Is Religion a Scam?

[AngryAtheist8]

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…

Or…

The lure of the afterlife (real or otherwise) could be so compelling due to the natural fear of death.

Moreover, if you convince people that you (or at least your god) have power over life and death (including the afterlife) that gives you great power over them. Reason enough for elites throughout history to support certain faiths.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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. .

Assuming you chose the correct religion.

There are going to be a lot of disappointed Catholics if say, the Mormon faith is the true one.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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

“All dissent begins below the belt.”

Mimi

And that statement is a lie.

The reasons for rejecting Catholicism are at least as varied as the reasons for embracing it.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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.”

Extraordinary claims (such as the existence of the God of the Trinity) require extraordinary proof. The Church has never provided this.

For that matter, your post makes many claims without proof as well.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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?

All right, let’s use your type of ‘logic’ on something else.

Prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (you can learn more about it here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster) doesn’t exist. If you cannot offer compelling proof of the FSM’s non-existence you must admit that He is real.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Angry

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in supernatural forces. It doesn’t REQUIRE you to do anything.

Yes it does. For just one thing, it requires you to discover ethical values without God.

Unless you plan to have no ethical values and just fly by the seat of your pants.

*But manipulating people through fear of real and fabricated threats is an old technique. *

I daresay your dad made use of it now and then.

*Because religions frequently DOES cause harm.

Here is a relevant article on Muslim clerics trying to implement Sharia law in Great Britain:
telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne…o-Britain.html*

If you’re going to reject religion on the grounds that some people in the name of religion have harmed others, you should have to reject atheism for the same thing. Do I have to count up for the dead bodies produced by atheist and anti-religious regimes of the 20th century, the first century in which haters of religion had a chance to show off their moral fabric?

If you’re referring to the mass murders committed by communists during the 20th century, that is an unfair comparison.

Atheism is not an ideology (system of beliefs), communism is, atheism is just part of communist ideology. Like state support of Catholicism was part of Italian Fascism.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Except when the people are ready to die for a fabricated lie which they readily know and deliberately know(the apostles, the disciples…), we beginning to see a problem with their psychological well being. Except that’s a weak claim.

When talk about fear, I don’t really know what you’re talking about. Are you assuming all religious worship out of fear? Why do you fear when you’re prepared?

Fear of Hell.

Besides, just because a cause is bad doesn’t mean you can’t find those willing to die for it. The Nazis and Communists had plenty of people willing (even eager) to die for the cause. The same is true of Islamic fundamentalists (like Bin Laden) and their followers today.

 

[StTommyMore]

All right, let’s use your type of ‘logic’ on something else.

Prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (you can learn more about it here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster) doesn’t exist. If you cannot offer compelling proof of the FSM’s non-existence you must admit that He is real.

You cannot prove a negative. Aquinas has provided proof for the existence of God, and proof for the trinity requirs volumes of books, and is virtually impossible on a forum such as this. Furthermore, we need not fully understand a Truth to accept it as True.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Angry

*Prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (you can learn more about it here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster) doesn’t exist. If you cannot offer compelling proof of the FSM’s non-existence you must admit that He is real. *

Here is where the analogy becomes useless. It doesn’t really matter whether the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. It matters whether or not God exists.

I’m not aware of anyone in his right mind who believes in a FSM. Almost the entire human race from the earliest civilization have believed in some kind of god(s). So unless you want to argue that the entire human race is somehow off its rocker for wanting to find God this way or that way, you really can’t compare FSMs with the search for God.

*Atheism is not an ideology (system of beliefs), communism is, atheism is just part of communist ideology. Like state support of Catholicism was part of Italian Fascism. *

I don’t see what point you have made here except that the communists, who embraced atheism, also embraced horrors against humanity. Same for the Nazis, who repudiated Christianity and persecuted it without ceasing. The 20th century, the first century in which atheists and haters of Christianity really organized themselves into a political and military powerhouse, produced a very poor record for their efforts.

 

[4Horsemen]

Extraordinary claims (such as the existence of the God of the Trinity) require extraordinary proof. The Church has never provided this.

For that matter, your post makes many claims without proof as well.

So . . . AA8, please reveal what claims I made without giving some back-up, or a reason for belief.

Everything that we see within the universe has a cause which is not itself, therefore, the universe has a cause which is not itself. How’s that claim?

