Is Religion a Scam?

[tonyrey]

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.

The evidence is that there are rational beings in the universe who can understand how the universe functions because the universe is based on rational principles. Existence is purposeful because it is the basis of rational activity and it is immensely valuable because it is a source of opportunities for development, enjoyment and fulfilment.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Atheism is a religion.

“Atheism” is merely the lack of belief in a god. There are some religions that are atheistic, such as Buddhism, but the mere lack of belief is not a religion.

Life is so trying and difficult that without a God taking control of your life, you would have no courage to go on.

Not necessarily. As a mental health major, I understand that there can be many people and things that can help people live a healthy, happy life.

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.

So you want people who don’t accept your assertion that there is a god to stay out of our government and presumably out of our society!? Considering this, you aught to have very good evidence for this god.

 

[APortuguesa]

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?

That’s one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

some types of atheism are scams. Stalins atheistic socialism was a scam.

Crackpot political ideologies that include the belief that all who disagree with you about a god are no more intrinsic to atheism than theism. However, the thread is not about whether theism or atheism are scams, but whether religion is a scam.

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

And the author of my textbook for my group counseling class makes a lot of money from selling books. Does that make group counseling a scam?

TruthSeeker60;7733558:

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!

…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.

One doesn’t necessarily need to know whether or not a person fully understands something before evaluating the validity of their arguments. If one finds his or her arguments to be valid, then the validity of his or her arguments is evidence that he or she has a certain level of understanding of what he or she is arguing against/for.

I have completed the requirements for a theology minor at Franciscan University of Steubenville (but have dropped my plans to have theology as a second major), and have taken a graduate class with Scott Hahn. I even got the highest grade in my class on the New Testament out of over 100+ students, including graduate students. Even if you won’t take my word for it, you have all of my posts on this thread plus all 300+ posts that I’ve made elsewhere.

Still waiting for a reply to my post.

Are you using multiple accounts? Unless you are, the last time, that I can find, that you posted something was posts 515 and 516, which I did reply to in posts 538 and 539. If you think I missed something important, let me know precisely what it was.

 

[tonyrey]

“Atheism” is merely the lack of belief in a god. There are some religions that are atheistic, such as Buddhism, but the mere lack of belief is not a religion.

For some fanatical atheists like Dawkins it is a substitute for religion because their main purpose in life is a zealous crusade against religion.

Not necessarily. As a mental health major, I understand that there can be many people and things that can help people live a healthy, happy life.

There have been many suicides by individuals precisely because they believed life is pointless.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

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).

Thanks for the warning. That’s been what I’ve been thinking lately.

I just want to say that I don’t view Tonyrey as representative of Christians in general. I have a higher opinion of the average Christian than I do of Tonyrey.

I’ve even wondered whether he was a troll posing as a Christian.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;7739644:

Not necessarily. As a mental health major, I understand that there can be many people and things that can help people live a healthy, happy life.

There have been many suicides by individuals precisely because they believed life is pointless.

Sure, people who commit suicide typically do it, in part, because they see no reason to continue living (and usually because they are very depressed). The point I was making, however, was that “there can be many people and things [beside a god] that can help people live a healthy, happy life,” which generally entails seeing a reason, or point, for continuing living. The point I was addressing with this is that “without a God taking control of your life, you would have no courage to go on.” (post 569)

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

I guess you did reply. I was at work browsing on my phone. Here’s my reply.

Part 1/2
If that’s the case, it’s God’s fault I don’t believe he exists.

God has provided you with sufficient resources(this website being one, your library card being another, etc) and, hopefully the intellectual ability to come to the knowledge of his existence(debatable). You have free will (a teaching of the Church) so whether or not you chose to acquire more information on the subject is entirely up to you…and ultimately your fault. Faith is a gift. If God did not give you that particular gift then you have to demonstrate that you are worthy of it and are willing to work to earn it. The government of God isn’t a democracy and not everyone gets an equal say or opinion concerning the modus operandi of God. You can’t impeach him, and claiming “not fair” is futile and foolish. He is the supreme ruler of the universe.

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).

If they make another sherlock holmes movie, you should audition for the main role. No, seriously in your case we would be talking about a hypothetical situation based off of the most influential work of “fiction” (the Bible) written throughout the course of human history. Given your vast mental library of theological knowledge, Do you think that if Jesus Christ appeared to the world today in the form of a spirit that the majority of people would accept him? It is not a trick question–a yes or a no would be sufficient.

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.

