Is Religion a Scam?

[Charlemagne_II]

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

This same reaction Camus confronted openly and honestly when he wrote about suicide as the ultimate question to be faced if there is no God.

Jacques and Raissa Maritain, when they were young sweethearts, made a pact between them, that if they could find no answers to the question of God within a year, they would commit suicide together. Happily, they were introduced by a Dominican priest to the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. Raissa plunged in head first, and later pulled Jacques in behind her. The rest is history.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Camus’ famous dissertation on suicide is titled The Myth of Sisyphus.

 

[Tonitz]

Some questions:

1. All religion is a scam, or some religion is a scam? If some, which ones? Why?
2. Are all religions a scam all of the time, or just some, or are all of them some of the time? If so, how and when?
3. Has any religion of any denomination ever been used to scam or mislead anyone or wrongfully gain trust for personal or evil ends? If so, which ones, why, when, and how?
4. If there are ten major divisions regarding beliefs/non-beliefs, and hundreds of sub categories even under Christianity and many under even Catholicism, what universally criteria may be universally applied through time and space, given what is allegedly at stake, to determine from an impartial standpoint which, if any, of all of these thousands is not a scam, misleading, complete, etc? These criteria would necessarily exclude belief or faith, or the result would be parochial and prejudiced.
5. Religions is about God, but is God about Religion? If God is about religion, then He has been generous in lavishing our race from its beginning with modalities of every sort. Are all of them true always in every circumstance? None of them? Some of them now and again? If God is about religion or about one religion, why has there been such a poverty of effective advertising for the One Ultimate Truth while we are globally all in agreement about the laws of physics, math, how o build a car, etc, etc?
6. Given the horrors associated with our own faith, and those of others, is religion a truley efficcious means of inculcating the Good that we are made in the Image and Likeness of? Statistically there seems to be no difference. Or is there something beyond religion, since democrtic ideas are regularly faulty, that is more efficacious than the public face of religion in acheiving its purported ends?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Tonitz

*Given the horrors associated with our own faith, and those of others, is religion a truley efficcious means of inculcating the Good that we are made in the Image and Likeness of? Statistically there seems to be no difference. Or is there something beyond religion, since democrtic ideas are regularly faulty, that is more efficacious than the public face of religion in acheiving its purported ends? *

What is the alternative to religion to achieve an efficacious means of “inculcating the Good”?

Irreligion? I doubt it, as the history of Russia and China in the 20th century should demonstrate.

When the horrors of religion are thrown in our face, we should remember that the horrors are generally outweighed by the benefits. It’s just that nobody wants to talk about what good the Church has done for 2,000 years … only about where and when and under what circumstances Christians, Muslims, etc. have failed to achieve the good their religion was supposed to inculcate.

Religious scams, it is true, are rife. There are crooked priests. There are crooked lawyers and crooked physicians. All we hear about are the crooked lawyers and physicians … hardly ever do we hear about all the good lawyers and physicians who have held society together body and soul.

If it were not for the Gospels and the Lives of the Saints, it might be a lot easier to dismiss all Christianity as an enormously successful scam. It is easy for some to do that anyway, because they never have, nor do they ever intend, to read the Gospels or the Lives of the Saints.

 

[Tonitz]

Hi Charlemagne II,

Thank you for your thoughtful answer.

I have thoroughly read the Gospels, though not recently, and spent many hours with many books about the lives of the Saints. I’m currently reading Interior Castle by St. Teresa of Avila. I’m as well quite enamored of her poetry, as well as that of some of the other Catholic Saints.

It is my studied opinion that such as Avila and Aquinas transcended mere religion and adopted a practice that, while it appeared to be religious, was in fact more sublime and far more practical in its subtext than what the ordinary layman has at hand in terms of devotion. There is a component in their worship that can be abstracted, as far as I can tell from their works and commentaries, that in itself, even without the support of the trappings of faith, would have yielded the desired results. In fact, that method is what they have in common with Saints not of the Catholic tradition who practice that method in its purity, though some have their own brand of devotion surrounding it. It is my further opinion
that the nature or religious dogma as we know it is a serious hindrance to that practice and that Avila and Others deserve the very highest of our respect in overcoming that. Their commentaries tend to support my position, as far as I can tell. Go figure.

