Is Religion a Scam?

[FernandoRATM]

No, that’s a myth. People already knew the earth was a sphere based on shadows. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

I knew that people already knew that the earth was a sphere but that was not common knowledge for a couple 100 years later. And forgive me for writing 1000 instead 2000 in my earlier post.
My argument was that the majority is not always right in an arguement.

 

[Pieman333272]

I knew that people already knew that the earth was a sphere but that was not common knowledge for a couple 100 years later. And forgive me for writing 1000 instead 2000 in my earlier post.
My argument was that the majority is not always right in an arguement.

If that’s what you meant, I agree completely! But the majority isn’t any more likely to be wrong, either!

 

[FernandoRATM]

The reason me and my girlfriend are Agnostic is because the facts do not lie. But people do! Even when they themselves completely believe they are telling the truth. I have never felt good when people told me “God bless you!” or “Jesus would be proud of you”. Nor have I ever felt scared when people said “Go to Hell!” or “God hates you”. Always when I prayed I never felt like someone was listening to me. I never felt the “glory” of Jesus inside me. I never expected anything to happen when I prayed. And nothing ever did happen. The prayers always felt like empty words. People have ridiculed me and my girlfriend for our lack in belief in the existence of any deities. But we are not as arrogant as to believe that we know everything. I am not an atheist because I respect that there is the possibility, however very improbable, that there is a god. But even if we knew there was a god we wouldn’t join any religions. We would simply be theists. Religions all say they are the one true religion. For all I know they could all be wrong. But I don’t think that religion is a scam. Each religion in its own right has been started by people who honestly did think what they believed was right (but as to every rule, there were some exceptions). Some religions were scams but most of them have been done away with by now.

Sorry for my rambling

 

[VicApple]

When people say something like “why won’t you accept the love of Jesus into your life” I always find it telling to ask “why won’t you accept the love of Muhammed into your life”

My opinion is that people are religious usually because they get fed it while they are vulnerable. This is usually when they are children or after some life-shaking tragedy. There are exceptions to this, but I think a great majority fall into this. As a result, they do not examine their god beliefs under the same critical lens. Many think they do, but I honestly think that most apologists start with the end in mind and do not just go where the evidence leads, even though they think they do.

 

[VicApple]

The reason me and my girlfriend are Agnostic is because the facts do not lie. But people do! Even when they themselves completely believe they are telling the truth. I have never felt good when people told me “God bless you!” or “Jesus would be proud of you”. Nor have I ever felt scared when people said “Go to Hell!” or “God hates you”. Always when I prayed I never felt like someone was listening to me. I never felt the “glory” of Jesus inside me. I never expected anything to happen when I prayed. And nothing ever did happen. The prayers always felt like empty words. People have ridiculed me and my girlfriend for our lack in belief in the existence of any deities. But we are not as arrogant as to believe that we know everything. I am not an atheist because I respect that there is the possibility, however very improbable, that there is a god. But even if we knew there was a god we wouldn’t join any religions. We would simply be theists. Religions all say they are the one true religion. For all I know they could all be wrong. But I don’t think that religion is a scam. Each religion in its own right has been started by people who honestly did think what they believed was right (but as to every rule, there were some exceptions). Some religions were scams but most of them have been done away with by now.

Sorry for my rambling

I will come right out and confess to being an atheist. I will also confess to being somewhat arrogant. I hate to be wrong, and try to minimize it as much as I can. For these reasons I considered myself agnostic for a long time. That was until I read George Smith’s “Atheism:The Case Against God” It was published in the 70’s long before atheism was cool. I find it to be a very good source of straight-up logical discussion, instead of the angry “FOX New-esque” writings of the new atheists (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris)

This book draws a clear distinction between a/gnosticism and a/theism. Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. One deals with what you know and the other with what you believe. Each person draws the line of “knowing” in a different place. I, for example, would say I am 99.9% sure that the gods of the religions I’ve seen do not exist, which is why I consider myself an atheist. On the other hand I am an agnostic because I am only 99.9% sure, not quite 100%. I do not believe there is a god (atheist) but I also do not know that there isn’t a god (agnostic).