You can’t conclude that God and creation are one because that infers that a cause may be its own effect. Natural reason wouldn’t allow that. The Creator transcends His creation as the artisst his work.

I suggest that you do some reading. You might want to start with New Proofs for the Existence of God – Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy by Robert J. Spitzer.

Darwin, self-described agnostic to Edward Aveling, a dogmatic atheist, in 1881:
“Why should you be so aggressive? Is anything gained by trying to force these new ideas upon the mass of mankind?”

Also, “It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent theist and an evolutionist.”

AND,

In a discussion of ffaith and reason, Pope Benedict spoke on the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas in June, asking the question whether the world of rationality – a philosophy developed without Christ – and the world of faith compatible? Or are they mutually exclusive? Many people think the latter, but St. Thomas was firmly convinced that they were compatible and even the non-theist philosophy was practically awaiting Christ’s light in order to be complete. This idea was decisive in the development of this thinking.

 

[NYTony]

Fear of Hell.

Besides, just because a cause is bad doesn’t mean you can’t find those willing to die for it. The Nazis and Communists had plenty of people willing (even eager) to die for the cause. The same is true of Islamic fundamentalists (like Bin Laden) and their followers today.

I think it is unfair to compare Christian martyrdom to your cited examples. The Apostles and the thousands of martyrs that followed, had nothing in common with some brain-washed suicide bomber or hopped-up suicide pilot during WWII. The Apostles were in fact, hiding in fear following the Crucifixion and prior to the events of Pentecost. The Cross for them was defeat.

Only afterwards did these cowards become lions. A group of 12 men and a handful of disciples then began to spread this good news far and wide under the most grueling conditions. In most cases, these Apostles and disciples were arrested and given the choice to worship as the pagan and renounce Christ, or die. Crucifixion, burned at the stake, boiled alive, drawn and quartered, or fed to the beasts were some of the techniques.

It is so easy for us centuries later to trivialize these events. Loving and peaceful men and women choosing death rather than denying that Christ truly rose from the dead. Would you choose the Cross for a lie? Would you choose the Cross for some political ideology? Mass delusion? I think not. Most folks would have signed up for the pagan worship and gone home.

These men and women did not seek death and mayhem as do the men and women in your examples. They simply wanted to worship and live in the imitation of Jesus Christ and for it, they were executed. It was the blood of these thousands and thousands of martyrs that built our Church, and I thank God for their courage.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

How can we possibly know that?

And for that matter, why do religions as a whole (there are a few exceptions) show such contempt for the Flesh and physical reality?

This is a misconception. Catholic Christianity rejects the misuse of the flesh and physical reality. This is rooted in the belief that people ought to behave in a certain way, and that there are ways of behaving that run contrary to our greatest potential. This in turn is rooted in the belief that human nature must seek certain ends in-order to be existentially and absolutely fulfilled since existence is as such that “quality of being” is objective and not just subjective. Because its seen as objective, there are certain moral truths that are likely to run contrary to blind or manufactured desire or opinion. For instance, in the Christian view of things, a person is objectively valuable, irrespective of human opinion and desire, and is therefore more valuable than a mere object and ought not to be used as such. To use a person as an object is to deny that this being has the nature and value of a person; and this is oppressive. Therefore to have sex outside of a lifelong relationship dedicated to the psychological and physiological fulfilment of a person as a whole, is to reduce a person to that which is a usable disposable object; it would be to reduce that person to his or her sexual organs and their potential to give pleasure. And this would be true regardless of whether people freely want to use each other as sexual objects or not; desire has no relevance when it runs contrary to the fulfilment of a person as a whole. This in turn is rooted in the belief that we ought to participate in objective personal perfection, because this is the highest quality a being can have. Thus, with the belief that people have a nature which is objectively valuable, the notion of fulfilling ones nature arises, and rules are defined so that one can see clearly the journey one must take in order to achieve the objective and existential perfection of the human-personal-nature.