How about this…He doesn’t want to. At least for the time being…

That being said you completely missed the point I was trying to make. I didn’t mention satan at all…only the practice of satanism. Quite a major comprehensional error on your part. But anyway…

If Jesus revealed himself today, then we wouldn’t have atheists anymore…there would only be Catholics and Satanists. The “would-be” Satanists would then be inspired to commit even more sins than they would have commited had they had no knowledge of God for the sole purpose of spiting Him. That is why God doesn’t reveal himself to the world. So he can have mercy on the “would-be” satanists at the final judgment.

As for your attempt to change the subject…you hinted at the philosophical problem of evil. See the Augustinian solution. (You do know who Augustine of Hippo was right?)

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

Wow. Ok, but they weren’t necessarily called “saints” and they were neither as numerous or as eloquent/convincing as ours. Mormonism never had their Joan of Arc or Julian of Norwich.

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.

Already addressed. See point one. You are just repeating yourself here and ignoring my original reasons provided for why God does not reveal himself to you. Most of your posts are truely banal and devoid of any real substance.

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.

You are on a Catholic website talking to Catholics about IF and WHY someone like you(a nonbeliever) may end up in hell. Did I miss something?

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 really don’t think you do understand it. I never mentioned either implicity or explicitly “baptism of desire”. In fact, I reject it and can’t find any official church teaching on the subject. I believe a water baptism is necessary. I was referring to vincible ignorance, which is the current state of your soul.

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 have no evidence for this claim of yours. Therefore, I reject it.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

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?

That was one of the most incoherent paragraphs I have ever read but I think I understand. If the hypothetical situation you pose above is true, then it could only be true for a god other than one the Roman Catholics worship.

Romans 2:14
"14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) "

According to the God we believe in,…for people who do not have our law or do not believe in our law…in summary, they are sent to hell for disobeying their conscience. It is not a question of blame or fault, God engineered a moral code directly into the hearts of all men. Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant to the “hypothetical thought experiment” you posed above.

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?!

No that is not what I am implying at all. But isn’t wikipedia great? lol.

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.

Every now and then, you encounter someone who is smarter than you are. It happens to me too. I worded it on purpose that way for people who are familiar with theistic existentialism. I am sorry you did not pick up on the joke.

I guess that’s enough for now. I will respond to part 2 of your post eventually.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

Part 2/2
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.

My diction was purposeful here and it served a specific function. I was intentionally caustic and accusative to illicit something like the above response. Unfortunately, you stepped in the bear trap. I was testing you to see if you had any familiarity at all with the New Testament. You didn’t pass the test.

The most important, most sacred part of the entire Bible is the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew. If you don’t read anything else in the most influential, most read, most written about book in history, read the S.O.T.M. In it Jesus equates murder to anger, reduces adultery down to the act of looking at a married woman with a lustful eye, and makes other seemingly “absurd” demands on his people, many of which have evolved into popular memes used today (go the extra mile). Jesus proposes a truely novel, radical, and revolutionary moral system for his time. It contradicts basic human instinct, which is evidence for its divinity.

So you haven’t read the Bible, or don’t understand it, don’t know almost anything about Catholicism, and yet you are on a Catholic website arguing with Catholics about the existence of a God whom you do not even believe in. What else do you do for fun?

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).

I was thinking about being poetic, but most theologians believe that the romans murdered him, and most scientists believe that it wasn’t your sins that killed him but rather, asphyxiation on the cross. Although what you said has some metaphorical merit.

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.

I guess I’ll repost the reading list. Edit can’t find it…just click on my name and then previous posts.

 

[tonyrey]

Thanks for the warning. That’s been what I’ve been thinking lately.

I just want to say that I don’t view Tonyrey as representative of Christians in general. I have a higher opinion of the average Christian than I do of Tonyrey.

I’ve even wondered whether he was a troll posing as a Christian.

One thing is certain. Both you and Betterave are making pejorative comments about a member of this forum, thereby infringing Conduct Rule 1:

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

 

[tonyrey]

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).