I would reccomend you check out podcasts such as Atheist Experience, A Christian and an Atheist and The Infidel Guy Show. For some interesting, thought-provoking information. Aside from that I highly recommend the book by George Smith. You can have it to your door for less than six bucks from Amazon.com.

I think you would find the atheism movement quite refreshing in that even if you agree with them they will rip you apart and make you explain why you believe everything. You might come to realize that you have some groundless beliefs.

 

[VicApple]

I see this a lot, a believer will say “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” That is true, entirely. But when a person makes a claim, and fails to provide evidence for it, that claim has failed and should not be believed. A silly example:

I saw that the christian god does exist and that a magical invincible Toyota Dragon created him. You would be crazy to accept this proposition because you cannot provide evidence to the contrary. As such, any rational person would look at me and say, dude you have no proof, so why would I believe you?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Vic
*
I saw that the christian god does exist and that a magical invincible **Toyota Dragon **created him. You would be crazy to accept this proposition because you cannot provide evidence to the contrary. As such, any rational person would look at me and say, dude you have no proof, so why would I believe you? *

I notice that you use lower case on Christian and God, upper case on Toyota and Dragon.

That tells us pretty much all we need to know about your insulting ways.

 

[VicApple]

Vic
*
I saw that the christian god* does exist and that a magical invincible **Toyota Dragon **created him. You would be crazy to accept this proposition because you cannot provide evidence to the contrary. As such, any rational person would look at me and say, dude you have no proof, so why would I believe you?

I notice that you use lower case on Christian and God, upper case on Toyota and Dragon.

That tells us pretty much all we need to know about your insulting ways.

Here is the thing with my capitilization scheme. I am basically tired of religions thinking they need to capitalize everything because sentences just get confusing. The God sent the Flood so His power and the Truth could be seen. That isn’t the worst example I’ve ever seen (or necessarily factually accurate) but it makes my point

 

[shoe]

I saw that the christian god does exist and that a magical invincible Toyota Dragon created him. You would be crazy to accept this proposition because you cannot provide evidence to the contrary. As such, any rational person would look at me and say, dude you have no proof, so why would I believe you?

Comparing God with a “Toyota Dragon” is flawed logic from the get-go in the sense that it is a comparison between a non-contingent Being (God, by definition) with a contingent being (Toyota Dragon - a car logo).

 

[VicApple]

Comparing God with a “Toyota Dragon” is flawed logic from the get-go in the sense that it is a comparison between a non-contingent Being (God, by definition) with a contingent being (Toyota Dragon - a car logo).

Ok, my sarcasm missed the mark. Then suppose I say that a different god, who is named steve and has revealed himself to me, did the things i previously attributed to the dragon. He told me he created the christian god, is immaterial, infinite, omnipotent and omnibenevolant and also non-contingent. What is your reply then?

 

[Pieman333272]

I saw that the christian god does exist and that a magical invincible Toyota Dragon created him. You would be crazy to accept this proposition because you cannot provide evidence to the contrary. As such, any rational person would look at me and say, dude you have no proof, so why would I believe you?

Actually, there is evidence to the contrary: The Christian God must be uncreated, otherwise it isn’t the Christian One. So, you must either admit your hypothesis is flawed or the God you saw is not the Christian one.

 

[Pieman333272]

Ok, my sarcasm missed the mark. Then suppose I say that a different god, who is named steve and has revealed himself to me, did the things i previously attributed to the dragon. He told me he created the christian god, is immaterial, infinite, omnipotent and omnibenevolant and also non-contingent. What is your reply then?

Why did he create the Christian God?

How did he bypass the logical contradiction between 2 omnipotent beings with different wills?

Why did he give his creation a cooler name than his?

 

[shoe]

Ok, my sarcasm missed the mark. Then suppose I say that a different god, who is named steve and has revealed himself to me, did the things i previously attributed to the dragon. He told me he created the christian god, is immaterial, infinite, omnipotent and omnibenevolant and also non-contingent. What is your reply then?

