Is Religion a Scam?

[Charlemagne_II]

tonyrey

*You’re arguing in effect that atheism is a scam! Yet there are certainly sincere atheists who genuinely cannot see a reason for believing in God. They are the least likely to be aggressive towards religion because they simply regard it as a mistake. If they are good-natured they feel pity rather than contempt and animosity. Those who are aggressive reveal a virulent streak which is illogical. Why such venomous hatred for an illusion? There is far more in this than meets the eye… *

Is it possible that an atheist might be scamming himself for some reason that seems sincere to others, but is really an act of deliberate self deception?

 

[tonyrey]

You’re arguing in effect that atheism is a scam! Yet there are certainly sincere atheists who genuinely cannot see a reason for believing in God.

It is, Charlie, but it is very difficult - if not impossible - to know how far self-deception is deliberate. To some extent it may be wishful thinking. After all there are great advantages in rejecting religion! You then have a carte blanche: you are absolute master of yourself with **no obligations **to God or anyone else. Total independence is a consummation devoutly to be wished… (With apologies to Shakespeare - a Catholic and cousin of St Robert Southwell who was hung, drawn and quartered for his faith in 1595).

The lure of hell is underestimated…

 

[hazcompat]

2 Peter 1:16 When we told you about the power and the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, we were not slavishly repeating cleverly invented myths; no, we had seen his majesty with our own eyes.

peace

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Is it possible that an atheist might be scamming himself for some reason that seems sincere to others, but is really an act of deliberate self deception?

Its possible, but no more possible than the possibility that we as Catholics are being deliberately self deceptive in-order to feel comfortable with reality. Gods existence is not self evident, and it appears to me that, if God exists, he permits ignorance of his existence. However, there are atheists in existence that don’t want to believe in God regardless of the question of existence, and although they consider their rejection of God a rejection of a myth, they also reject what that myth represents, as is such that if God were to appear to them as real, perhaps they would still reject God in their hearts.

 

[tonyrey]

Its possible, but no more possible than the possibility that we as Catholics are being deliberately self deceptive in-order to feel comfortable with reality.

That is always a possibility but the possibility of hell is hardly comfortable!

Gods existence is not self evident, and it appears to me that, if God exists, he permits ignorance of his existence.

I believe it is self-evident if we believe in truth and freedom, goodness and love - especially as revealed by Jesus. Yet at the same time the evidence is not coercive because otherwise we wouldn’t be able to choose what to believe and how to live.

However, there are atheists in existence that don’t want to believe in God regardless of the question of existence, and although they consider their rejection of God a rejection of a myth, they also reject what that myth represents, as is such that if God were to appear to them as real, perhaps they would still reject God in their hearts.

That corresponds exactly to a point I’ve made on another thread. The lure of hell is underestimated!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

tonyrey

*It is, Charlie, but it is very difficult - if not impossible - to know how far self-deception is deliberate. To some extent it may be wishful thinking. After all there are great advantages in rejecting religion! *

I wonder how the atheist balances the great advantages in rejecting religion with the great advantages in accepting it. And what would be the great advantages in rejecting religion?

Obviously, the great advantage in accepting religion is that, if it is true, one has a shot at salvation. But if it is true, and we reject it, what shot do we have?

The disadvantage far outweighs the advantage, as Pascal notes, and Jesus affirms.

“Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.” Matthew 10:32-33

Several years ago I had an exchange with a retired Texas bishop that left me bewildered. He said he believed it was entirely possible for there to be some atheists who merited heaven. He had known some atheists that he admired over some of the Catholics he knew.

I wasn’t going to remind the bishop of Matthew 10: 32-33. But it seems to me that this point of view has gained currency among the Catholic clergy, and I’m much perplexed by this open disagreement of some clergy with the promise of Jesus to deny those who deny him.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

MindOverMatter

*Gods existence is not self evident, and it appears to me that, if God exists, he **permits *ignorance of his existence.

God permits many things. Willful ignorance of his existence is certainly one of them.

Does he approve of willful ignorance?

Not according to Matthew.

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

tonyrey:

Yet there are certainly sincere atheists who genuinely cannot see a reason for believing in God. They are the least likely to be aggressive towards religion because they simply regard it as a mistake.

Check.

If they are good-natured they feel pity rather than contempt and animosity.

Tony, I don’t pity you. You otherwise seem to have a very sharp mind and we all make mistakes sometimes.

I feel pity only when someone makes poor life choices or feels guilty due to their belief system. I feel contempt and animosity only when someone inflicts harm upon others due to their belief system.

 

[Mimi]

It is, Charlie, but it is very difficult - if not impossible - to know how far self-deception is deliberate. To some extent it may be wishful thinking. After all there are great advantages in rejecting religion!