Infringement of Conduct Rule 1:

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

 

[John21652]

Atheism is predicated on arrogance and vanity. Atheism supposes that religion is in the way of humankind’s search for happiness and progress. The idea of a God, or a creator, is supposed by Athiests to be unproven, unprovable and therefore not rational. Man is therefore the ultimate source of knowledge and morality. That such confidence can be placed upon man’s own capacity is to deny the existance of any higher authority. Man is chief judge and arbiter. The danger, of course, is that once atheism is selected as the ‘faith’, the faith then has to be in mankind’s ability to know what is good, true and just. Because there is no higher authority than man, any one man’s opinion on what is good, true and just, has to be validated agianst, what? Other men. So then the search for an objectively verifiable notion of what is good, true and just must end. Atheists most often deny the very notion of objectivity and they must, or their position becomes untenable. Unwittingly, once they deny the notion of objectivity, they even deny the scientific method and all it’s results. However, by not denying the existence of objective truth and justice, they must by definition descend in moral relativity. Moral relativity really means whatever form of morality best suits is acceptable. We are seeing the results, already, of moral relativity around the world with the demand for homosexual rights and in animal liberation theory. Eventually I should be able to marry my dog and adopt, legally, doggy children. If the rights movement is true to itself, I should even be able to marry a dog of the same sex as me and still adopt little doggies. The point is, once moral relativity is adopted as a universally accepted way of defining rights, there is no end to the rights that man can demand, unless, of course, some form of imtoelration is prescribed. Because there is no acceptance of an objectively true way of living, morality is then the relm of individuals subjective notions of what is good, true and just.

The strange thing about religion is that it is a universal feature of humanity. Every culture ever studied has had some form of theism. Anthropologists have documented this around the globe. It has ranged from peasant farmers in India carrying little talismans on their ploughs while they sow a crop, to full blooded human sacrifice to a diety amongst other societies. What has been recognised as a universal trait amongst humans is the need for a theistic power, a higher authority, from whence is derived a measure of what is good, true and just. This universal ‘need’ represents an innate spirituality which mankind has always possessed. Now, suddenly, atheism has come along and denied that very basic, innate spiritual need. They’ve even looked for a ‘God gene’ to explain that basic, universal need of humanity. Atheism by definition has developed out of the egos of men who think they are the highest authority and can do without the need for a higher authority. A striking feature of atheism is its tendency to have to assert itself over and over again as if atheists are a little frightened of their own non-belief. Their efforts are not aimed at showing men how to live a better life, nor how to get along with their neighbour, nor in developing a moral code that can define what is good, true and just, but is directed towards breaking down morality and allowing the defining of what is good true and just to be defined by individuals. It is, in effect, breaking society apart and destroying the commonality of shared beliefs which religion, particularly Christianity, has given to society. Justice as a concept implies a higher authority, because justice requires an objective notion of what the good must be. Atheism must deny that objectivity and so make justice the prize of who ever governs. Religion gives ultimate authority to God, universally needed by men, to counter the arrogant dreams of those who would define what is good, true and just according to their subjective whims. Ample proof of the reality of religion and what it does is available to those who look for it.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

One thing is certain. Both you and Betterave are making pejorative comments about a member of this forum, thereby infringing Conduct Rule 1:

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

I don’t recall making any personal attacks. If you feel that you’ve been wronged, you could point out specifically where you were wronged. Otherwise, I’m inclined to think that you’re just crying persecution without justification.

BTW, if you consistently write responses that demonstrate that you are confused, it’s not a personal attack to point out that you seem to be confused. Also, if you consistently seem to be using vague terms and phrases that you refuse to clarify, it’s not a personal attack to point that out. Those are things that sometimes need to be pointed out.

If you don’t want people telling you that you use vague language and refuse to clarify what you actually mean, then actually clarify what you mean and avoid vague language.

If others on this forum think that anyone has wronged Tonyrey, please properly inform the person who committed the wrong of the nature of the offense.

 

[davidv]

Thanks for the warning. That’s been what I’ve been thinking lately.

I just want to say that I don’t view Tonyrey as representative of Christians in general. I have a higher opinion of the average Christian than I do of Tonyrey.

I’ve even wondered whether he was a troll posing as a Christian.

I wonder why we cannot live up to the forum rules and speak to the topic and not other posters.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Part 1/2

God has provided you with sufficient resources. . .]

I have used these resources considerably to attempt to find evidence for the existence of a god, yet haven’t found what I was looking for. If anything, that’s reason to not believe in a god.

No, seriously in your case we would be talking about a hypothetical situation based off of the most influential work of “fiction” (the Bible) written throughout the course of human history.

Popularity is not a basis for determining what is true.

If Jesus revealed himself today, then we wouldn’t have atheists anymore…there would only be Catholics and Satanists. The “would-be” Satanists would then be inspired to commit even more sins than they would have commited had they had no knowledge of God for the sole purpose of spiting Him. That is why God doesn’t reveal himself to the world. So he can have mercy on the “would-be” satanists at the final judgment.