Your friends Steve and the Toyota Dragon are basically arbitrary relative to the collection of information available to all known world views. No known epistemic communities would take the examples of Steve and the Toyota Dragon as reasonable evidence as the best metaphysical foundation for their existence and God’s non-existence.

 

[VicApple]

i posit that steve created god, and simultaneously transformed himself (steve) into what we experience as the universe. so we are steve and god is like a governor over our state, but steve also created other universes(states) with their own governor(god) and these gods are not allowed to cross state lines. In addition when they say they are omni-everything the stipulation applies that that is only in our universe, but it is usually an irrelevant stipulation because we only experience our own universe

 

[Pieman333272]

i posit that steve created god, and simultaneously transformed himself (steve) into what we experience as the universe. so we are steve and god is like a governor over our state, but steve also created other universes(states) with their own governor(god) and these gods are not allowed to cross state lines. In addition when they say they are omni-everything the stipulation applies that that is only in our universe, but it is usually an irrelevant stipulation because we only experience our own universe

Then Steve is a moron. Who creates something, then GIVES IT CONTROL OF HIMSELF??? It doesn’t make sense!

 

[tonyrey]

Here’s the evidence that you were, essentially, trying to argue in this discussion that you didn’t need evidence for your religious beliefs:

Not in every case . . .]This is evidence that you were, essentially, trying to argue in this discussion that you didn’t need evidence for your religious beliefs because here you reject, in some cases, that one may be justified in not believing without being able to disprove your religious beliefs.

I stipulated that lack of evidence does not justify rejection but suspension of belief, particularly when it is an interpretation of reality which affects one’s whole attitude to life.

If you think that in the cases involving your religion, that one may not not believe without being able to disprove the beliefs, you’re essentially saying that one may believe without evidence either way (or in other words, believe without evidence).

I have not stated or implied anything of the sort. Anyone is entitled to believe or disbelieve** anything **when there is no evidence. I have disputed your contention that there is no evidence.

A “condition” is not necessarily “a condition of being”. It may refer to a non-existent situation whereas “a condition of being” describes an actual state of affairs - either mental or physical.

Sure, it may describe something that does exist, but a description is not a “thing” that “exists” just like the conceptual plans for a house is not be a “thing” that “exists”, although the house may exist.

As descriptions are often far more valuable than physical objects it is absurd to deny that they exist in any sense whatsoever. They are** real** as opposed to imaginary.

What the object of an abstraction is is irrelevant because an abstraction is not a “thing” that “exists” is reality regardless of whether or not the object of that abstraction is a thing that exist in reality.

It is hardly irrelevant because without correspondence there would be no knowledge of anything.

To “exist” means to manifest in some way in reality.

And that manifestation is often far more valuable and significant than that of physical objects.

Truth is the correspondence of a statement to reality, but correspondence is not a “thing” that “exists”. It’s an abstraction.

Thoughts, beliefs and decisions are also abstractions. Don’t they exist?Thoughts, beliefs, and decisions, as far as the evidence demonstrates thus far, are functions of the brain. They may be “things” that “exist” in a similar sense that one may say that flight is a “thing” that “exists”. Are there airplanes that fly and brains that think, believe, and decide? Certainly. However, these are functions, not entities.

Thinking that flight, thoughts, beliefs, and decisions are entities or “things” that actually “exist” is like thinking that jogging is an entity or “thing” that actually “exists” because it’s a noun. However, not all nouns are entities.

Do you equate thoughts, beliefs and decisions with electrical activity in the brain?

I’ve already told you that by “evidence” I mean anything that can be used to determine whether or not an assertion is true. Can something be used to determine whether or not an assertion is true if it cannot be detected in any way? If so, provide an example. If not, then you’re in agreement with me on this issue.

How about your mind? How can that be detected?What is typically called the “mind”, as far as the evidence shows thus far, is synonymous with the brain. We know that when the brain is damaged, the “mind” (which you haven’t defined) loses functionality.

If a guitar is severely damaged the guitarist cannot play it. Does the brain play itself, make its own decisions and on occasion destroy itself?

We can observe the brain in many ways, and observe how changes in the brain effect functionality (thus, observing changes in what may be called the “mind”).