Not saying all atheists are in this mode, but there is a saying that

“All dissent begins below the belt.”

I wonder if anyone has ever done a study as to what got folks into agnosticism?


Mimi

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

A lack of belief in anything must be based on reasons if it is to be reasonable.

I lack a belief in your god because I have no compelling evidence of his existance.

tonyrey:

Why believe you … exist

I think therefore I am.

tonyrey:

Or do you believe **you **are no more than a body, i.e. a biological machine?

I’ve seen no compelling evidence that humans are more than biological machines. I mean, there are chemical substances such as anti-depressants and alcohol that have a definite impact on how we feel, think, and behave. We even sometimes say that someone is a different person when they’re under the effect of such substances. That even qualifies as a legal defense in some extreme occasions.

tonyrey:

LifeIsAbsurd:

My goal is happiness. That shouldn’t be confused with hedonism, as sometimes instant gratification leaves you briefly happy but miserable the next day. I believe what my five senses and intellect tell me not because of faith, but because of past evidence that they’ve been a very good guide. Below that but still fairly reliable are instruments and instincts. I’m an animal and sometimes guided by unreliable emotions, societal urges, and biological urges.

Why not always? What enables you to overcome the unreliable elements?

My intellect–my ability to reason. Sometimes friends and family support me.

You make a decision to leave. Someone you love is crying and pleads with you to stay. Your emotions say to embrace them, and stay. Your intellect, somewhat disrupted, reminds you had good reasons to leave even if they escape you now. You walk out and call a friend. They remind you why you left and explain why you’ll both be happier in the long-term.

tonyrey:

Are you sure you know the truth?

No, that’s why I’m an agnostic atheist. I see no comeplling evidence of a Catholic God or for that matter pink, inivislble, untouchable unicorns on my shoulder so I will not live my life based on their unlikely existance.

It occurs to me that many times you’re questioned my beliefs, but I never questioned yours. Do you have any rational reason to be believe it’s more likely than not that the Catholic God of all gods exists, or are you taking a ‘leap of faith’? Was that ‘leap of faith’ pre-determined by your parents or romantic partners, or made in a period of your life when you were particularly vulnerable and not thinking clearly?

Have you ever noticed the 12-step support groups? If you want to be charitable and help

​

someone overcome their problems, that’s wonderful. But one of the side-purposes of these groups is often to attempt to convert people already in weakened psychological states with their intellectual barriers down to Christianity. I’m glad our society has these but would never go to one.

tonyrey:

You’re assuming everything including your mind has a physical cause. How would you justify that assumption?

I don’t believe I’ve made that assumption, but perhaps I misunderstand your meaning.

tonyrey:

Why stop at the formation of the universe? Is there any logical proof or material evidence for what happened before the Big Bang?

I don’t know what happened before the Universe began expanding. Neither do you. It doesn’t follow from that that “The Catholic God created the universe”… anymore than ancient civilizations not being able to explain a solaris eclipse, should lead to “That means evil spirits are in control!”

Not believing cannot be based on thin air - if it is reasonable. The very power to choose what to disbelieve requires explanation.

And now I have explained the reasons for my beliefs. I have done this fairly quickly and tried to be as honest as possible rather than perfect in my answers. Let’s see yours if you don’t mind sharing.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

I think therefore I am.

You think therefore you are, but does that mean you think therefore it is? Your thinking or your perception of reality can’t change any aspect of the true reality.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

MindOverMatter

*Gods existence is not self evident, and it appears to me that, if God exists, he **permits ***ignorance of his existence.

God permits many things. Willful ignorance of his existence is certainly one of them.

Does he approve of willful ignorance?

Not according to Matthew.

To be wilfully ignorant is dependent on some kind of knowledge; thus I would argue that Matthew is correct but only given a particular context. To be wilfully ignorant of what one doesn’t know to be any-more true than any other myth is not a reason to punish somebody. I don’t imagine it to be reasonable to think that if Zeus or any other God of any other religion were real, they would punish me for choosing to be ignorant of their existence, since they haven’t made there existence self evident; and if they did choose to punish me, I would consider that punishment irrational. I am wilfully ignorant of many religions and their God; and this is to say that I do not ask the question of whether or not they are real and neither do I bother myself with the idea that I have an obligation to learn of them in the context of literal “truth”. The so called truths of those religions are not self evident to me, and neither do I see any evidence for them. Thus any threats from those religions are irrelevant to a reasonable person.

Therefore if an atheist cannot truly see any reason to believe in God, anything that is true in the context of Gods existence will not apply to that person, because that person has no reason to behave in a manner that correspond or relates to that context. That one ought to do this or that is only true in the context of Gods existence.

