Is Religion a Scam?

[AngryAtheist8]

How bout this decree from Martin Bormann, head of the Nazi Part Chancellery and Hitler’s secretary, to the regional party leaders, in 1941:

Also, the just-under 3000 priests at Dachau were singled out by the SS guards for particularly brutal treatment. Pretty much all the clergy of Poland were killed by the Nazis, actually.

The Nazis were not atheists (and were certainly not hostile to religion itself), and there is no compelling evidence to believe otherwise. Much the opposite in fact, as the evidence (some of which I have listed below) makes plain:

Baldur von Schirach, the leader of the Hitler Youth, was fond of addressing mass meetings of his followers with a motto: “We are a Youth that believes in God, because we serve the Divine Law that is called Germany.” That desperate conception of the ‘Divine Law’ was to lead, by ten thousand crooked paths, to catastrophic suffering, total war, and to the ovens of Auschwitz itself.

Source: Catholic Education Resource Center (link catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0033.html).

I swear by almighty God this sacred oath: I will render unconditional obedience to the Führer of the German Reich and people, Adolf Hitler, Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht, and, as a brave soldier, I will be ready at any time to stake my life for this oath.

• Loyalty Oath sworn by the military following the death of German President Paul von Hindenburg, August 2, 1934

Source: About.com (link atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/tp/NaziChristiansGermany.htm).

The petty-bourgeois eccentric whose natural snobbery led him to welcome old aristocratic blood into the SS, revived a web of obsolete religious and cosmological dogmas linking new recruits to their distant Germanic ancestors. He cultivated the “return to the soil” and the dream of German peasant-soldier farms in the East while at the same time proving himself a diabolically skilful organizer of rationalized modern extermination methods. The supreme technician of totalitarian police power who saw himself as a reincarnation of the pre-Christian Saxon, Henry the Fowler, advancing eastwards against the Slavs–he organized the thousandth anniversary of Henry’s death in 1936–Himmler perfectly expressed in his own personality the contradictions of National Socialism. For him, the SS was at one and the same time the resurrection of the ancient Order of the Teutonic Knights with himself as grand master, the breeding of a new Herrenvolk aristocracy based on traditional values of honour, obedience, courage and loyalty, and the instrument of a vast experiment in modern racial engineering.

Source: Jewish Virtual Library, in reference to the beliefs and practices of Heinrich Himmler (link jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/himmler.html).

-AngryAtheist8

P.S. Sorry it took me so long to respond. I have been really busy at work the past couple of weeks.

 

[tonyrey]

The Nazis were not atheists (and were certainly not hostile to religion itself), and there is no compelling evidence to believe otherwise.

Then how do you explain the murder of Jews, Christians and other religious groups in the Nazi death camps?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Tonitz

*But while religion can bring one to the doorstep of the methodology that could bring a satisfying answer to that debate, it’s own short sightedness embodied as dogma prevents most of its adherents form persuing the actual spirituality that is repeatably successful when perused, and would and has worked fo atheists as well, as it is not faith based. *

Your prose style (Professor Irwin Corey?) is somewhat incoherent. If you would read this into a tape recorder and ask a friend to listen to it, I doubt he could sum up in his own words what you have said.

Try again?

Science is inquiry, whereas religion is answer from a foregone premise.

The following sentence is just as true:

Religion is inquiry, and science is answer from a foregone premise.

No, you obviously don’t know what those words mean.

Here are some definitions to help you out:

Science:
–noun
1.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.
any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.
systematized knowledge in general.
5.
knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6.
a particular branch of knowledge.
7.
skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

Source: Dictionary.com (link dictionary.reference.com/browse/science).

Religion:
–noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7.
religions, Archaic . religious rites.
8.
Archaic . strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one’s vow.
—Idiom
9.
get religion, Informal .
a.
to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.
b.
to resolve to mend one’s errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.