Is this a joke? I everyone believed that there was a god, and if people knew that they would be rewarded forever for being a practicing Catholic or punished forever for not, every sane person would be Catholic.

Wow. Ok, but they weren’t necessarily called “saints” and they were neither as numerous or as eloquent/convincing as ours.

The term for, prevalence of, or eloquence of holy people of one’s religion has little to do with whether or not the doctrines of the religion is true.

TruthSeeker60;7726206:

dostoyevskyfan;7721714:

TruthSeeker60;7720219:

Charlemagne II;7719505:

TruthSeeker60;7719444:

If he choose to not provide me with any evidence for his existence, although I searched for it, and he sends me to hell to be tortured forever because of that, then he chose to have me tortured forever

.

No, he doesn’t send you to be tortured. You would be sending yourself to be tortured because in life you expressed the desire to have nothing to do with Him.

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.

You are on a Catholic website talking to Catholics about IF and WHY someone like you(a nonbeliever) may end up in hell. Did I miss something?

The thing that you missed is that I have been talking to individual Catholics who either don’t know what the Catholic Church teaches, or interprets that Church’s teaching differently. I began the entire discussion with “if”s, and Charlemagne II said that I would be sending myself to hell, not god, by simply not believing that he exists.

I really don’t think you do understand it. I never mentioned either implicity or explicitly “baptism of desire”. In fact, I reject it and can’t find any official church teaching on the subject. I believe a water baptism is necessary.

I guess I know more about your church’s teaching than you do. See CCC 1259, which mentions baptism of desire (although it doesn’t use those words). Yes, I understand that the CCC isn’t a document that falls under papal infallibility (as are many things commonly accepted by theologians), but “baptism of desire” is accepted by 99+ percent of theologians.

I was referring to vincible ignorance, which is the current state of your soul.

So, although I think I’ve told you that the reason I’m no longer Catholic is because I sought justification for my religious beliefs and didn’t find it, you believe that there is evidence out there, but I’m ignorant of it because of my own fault!?

I have no evidence for this claim of yours. Therefore, I reject it.

I can understand that, considering that mere testimony cannot be sufficient to justify beliefs in many claims. Would you do the same if there were no evidence for a god?

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Part 2/2

I worded it on purpose that way for people who are familiar with theistic existentialism. I am sorry you did not pick up on the joke.

When I saw “13,000,000,000 ITYOMN(in the year meaningless nonsense)” I should have figured that you were alluding to something like existentialism, which tends to rely on vague phrases or terms that are loaded, like “meaning”, that are rarely clearly defined when they are used in serious discussions. It comes as no surprise to me that you didn’t clarify what you meant. If you would like to, go ahead and clarify what you actually mean, but I’ll bet that you, like Tonyrey, won’t.

I was testing you to see if you had any familiarity at all with the New Testament. You didn’t pass the test.

The most important, most sacred part of the entire Bible is the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew. If you don’t read anything else in the most influential, most read, most written about book in history, read the S.O.T.M. In it Jesus equates murder to anger . . .]

Wow! Even if you believe that the Bible was the inspired word of god, Jesus didn’t say that anger literally is the unjustified ending of another human’s life (murder), but rather that those who are angry “shall be in danger of judgment” (Matt 5:22) even with the smaller sin of anger verses murder. If your interpretation of “whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment” to mean “anger is the unjustified killing of another human being”, then I think you have a messed up interpretation of the Bible!

Even if Jesus did say that anger literally is the unjustified ending of another human’s life (murder), then he’s simply wrong, which helps falsify the Bible as an inerrant book authored by an omniscient being.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t recall making any personal attacks. If you feel that you’ve been wronged, you could point out specifically where you were wronged. Otherwise, I’m inclined to think that you’re just crying persecution without justification.

Infringement of Conduct Rule 1 - Messages posted to this board must be **polite **and free of personal attacks, threats, and crude or sexually-explicit language, rude comments and innuendo:

I just want to say that I don’t view Tonyrey as representative of Christians in general. **I have a higher opinion of the average Christian than I do of Tonyrey.
**
**I’ve even wondered whether he was a troll posing as a Christian. **

 

[tonyrey]

                 Originally Posted by **TruthSeeker60**

Precisely. It’s easier to make false suggestions to others rather than present a rational response to an argument…

 

[tonyrey]

If you would like to, go ahead and clarify what you actually mean, but I’ll bet that you, like Tonyrey, won’t.

Yet another false statement and infringement of Conduct Rule 1!