Is Religion a Scam?

[LifeIsAbsurd]

Now a day Atheists say “Show me a sign”,

I never asked for a sign. I asked Lucifer to pay me for being Devil’s Advocate. And I once offered my soul for a year with a supermodel. ::sigh:: No deal yet.

but even if God came down to them and show them many signs, with blindness
in their hearts, they will try to convince themselves that God is not real.

Yup. Dear God, I already see plenty of signs when I drive down the street–Walmart, Fedex, Southwest Airlines. We’re kinda desensitized to them. “Got God?” might have been funny a decade ago, but it’s old now. If you want to make your case to modern rational men, aim for ‘scientific evidence’ or ‘proof beyond a reasonable doubt’. I imagine meetings these burdens of proof should be no problem for an omniscient, omnipowerful being–but if you have any trouble, law services can be retained for a reasonable fee. Perhaps there’s one amongst the whole lot who’s on your side!

"Well said. Blindness of the heart. "

I see with my eyes. My heart plumps blood throughout my body. Which reminds me I’m due for some cardio tomorrow.

“Atheists don’t see God because they don’t want to see Him.”

That was Joan Osborne’s idea. "If God had a face, what would it look like? And would you want to see if seeing meant that you would have to believe in things like heaven and in Jesus and the saints and all the prophets?

Joan, great voice, is wrong. Most atheists, even Ayn Rand who was certain God doesn’t exist and had some choice words to say about theists, was always clear that she was willing to change her mind if sufficient evidence were ever presented. Why would atheists be upset at the idea? 10 hail mary’s and we’re in. Camus’ character stated the situation rather plainly:

Chaplain: “No! No! I refuse to believe it. I’m sure you’ve often wished there was an afterlife.”

Meursault: “Of course I had, I told him. Everybody has that wish at times. But that had no more importance than wishing to be rich, or to swim very fast, or to have a better-shaped mouth. It was in the same order of things.”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

LifeIsAbsurd

*Meursault: “Of course I had, I told him. Everybody has that wish at times. But that had no more importance than wishing to be rich, or to swim very fast, or to have a better-shaped mouth. It was in the same order of things.” *

No, it isn’t in the same order of things. The fate of one’s immortal soul should not be trivialized like that.

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

“However, I do like the comparison of atheism as a religion or what I would call pseudo-religion by UnityofTrinity:”

I see a pattern. You would like something to be so, and so it is so?

[M]ost Atheists are those who either angry with the Church(or their religion) or simply want to rebel against the moral obligation of religion.

I’m not ‘angry’ at your church nor any particular person. Most atheists are not atheists because they’re ‘angry’. We just don’t believe in gods, magical ponies, nor celestial teacups that we cannot see. Simple enough.

But one thing truly peculiar to Atheism is that it’s the only religious faith that is dependent on other religious faith, especially Monotheistic faiths.

Atheism is not a religious faith, as a lack of belief doesn’t require faith.

If all religions and all other beliefs people held without strong evidence were to disappear from the world, we’d all be atheists, granted we may eventually stop using the word.

It’s the only religious tradition that require you to bash other religions.

Absurd. Perhaps I should take the sample size of–you, and the person who quoted you (and pretend I didn’t read anyone else)–and say Catholicism requires misrepresenting others.

Perhaps too many smileys. Sorry, in a quirky mood!

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Charlemagne,
Although LifeIsAbsurd’s quote was not even a parallel, keep in mind Mersault killed a dude due to his physical sensations of heat and sweat and such. “The nakedness of man faced with the absurd” as Camus put it. His “order of things” was based purely on sensation. I mean Meursault was at his happiest moment when he was about to be publicly executed… AND he was hated! That was the happiest time of his life! He even said to his girlfriend, “I love you, Image.” (That may have been in A Happy Death but the character there is a foreshadowing of Meursalt anyway.) That was his “order of things”. In any case, that was just Camus’ atheist assumption. That is, that we (my former I) assume that because it makes people feel all warm and fuzzy to believe in the happiness of afterlife, therefore they believe its truth. Or they believe its truth, therefore, it makes them feel all nice and cuddly (this one less so.) Weak assumptions based on almost iconoclastic proclivities. Most atheists make terrible assumptions about theists. I was the king of it.