The fact that the functionality of the mind is affected by changes in the brain does not imply that it is produced by the brain. There is evidence that thoughts in the mind cause changes in the body!

 

[tonyrey]

I’ve already said that all the evidence we have thus far shows that beliefs and decisions are functions of a working brain, which may be called a “mind”. Now if “materialism” includes the acceptance that calling beliefs and decisions “things” that “exist” is equivication that falls under the fallacy of reification, I may or may not be a “materialist” depending on what other positions fall under “materialism”.

Do you believe everything is derived from matter?

Here you are confusing a negative belief with the lack of acceptance of a positive belief. I believe in a god to the degree that the claim “a god exists” is, as far as I can tell, supported by evidence. I have found the evidence for a god to be either terrible or non-existent. Of course, if the particular god is unfalsifiable, I cannot believe the claim that that god doesn’t exist just like I cannot believe the claim that the invisible, intangible, great fairy doesn’t exist. However, in both cases, I’m justified in not believing (or “dis-believing”) due to lack of evidence.

So you believe that despite the ubiquity of purposeful activity it has a purposeless origin?

BTW A democracy is a form of government in which citizens accept the truth of the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity - and the probability that the majority of their representatives will decide what is right and just for their society because all views are considered.

I don’t want to get too caught up in definitions, but a democracy is a government in which the people have power, directly or through representatives. Accepting the principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity is not part of the definition of democracy.

Do you deny that democracy is based on the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity?

But let’s recall how this talk of “democracy” came about. You seemed to think that the popularity of a belief can reverse the burden of proof for a claim. You cited the “democratic principle” in making this point. I pointed out that democracy is a form of government in which citizen have power by being able to choose government actions, either directly or through representatives, not a method for determining what is actually true. If a democracy is a method for determining whether or not a claim is true based off of popularity, rather than a governmental system in which a citizen has a say in governmental actions, then I reject it as a method for determining what is true.

I stipulated that popularity is not in itself a basis for belief but a factor that should be taken into account when there is evidence. It is often a factor which stimulates the search of evidence.

One should not accept a claim without evidence but nor should one accept a counterclaim without evidence.

Right. However, I don’t think you understand that lack of belief (or disbelief) is not the same as accepting a negative claim.

A lack of belief presupposes a counterclaim. Otherwise it is sterile and irrational.

However, popularity does not mean a claim is true and does not reverse the burden of proof. Evidence is needed for a claim, regardless of popularity, for belief in that claim to be justified.

I agree. I have never disputed that fact.

 

[VicApple]

Then Steve is a moron. Who creates something, then GIVES IT CONTROL OF HIMSELF??? It doesn’t make sense!

Steve works in mysterious ways.

That sounds very stupid, I admit, but isn’t that the same answer we here so often when we ask why god would allow horrible things to happen to innocent children (for example) I won’t go into a specific description of the horrible thing because it is just an attempt to use shock-value to your own advantage.

Also, I think anyone who has created something fair and just would have no problem giving it control over himself.

 

[Pieman333272]

Steve works in mysterious ways.

Also, Steve couldn’t have created the Christian God because the Christian God, by definition, created the universe (or multiverse) from nothing!

 

[TruthSeeker60]

I’m not going to be participating much more in this thread mostly because I’m going to be extremely busy in the next couple weeks with papers, tests, and a speech (I’m a student at a conservative Catholic college).

Tonyrey, I don’t intend to offend by saying this, but I’m thinking that I probably won’t respond to you again on this thread partially because of lack of time and partially because you’re confused. I know that anyone could say that about others who they are debating, and that that can come across as condescending (which I don’t mean to be), but when I tried to narrow our discussion down to a central point behind our differences, you seemed to be really confused. For example, you seem to be confused about the difference between rejecting a claim as a claim not supported by evidence, like rejecting the claim that invisible, intangible fairies exist, and making a truth claim that an entity doesn’t exist. You also seem confused about the difference between an entity which may be said to actually be a thing that exists and other nouns that aren’t entities.

If you think there is some central point that you made that you feel I aught to address, then perhaps you could succinctly lay that down and I may have a concise discussion about it.