Irreligion? I will agree that horrors happen independently of religion. And I guess it is natural, if one is religious, as we are, to go to such touted examples as Communist Russia and China. But let us not forget that the operative word here is “religion.” Adolf Hitler strongly advocated religion as a basis for education in schools. And in South America, and other third world areas where the bulk of Catholics now reside, horrors are regularly perpetrated by regimes in allegedly “Catholic” countries. Other religions, such as that of the Mayas and Incas were bathed in blood, as you know. So the simple factor of the regimen being atheistic may not have as much weight as you might wish to give it. And if you think about it, you can come up with many more examples. Chief among these might be our own, from which Hitler adopted certain ideas from our own germ warfare (smallpox infected blankets) waged on Native Americans and our own practice of slavery. And on and on. And I don’t think you will find people more blatant about being religious than many American Christians. Look at the marvelous spiritual achievement of the new Governor of Alabama who will not accept as brethren any who have not accepted Jesus as their personal savior. Do you really think that religion and Good are in true fact exactly congruent? The population statistics of prisons would indicate that that factor has little to do with religion or lack of it. That demographic pretty much mirrors the general population.

Do you think that the point of our religion is to perform a balancing act? What good is that in terms of individual souls? Will God do a statistical averaging when the last trump sounds? I don’t know. I was brought up to believe that it was a 1/1 deal. You make it or you don’t, even if making it means free parking in purgatory for a while. And why wouldn’t the failings of religion be in the forefront of attention? Politics aren’t aimed at salvation, but at governance.

Religions expressly are about an alleged higher good. they put themselves perforce in the spotlight of assessment regarding their efficacy. If they fail equally with governance, psychology, or whatever, what then would the average onlooker conclude? While fictitious, James Mitchner’s “Hawaii” and Barbara Kinsolver’s " The Poisonwood Bible" only give a taste of the wages of religion. I can also inform you of some local practices the missionaries used to convert young Indian girsl here i California that are in fact part of our history. And we have to admit the same about all the good doctors, lawyers, Indian chiefs, etc, who in fact do the good you speak of. Those are neither in the business of purported salvation. But many of those are atheists or agnostics as well. Again we have to ask if Good is the exclusive province of religion.

In closing, I would like to recommend to you the works of Father Raimon Pannikar. He was highly respected in the Church and drew international crowds to his services. His meditations concerning the nature of the Christ being transcendent of religion might be of use to you in your further considerations about the usefulness of religion. For my part, both from my experience and study, I have no choice but to conclude that religions, being a parochial asset in anyone’s life, (or not) and God being Universal, that religion is but a conveyance to the doorstep of actual spirituality. If our religion has been of personal benefit to you, I think that that is absolutely wonderful. But I am also convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt that far greater glories await you and many if while embracing our faith one can as well comprehend a greater Vision of the Almighty.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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.

No Aquinas did not.

If he had the Church would be trumpeting this proof every chance it got. It would be the cornerstone of Catholic Apologetics, and would probably be rubbed in the faces of people like Christopher Hitchens whenever they debated Catholics.

But this is not the case.

Your logic is faulty, if the Catholic Church had compelling and irrefutable evidence of its claims the clergy would use it. The fact that they don’t employ such evidence shows (or at least strongly indicates) that the Church has no such evidence.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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.

Why do people keep repeating the lie that the Nazis were atheists and anti-Christian?

This is not true.

Here is a quote from an article at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum website talking about how the Vatican was willing to help Hitler and his Nazis followers secure their grip on power in return for political concessions:

The Catholic church in Germany was controlled by the Vatican, under the leadership of Pope Pius XI, and signed a Concordat (Treaty) with the German Reich 15 days later. The Concordat confirmed the dissolution of German Catholicism’s trade unions and political organizations, but guaranteed the church traditional rights to cultivate and promote the practice of the Catholic rite, to maintain Catholic schools, and to appoint Catholic clergy.

The article also talks about how the Nazis tried to fuse Nazi ideology with Christian theology:

In a further attempt to synchronize religious thought with state policy, the Nazis sought, unsuccessfully, to establish a unified national church. Hitler appointed a Reich Bishop, Ludwig Mueller, who led a “German Christian” movement within the church. Mueller sought to synthesize Nazi ideology and Protestant tradition and to agitate for a “people’s church” based on “good Aryan blood.” This movement had gained 600,000 adherents by the mid-1930s.