Just for you Charlemagne. Here is Exhibit A of a typical atheist:

LifeIsAbsurd,
You took that novel out of context in comparison to your discussion with Charlemagne. He/she was not even talking about believing it because they liked it. All they said was that you did not want to believe it and I agree because you came up with irrelevant anti-arguments.

And Ayn Rand’s atheism must not have been too firm if she would have believed if she actually saw the evidence. My faith is not based on “if’s”. I have complete faith and absolutely nothing can sway it. By the way, there is evidence if you ever want to investigate it for yourself.

Atheists do require faith by the way. They have Faith in reason, logic and rationalities as their own weapons of choice in the sciences and what not as well as theistic assault.

And 10 Hail Marys does not get anyone “into the Church”. Nice way of proving my point of terrible assumptions even if you were joking. Iconoclastic tendencies take over the mind of most atheists.

Your response to Charlemagne’s affinity to “pseudo-religion” is another typical atheist response. You are proving my points perfectly. They just said they liked it. They never said “it is so”. I am seeing a pattern here: Unwarranted Assumption A provides a linear path toward Unwarranted Assumption B. Two wrongs make a right, right?

And who cares if atheism is not is not a religion? The fact that athiests complain about that should shed light on atheism’s weakness. As organized as humanity is at classifying every single tiny little thing, concept, idea, science, art, animal, personality, etc…, If humanity cannot even agree on just classifying something, then it may not even exist, much less be true, and perhaps be irrelevant. I think it is a religion, even as an athiest I agreed with that. But does it really matter? No! The theism of atheism is that there is no God. That is a doctrine whether you like it or not. Rejecting the idea of God is itself a doctrine, an affirmation of something. The debate is impasse and irrelevant to the bigger issue of truth anyway. It does not matter what you or I think about that. I think it is a religion. You think it is not. I guess we will never know, nor does anybody care.

Charlemagne,
There you have it. Exhibit A of the typical atheist. Granted, some are not like that. They actually like fair discussions and take people at their word

God bless

 

[GreggAlvarez]

LifeIsAbsurd,
Catholicism does not require misreprentation. From the looks of your post, I would say that the one finger pointing at Catholicism would have to account for the other fingers pointing right back at you. I counted 5 misrepresentations in your last post. You even misrepresented atheism! And if specific people do misrepresent, then that should not count for their whole demographic. In that case, all atheism is (according to your posts) is a bunch of misrepresentations

Be fair to our posts. That is all I ask.

Take care

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

GreggAlvarez:

Catholicism does not require misreprentation. From the looks of your post, I would say that the one finger pointing at Catholicism would have to account for the other fingers pointing right back at you.

Gregg, read carefully what was said:

LifeIsAbsurd:

UnityofTrinity> [Atheism is] the only religious tradition that require you to bash other religions.

Absurd. Perhaps I should take the sample size of–you, and the person who quoted you (and pretend I didn’t read anyone else)–and say Catholicism requires misrepresenting others.

I will spell out my meaning. Body language is sometimes lost online –

UnityOfTrinity made the false claim that atheism requires bashing other religions. First, that’s not part of the definition of atheism. Second, most atheists I’ve met do not bother to spend their time bashing other religions, so whatever sample size he used to make that claim must be trivially small. His point is rather absurd. I then pointed out perhaps I could make a similar silly claim about Catholics–using a sample size of two, UnityOfTrinity and 4Horseman (and pretending I didn’t read anyone else).

Gee, maybe ‘perhaps’ and ‘pretending I didn’t read anyone else’ and the fact I both to post here imply i don’t generally hold such a silly belief?

Be fair to our posts. That is all I ask.

