Is Religion a Scam?

[TruthSeeker60]

Part 1/2

But the underlying premise of pascals pensees is that God intentionally remains hidden from certain people.

If that’s the case, it’s God’s fault I don’t believe he exists.

The reason for this is rather logical if one is familiar with the character and nature of Christ. The vast majority of people rejected God when he was in the flesh so would most people accept him if he revealed himself in the form of the Holy Spirit?

That’s if you make the assumption that the gospels were giving accounts of real events. For reasons I don’t have time to go into, I think that this is an unjustified belief (about the gospels being historical).

The vast majority of people rejected God when he was in the flesh so would most people accept him if he revealed himself in the form of the Holy Spirit? No way. A revelation of this kind to the entire world would only inspire Satanism en masse.

Even if I still were Catholic, I would reject this on many grounds. For one, if God is all powerful, he would certainly be able to keep Satan out of this world if he wanted to.

To elaborate further on the point I made in my last post. You have to examine the lives of the people to whom the existence of the Roman Catholic God was made known.

There are saints of other religion who had their gods reveal himself to them.

So the reason God may have not revealed himself to you personally may be because:

There is no god.
or
There’s a god, but he just doesn’t care whether people believe in him or not.
or
A number of other reasons that may be creatively thought up.

Regardless, if there’s a god who chooses to not supply me with any evidence for his existence, and if I don’t believe in a god because I’m not aware of evidence for a god, then it’s that god’s fault that I don’t believe in him.

TruthSeeker60;7720219:

NO! Reread what I’ve written. If my lack of belief is due to lack of evidence

(not due to a desire to have nothing to do with him as you arrogantly assert), the god chooses to not give me evidence for his existence, and I am tortured forever for nothing more than not believing he exists, then that god chose to have me tortured forever by refusing to give me evidence for his existence.

Wrong. This is not what Roman Catholicism teaches, . . .]

I wasn’t talking about Catholic teachings, but rather about beliefs that many have. That’s why I used the word IF. Read what I say more carefully before you make comments about what I misunderstand.

I understand that the Catholic Church doesn’t teach that people go to hell merely due to lack of belief. I understand the concept of “baptism of desire”. I’m minoring in theology at a conservative Catholic college (I used to be pursuing a major, but after I no longer believe in god dropped it to a minor) and took a graduate class with Scott Hahn. I was specifically responding to Charlemagne II’s comment in post 505 that, “You would be sending yourself to be tortured because in life you expressed the desire to have nothing to do with Him.”

Would you agree that if my lack of belief is due to lack of evidence, the god chooses to not give me evidence for his existence, and I am tortured forever for nothing more than not believing he exists, then that god chose to have me tortured forever by refusing to give me evidence for his existence?

If you go to hell, it will not be because you reject 2,000 years of western thought and tradition, the evidence for the divinity of Christ (which I posted earlier in this thread), or because you believe that it is not 2011 AD( in the year of our Lord), but rather, the year 13,000,000,000 ITYOMN(* in the year meaningless nonsense*).

Now I must confess that I’m not certain what you’re trying to refer to by this “13,000,000,000 ITYOMN”. Are you implying that I’ll go to hell because I don’t think that the numbering of the calender, which was determined inaccurately by Dionysius Exiguus in the 6th century, proves the existence and divinity of Jesus?!

Typically I’m able to understand people’s point in what they write, but you really worded whatever you were trying to say in a weird way.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Part 2/2

It will be because you are a liar, a thief, a murderer, an adulterer, and an idol worshiper by Catholic standards.

You know little more about me than that I don’t believe in a god, and yet you’re accusing me of murder?! To murder means to unjustly end the life of another, which I have not done. If you submit a silly reply like “your sins murdered Jesus”, understand that according to the theology of your church, I had no say in inheriting original sin and that Jesus could have saved all of humanity in another way (even by shedding one drop of blood according to many Catholic theology teachers).

It will be because you are a liar, a thief, a murderer, an adulterer, and an idol worshiper by Catholic standards. For clarification on these standards, see the sermon on the mount in Matthew. All Catholics, myself included, are all of the above things. The only difference between someone like yourself and roman Catholics, is that we try to take advantage of the sacraments, specifically the sacrament of penance, and are able to receive full or partial absolution for our trespasses against our fellow man courtesy of the infinite divine mercy of God.