One should believe in God because they can see evidence of God in their experiences, or because they have heard arguments that makes Gods non-existence unreasonable. I do not see any benefit in having a blind faith.

It seems to me that in-order to deny Jesus you must first have reasonable knowledge of Jesus.

Am I wrong?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

LifeIsAbsurd

I lack a belief in your god because I have no compelling evidence of his existance.

Doesn’t it follow that in order to be an atheist, you have to have compelling evidence that God does not exist? What is that compelling evidence?

Please don’t say the compelling evidence is that you have no compelling evidence.

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

LifeIsAbsurd:

I lack a belief in your god because I have no compelling evidence of his existance.

Charlesmagne II:

Doesn’t it follow that in order to be an atheist, you have to have compelling evidence that God does not exist?

No, that doesn’t follow. The burden of proof rests on the one making the claim.

Being an atheist only requires not believing the claim “God exists”. There are some atheists who have red hair, and some who further believe “God doesn’t exist.”, but neither are required to be an atheist.

If a wide-eyed man stopped you on the street and said “Gas prices are going to go up $3 next month and run short, stockpile as much as you can!” I doubt you’d believe him and I doubt you’d begin stockpiling gas without compelling evidence. At the same time, you cannot be absolutely certain what will happen to gas prices. Perhaps the US president will be asssassinated by someone from an oil-rich country, the US will invade, and gas will go way up. ::

 

[tonyrey]

A lack of belief in anything must be based on reasons if it is to be reasonable.

Do you have compelling evidence for another explanation of the existence of this universe, the immense value of life and the power of the mind?

Why believe you … exist

I think therefore I am.

Therefore your thoughts are more significant than anything else!

Or do you believe you are no more than a body, i.e. a biological machine?

I’ve seen no compelling evidence that humans are more than biological machines. I mean, there are chemical substances such as anti-depressants and alcohol that have a definite impact on how we feel, think, and behave. We even sometimes say that someone is a different person when they’re under the effect of such substances. That even qualifies as a legal defense in some extreme occasions.

They have an impact but that does not imply mind=brain. Extreme occasions do not justify disbelief in self-control.

My goal is happiness. That shouldn’t be confused with hedonism, as sometimes instant gratification leaves you briefly happy but miserable the next day. I believe what my five senses and intellect tell me not because of faith, but because of past evidence that they’ve been a very good guide. Below that but still fairly reliable are instruments and instincts. I’m an animal and **sometimes **

guided by unreliable emotions, societal urges, and biological urges.What not always? What enables you to overcome the unreliable elements?My intellect–my ability to reason. Sometimes friends and family support me.

Reason alone does not explain the power of self-control. If we are biological machines we must be helpless spectators!

You make a decision to leave. Someone you love is crying and pleads with you to stay. Your emotions say to embrace them, and stay. Your intellect, somewhat disrupted, reminds you had good reasons to leave even if they escape you now. You walk out and call a friend. They remind you why you left and explain why you’ll both be happier in the long-term.

The intellect is not the same as the will - nor does knowledge imply free will.

Are you sure you know the truth?

No, that’s why I’m an agnostic atheist. I see no compelling evidence of a Catholic God or for that matter pink, invisible, untouchable unicorns on my shoulder so I will not live my life based on their unlikely existence.

Is it more likely that you exist by chance?

It occurs to me that many times you’re questioned my beliefs, but I never questioned yours. Do you have any rational reason to be believe it’s more likely than not that the Catholic God of all gods exists, or are you taking a ‘leap of faith’? Was that ‘leap of faith’ pre-determined by your parents or romantic partners, or made in a period of your life when you were particularly vulnerable and not thinking clearly?

My faith is not a leap but the result of comparing different explanations of the reality of truth, goodness, justice, freedom, beauty and love. Materialism is hopelessly inadequate explanation.

Have you ever noticed the 12-step support groups? If you want to be charitable and help someone overcome their problems, that’s wonderful. But one of the side-purposes of these groups is often to attempt to convert people already in weakened psychological states with their intellectual barriers down to Christianity. I’m glad our society has these but would never go to one.

I believe the intellectual barriers of a materialist are very low indeed. Matter must have magical powers to produce the marvels of nature - and rational beings into the bargain!

You’re assuming everything including your mind has a physical cause. How would you justify that assumption?

I don’t believe I’ve made that assumption, but perhaps I misunderstand your meaning.

Don’t you assume that only tangible things exist?

Why stop at the formation of the universe? Is there any logical proof or material evidence for what happened before the Big Bang?

