Is Religion a Scam?

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;7726209:

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!

I probably should come to terms with the fact that some Christians, although not all, do do that as a defense mechanism, and will never change their belief about there being a god. I’ve seen enough examples that I definitely have enough evidence to justify that belief.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

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

The comments he made in that post were either irrelevant, or could be overcome by tweaking the claim to make it less falsifiable (like, by adding that the gods are intentionally modifying things to hide the evidence).

My main point is that if I make an unfalsifiable claim for which one could gain a lot without any negatives (besides gullibility) from believing, than an equivalent for Pascal’s Wager could be used to say that one aught to believe the claim.

Pascal’s Wager is also based on the claim that God is knowable. . .]

Pascal’s Wager, as indicated by the following from the wikipedia article, is based on the existence of god not being determinable (or “knowable”) by reason:

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.

If you’re thinking of something similar but different but similar to Pascal’s Wager, you could specify and we could discuss.

Your suggestion that the wager is simply about making up some outlandish story

That was not my point. My point was that Pascal’s Wager is only a cost risk analysis that could potentially lead people to believe in outlandish things. The claim I made up was merely to serve as an illustration of that.

TruthSeeker60;7729823:

Betterave;7729624:

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 could point out that people who do believe things without evidence are gullible, easily tricked, and get taken advantage of.

You’re clearly just ignoring my point

The point that you brought up there was that you thought I didn’t have evidence that arbitrarily believing in things is a bad habit. Thus, my observation that people who do tend to hold arbitrary beliefs tend to be taken advantage of (which is evidence for my claim) is addressing your point (or rather, question).

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.’

The English word “evidence” is the label that we place on something that does determine the truth of a claim. Thus, no beliefs are justified as likely to be true without that which determines the truth, or “evidence”.

I don’t think that people who have arbitrary beliefs about some things will necessarily have arbitrary beliefs about others, since people will employ double-standards to protect their pet beliefs. However, I do think that people who do have arbitrary beliefs about one thing will often tend to have arbitrary beliefs about other things, or at least have terrible standards of evidence for accepting claims.

You need to address my argument

I did address your point that you thought I didn’t have evidence that “it’s a very bad habit to believe things without evidence” by pointing out that people who do this tend to be taken advantage of. If you would like, you could find examples of dying grandmas donating all they have to a charlatan/pastor who lives a life of luxury.

have you perchance read James’ little essay “The Will to Believe”?

No, but if it’s relevant to this discussion, you could summarize it in your own words.

 

[tonyrey]

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!

Indeed. There is absolutely no evidence that the material universe is the sum total of reality!

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.

The existence of God is not a banned topic!

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

It is only **one **aspect of 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.

That is absurd. The existence of God concerns past, present and future.

“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.

You are presupposing that you make the first step without accepting** the reality of truth and the validity of reason**, both of which require explanation and justification…

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.

That is true and it applies to those who assume only material objects exist!

“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?

Belief in truth is not arbitrary because it is indispensable for any rational being.

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”?

You would soon discover if you were attacked by a lunatic!

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.

Disbelief amounts to rejection - and rejection has positive and negative implications for one’s attitude and conduct. Please refer to the eminent atheist Sartre.

If only matter exists nothing matters!

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

If that is so how do you derive truth from matter?

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”.

I am saying quite simply that truth cannot be explained in terms of matter. The onus is on you to explain how it can be.

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:

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 Godless universe without evidence!

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.”

This sums up your position perfectly! What makes you assume existence is irrational, valueless and purposeless? A little evidence is required…

 

[Asemodeous]

Indeed. There is absolutely no evidence that the material universe is the sum total of reality!

And the inverse is true as well. That there is absolutely no evidence that the immaterial is a part of any quantified definition of reality or existence. So you are just blathering on about nothing.

It is only one aspect of reality!

As far as you know. Which is quite limited from what I can see.

That is absurd. The existence of God concerns past, present and future.

Another untenable position that has no basis of logic or fact. You seem to be in the habit of just making stuff up.

That is true and it applies to those who assume only material objects exist!

Or that gods exist too. Geez, you are just leaving stuff out right, left and center.

Belief in truth is not arbitrary because it is indispensable for any rational being.

And a rational being would find the idea of paradoxical invisible supermen quite alarming and distasteful. Again, leaving out important tidbits here and there does not help your argument.

Disbelief amounts to rejection - and rejection has positive and negative implications for one’s attitude and conduct. Please refer to the eminent atheist Sartre.

