Is Religion a Scam?

[tonyrey]

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

Do you acknowledge ignorance regarding the reality of truth and the power of reason?
Do you believe in them without evidence? How would you prove to the materialist that they exist independently and are not reducible to atomic activity?

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.

By failing to acknowledge the existence of God you implicitly reject the existence of value and purpose in the universe. Value implies purpose and purpose implies intention - which is lacking in molecules.

Rather, I made the point that if one is ignorant, then that person aught to admit ignorance instead of arbitrarily believing something.

If you are ignorant of whether God exists it is reasonable to make allowance for that possibility. Do you do so?

If no evidence for or against a god was discovered, would you believe in the existence of a god?

I would allow for the possibility and pray on the off-chance that my prayers would be heard. That would be a more balanced view than living as if material reality is the sole reality.

“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.

A true statement corresponds to a fact. Can you observe a fact or correspondence with your senses? Is the condition of being true a **physical **condition?

Disbelief amounts to rejection - and rejection has positive and negative implications for one’s attitude and conduct.

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.

Not accepting a claim amounts in practice to ignoring the claim. Does the possibility that God exists affect your life in any way?

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.

You don’t need to know anything to disbelieve!

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 a distortion of my argument.

You also avoided specifying what you meant by “rational existence”. Perhaps you mean a rationality for living life (as opposed to committed suicide).

If you cannot distinguish a rational existence from the existence of a lunatic there is no point in trying to explain the difference…

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.

If you confine yourself to discussing **the validity of the arguments **for the existence of God I see no reason why your post should be banned. You probably overstepped the mark in some way.

 

[Quarles47]

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.

Atheism in itself is a scam,a scam of satan.
And why just Christians? Why not Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Wiccans, ect…?
satan will always target Christians in general and Catholics in specifics.
It always amazes me how any being can hate so much.

 

[John21652]

Atheism in itself is a scam,a scam of satan.
And why just Christians? Why not Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Wiccans, ect…?
satan will always target Christians in general and Catholics in specifics.
It always amazes me how any being can hate so much.

Maybe they like to argue with Christians because most Chjristians speak reasonably good English! It would seem that not too many atheists can speak Yiddish, Hebrew, Arabic or the Hindu languages. Whay makes it even more strange is that the atheists attack the very religion which formed the societies which gave them all the freedoms they enjoy. I must admit, they sometimes give the Jews a hiding, but there is no way they will attack the Muslims. probably scared they will get their heads chopped off!

It seems they know that Christianity is a very tolerant religion and doesn’t go around creating murder and mayhem. It also scares a lot of them, because Cjristianity and Catholicism in particular, espouses moral constraints on personal behaviour. They don’t like that very much. They like to set their own rules for behaviour and they seek more and more personal freedom. So much so that they Ok things like homosexuality and gay marriage, which is an oxymoron anyway. So, if they can knock down Catholicism in particular, they feel free of moral constraints and so can embark on a more hedonistic lifestyle. I don’t think they are really all that certain about what they do, or don’t beleive, because you’d reckon if they felt secure about their beleifs they’d just get on with whatever they want to do. Wouldn’t they? However, they can’t seem to do that, but have to keep on knocking the Church and Christianity in general. I reckon it makes them feel a little more secure in the head if they can construct an argument against Christianity, but they aren’t; too sure.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;7741528:

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!

Actually that statement is true. I’ll provide the evidence for that:

TruthSeeker60;7736331:

TruthSeeker60;7733558:

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

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

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.

If you cannot distinguish a rational existence from the existence of a lunatic there is no point in trying to explain the difference…

What you mean by “rational existence” is still vague and ambiguous. I mentioned a couple different things that what you said could mean, and you failed to say anything that would clarify the ambiguity! Perhaps you meant a rationality for living life (as opposed to committing suicide). Perhaps you were referring to a system of thought for organizing facts in a coherent way. If you just throw out vague terms and phrases to make your point, and refuse to clarify what you mean by them, it’s not worth my time to talk to you.

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:
TruthSeeker60;7739878:

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.

If a member of a religion has been using vague terms that he refuses to clarify, it’s not a personal attack on him to inform the others that I don’t view that members as representative of them. If anything, it’s respecting the other members of that religion.

I wouldn’t exactly consider presenting a plausible explanation for one’s erratic behavior (like using vague terms in arguments and refusing to clarify them) is not a personal attack.

I’ll summarize the discussion yet again:

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.”

Also, the phrase “rational existence” may mean many things.

Tonyrey, you have since then refused to unambiguously state what you mean by “rational existence”. It could mean many things, and not clarifying what you mean by it in this discussion is to basically say nothing.