Source: Dictionary.com (link dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I am coming to realize that once the Holy Spirit has actually brought you to Christ, that atheism simply doesn’t make any sense anymore. In my case, long before I ever realized that I would become a fully believing Catholic Christian, I was still a theist. Even when I was a Buddhist I was was a theist. I have ALWAYS not only believed that there was a God. To me it has always been self evident. I had all kinds of journeys into many faith traditions, and many new age ideas of what and who God may be, but I simply can’t imagine or remember a time when I could even fathom that there is just absolutely no God at all. It doesn’t even hold up in my philisophical reasoning process. Atheism doesn’t make any sense. I just read a book called “The Godless Delusion”, and while it was a great book from the standpoint of apologetics, and I highly recommend it to anybody who is sincerely interested in theism vs. atheism, for me, it wasn’t the apologetics I was after. I was really trying to get an insight into why or even how there are atheists. Some of them quite extraordinarily intelligent to boot. What are they failing to grasp as human souls, and creations of God? This book couldn’t really answer that question completely, but it did finally give me a little insight. It let me see some of the faulty logic, and bad philosophy that could lead someone in that direction. I guess I’m simply not wired for atheism. Neitzche and his nihilsm is astoundingly off the mark. And he was brilliant. I think the problem is screwy axioms. If the axioms are wrong, you can end up in the wrong place, no matter how smart you may be. Axioms are everything. I’ve always started with existence exists, and it began. It is eternal on the forward end, but there is no infinte regression, because when stuff began, so did time. Before stuff and time, was God. What on earth else can it possibly be? Atheists can look each other, and us in the eye, with a straight face, and say that somethingness invented itself? There was nothing and then there was something for no particular reason whatsoever? That extreme unlikelyhood of human life, reasoning, etc. does not indicate a soul? There are no valid metaphysics?

Anyway, as to these statements, they’re just typical atheist mumbo jumbo. You could reverse the nouns, and a theist could make the same statement. Heck, let’s go ahead and try it:

a noted theist argued that atheism is a scam, and many atheists know it in their hearts. They just haven’t got the courage to admit it. He invited atheists to join the Christian cause since Christianity is a fact, whereas atheism is governed by people who specialize in hawking wishful thinking*.

• (faith in impossible odds and chance, and an escape from moral and ethical responsibility). my own little addition.

Jesus Christ is the truth. He is also the light, the life, and the way.

Blessings,

Steven

Possibly.

The tyrannical unforgiving warrior god depicted in the Old Testament is not someone I would want to meet. Of course its at least equally plausible that the main attraction of Christianity (and most other religions) is the promise of salvation from the inevitability of death.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

One gets tired of hearing about the failings of certain powerful churchmen down through history. Yes, there were bad popes in the old ages, and today there is no want of evidence that there are bad priests. Is all that scandal supposed to prove that religion is an evil scam? Are the thousands of abortionists throughout the world supposed to prove that medicine is an evil scam? Are the thousands of scientists throughout the world developing nuclear weapons for our destruction supposed to prove that science is an evil scam?

That is a false comparison.

Science is about the search for knowledge (and its child technology is about the application of that knowledge). Religion (generally speaking) assumes that it already knows all the basics, and is in practice about ordering human existence according to its assumptions.

A good scientist will change his views if compelling contrary evidence comes to the surface. A good priest, cleric, or pastor cannot do that. A pastor, cleric, or priest who embraces a view contrary to their official doctrine is considered a heretic (regardless of the evidence).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Not when there is the prospect of justice being meted out after death! Many atheists express satisfaction that they are **liberated **from the burden of “superstition”. That in itself is a motive for rejecting religion…

Cute

But religion used to support the state/elite seems to be a norm, from the Aztec empire to the modern day Saudi Arabian kingdom. The idea that those in power cannot (or will generally hesitate to) use religion as a means of social control and self advancement is clearly a false one.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Not when there is the prospect of justice being meted out after death! Many atheists express satisfaction that they are liberated from the burden of "superstition". That in itself is a motive for rejecting religion…

Not to mention the burdens of sin, guilt, penance, and Church on Sunday morning.