Even if I were all those things, I see no reason why an all-powerful god couldn’t give a person the grace of forgiveness for those things regardless of whether the person believes in him, especially if god is responsible for the person’s lack of belief.

However, someone like yourself, who lives in the information age, probably has a public library card, and has the luxury of philosophy and internet debate with educated informed Catholics, may be sentenced to hell on the basis of Atheism alone, but this is just my own speculation.

The funny thing is that access to those things actually was a huge contributing factor in me critically evaluating my religion and deciding that it wasn’t justified by evidence.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;7720219:

I grew up believing the doctrines of Christianity because that is what my parents taught me. When I became a young adult, I searched for evidence to justify my beliefs, and found them lacking, so I eventually stopped believing. If there is evidence to justify Christian beliefs, I am unaware of it.

A person cannot possibly know all the evidence in the universe for or against God.

It’s impossible for a person to know all of the evidence for or against something in virtually all cases. However, we make conclusions based off of the evidence we do have. If there is no evidence for the existence of invisible, intangible fairies that we know of, than we aught not believe in them. Likewise, if there’s no evidence for a god that we know of, than we aught not believe in a god.

On the other hand, if a person has a world view that excludes the existence of God, than any revelation of God would probably be dismissed out of hand.

I can’t believe how many Christians seem to think that those who don’t believe in a god do so because they have “a world view that excludes the existence of God” rather than due to lack of evidence.

But not believing in God because of lack of evidence is not evidence at all but an opinion.

Um, no. If there is no evidence for a claim, it is a fact that belief in that claim isn’t justified by evidence.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

People have ridiculed me and my girlfriend for our lack in belief in the existence of any deities.

That’s unfortunate. I have remained a closet non-believer in real life partly because of this.

People have ridiculed me and my girlfriend for our lack in belief in the existence of any deities. But we are not as arrogant as to believe that we know everything. I am not an atheist because I respect that there is the possibility, however very improbable, that there is a god.

As has been noted by a previous poster, the terms “a-theist” and “agnostic” aren’t mutually exclusive.

I would also like to second the recommendation of the Atheist Experience, which is a public access TV show in Austin. I’ve found it to be entertaining and educational. I discovered it after I had become an atheist. Audio versions of the show are available for free on Itunes, video versions of the show are available from their website.

 

[tonyrey]

I
Tonyrey, I don’t intend to offend by saying this, but I’m thinking that I probably won’t respond to you again on this thread partially because of lack of time and partially because you’re confused. I know that anyone could say that about others who they are debating, and that that can come across as condescending (which I don’t mean to be), but when I tried to narrow our discussion down to a central point behind our differences, you seemed to be really confused. For example, you seem to be confused about the difference between rejecting a claim as a claim not supported by evidence, like rejecting the claim that invisible, intangible fairies exist, and making a truth claim that an entity doesn’t exist. You also seem confused about the difference between an entity which may be said to actually be a thing that exists and other nouns that aren’t entities.

If you think there is some central point that you made that you feel I aught to address, then perhaps you could succinctly lay that down and I may have a concise discussion about it.

Since I have answered all your points and you have failed to answer mine the presumption must be that you are the one who is confused!

The basic point I have made is that rejection of an important claim like the nature of reality implies either ignorance - which is not an adequate reason - or an alternative explanation - which requires evidence. The claim that invisible, intangible fairies exist is clearly not in the same category as the claim that God exists.

If you are a genuine truth-seeker you must believe truth is a reality rather than mere linguistic device concocted by human beings. The truth is composed of facts whether they are recognised or not - and regardless of our existence. Otherwise you are in search of an illusion…

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Since I have answered all your points

Sending a terrible reply, which when I respond to lead to you sending another terrible reply does not constitute a reasonable answerer to a point.

When a person is asked what 2+2=, saying “5” may be answering, but it is not a reasonable answer.

and you have failed to answer mine

I guessed you missed the following portion of my post that you quoted:

If you think there is some central point that you made that you feel I aught to address, then perhaps you could succinctly lay that down and I may have a concise discussion about it.

I say succinctly and concise because your tactic is to give a terrible response to every line that I write, and claim victory if I don’t respond, thus turning a discussion about one little point into distracting off-topic discussions about a thousand other things.

The basic point I have made is that rejection of an important claim like the nature of reality implies either ignorance - which is not an adequate reason - or an alternative explanation - which requires evidence.