By failing to acknowledge the existence of God you implicitly reject the existence of value and purpose in the universe. Value implies purpose and purpose implies intention - which is lacking in molecules.

What about our intentions?!

You don’t need to know anything to disbelieve!

You already agreed with me that in the absence of evidence, one should not believe.

TruthSeeker60;7736331:

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!

Not accepting a claim amounts in practice to ignoring the claim.

One can not believe a claim, yet evaluate it considerably. Even if that were false, ignoring a claim is not the same as claiming that a claim is false.

TruthSeeker60;7736331:

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

I would allow for the possibility and pray on the off-chance that my prayers would be heard. That would be a more balanced view than living as if material reality is the sole reality.

You avoided answering the question. Would you believe that a god exists if there was no evidence for or against a god discovered.

 

[tonyrey]

If you cannot distinguish a rational existence from the existence of a lunatic there is no point in trying to explain the difference…

Don’t you know whether lunatics are capable of leading a rational existence? Why do you think they are kept in asylums for their own safety and that of others? **Because they cannot use their power of reason like normal people. **Do you regard yourself as a person who leads a rational existence or not?

If a member of a religion has been using vague terms that he refuses to clarify, it’s not a personal attack on him to inform the others that I don’t view that members as representative of them. If anything, it’s respecting the other members of that religion.

Rather than respecting them you are underestimating their intelligence. They are quite capable of drawing their own conclusions without your assistance. Your task in a philosophical discussion is not to disseminate your derogatory opinions but to address the topic.

I wouldn’t exactly consider presenting a plausible explanation for one’s erratic behavior (like using vague terms in arguments and refusing to clarify them) is not a personal attack.

In other words you admit it is a personal attack! ("I would**n’t **exactly consider… is not…’)

Your allegations are worthless without a list of the terms I have supposedly refused to clarify which genuinely need clarification.

“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.”

This is irrelevant because there is abundant evidence for theism.

By failing to acknowledge the existence of God you implicitly reject the existence of value and purpose in the universe. Value implies purpose and purpose implies intention - which is lacking in molecules.

What about our intentions?!

We didn’t exist before the universe came into existence. There is no evidence that the material universe has any intentions, values or purposes.

You already agreed with me that in the absence of evidence, one should not believe.

I stated that** if** there were no evidence one should suspend judgment if it is an interpretation of reality (such as theism) - even more so when it is accepted by the vast majority of human beings and radically affects one’s attitude to oneself and others and the purpose of life. I have also pointed out that is an unfulfilled condition because there is substantial evidence in favour of theism.

Not accepting a claim amounts in practice to ignoring the claim.

One can not believe a claim, yet evaluate it considerably. Even if that were false, ignoring a claim is not the same as claiming that a claim is false.

That is merely a theoretical distinction. In practice a claim related to theism has the same consequences.

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

I would allow for the possibility and pray on the off-chance that my prayers would be heard. That would be a more balanced view than living as if material reality is the sole reality.You avoided answering the question. Would you believe that a god exists if there was no evidence for or against a god discovered.

I have already answered that question:

If there were no evidence one should suspend judgment if it is an interpretation of reality (such as theism) - even more so when it is accepted by the vast majority of human beings.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;7743140:

tonyrey;7742265:

TruthSeeker60;7736331:

TruthSeeker60;7733558:

“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.

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

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.

If you cannot distinguish a rational existence from the existence of a lunatic there is no point in trying to explain the difference…

What you mean by “rational existence” is still vague and ambiguous. I mentioned a couple different things that what you said could mean, and you failed to say anything that would clarify the ambiguity! Perhaps you meant a rationality for living life (as opposed to committing suicide). Perhaps you were referring to a system of thought for organizing facts in a coherent way. If you just throw out vague terms and phrases to make your point, and refuse to clarify what you mean by them, it’s not worth my time to talk to you.

Don’t you know whether lunatics are capable of leading a rational existence? Why do you think they are kept in asylums for their own safety and that of others? **Because they cannot use their power of reason like normal people. **Do you regard yourself as a person who leads a rational existence or not?

By “rational existence” do you mean something along the lines of “ability to reason”?

If so, why did you waste all my time by not saying it, but rather ramble about lunatics, which doesn’t clarify the ambiguity of the phrase “rational existence”. Were you doing it as a cheap debating tactic to attempt to make me look ignorant and to stall the discussion, or did you just not know what it was that you were talking about?

If so, lets reevaluate the summary of the discussion:

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: We live our lives guided by rationality based off of what we actually do know (or know to a certain degree of confidence), not based off of arbitrary beliefs for which there is no evidence. If we don’t know something, we aught to base our decisions based on the little evidence we do have.