That is just hilariously and childishly over simplified. Disbelief does not even come close to rejection, for one simple reason. What if you disbelief in a god(s) because you never heard of them? Lack of knowledge of your god would be a active rejection of that faith, which is a logical contradiction. You cannot reject something you know nothing about, since the act of rejection requires foreknowledge.

I am saying quite simply that truth cannot be explained in terms of matter. The onus is on you to explain how it can be.

Logic fail 101. It is up to the one making the claim to validate the claim. Atheists don’t have to disprove anything as the first move, it is up the theists to provide reasonable evidence and logic for their superstitions. So if you are going to claim that there is something beyond matter and energy, then feel free to post your calculations and theories.

Until then, you are just a loud mouth with no substance.

 

[tonyrey]

There is absolutely no evidence that the material universe is the sum total of reality!

How do you explain truth in material terms?

That is absurd. The existence of God concerns past, present and future

.
Another untenable position that has no basis of logic or fact.

The existence of omnipotent matter has no basis in logic or fact.

That is true and it applies to those who assume only material objects exist!

Or that gods exist too.

The burden of proof applies to** everyone** alike.

Belief in truth is not arbitrary because it is indispensable for any rational being.

And a rational being would find the idea of paradoxical invisible supermen quite alarming and distasteful.

And a rational being would find the idea of a paradoxical invisible superpower named “matter” quite alarming and distasteful!

Disbelief amounts to rejection - and rejection has positive and negative implications for one’s attitude and conduct. Please refer to the eminent atheist Sartre.

Disbelief does not even come close to rejection, for one simple reason. What if you disbelief in a god(s) because you never heard of them?

What if you disbelieve in the blind Goddess called Chance because you never heard of her? Please refer to the eminent atheist Sartre.

Lack of knowledge of your god would be a active rejection of that faith, which is a logical contradiction. You cannot reject something you know nothing about, since the act of rejection requires foreknowledge.

The same remarks apply to **omnipotent matter **and the blind Goddess called Chance!

I am saying quite simply that truth cannot be explained in terms of matter. The onus is on you to explain how it can be.

It is up to the one making the claim to validate the claim. Atheists don’t have to disprove anything as the first move, it is up the theists to provide reasonable evidence and logic for their superstitions.

Supersitious atheists who base their reasoning on nothing whatsoever have to provide reasonable evidence and logic for their superstitious belief in** omnipotent matter and the blind Goddess called Chance!**

So if you are going to claim that there is something beyond matter and energy, then feel free to post your calculations and theories.

So if you are going to claim that there is something beyond the existence of your own thoughts then feel free to post your calculations and theories. Refer to the verification principle which was the downfall of logical positivists.

So you are just blathering on about nothing…

You seem to be in the habit of just making stuff up…

Geez, you are just leaving stuff out right, left and center…

Again, leaving out important tidbits here and there does not help your argument…

That is just hilariously and childishly over simplified…

Until then, you are just a loud mouth with no substance…

Infringements of rule 1 of this forum:

“Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and crude or sexually-explicit language, rude comments and innuendo.”

This is supposed to be an objective philosophical discussion not a tirade of irrational and irrelevant invective…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

TruthSeeker

**I probably should come to terms with the fact that some Christians, although not all, do do that as a defense mechanism, and will never change their belief about there being a god. I’ve seen enough examples that I definitely have enough evidence to justify that belief. **

Yes, you should come to terms with the notion that you cannot complain about other people being loyal to their beliefs without complaining about yourself being just as loyal to your own beliefs.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker
TruthSeeker60;7733561:

I probably should come to terms with the fact that some Christians, although not all, do do that as a defense mechanism, and will never change their belief about there being a god. I’ve seen enough examples that I definitely have enough evidence to justify that belief.

Yes, you should come to terms with the notion that you cannot complain about other people being loyal to their beliefs without complaining about yourself being just as loyal to your own beliefs.

If you’re referring to me not believing in a god pending evidence, than I aught to point out that:

1-To not believe in something, say, a god, is a lack of belief, rather than a belief.
2-Lacking that belief pending evidence is tentatively not accepting the belief, as opposed to being “loyal” to it.

Well, that’s what I have time for now. If I get a break between writing 2 papers, preparing for 2 exams, and preparing for giving a presentation, I may respond to Tonyrey.