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

GreggAlvarez:

Here is Exhibit A of a typical atheist:

Are you saying I exemplify atheism? Wow, this is indeed a great honor! I wish to thank you, and my parents, and everyone in the audience who could be here tonight. Unfortunately I cannot accept this honor. There are too many atheists who came before me. Indeed, I have stood on the shoulder of giants. Warren Buffet. Carl Sagan. Bertrand Russel. Ayn Rand. Thomas Huxley. That and, while there may be an archetypical follower of a particular religion, there can be no archetypical atheist, since all that ties us together is merely the lack of belief in gods and goddesses and not specific value system.

GreggAlvarez> You took that novel out of context in comparison to your discussion with Charlemagne. He/she was not even talking about believing it because they liked it.

No, it’s a very appropos quote. Charlemange (the forum poster) stated “Atheists don’t see God because they don’t want to see Him.”, and the quote reveals quite the opposite–Meursault would like an afterlife, to be rich, to swim very fast, etc. I admit that Charlemange had a witty retort to that particular line.

GreggAlvarez> All they said was that you did not want to believe it

To be precise, Charlemange did not direct any statements at me personally, only you have.

GreggAlvarez> and I agree because you came up with irrelevant anti-arguments"

Because I provided a quote implying some atheists did want to believe, you’re now saying that I personally do not want to believe? That’s faulty logic, and I request the following ground rules:

(a) not pretend to know what I believe about the world especially when I’ve stated the opposite.
(b) not to stereotype me as 'a typical ’ where is atheism, my race, my gender, my nationality, my age, my profession, etc.

These are not the ways to have an honest discussion.

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

That is, that we (my former I) assume that because it makes people feel all warm and fuzzy to believe in the happiness of afterlife, therefore they believe its truth.

First, I never believed nor stated that Catholics in general believe in God because they want to believe in a happy afterlife. Second, you’re saying that you used to have that illogical belief, and you’re now associating me with your former self and beliefs for some reason when I doubt you and I ever had very much in common.

I sense hostility in your words I don’t get from other forum members–and I’m not going to take it personally but assume the best, that it’s probably not directed at me but rather at the former you? I’m sorry if you despise the former you so much, and hope you can come to terms with your own life. ::hugs:: I will not debate with you further.

 

[tonyrey]

I’m not ‘angry’ at your church nor any particular person. Most atheists are not atheists because they’re ‘angry’. We just don’t believe in gods, magical ponies, nor celestial teacups that we cannot see. Simple enough.

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

What do you believe in?

When we turn to belief, we’re discussing me, not atheism in general, since again atheism is defined by a lack of belief in gods.

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.

There was an upward trend in law, order, and protection of citizens in societies long before Christianity. I often conduct myself in ways that Christians consider moral, but not always, and primarily out of self-interest.

Disbelief presupposes a superior explanation unless you opt for no explanation at all - which is a cop out!

Making up an explanation when you don’t know the truth is the cop out. When we see our first eclipse, should we assume it’s caused by evil spirits, or slowly collect data and eventually try to predict and later understand the process?

I’m okay with not knowing everything–how many dimensions exist in space/time, whether there are wormholes, or whether the world always existed. Instead of choosing from one of the many religious stories of the world, let’s explore and measure and find out as much as we can about what really happened! Astrophysics is not my domain, although I read much of Feynman and Hawkings over a decade ago. There are some excellent minds working towards the answers.

I’m a specialist in, and pushing the boundaries of knowledge in, another area.

Me> Atheism is not a religious faith, as a lack of belief doesn’t require faith.
You> I’m afraid it does - as I have indicated.

faith - a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Your above argument is only sound if you could show that atheism requires believing in an explanation for the formation of the universe that’s not supported by logical proof nor material evidence.

That’s certainly not a core tenet of atheism, which again simply means not believing “God exists”.

 

[FightingFat]

My goal is happiness. That shouldn’t be confused with hedonism, as sometimes instant gratification leaves you briefly happy but miserable the next day.

That’s why I am Catholic. I understand the happiest I can be is when I am in tune with the divine will, which is a blue print for human happiness.

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.

I think is the truth for all of us. I know that there is a spiritual dimension to my being which is difficult to measure empirically, and yet none-the-less exists. Thus it is in my nature to seek solace, contemplation, to enjoy company and good music, to gain pleasure from art or aesthetic beauty.