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.

If my guess about what you mean by “rational existence” is inaccurate, please either state what you mean, or if you are unwilling or incapable of doing so, just say so. Please don’t make some comparison that does little to narrow the potential interpretations down.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

Your allegations are worthless without a list of the terms I have supposedly refused to clarify which genuinely need clarification.

The one I was talking about, that I was trying to get you to define, was the phrase “rational existence”. Instead of defining or otherwise clarifying what you meant by the ambiguous phrase, you rambled about lunatics, which did little to narrow the ambiguous phrase “rational existence” down to one meaning (ambiguous means “open to more than one interpretation”). Aside from that, I can remember that you threw around the words “mind” and “purpose” in ambiguous ways, but that’s not my focus now.

“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.”

This is irrelevant because there is abundant evidence for theism.

It is relevant in any case in which there is little or no evidence for a claim. I obviously disagree with you about whether or not there is abundant evidence for the existence of a god. We can discuss that after the ban on atheism is lifted, or in some capacity that the moderators consider to be within the rules.

TruthSeeker60;7743140:

tonyrey;7742265:

By failing to acknowledge the existence of God you implicitly reject the existence of value and purpose in the universe. Value implies purpose and purpose implies intention - which is lacking in molecules.

What about our intentions?!

We didn’t exist before the universe came into existence. There is no evidence that the material universe has any intentions, values or purposes.

The fact that the universe existed before us, and that the cosmos isn’t conscious, is irrelevant to the fact that we, as intentional, conscious beings, give the things purpose and value as we attempt to enjoy living. You yourself said above that intentionality is what is implied by value and purpose.

If you’re talking about intrinsic value and purpose assigned by an omnipotent, disembodied mind that created the universe, then I would say that I don’t believe in that particular kind of value and purpose. Big deal. There’s no absolute reason why the purpose and value imposed on something by an omnipotent disembodied mind aught to be the purpose and value we assign to it.

TruthSeeker60;7743140:

tonyrey;7742265:

You don’t need to know anything to disbelieve!

You already agreed with me that in the absence of evidence, one should not believe.

I stated that** if** there were no evidence one should suspend judgment if it is an interpretation of reality (such as theism)

Does a person who suspends judgment about a claim believe the claim? If the answer is not “yes”, then the person dis-(not)believes.

TruthSeeker60;7743140:

tonyrey;7742265:

TruthSeeker60;7736331:

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!

Not accepting a claim amounts in practice to ignoring the claim.

One can not believe a claim, yet evaluate it considerably. Even if that were false, ignoring a claim is not the same as claiming that a claim is false.

That is merely a theoretical . . .]

I could give you actual examples. For instance, there have many claims for the existence of a god as well as claims of miracles that I did not believe, yet did not ignore either.

Regardless, even if not accepting a claim amounts to ignoring it, that doesn’t mean that not believing a claim and making the assertion that a claim is false are one in the same.

 

[Shawn_Ravenfire]

I’d have to say that SOME religion is a scam. Any televangelist who says that God wants you to send money, or any flowery-languaged self-help book which lacks real substance. But by my definition, any religion where the person preaching truly believes what he is saying, is not a scam.

Atheism is definitely NOT a “fact,” unless we’ve send some long-range probes into heaven, and I haven’t heard about it yet.

 

[valentino]

are you trying to say that everything that has been writen in the bible is a scam?Explain please?

 

[tonyrey]

By “rational existence” do you mean something along the lines of “ability to reason”?

I have used the term “rational existence” many times in philosophical discussions and you are the only person who has failed to grasp what I mean. Perhaps you have little experience in that aspect of philosophy - or perhaps you are averse to the implication that the truth is essential for a rational existence. …

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.”

When it comes to** deciding how to live** we have to decide whether we are merely biological machines or rational beings with free will. Whether we like it or not we cannot say “I don’t know” and wait for inspiration.

TruthSeeker60: We live our lives guided by rationality based **off of **(on?)what we actually do know (or know to a certain degree of confidence), not based **off of **(on?) arbitrary beliefs for which there is no evidence. If we don’t know something, we aught (ought?) to base our decisions based on the little evidence we do have.

What is that “little evidence”? That we are animals? Or rational beings?

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” …except acknowledging ignorance, rather than believing in something without evidence, is the first step towards discovering what is true.

What are your criteria of evidence? Only things you can detect with your physical senses?

If my guess about what you mean by “rational existence” is inaccurate, please either state what you mean, or if you are unwilling or incapable of doing so, just say so. Please don’t make some comparison that does little to narrow the potential interpretations down.