I don’t know what happened before the Universe began expanding. Neither do you. It doesn’t follow from that that “The Catholic God created the universe”… anymore than ancient civilizations not being able to explain a solaris eclipse, should lead to “That means evil spirits are in control!”

Nor does it follow that the universe has always existed or that it created itself. The universe doesn’t know it exists but we do. Consciousness and insight require explanation…

Not believing cannot be based on thin air - if it is reasonable. The very power to choose what to disbelieve requires explanation.

And now I have explained the reasons for my beliefs.

But not how you are capable of choosing what to believe! A computer is programmed to select but it is not responsible for its programme whereas we are.

I have done this fairly quickly and tried to be as honest as possible rather than perfect in my answers. Let’s see yours if you don’t mind sharing.

Thank you for your honesty! I have given you my honest opinions as well.

 

[tonyrey]

No, that doesn’t follow. The burden of proof rests on the one making the claim.

Being an atheist only requires not believing the claim “God exists”. There are some atheists who have red hair, and some who further believe “God doesn’t exist.”, but neither are required to be an atheist.

The atheist is claiming that the claim that “God exists” is false! Some justification is required - if he is reasonable…

 

[4Horsemen]

Belief in a Creator is actually the default position. Young children ask who made me and who made the world. The biological answer only partly satisfies. Belief in the Grand Designer is woven into our own design. To reject anything conrary to or incompatible with this display of Divine Love/Eternal Truth also is a rejection of the demands this love imposes on us. What we choose reflects who we are. Belief in God, although implanted in our very being, requires our participation in this choice for Truth.

I wish I could find the quote from Archbishop Sheen, who when informed by an atheist that he didn’t believe in God, responded (now I don’t know if this was directly to the person or in his writing), “What is your sin?” Usually, to fall into atheism requires that we intellectually separate ourselves from God. Religion and natural morality are demanded by rationality. It is modern atheism that is “the last superstition”, the last holdout of an irrational illusion clung to by those who will not let their minds lead them to what is right in front of them.

Jesus tells us that we should be as little children to be part of the Kingdom of Heaven. Anti-belief requires a choice, although the atheist may not even be aware of his/her thinking. For example, a person who chooses articficial contraception or abortion or murder and theft and other obvious sins should know this choice would separate him/her from God. But a person who drops out of going to church or confession and then says he doesn’t believe and calls himself an atheist/agnostic, often has a misunderstanding of religion, of who God is, of our own human nature, of the reality of truth, goodness, justice, . . . because he doesn’t feel a need until (at least in many cases) something happens in his life.

There’s a book on my “to read list” that deals with the question of atheism as a lie. It’s called The Last Superstition by Edward Feser. The author explains, “For secularism is, necessarily and inherently, a deeply irrational and immoral view of the world, and the more thoroughtly it is assimilated by its adherents, the more thoroughtly do they cut themselves off from the very possibility of rational and moral understanding.”

G.K. Chesterson says, “It’s the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense.”

and

by Flannery O’Connor, “The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

LifeIsAbsurd

Being an atheist only requires not believing the claim “God exists”. There are some atheists who have red hair, and some who further believe “God doesn’t exist.”, but neither are required to be an atheist.

No. Being an atheist requires that you believe no gods exist.

I just don’t get it. You have to have compelling evidence to believe there is a God, but you don’t have to have compelling evidence to believe there is no God.

Aren’t your dice slightly loaded?

I’ve been hearing all my life that the burden of proof is on the theist, not the atheist. I don’t agree. If you are going to say there is no life anywhere in the universe but on earth, wouldn’t you need compelling proof to say that? Proof that simply cannot be obtained. And so you keep your mind open to the possibility of life elsewhere. Why not keep your mind also open to the idea of a God, since there is no compelling proof to the contrary?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Last night on The Factor a noted atheist argued that religion is a scam, and many Christians know it in their hearts. They just haven’t got the courage to admit it. He invited Christians to join the atheist cause since atheism is a fact, whereas religion is governed by people who specialize in hawking wishful thinking.

Your thoughts?

The unnamed atheist has a point, religion is the mental equivalent of Comfort Food. It may make you feel better, but that doesn’t mean it has any ‘nutritional’ value.

It also tends to be high in calories

 

[authenticity]

The unnamed atheist has a point, religion is the mental equivalent of Comfort Food. It may make you feel better, but that doesn’t mean it has any ‘nutritional’ value.

It also tends to be high in calories

I think you hold your position as an atheist or agnostic because it is more comfortable for you. You don’t have to change what you do according to a higher law. There’s no examination of how you live, no need to amend or ask forgiveness, no impetus to act without consideration for your personal needs or wants. Whatever you do is entirely according to what your intellect tells you is right, which by definition makes you self-serving. You know, comfortable .