I think many atheists choose atheism not because it is true, but because it is easy.

Little do they know … “my burden is light.”

Easy?

It seems putting your faith into some sort of All-Powerful father figure (who will supposedly take care of you), assuring yourself that there is life after death, and believing that everything will turn out all right in the end is the easier option

An atheist or agnostic cannot rely on such comfort and assurances. We know that this life is important because its (probably) the only one that we have. We cannot pretend that the suffering and injustice in the world is insignificant compared to some sort of universal Day of Judgment. We know that its foolish (and perhaps even cowardly) to give the credit for all human achievements and all human failings on unseen spiritual forces.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

From my own experience as an atheist for a time, I always felt something was missing. Of course, it was more subliminal at first, but, little by little, the Holy Spirit was getting through to me and giving me little urgings and signs. I would think others who reject God know, or at least feel, some kind of loss–that something is missing in their lives. Often they try to cover up their nililism with whatever soothes including drugs, affairs, power over others or more benign things like living their llives like only material things matter. They consider themselves superior to others in one way or another.

If your speaking specifically of the Judo-Christian God, a lot of people have simply embraced other religions. Like Hinduism or Shinto Buddhism.

Christianity is not the default setting of religion.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Another thing is that it is an escape from morality. Dinesh D’Souza, in What’s So Great Abour Christianity calls atheism “the opiate of the morally corrupt”. This is pretty self-evident. I was reading reviews of Jason Evert’s books on Amazon, and one person called his booklet Pure Manhood “homophobic, religious bigotry”. This condemnation proves that this person didn’t even read it, because there is only a short section on homosexuality, and it is not condemning of homosexuals. It’s not so much that most atheists don’t logically not believe in God, but rather they don’t want there to be a God, because they are afraid of what is really deep down on their consciences.

I have listened to D’Souza speak, and was frankly unimpressed. The quote you list is just him trying to be ‘clever’ by copying Karl Marx in reverse (who called religion the ‘opiate of the masses’).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

1. Atheism is **apparently **easy but in reality it is a philosophy of despair.
2. It dehumanises, demoralises and devalues a person.
3. It destroys everything we consider most precious.
4. Truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love become illusions.
5. We become freaks of nature which exist for no reason or purpose whatsoever.
6. Life becomes a cruel joke played by a blind Goddess - Chance.
7. Its only logical conclusion is:

“Eat, drink and (try to) be merry for tomorrow we die!”…

Fear of an all-powerful wrathful deity who will punish us (eternally) for being as imperfect and weak as he made us is supposed to be uplifting

Moreover if fear of God/Hell is the only thing keeping someone acting decently (or at least not horribly) then they are bad people.

I need no such spiritual crutch in order to be a decent member of my community.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

tonyrey

Indeed, the ease is illusory, even sleeping in Sunday morning.

Our burden is much lighter because there is nothing like hope to assuage any burden.

False hope might be comforting, but refusing to face reality leaves you vulnerable to all sorts of tricksters and con artists. Not to mention your own self delusions.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

… and the infinite love revealed in a third-class province of the Roman Empire at a time of barbaric cruelty beneath a veneer of civilisation.

No being with filled with infinite love would torture someone for all eternity. As the Christian god supposedly does.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

4Horsemen

It is not atheism that is spreading but the occult and New Age practices.

Satan will take souls wherever he can find them. Occultism may be more fertile ground than atheism. The worship of Satan is rather likely to be found there. It may well be more possible for the atheist to find God than for the Satanist. The atheist merely needs to overcome hostility. The occultist has to overcome hysteria.

I find the automatic arrogance of believers amusing sometimes.

Do you really believe that disbelief in something (even your god) requires hostility towards it?