 

[Betterave]

The comments he made in that post were either irrelevant, or could be overcome by tweaking the claim to make it less falsifiable (like, by adding that the gods are intentionally modifying things to hide the evidence).

I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.

My main point is that if I make an unfalsifiable claim for which one could gain a lot without any negatives (besides gullibility) from believing, than an equivalent for Pascal’s Wager could be used to say that one aught to believe the claim.

But as I’ve pointed out, that’s not true. From the William James essay I referred to:

Next, let us call the decision between two hypotheses an option. Options may be of several kinds. They may be:

1, living or dead;
2, forced or avoidable;
3, momentous or trivial;
and for our purpose we may call an option a gennine option when it of the forced, living, and momentous kind.

1. A living option is one in which both hypotheses are live ones. If I say to you: “Be a theosophist or be a Mohammedan,” it is probably a dead option, because for you neither hypothesis is likely to be alive. But if I say: " Be an agnostic or be Christian," it is otherwise: trained as you are, each hypothesis makes some appeal, however small, to your belief.
2. Next, if I say to you: " Choose between going out with your umbrella or without it," I do not offer you a genuine option, for it is not forced. You can easily avoid it by not going out at all. Similarly, if I say, " Either love me or hate me," " Either call my theory true or call it false," your option is avoidable. You may remain indifferent to me, neither loving nor hating, and you may decline to offer any judgment as to my theory. But if I say, " Either accept this truth or go without it," I put on you a forced option, for there is no standing place outside of the alternative. Every dilemma based on a complete logical disjunction, with no possibility of not choosing, is an option of this forced kind.
3. Finally, if I were Dr. Nansen and proposed to you to join my North Pole expedition, your option would be momentous; for this would probably be your only similar opportunity, and your choice now would either exclude you from the North Pole sort of immortality altogether or put at least the chance of it into your hands. He who refuses to embrace a unique opportunity loses the prize as surely as if he tried and failed. Per contra, the option is trivial when the opportunity is not unique, when the stake is insignificant, or when the decision is reversible if it later prove unwise. Such trivial options abound in the scientific life. A chemist finds an hypothesis live enongh to spend a year in its verification: he believes in it to that extent. But if his experiments prove inconclusive either way, he is quit for his loss of time, no vital harm being done.

It will facilitate our discussion if we keep all these distinctions well in mind.

Hopefully you can easily see that you are proposing dead, never-been-alive, not-got-a-chance-of-ever-being-alive options, which are not at all analogous to those proposed by Pascal.

Pascal’s Wager, as indicated by the following from the wikipedia article, is based on the existence of god not being determinable (or “knowable”) by reason:

If you’re thinking of something similar but different but similar to Pascal’s Wager, you could specify and we could discuss.

This citation simply ignores my point. Pascal doesn’t believe that all knowledge is had through ‘reason.’ And this isn’t some arbitrary stipulation: he grounds his position in a rigorous discussion of the shortcomings of reason - that of both the ‘dogmatists’ and the ‘sceptics’ - which can be seen through the use of reason itself.

That was not my point. My point was that Pascal’s Wager is only a cost risk analysis that could potentially lead people to believe in outlandish things. The claim I made up was merely to serve as an illustration of that.

Yes, but again, in making this point you’ve ignored the true nature of the argument, which is much more sensitive to psychological reality than you take it to be.

 

[Betterave]

The point that you brought up there was that you thought I didn’t have evidence that arbitrarily believing in things is a bad habit. Thus, my observation that people who do tend to hold arbitrary beliefs tend to be taken advantage of (which is evidence for my claim) is addressing your point (or rather, question).

No; again, my claim was that we all believe things without ‘evidence.’ Thus your statements about people who do so are trivial and banal, because they apply to everybody. Thus you effectively claim that everybody has this bad habit and that everybody gets taken advantage of as a result of this bad habit.

The English word “evidence” is the label that we place on something that does determine the truth of a claim. Thus, no beliefs are justified as likely to be true without that which determines the truth, or “evidence”.

Yes, obviously. Still a trivial claim. Why repeat this?

I don’t think that people who have arbitrary beliefs about some things will necessarily have arbitrary beliefs about others, since people will employ double-standards to protect their pet beliefs. However, I do think that people who do have arbitrary beliefs about one thing will often tend to have arbitrary beliefs about other things, or at least have terrible standards of evidence for accepting claims.