ONE AUGHT TO ADMIT THAT ONE DOES NOT KNOW WHAT DID HAPPEN RATHER THAN BELIEVING SOMETHING ON LITTLE OR NO EVIDENCE! If there has not been sufficient evidence presented for a claim, that claim aught to be rejected as a claim not supported by evidence, unless and until sufficient evidence has been presented to justify belief in the claim, regardless of whether or not one does know what happened.

Also, one doesn’t need to know what did happen to know that belief in a certain thing, according to the evidence that has been presented, is not justified.

I guess this is the area where most of my long discussions with theists come down to. It seems like “I don’t know” is an unacceptable reply for most believers, so they feel more comfortable believing in things without sufficient evidence.

If you are a genuine truth-seeker you must believe truth is a reality rather than mere linguistic device concocted by human beings.

You seem really to be either confused about what I said, or trying to straw man me yet again to make me look bad. Either way, it’s not worth clarifying yet again because if you were confused the other times, you’d probably be confused now, and if you are just intentionally attacking a straw man as a dishonest debating tactic, you’d probably do that again.

 

[Betterave]

TruthSeeker60 has makes more sense and has a better argument. I’m with him.

I agree… except I’m not with him.

 

[Betterave]

People have ridiculed me and my girlfriend for our lack in belief in the existence of any deities. But we are not as arrogant as to believe that we know everything.

Here’s the problem: You do appear to be ‘arrogant enough’ to believe that you know that those who ridicule your belief are arrogant. But perhaps they believe that only the fool says in his heart “there is no God.” Now unless you are arrogant enough to believe that you know that they are wrong about this, then perhaps their ‘ridicule’ (whatever it consists in) has some justification. It is still uncharitable, perhaps, but sometimes it is hard not to ridicule fools, so you should try to be understanding towards them, just as you wish they would be understanding towards you. Maybe you could ask yourself: Is this ‘ridicule’ possibly motivated by fraternal concern? Maybe these people are your friends and they just don’t want you to be a fool? Maybe not, but it’s something to consider.

 

[FernandoRATM]

Eh, well I don’t really care that people make fun of me for being an atheist. I’m in a band that’s on the road to happiness. Check us out, were the “Black Veil Brides”.

 

[Betterave]

As far as I can tell, according to your criteria, you’d still believe that I’m a descendant of Heracles:

If you can disprove this, I could just make up another thing for the sake of argument (such as I am a god-made man).

I hope this doesn’t come off the wrong way, but I think that believing something because of Pascal’s Wager is to engage in arbitrary, wishful thinking. To a certain degree, I can understand why a person would do it from time to time, but ultimately, it’s a very bad habit to believe things without evidence.

I think Pieman is right: others have failed, in rather predictable ways, but he has discovered and addressed some clear mistakes in your analysis. You clearly have misinterpreted PW, as Pieman pointed out, but in any case, your claim that “it’s a very bad habit to believe things without evidence” is a rather strange claim. It invites the question: on the basis of what ‘evidence’ do you believe that claim? I would think that there is plenty of evidence to suggest (a) that there is no one who doesn’t believe things without ‘evidence’; and (b) that if we investigate, there is a resounding absence of evidence for the claim that “ultimately” this universal habit is a “very bad” one. How do you ground your claim?

 

[Betterave]

Eh, well I don’t really care that people make fun of me for being an atheist. I’m in a band that’s on the road to happiness. Check us out, were the “Black Veil Brides”.

Well if you don’t care, then perhaps you shouldn’t bother mentioning it? You seem to care; you actually seem to have some supercilious bitterness towards these “arrogant” people.

Your band rocks, fer sure, but the road to happiness? We’ll have to wait and see, I’d say.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

he has discovered and addressed some clear mistakes in your analysis.

Although I was intending to wind down-at least for now-my involvement in this thread, you could succinctly identify the key mistakes you think he has discovered in my analysis.

You clearly have misinterpreted PW, as Pieman pointed out

My understanding of the key point of Pascal’s wager is summarized by the following from the wikipedia article on Pascal’s Wager:

Pascal’s Wager (or Pascal’s Gambit) is a suggestion . . .] that, even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose.

I confess that I don’t recall the entire discussion, but this was, as far as I can remember, the central idea I was responding to.

your claim that “it’s a very bad habit to believe things without evidence” is a rather strange claim. It invites the question: on the basis of what ‘evidence’ do you believe that claim?