But of course, if you’re an atheist it doesn’t make sense to think of a person as being objectively more valuable than a mere object such as a pile of cow-dung, or to think of perfection or morality as being something that exists objectively beyond human desire and opinion. If you think that you have seen or experienced things such as objective moral truth or the moral ought, then I would have to say that you are a deluded atheist who has not yet understood the real nihilistic consequences of disbelieving in God. You have taken your atheism or agnosticism for granted. But of course I am assuming that you have never experienced objective moral truth, and you don’t go around telling people what they ought to do or what they ought not to do or how they ought to treat you when given the belief that your life is objectively valuable; since you do not believe that and cannot believe it without evidence.

I hope it all works out for you. Personally, when speaking of my self, I cannot say that I am ignorant of objective moral truth. My experience of human nature tells me that it is objectively immoral and self evidently contrary to the objective nature and value of a person to rape a small child or anybody for that matter, just as much as it is self-evident to me that the nature of a person is more valuable than a mere object and to think otherwise is evidence only of the fact that there are flawed personalities in the world. At least this is blatantly obvious to me, thus in knowing what I know i cannot honestly join you in your parade of atheism.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Origin of the Species, 1872 (last edition before Darwin’s death).

But notice how the passage is rendered in virtually every modern publication:

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Charles Darwin

Three words missing. Who are the censors?

 

[kildare]

I think it is unfair to compare Christian martyrdom to your cited examples.

Absolutely. Good post!

I think the most annoying thing about many atheists of today are their lazy generalizations.
“Everything’s a scam!,”
“The Flying Spaghetti Monster and the teapot orbiting mars are the same as God”
"religious people are nut-jobs "
"All people who die for a cause are equally delusional
etc. etc.

Basically a litany of trite arguments!
Gone be the day when there were intelligent atheists with intelligent arguments!

 

[MindOverMatter2]

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Origin of the Species, 1872 (last edition before Darwin’s death).

But notice how the passage is rendered in virtually every modern publication:

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Charles Darwin

Three words missing. Who are the censors?

The epistemological limitations of science is its censor. Why do you want to put God in a science book?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Gone be the day when there were intelligent atheists with intelligent arguments!

Yes. Apart from the problem of evil, The old atheist arguments were weak but very mature. Today arguments are a mish mash of immature straw-men, false dichotomies, various fallacies, a denial of the self-evident, a denial of the law of non-contradiction and thus rationality, and a poor understanding of what it is they are actually attacking. If you notice, the media rarely shows Christianity to be anything more than young earth creationism or ID.Either way they are always presented as being against intellectual and scientific progress; and even moral progress.

I watched a topic on abortion. They found the most intelligent well spoken academic people they could find to speak for abortion. But when it came to the Christians, they made sure they were unintelligent bigoted and just plain dull.

The name of the game is make Christianity look stupid and immoral. Gone are the days when you could see a well informed study of Christian philosophy on TV.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

MindOverMatter
*
The epistemological limitations of science is its censor. Why do you want to put God in a science book?*

If anyone was an authority on Darwin, it was Darwin. So why do you approve of seeing Darwin misquoted, as I believe you do?

Notice the same quote misquoted at this website, Friends of Charles Darwin, upper right corner.

friendsofdarwin.com/articles/2000/marx/

You approve of Darwin being misquoted (censored) there too?

 

[JDaniel]

Because it is an illusion that often hurts people.

AA8:

You say, above, that religion “is an illusion that often hurts people.” All due respect, but I’d like to know how. How does the illusion of religion often hurt people? Don’t forget that many of us, on this forum, have been non-theists, too. Many of us came back from the side of your thinking. I was at the very least “agnostic” once. But, I never thought that Religion actually hurt people. Now, I know that the money-money-money pseudo-religions do take a lot of money from poor people, some times. But, in size and influence, those religions are very tiny compared to what is called “main-stream” religion. Nevertheless, I will admit, that they do hurt a few people occasionally.

Other than those, what other harms do you see? Also, do you think Catholicism hurts people? And if you do, how? What about main-stream Protestantism? How? Judaism? How?

God bless,
jd

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Angry

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8 View Post
Because it is an illusion that often hurts people.

And when you get through answering JDaniel’s questions, I have some to ask you.

For example, has the illusion of atheism never hurt anyone?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

For example, has the illusion of atheism never hurt anyone?

The prospect of real “Nihilistic Atheism” (as opposed to the phony positive atheism of richard dawk) made me very unhappy and close to suicidal.

Religion saved me, and rebuilt my self respect and helped me to love myself more. I was saved from the existential despair that was crippling my human potential.