But you’re ignoring my claim again: it seems to me that we all have ‘arbitrary beliefs.’ So tell me: what constitutes an arbitrary belief, such that some people don’t have any? (If you can’t answer this question, then your claim is itself arbitrary and pointless - the meaning of ‘arbitrary’ in this context will become arbitrary.)

I did address your point that you thought I didn’t have evidence that “it’s a very bad habit to believe things without evidence” by pointing out that people who do this tend to be taken advantage of. If you would like, you could find examples of dying grandmas donating all they have to a charlatan/pastor who lives a life of luxury.

Again: You “point this out” while ignoring my claim that it seems that all people display this “bad habit” - if you hadn’t ignored my claim, surely you would have noticed that your assertion here is trivial and pointless in light of that claim? It’s like saying, “it’s a very bad habit to pay taxes, because people who pay taxes tend to die.” So your assertion here is clearly a case of ignoratio elenchi. Understand?

Let me add that in general I applaud the sound reasoning skills you’ve displayed here. You have very justly pointed out defense mechanisms at work in some of the posts of your interlocutors. I’ll just point out that I don’t recall having a discussion with any non-believer where I haven’t equally observed such defense mechanisms at work. Good luck with your school work. …Oh and one more thing: please stop writing ‘aught’ when you ought to write ‘ought.’

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Tonyrey, in the interest of time, and to give this discussion focused, I summarized our discussion. However, when you put words in my mouth in your reply, you demonstrated, yet again, that you’re either very confused and/or setting up a straw man to dishonestly attack me:

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.”

This sums up your position perfectly! What makes you assume existence is irrational, valueless and purposeless?

I didn’t mention whether or not the universe is rational, has value, or has purpose, much less make the claim that the universe lacked those things. Rather, I made the point that if one is ignorant, then that person aught to admit ignorance instead of arbitrarily believing something.

It comes down to this. If no evidence for or against a god was discovered, would you believe in the existence of a god?

For most of your reply other than this, you either didn’t understand the point I was making, and/or made comments unrelated to it. Comments like the following show just how confused you are:

I am saying quite simply that truth cannot be explained in terms of matter. The onus is on you to explain how it can be.

“Truth” is the condition of being true. For example, one may say that Bob speaks the truth when he says that the earth revolves around the sun. So you’re basically saying that I need to prove that a statement can be true?!

Disbelief amounts to rejection - and rejection has positive and negative implications for one’s attitude and conduct. Please refer to the eminent atheist Sartre.

Here you confuse the difference between tentatively not accepting the claim for the existence of something, and accepting the negative claim against the existence of something. You seem to think that they are one in the same!

Please refer to the eminent atheist Sartre.

If you understood his point, and his point was sound, you could just end this thing by laying it out.

Also, whether or not he believed in a god is irrelevant.

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 Godless universe without evidence!

I don’t need to know how the universe did come about (if that even makes sense to say) in order to not believe that a god did it. The essence of your argument above is, “we don’t know how the universe came into existence without god, therefore, a god must have done it.” That is an argument from ignorance.

You also avoided specifying what you meant by “rational existence”. Perhaps you mean a rationality for living life (as opposed to committed suicide). Perhaps you were referring to a system of thought for organizing facts in a coherent way. Anyways, you used a vague term as a cheap debating tactic, then didn’t even specify what that term meant when you replied to my request for clarification! Instead you said, “You would soon discover if you were attacked by a lunatic,” which doesn’t do much to clarify your vague phrase. My guess is that in debates like this you like to be vague, because avoiding specifying what you specifically means allows you to essentially attack your opponent without actually saying anything.

I also wanted to briefly address this:

The existence of God is not a banned topic!

My thread about providing evidence that a god exists got shut down because “atheism”, which has to do with whether or not a god exists, is a banned topic. Also, another thread that I started also got shut down because of the ban on atheism.

If it’s not, I’d like clarification from a moderator about if/how I can discuss whether or not a god exists without being banned.

 

[batesdon1]

If religion is a scam, what is atheism? Athiests don’t know any better than the rest of us what created and/or drives life. They may not believe in God, but trust me they believe in something – e.g., nature, human intelligence, ethical behavior. They can’t prove the existence of a Godless world any more than Christians, Jews or Muslims can prove the existence of Godly world. They take their belief on faith just as much as believers in Gods do.

 

[Avatar_Federal]

This sums up your position perfectly! What makes you assume existence is irrational, valueless and purposeless? A little evidence is required…

Actually, those are all “negatives”, for example if I have no values I am valueless, and if I have no purpose I am purposeless. To be irrational is to be without reason.