Are you hostile towards everything you don’t believe in?

 

[LongJohnSilver]

I find the automatic arrogance of believers amusing sometimes.

Do you really believe that disbelief in something (even your god) requires hostility towards it?

Are you hostile towards everything you don’t believe in?

Why did you call yourself AngryAtheist then? IndifferentAtheist was taken?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Obviously, “science” took the cue, and ramped it up.

Sit in the courthouse any day and watch all the sick people and widows trying to defend against the doctors suing them for the tens of thousands for cures that didn’t work, or that killed them.

Ha!

Science/modern medicine is imperfect, but it can produce reliable, measurable results. Moreover it is continually improving in knowledge and technique.

Can any religion say the same?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Well, let’s be honest about that…there is a huge anti-Scientology movement, and most (all?) monotheisms have been anti-atheism/agnosticism since their conception (punishable by death in many even) and plenty of people can’t stand the Buddhists, they just don’t tend to be in western nations.​

As far as the OP goes…I think the point is valid. I honestly don’t think it is a massive number of people, but there is a huge social pressure in many places to be religious. Huge. The social pressure against being non-religious is just as great in those places. If you took that social pressure away, you’d get more people leaving faith.

I think it is perfectly valid to argue about the degree to which this might apply, it might be 0.05% or it might be 20%, but to say it doesn’t exist seems a bit naive.

You might just argue that those people aren’t true believers, and that is fine, I doubt the guy on the Fox show would disagree with you.

True, in theocracies (which were far more common in the past) disbelieving in the state religion is often seen as being essentially treasonous (or at least unpatriotic). In such an environment acting religious is more or less required if you want to stay on good terms with the authorities.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Then how do you explain the murder of Jews, Christians and other religious groups in the Nazi death camps?

Genocide is a serious topic, but I honestly laughed out loud when I read your post.

History shows that Christians (and for that matter Hindus, Jews, Muslims, etc.) are perfectly capable of murdering their own. As well as inconvenient non-believers.

Why would Nazi religiosity make them any less murderous?

Except for the Jews, the Nazis mainly sent people to their death camps for political reasons, or because they were viewed as being racially inferior. As the Islamic fundamentalists today remind us by their example, the religious are not exempt from that kind of blood lust.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Why did you call yourself AngryAtheist then? IndifferentAtheist was taken?

Actually yes, Indifferent Atheist was taken if I remember correctly.

But I am not angry at imaginary gods. I am angry at believers who claim power and oppress others in the name of such gods.

 

[RWMorris]

… But I am not angry at imaginary gods. I am angry at believers who claim power and oppress others in the name of such gods.

Why just pick on believers? Why not be angry at anyone “who claim power and oppress others?” Then you could just be angry at all government in general - a much more productive attitude.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Angry

Throughout history hundreds of millions of Christians have given their lives to good works; the Church has been a great and constant teacher of morals for the young; it has been more often the transmitter of social order than of social strife; it has consoled and uplifted the lives of the downtrodden and those in despair; it has built great hospitals and universities; from the time of Roger Bacon it has actually promoted scientific research rather than retarded it, the Galileo case notwithstanding; from the start the Church has taught the ignorant, comforted the lonely, tended the sick, visited the imprisoned, clothed the naked, housed the poor, and fed the hungry. To hear you talk, these things never happened.

What has organized atheism done besides plunging the world into moral anarchy and depriving mankind of hope for everlasting life?

The record of abundant and overwhelming atheism in the Soviet Union, China, East Germany, and North Korea speaks for itself, and the anti Jewish-Christian rampages of Hitler and the Nazis, is the greatest proof on earth that hell is as real in this world as in the next.

Moreover, it was science, not the Vatican, that invented the means by which the human race could annihilate itself. And it will only be religion ( see the Gospels’ “Love one another”), certainly not science (see Einstein’s letter to FDR) that will prevent us from using the weapons to do so.