regularly informs readers of "civil war" in USA; of the flight of major USA corporations to Russia due to fears of Obama; and so on. Furthermore, we can establish that The European Union Times is affiliated with WhatDoesItMean.com, and is accused of "insane propaganda of idiocy".

An alternative [tactic] is the twisting of actual news from reputable mass media. For example, a number of websites reported that 27 crew members of the American Navy Destroyer Donald Cook had become frightened, and submitted their resignations (after a Russian Air Force Su-24 interceptor did a fly-by 12 times during the destroyer's patrol of the Black Sea). A Pentagon representative was referenced: Colonel Steven Warren, who had supposedly given an interview to the Reuters agency. In reality, Warren did indeed speak to the agency, but there was no talk of fright; this can be ascertained by visiting the agency's website.

Therefore always try to find the source of the news, or the news' pretext.

But the main condition for identification of a fake is critically thinking about the information you're presented with. Informational warfare is a very important element of confrontation between countries, so try not to take information on faith, without having been fully convinced of its validity.
By Oleg Shankovskiy for Stopfake.org.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A significant percentage of information on high-profile events (the confrontational situation in Ukraine, in our case), does not correspond to reality. The root cause of this is the use of such information for governmental propaganda purposes: in this case the news stories are used not to inform the public, but to impose certain opinions on them, which is generally beneficial to one side or another.

# data[].attributes.headline
Southpark episode reveals 'All about Mormons'

# data[].attributes.subject
Southpark episode reveals 'All about Mormons'

# data[].attributes.body
'Southpark' is an animated series well known for odd, satirical humour. In this episode, a Mormon family moves to the town of South Park and attracts the attention of characters with their great manners and family-focused values. Throughout the episode, the main characters ask the new family questions about the Mormon religion and its founder Joseph Smith. The founding story does not stand up to the scrutiny of the logic of ten-year-old boys, as they find it impossible to believe. Stan (one of the main characters) ends up shouting at the Mormons that they're ridiculous for believing in it without any proof; the family responds that the commitment to the values is what makes them happy.

This episode illustrates how problematic it is to discuss the authenticity and falseness of any religion when taking into account the credibility of the doctrine. The message that episode ends with is similar to that of William Iron's (2001) argument that the authentic religion is hard to fake, but people choose to believe because it is the sign of commitment that leads to a bigger chance of survival and well-being. Thus, way religion can not qualify for authenticity only the individual commitment does.