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.

Instincts are often good guides, but also sometimes need to be kept in check!

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

FightingFat:

That’s why I am Catholic. I understand the happiest I can be is when I am in tune with the divine will, which is a blue print for human happiness.

And how, may I ask, did you reach the conclusion that following the rules in that little black book and moreover those dictated by the pope would make you happiest? I don’t mean that to be adversarial. I’m just curious how you arrived at such a very different conclusion about how to reach the very same goal that I’m after. Perhaps it was because you happened to be raised in a Catholic family, the same as those raised in a Hindi family believe that is the path?

FightingFat:

Instincts are often good guides, but also sometimes need to be kept in check!

Aye! I find my intuition/instincts are at their worst when they’re applied to new situations. Re-entering the dating scene, I discovered I couldn’t screen friends and dates the same way I screened thousands of job applicants at work!

And people raised in good neighborhoods generally are poor at recognizing signs of danger when thrust into bad neighborhoods, while those raised in bad neighborhoods are generally too way of danger when thrust into good neighborhoods. The ability to anticipate that we gain over the years is only particularly accurate so long as we’re exposed to similar situations.

 

[FightingFat]

And how, may I ask, did you reach the conclusion that following the rules in that little black book and moreover those dictated by the pope would make you happiest?

Well the first thing to say would be that it has nothing to do with rules, or, if you think it does, you don’t understand what freedom really is. Also the Pope doesn’t dictate rules, but is a teacher who offers enlightenment.

I don’t mean that to be adversarial. I’m just curious how you arrived at such a very different conclusion about how to reach the very same goal that I’m after. Perhaps it was because you happened to be raised in a Catholic family, the same as those raised in a Hindi family believe that is the path?

Not at all. I found myself here after a very long journey of discovery and learning about different cultures and faiths. I started reading and eventually found myself more and more impressed with the Catholic philosophy I read.

Also I learned that there is a difference between the Hindi path and the Catholic path, but that each shares the same essence of truth, reaching out beyond ourselves to the irreducible seed of eternity which dwells inside us all.

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

FightingFat> Also the Pope doesn’t dictate rules, but is a teacher who offers enlightenment.

Well okay, what about the rule to not use condoms which is uniquely Catholic? And I realize the pope recently lightened the rule, but it was in full-strength for many years and I’ve firsthand seen the life problems it created for Catholics who attempted to follow it. One of the charms of Catholicism vs. other Christian faiths is having someone to help interpret what the verses mean for you, but it seems contrary to say that someone doesn’t also set rules?

There’s another thread where a Catholic is complaining he can’t have his wedding outdoors, when many other Christian faiths would allow that. Which implies the pope/church do dictate rules.

 

[FightingFat]

Well okay, what about the rule to not use condoms which is uniquely Catholic?

And non-religious people claim we’re the ones obsessed with sex? Why is the first question always about sex???

You’ve misunderstood. The Church holds to a philosophy which is sees human life as a sacred gift to be valued and cherished. It also teaches that the best way to bring up children is within the confines of a loving family. There are building blocks necessary in order to properly establish this and they begin with love, respect and fidelity. Condoms do not fit into the equation.

This is not a rule so much as an opportunity to fulfil your full sexual potential.

It And I realize the pope recently lightened the rule, but it was in full-strength for many years and I’ve firsthand seen the life problems it created for Catholics who attempted to follow it. One of the charms of Catholicism vs. other Christian faiths is having someone to help interpret what the verses mean for you, but it seems contrary to say that someone doesn’t also set rules?

1). No he didn’t change it!
2). It’s not interpreting the verses, it is a consistent philosophy.

There’s another thread where a Catholic is complaining he can’t have his wedding outdoors, when many other Christian faiths would allow that. Which implies the pope/church do dictate rules.

No, he can, but in doing so there will be consequences —he will lack certain graces. This is the nature of life is it not? It is difficult to both have ones cake and eat it!

