To "answer without horns or teeth," it is not a religion.
Unfortunately, your post has lots of red flags that need to be pointed out to accurately address the question. Citing "religion" + "blind faith" smacks of an anti-theist's malice toward religion. As such, this could be an attempt to pigeonhole Q discussions into this paradigm which could be a prejudgment on the part of the poster. The "honest question" phrase is often a common tactic used by such individuals to disarm logical objections that could unmask their malign intentions. Dissecting that objection is not anger. If there's any emotional content it's frustration at the willful ignorance.
Now, let's break the core question down. Supposing this is an anti-theist's hostility to religion, the anti-theist paradigm is usually founded upon misrepresentation of religions as merely being ignorant superstitions from primitive people which are held to be stupid and reject reality. These enemies of "religions" presume that these worldviews should be discarded for a more "rationalistic" worldview based on their own consensus about what is "reasonable." However, Q is most certainly NOT an ignorant superstition. The posts exist and those who follow the clues seem to find relevant information sometimes.
However, anti-theism is a strawman position. These sentiments fail to account for the nature of religions as a formalized worldview about how people believe the ultimate reality to operate. Regardless of the presentation that paradigm is couched in, religions operate at multiple levels to provide their followers with a sense of truth. The basic literal sense of their stories may or may not be accurate from a scientific perspective but they unequivocally convey an important message about the underlying reality behind these beliefs. The allegories and interpretations derived impact the daily living of the follower. The mysticism that surrounds the messages give an overall sense of teleology and meaning to the whole picture being drawn. But even in that sense, Q decoding is far too informal and specific to world government affairs to be described as anything like that.
Q decoding is just a hunt for information that follows up from what these "Q posts" are giving as clues. Q sometimes cites religious references but that doesn't make his point religious. These clues appear to be connect to real world events and there are certainly reasons that many find sufficient enough to consider "Q proofs." Even so, these are plausibly deniable to someone with an intention to do so. Q's clues are intentionally vague because the information conveyed is supposedly something that has been classified and hidden from the public.
And while some citations invoke religious sentiments and references, the core topic is nonetheless the hidden actions of governments around the world. Q specifically cited a methodology of "think logically" and "trust yourself" and to utilize "critical thinking." Those with religious convictions will find Q's religious citations to be meaningful. Those who aren't will focus on the clues are about the information and not color it with that specific worldview.
To "answer without horns or teeth," it is not a religion.
Unfortunately, your post has lots of red flags that need to be pointed out to accurately address the question. Citing "religion" + "blind faith" smacks of an anti-theist's malice toward religion. As such, this could be an attempt to pigeonhole Q discussions into this paradigm which could be a prejudgment on the part of the poster. The "honest question" phrase is often a common tactic used by such individuals to disarm logical objections that could unmask their malign intentions. Dissecting that objection is not anger. If there's any emotional content it's frustration at the willful ignorance.
Now, let's break the core question down. Supposing this is an anti-theist's hostility to religion, the anti-theist paradigm is usually founded upon misrepresentation of religions as merely being ignorant superstitions from primitive people which are held to be stupid and reject reality. These enemies of "religions" presume that these worldviews should be discarded for a more "rationalistic" worldview based on their own consensus about what is "reasonable." However, Q is most certainly NOT an ignorant superstition. The posts exist and those who follow the clues seem to find relevant information sometimes.
However, anti-theism is a strawman position. These sentiments fail to account for the nature of religions as a formalized worldview about how people believe the ultimate reality to operate. Regardless of the presentation that paradigm is couched in, religions operate at multiple levels to provide their followers with a sense of truth. The basic literal sense of their stories may or may not be accurate from a scientific perspective but they unequivocally convey an important message about the underlying reality behind these beliefs. The allegories and interpretations derived impact the daily living of the follower. The mysticism that surrounds the messages give an overall sense of teleology and meaning to the whole picture being drawn. But even in that sense, Q decoding is far too informal and specific to world government affairs to be described as anything like that.
Q decoding is just a hunt for information that follows up from what these "Q posts" are giving as clues. Q sometimes cites religious references but that doesn't make his point religious. These clues appear to be connect to real world events and there are certainly reasons that many find sufficient enough to consider "Q proofs." Even so, these are plausibly deniable to someone with an intention to do so. Q's clues are intentionally vague because the information conveyed is supposedly something that has been classified and hidden from the public.
And while some citations invoke religious sentiments and references, the core topic is nonetheless the hidden actions of governments around the world. Q specifically cited a methodology of "think logically" and "trust yourself" and to utilize "critical thinking." Those with religious convictions will find Q's religious citations to be meaningful. Those who aren't will focus on the clues are about the information and not color it with that specific worldview.