We don’t (If we’re being intellectually honest) just assume that things have qualities, we look to see if we can find them. I don’t need to disprove that the Ocean is seltzer, you need to provide evidence that it is part seltzer. So in this case, you should provide evidence as to why you believe that existence is rational, has value, and purpose.

 

[fagnant]

Last night on The Factor a noted atheist argued that religion is a scam, and many Christians know it in their hearts. They just haven’t got the courage to admit it. He invited Christians to join the atheist cause since atheism is a fact, whereas religion is governed by people who specialize in hawking wishful thinking.

Your thoughts?

 

[fagnant]

Atheism is a religion. There are some actual Atheism religions and have tax advantages. You choose not to believe in God, Jesus, and to believe is moral relativism. That is, you are your own God.

Life is so trying and difficult that without a God taking control of your life, you would have no courage to go on. God is the reason why each one of us are here and if you choose not to accept that God sent prophets save us on earth and to give us guidance, then you do fit right in to our government, over spending, greed, and living for today.

If we did use the Bible as a moral compass, then we would have a conscience and budget and live within our means and not just to have the most material things or to impress others with our wealth. This also comes at the cost of future generations to pay the bill.

Unfortunately, we live in a world that can’t even tell us with all our science how we came to be and all life started. One scientist Doctor researcher at Brown University I know that almost committed suicide because he failed to understand, explain, and duplicate and to mimic just one single cell of one nerve in the brain.

Later, down the road, he became a Christian because of all the complexity he couldn’t explain to himself about how this and that works, etc., and now he sleeps well at night knowing that God has been his light all his life but he refuse to accept it before.

To know God is to accept that you are what you are and, as they say, it is as it is. We can’t explain it… only God knows each one of us. Until we understand that, there can be no purpose. This is what separates us from an animal. For instance, a dog doesn’t smell flowers and enjoy art and beauty. A dog accepts it all and acts on instinct. God made the dog this way.

God gave us the choice to believe in something other and why and how things are made and to hike mountains, enjoy the wonders, etc. That’s the main clue- look for today. It’s only today that matters and reflect on the beauty of all that is around us. That’s why God gave us brains. We’re suppose to use it and the awareness is uniquely God given. How else can we explain it except that it’s simply an accident. The mathematical probability is just too high that we came out of the ocean and learned to walk, etc. A meteor would have hit us by now.

This scientist realized with all his super equipment, they can’t even come close to explaining one single nerve in the brain, much less the entire complex workings of the brain. He felt like a failure, although wealthy financially. They are trying to build androids but realizing conscience minds are God created.

That’s because there are no answers we will ever understand in this life and that’s why believer’s believe not to mention all the miracles that can’t be explained and witness by many. Everything can be explained by an Atheist. However, I hear very few answers. So far, not one that makes any real sense.

 

[zdon011]

Last night on The Factor a noted atheist argued that religion is a scam, and many Christians know it in their hearts. They just haven’t got the courage to admit it. He invited Christians to join the atheist cause since atheism is a fact, whereas religion is governed by people who specialize in hawking wishful thinking.

Your thoughts?

Marxism, Nazism, and Darwinism have done a good job convincing me that Atheism is a scam.

 

[tonyrey]

Atheism is a religion.

Not for every atheist but there are some on this forum whose hatred of religion and destructive zeal seem to be their main driving force. Otherwise why such intemperate, irrational virulence?

 

[Betterave]

You also avoided specifying what you meant by “rational existence”. Perhaps you mean a rationality for living life (as opposed to committed suicide). Perhaps you were referring to a system of thought for organizing facts in a coherent way. Anyways, you used a vague term as a cheap debating tactic, then didn’t even specify what that term meant when you replied to my request for clarification! Instead you said, “You would soon discover if you were attacked by a lunatic,” which doesn’t do much to clarify your vague phrase. My guess is that in debates like this you like to be vague, because avoiding specifying what you specifically means allows you to essentially attack your opponent without actually saying anything.

That’s a reasonable request for clarification. But let me warn you: I’ve repeatedly made such requests to Tony and in my experience he simply ignores them or responds with personal attacks. His MO does *not *include actually giving clarifications of what he means by his vague claims (nor have I seen him ever just admit that even *he *doesn’t have a clear idea of what it is he means - which is the natural explanation for his reluctance to explain it to others).