I suppose I could point out that people who do believe things without evidence are gullible, easily tricked, and get taken advantage of. Some people may go further by spew out something silly, like “Well, what evidence do you have that you need evidence for claims”…

“Evidence” is that which is used to determine the truth of a claim. By definition claims for which there are evidence are more likely to be true.

 

[tonyrey]

The basic point I have made is that rejection of an important claim like the nature of reality implies either ignorance - which is not an adequate reason - or an alternative explanation - which requires evidence.

1. There is substantial evidence for the existence of God.
2. The subject is not “what did happen” but the nature of reality.
3. Rejection of one interpretation of reality (e.g. the existence of God) leads to another
   interpretation of reality (i.e. a Godless universe) which affects one’s attitude to life.

It seems like “I don’t know” is an unacceptable reply for most believers, so they feel more comfortable believing in things without sufficient evidence.

“I don’t know” is an impossible foundation for a rational existence. In practice it amounts to regarding the material world as the sum total of reality.

Truth is not a material object but it is the basis of a rational existence. If only matter exists nothing matters! In fact truth disappears… and the rest is (or should be) silence…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I can’t believe how many Christians seem to think that those who don’t believe in a god do so because they have “a world view that excludes the existence of God” rather than due to lack of evidence.

BELIEVE IT!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

tonyrey

Truth is not a material object but it is the basis of a rational existence. If only matter exists nothing matters! In fact truth disappears… and the rest is (or should be) silence…

Well said. May I quote you?

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey

Truth is not a material object but it is the basis of a rational existence. If only matter exists nothing matters! In fact truth disappears… and the rest is (or should be) silence…

Well said. May I quote you?

Any time, anywhere, to anyone - without naming me!

 

[mark_avery]

Any time, anywhere, to anyone - without naming me!

What really matters is how also, you can be a better person so as to live with better people around you.

Believing in just silence here after would disprove matter for then you would then be hearing silence.

daft thread!

any time,anywhere,to anyone-without naming you also!

 

[Betterave]

1 Any one would work for this exercise. For now I’ll say the Greek demigod, but if that can be disproven, I’ll move onto something else.
2 Pascal’s Wager.

Pascal’s wager doesn’t work for your claim - this can be seen quite easily if you read Pieman’s comments in post 429.

3 The counters would be the exact same as when a Christian uses Pascal’s Wager.

They couldn’t be. Your claim couldn’t be true. It is intrinsically nonsensical.

4 None (you just need to believe)

We all know that’s impossible (Pascal included).

6 None beyond that belief (that I’m a descendant of Heracles) and belief that necessarily follow from that (such as there was a Heracles).

Beliefs aren’t like that - arbitrary isolated one-offs. So again, that’s impossible.

Etc.

 

[Betterave]

I confess that I don’t recall the entire discussion, but this was, as far as I can remember, the central idea I was responding to.

Pascal’s Wager (or Pascal’s Gambit) is a suggestion . . .] that, even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose.

Pascal’s Wager is also based on the claim that God is knowable, just not by means of some kind of allegedly ‘pure’ process of ratiocination. Your suggestion that the wager is simply about making up some outlandish story and arbitrarily promising a reward for those who believe in that story was central to your discussion and was clearly a crude straw man of the situation Pascal was addressing with the wager.

I suppose I could point out that people who do believe things without evidence are gullible, easily tricked, and get taken advantage of. Some people may go further by spew out something silly, like “Well, what evidence do you have that you need evidence for claims”…

You’re clearly just ignoring my point and begging the question here. As I pointed out, it seems to me that the class of “people who do believe things without evidence” is coextensive with the class of “people who believe anything whatsoever.” This coextension will not hold only if you redefine ‘evidence’ in such a way that nobody believes anything without ‘evidence.’ So in the light of the claim you are responding to, what you point out here is trivial and banal. Understand?

“Evidence” is that which is used to determine the truth of a claim. By definition claims for which there are evidence are more likely to be true.

Obviously, but that’s an entirely trivial claim. You need to address my argument. …Or just bite the bullet and accept that by your own definition, you’re gullible, just like the rest of us! (Which again would reduce to a merely trivial claim based on a contrived redefinition of ‘gullible.’)

I gather a lot of psych departments these days wouldn’t be too interested in William James, but have you perchance read James’ little essay “The Will to Believe”?