Relevant website: ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005206

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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.

Of course it matters.

According to the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster the FSM created the universe

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Angry

Why do people keep repeating the lie that the Nazis were atheists and anti-Christian?

Because people like you have so little knowledge of German history except what you read at atheist websites?

The Nazis promoted the Superman philosophy of that notorious atheist Nietzsche. Hitler himself honored Nietzsche by attending the dedication of the Nietzsche Archives. Who but an atheist would do that?

It’s certainly true that Hitler pretended to be a Christian. But he was ever a liar, seeking to get the Christians on his side. His deeds of persecution, not only of Jews but also Christians, proves his real motive.

“The religions are all alike, no matter what they call themselves. They have no future – certainly none for the Germans. Fascism, if it likes, may come to terms with the Church. So shall I. Why not? That will not prevent me from tearing up Christianity root and branch and annihilating it in Germany.”

zenit.org/article-28937?l=english

At the end of WW II the Allies conducted war crimes trials at Nuremberg. General Donovan later preserved confidential reports of these trials which, after his death, were donated to the Rutgers University School of Law. The reports are now available for the public to read online. The first of the published reports, a 120 page document titled “The Nazi Master Plan: The Persecution of the Christian Churches,” was produced by the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), a forerunner of the CIA. The 1945 report includes the following remarks: “Important leaders of the National Socialist party would have liked to meet this situation [church influence] by complete extirpation of Christianity and the substitution of a purely racial religion. The best evidence now available as to the existence of an anti-Church plan is to be found in the systematic nature of the persecution itself.”

What Martin Niemöller said, a Lutheran pastor in Germany who spent several years in one of Hitler’s concentration camps, appears in the Congressional Record, 14, October 1968, page 31636, as follows:

“When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church — and there was nobody left to be concerned.”

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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?

The claim is vague enough that it doesn’t support a generic Christian God, let alone the Catholic God. It just implies that SOME kind of unknown force created the universe.

As for the claims you made without any evidence to back them up (in the post in question) here are some examples:

-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.
-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.
-Anti-belief requires a choice, although the atheist may not even be aware of his/her thinking.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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.

Of course people will die for a lie, if they think its true.

Plenty of people have died for the Buddhist and Hindu faiths and if your a devout Catholic you regard those religions as nothing but lies.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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…

What is Original Sin but the idea that all human lives and bodies are tainted (merely because they ARE human)?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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!

Do you have any actual arguments in support of your position?
Or are you merely content to insult the people debating against you

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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.

More insults towards atheists, along with some complaining about how the media is unfair.

Do you have any kind of actual argument in favor of Christianity and against atheism?
Other than the complaint that atheists and the media are mean

 

[AngryAtheist8]

AA8:

You say, above, that religion “is an illusion that often hurts people.” All due respect, but I’d like to know how.

God bless,
jd

By promoting things like Honor Killings and Holy Wars, and by giving legitimacy and justification to brutal regimes like the Islamic Republic of Iran and Franco Spain.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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?

Too early to tell.

Perhaps I’ll have an answer for you after I die.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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.

I don’t deny that religion makes some people feel good.
But the same is true of cocaine.

Does that make cocaine a positive good?

 

[Hastrman]

Here is a quote from an article at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum website talking about how the Vatican was willing to help Hitler and his Nazis followers secure their grip on power in return for political concessions

The same is true of Orthodox churches in Communist countries. Are you seriously going to deny that Communism is atheist and anti-Christian?

I must’ve missed class the day the teacher explained that “does not instantly dedicate every resource to the total eradication of Christianity” is identical with “is not an anti-Christian atheist”.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Angry

Why do people keep repeating the lie that the Nazis were atheists and anti-Christian?

Because people like you have so little knowledge of German history except what you read at atheist websites?

You think the Holocaust Museum website is an atheist website

 

[AngryAtheist8]

The same is true of Orthodox churches in Communist countries. Are you seriously going to deny that Communism is atheist and anti-Christian?

I must’ve missed class the day the teacher explained that “does not instantly dedicate every resource to the total eradication of Christianity” is identical with “is not an anti-Christian atheist”.

I was talking about the NAZIS.

I have never claimed that the communists were not anti-Christian.