 

[tonyrey]

When we turn to belief, we’re discussing me, not atheism in general, since again atheism is defined by a lack of belief in gods.

A lack of belief in anything must be based on reasons if it is to be reasonable. Why believe you - as opposed to your body - exist. Or do you believe **you **are no more than a body, i.e. a biological machine?

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?

There was an upward trend in law, order, and protection of citizens in societies long before Christianity.

Why was there an upward trend?

I often conduct myself in ways that Christians consider moral, but not always, and primarily out of self-interest.

Does happiness come from satisfying self-interest, i.e. getting what you want?

Disbelief presupposes a superior explanation unless you opt for no explanation at all - which is a cop out!

Making up an explanation when you don’t know the truth is the cop out. When we see our first eclipse, should we assume it’s caused by evil spirits, or slowly collect data and eventually try to predict and later understand the process?

Are you sure you know the truth?

I’m okay with not knowing everything–how many dimensions exist in space/time, whether there are wormholes, or whether the world always existed. Instead of choosing from one of the many religious stories of the world, let’s explore and measure and find out as much as we can about what really happened! Astrophysics is not my domain, although I read much of Feynman and Hawkings over a decade ago. There are some excellent minds working towards the answers.

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

I’m a specialist in, and pushing the boundaries of knowledge in, another area.

Specialists tend to overlook the wood for the trees. You’re seeking to explain the whole of reality in terms of its most insignificant aspect! Happiness is not found in material objects.

Me> Atheism is not a religious faith, as a lack of belief doesn’t require faith.
You> I’m afraid it does - as I have indicated.
faith - a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Your above argument is only sound if you could show that atheism requires believing in an explanation for the formation of the universe that’s not supported by logical proof nor material evidence.

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

That’s certainly not a core tenet of atheism, which again simply means not believing “God exists”.

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

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I understand the happiest I can be is when I am in tune with the divine will, which is a blue print for human happiness.

Why?

I think is the truth for all of us. I know that there is a spiritual dimension to my being which is difficult to measure empirically, and yet none-the-less exists.

You know? How do you know, if you do not have “empirical” knowledge, and is that knowledge as valid as empirical knowledge?

Thus it is in my nature to seek solace, contemplation, to enjoy company and good music, to gain pleasure from art or aesthetic beauty.

Why would these things be in your nature simply because you have an immaterial aspect to your nature? What is the connection?

Instincts are often good guides, but also sometimes need to be kept in check!

Kept in check by what? lots of people are not christian because their instincts tell them that it is a tool of corruption.

 

[FightingFat]

Why?

Because it’s the most in sync with my humanity.

You know? How do you know, if you do not have “empirical” knowledge, and is that knowledge as valid as empirical knowledge?

Yes, it is a part of what makes us whole, as real as the air that I breath. It is a truth that not everything is measurable, quantifiable, it does not change its reality.

Why would these things be in your nature simply because you have an immaterial aspect to your nature? What is the connection?

They are immaterial, aesthetic and spiritual pursuits which defy empirical test.

Kept in check by what?

By my understanding of what is good for me and what is not.

lots of people are not christian because their instincts tell them that it is a tool of corruption.

Or maybe they fail to understand the reality of the Christian message, or maybe they have good experience which demonstrates to them that this is the case. All these realities are inevitably possible.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

LifeIsAbsurd

There was an upward trend in law, order, and protection of citizens in societies long before Christianity.

I wish you would document this. In Rome at the time of Christ infanticide was common. So was gladiatorial combat to the death for the entertainment of the citizens.

By the 4th Century, with the installation of Christianity as the official religion of the empire, both had been abolished. These are facts of history. So it may be there was an upward trend of morality somewhere … but I think the only documentation of that can be found in the advance of Christianity throughout the world.

 

[kingal86]

Atheism: The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs. Of course. Makes perfect sense!

The problem with the First Cause proof for the existence of God is an atheist can just reply who created God, a monotheist may say he is the first cause and wasn’t created, the atheist may say that the Big Bang just happened and didn’t need to be caused and it just goes round in circles…