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;7728976:

tonyrey;7728098:

Since I have answered all your points and you have failed to answer mine the presumption must be that you are the one who is confused!

The basic point I have made is that rejection of an important claim

like the nature of reality implies either ignorance - which is not an adequate reason - or an alternative explanation - which requires evidence.

ONE AUGHT TO ADMIT THAT ONE DOES NOT KNOW WHAT DID HAPPEN RATHER THAN BELIEVING SOMETHING ON LITTLE OR NO EVIDENCE!

1. There is substantial evidence for the existence of God.
2. The subject is not “what did happen” but the nature of reality.

YOU’RE IGNORING THE POINT, WHICH IS THAT ONE AUGHT TO ADMIT “I DON’T KNOW” RATHER THAN BELIEVING SOMETHING ON LITTLE OR NO EVIDENCE!

Whether or not there is “substantial evidence for the existence of God” is an important matter that aught to be discussed, but unfortunately I’ve had threads that I’ve started shut down because of a ban on atheism, and would prefer to not get banned for moving the discussion to that.

Also, a question about what did happen is a question about reality.

1. Rejection of one interpretation of reality (e.g. the existence of God) leads to another
   interpretation of reality (i.e. a Godless universe) which affects one’s attitude to life.

Here you demonstrate how confused you are about the difference between not accepting a claim and claiming something is false.

BTW, when I say “reject a claim as unsupported by evidence” I don’t mean reject absolutely, but rather, as I have emphasized in the past, “as unsupported by evidence.” By this I mean

Also, accepting or not accepting a claim about the existence of a god may actually have nothing to do with the nature of the universe other than how it came to be.

“I don’t know” is an impossible foundation for a rational existence.

One who believes in something without any evidence is just as ignorant as the person who is humble enough to acknowledge ignorance. Both have the same foundation for “rational existence” (whatever you mean by this vague phrase) except acknowledging ignorance, rather than believing in something without evidence, is the first step towards discovering what actually is true.

Arbitrarily believing a claim does not make one escape ignorance, rather, it would likely cause one to remain ignorant longer while he clings to his arbitrary belief.

“I don’t know” is an impossible foundation for a rational existence. In practice it amounts to regarding the material world as the sum total of reality.

“I don’t know” means “I don’t know”, not “material world [is] the sum total of reality”. Even if it did in practice (which would only be if we repeatedly failed to find evidence of non-material entities), are you willing to arbitrarily believe things to avoid that?

Truth is not a material object but it is the basis of a rational existence.

Again, what do you mean by the (intentionally?) vague phrase “rational existence”?

Regardless, how does this have anything to do with your assertion that in some cases you have to believe an alternative explanation to not believe the popular explanation.

If only matter exists nothing matters!

Going from “only matter exists” to “nothing matters” is a non-sequitur.

If only matter exists nothing matters! In fact truth disappears… and the rest is (or should be) silence…

If you’re saying that the universe wouldn’t exist without a god, believing in that claim would require believing in a god, which would mean that that belief (that “truth disappears” without a god) is unjustified without justifying belief in the existence of god without evidence.

If that’s not what you were saying, than the existence of a “god” would be irrelevant to whether or not a claim about reality is true. In other words, the lack of a “god” would not mean that “truth disappears”.

To summarize, Tonyrey, the essence of what you’re trying to argue for, even if you don’t recognize that this is what you’re doing, is that you may be justified in believing in your god without evidence:

Tonyrey: “The basic point I have made is that rejection of an important claim like the nature of reality implies either ignorance - which is not an adequate reason - or an alternative explanation - which requires evidence.” post 542

Truthseeker60: “ONE AUGHT TO ADMIT “I DON’T KNOW” RATHER THAN BELIEVING SOMETHING ON LITTLE OR NO EVIDENCE!”

Tonyrey: “I don’t know” is an impossible foundation for a rational existence.”

Truthseeker60: “One who believes in something without any evidence is just as ignorant as the person who is humble enough to acknowledge ignorance. Both have the same foundation for “rational existence” (whatever you mean by this vague phrase) except acknowledging ignorance, rather than believing in something without evidence, is the first step towards discovering what is true.

Arbitrarily believing a claim does not make one escape ignorance, rather, it would likely cause one to remain ignorant longer while he clings to his arbitrary belief.”