 

[Charlemagne_II]

AVATAR

We don’t (If we’re being intellectually honest) just assume that things have qualities, we look to see if we can find them. I don’t need to disprove that the Ocean is seltzer, you need to provide evidence that it is part seltzer. So in this case, you should provide evidence as to why you believe that existence is rational, has value, and purpose.

The negative is never the default position.

If I say there is no such thing as gravity, I am expected to prove it.

If I say that life is without purpose, why am I not expected to prove it?

If I say the universe was not created, I am expected to prove that it always existed.

Etc. etc.

 

[ElizabethCorbel]

To the allegation that many Christians know that religion is a scam but just don’t have the courage to admit it: 1. Where does he get his statistics? Does he actually have evidence that Christians think religion is a scam? Or is this just an unsubstantiated opinion that he’s airing on national TV? 2. Who is he calling a Christian? Someone who shows up on Sunday morning because that’s what you do on Sunday morning? Or someone who believes in Christ’s heroic, salvific actions and messages? I would argue that the first person could be, but is not necessarily, a Christian whereas the second person is a Christian. And how could someone who believes in Jesus’s saving grace then turn around and think it’s a scam? So no, I don’t believe Christians think religion is a scam. 3. It takes a lot of courage to be a Christian, especially in today’s secular society. Christians are not timid, stupid, befuddled, or scared–they are courageous. X To the allegation that atheism is a fact: 1. Atheism is not a fact; it is an opinion. I have never read an atheist’s views that PROVED that God did not exist. All of the reasons I’ve read were reasons why they BELIEVED that God did not exist. 2. Atheists apply a double standard. They ask a question that is impossible to prove, and then jump in and say “Aha! So you can’t prove it!” thereby implying the religious person is stupid and should give up their irrational beliefs and agree with the atheist. But they can’t answer the same question asked negatively, which by their own standards would imply they were stupid and should give up their irrational beliefs and agree with the Christian. But, of course, they don’t see it that way becaue they’re applying a double standard. For example: I saw an atheist on a talk show ask a religious columnist if he could prove the Virgin Birth. The instant the columnist said no, he couldn’t, the atheist jumped in and said, “Aha! So you can’t prove it!” But my point is, I think the columnist should have asked the atheist if he could prove the Virgin Birth DIDN’T happen. Because the atheist cannot prove the Virgin Birth didn’t happen just like the religious person cannot prove that it did. Of course, the atheist is probably going to say something like, “Well, I don’t have to prove it didn’t happen. Everyone knows it’s impossible.” To which I would respond, “Well, no, millions of people believe it did happen, so not everyone knows it’s impossible. Can you prove it didn’t?” And if he’s honest, eventually he’d have to admit that he can’t prove the Virgin Birth didn’t happen. At which point I could jump in and say “Aha! So you can’t disprove it!” thereby implying he’s stupid and should give up his irrational atheistic beliefs and agree with me, the Christian. X You see how this works? You ask for a proof for a question that can’t be proven and then imply the other person is stupid and naive because they can’t prove it, completely ignoring the fact that you can’t prove your position either. X I would be very interested to read something that actually PROVED God did not exist. But so far, all I’ve ever seen is opinions on why atheists BELIEVE He doesn’t exist. So until they can come up with proof for the inexistence of God, then I choose to Believe He does. And that doesn’t make me stupid or naive. X To the point that religion is governed by people who specialize in hawking wishful thinking: You’re absolutely right! I wish the world was a better place, so I’m doing something about it by being the best Christian I know how to be and by passing that belief on to my children! OK. I know that’s not what they mean. But the truth is, all of society is based upon wishful thinking. Every society, whether Christian or not, has laws governing behavior because we all wish no one would kill, no one would commit adultery, no one would lie or give false witness, no one would steal, and no one would covet what other people have (except maybe perhaps advertising executives). And who are the people that came up with the laws in the first place? Ummmmm. Gee. It was the stupid and naive religious people, wasn’t it? So I like my wishful thinking, thank you very much. And I think we’re much better with it than without it. X So the short version: No, religion is NOT a scam!

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

some types of atheism are scams. Stalins atheistic socialism was a scam. Dawkins hitchens hichens Harris are all scam artists who make a fortune selling books to feeble minded fools.

---

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!

popcorn diet coke

…I have little to no evidence that you have any idea what Catholicism claims, how it is distinguised from say …Calvinism or Homeric gods, or evidence that u are capable of a rational discussion. Still waiting for a reply to my post.