Rational = consistent with or based on reason
Rational existence = existence consistent with or based on reason

Do you agree that knowledge of the truth is essential for a rational existence?

Can you detect the truth about yourself with your physical senses?

 

[tonyrey]

The fact that the universe existed before us, and that the cosmos isn’t conscious, is irrelevant to the fact that we, as intentional, conscious beings, give the things purpose and value as we attempt to enjoy living.

It is not irrelevant because it is necessary to explain how intentional, conscious beings are produced by things which are devoid of consciousness and intentions.

If you’re talking about intrinsic value and purpose assigned by an omnipotent, disembodied mind that created the universe, then I would say that I don’t believe in that particular kind of value and purpose. Big deal. There’s no absolute reason why the purpose and value imposed on something by an omnipotent disembodied mind aught (ought?) to be the purpose and value we assign to it.

That is because we are not infallible.

You already agreed with me that in the absence of evidence, one should not believe.

I stated that if there were no evidence one should suspend judgment if it is an interpretation of reality (such as theism)Does a person who suspends judgment about a claim believe the claim? If the answer is not “yes”, then the person dis-(not)believes.

A person who suspends judgment about a claim sits on the fence and neither believes nor disbelieves. But sitting on the fence is impossible when it comes to deciding how to live.

For instance, there have many claims for the existence of a god as well as claims of miracles that I did not believe, yet did not ignore either.

You have ignored them in practice because they do not seem to have affected your attitude to religion.

Regardless, even if not accepting a claim amounts to ignoring it, that doesn’t mean that not believing a claim and making the assertion that a claim is false are one in the same.

If you ignore my claim for money, land or anything else the consequences are exactly the same as the assertion that it is false. So it is with the truth of theism.

 

[larryjay]

God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. If the atheists don’t believe in God or God as a form of religion, why do they try so hard trying to dispel the existance of God? Obviously to try and disprove something means that something (God) has to exist in the first place.

Peace :banghead:

 

[UnworthyApostle]

I’ll give a solid 2 pennies,
First, as GK Chesterton said," If there were no God, there would be no atheists."

Why are some many people so obsessed with something they do not believe exists?

Secondly, as a worldview, atheism is simply a vaccum.

With no belief in a higher power or a higher purpose, the atheist is left at a problematic scenario. That is, the atheist must then attach themselves to some other worldview and draw their menaing from thereforth. If atheism is left to itself, which only has naturalistic Darwinism as a base, then it blossoms into a fierce hedonism which seeks to gain for one and one’s pleasures at all costs.(I have read some scary philosophy of an atheist who criticizes Richard Dawkins and the lot for appealing to a soft form of altruism. The philospher, whom I cannot recall, says that the goal of life is to pursue pleasure at all costs, and that is the only reasonable way to live.) So it follows then of how one can find an existential meaning in a system of belief that exists in a vaccum, and if atheism is followed to its own end then one must admit as Nietchze said,“There is no truth. The only thing truth has been is an attempt to gain control over naturem self, and other people”: then one can only pursue hedonism.

Some questions I had one time when inquring of whether God existed or not.

 

[UnworthyApostle]

I’ll give a solid 2 pennies,
First, as GK Chesterton said," If there were no God, there would be no atheists."

Why are some many people so obsessed with something they do not believe exists?

Secondly, as a worldview, atheism is simply a vaccum which can only lead to an unbridled hedonism if followed to its logical ends.

With no belief in a higher power or a higher purpose, the atheist is left at a problematic scenario. That is, the atheist must then attach themselves to some other worldview and draw their menaing from thereforth. If atheism is left to itself, which only has naturalistic Darwinism as a base, then it blossoms into a fierce hedonism which seeks to gain for one and one’s pleasures at all costs.(I have read some scary philosophy of an atheist who criticizes Richard Dawkins and the lot for appealing to a soft form of altruism. The philospher, whom I cannot recall, says that the goal of life is to pursue pleasure at all costs, and that is the only reasonable way to live.) So it follows then of how one can find an existential meaning in a system of belief that exists in a vaccum? If atheism is followed to its own end, then one must admit as Nietchze said,“There is no truth. The only thing truth has been is an attempt to gain control over nature, self, and other people”: then one can only pursue hedonism.

Some ponderings I had one time when inquring of whether God existed or not.

 

[valentino]

Religion is an ordered way to serve God.Since man has always believed in a creator of higher power than man religion is not a scam.One may say that the Egyptians worshipping idols was a scam but they didn’t know any better.Muslims worshipping Allah is a scam.True Muslims may not know the true God and they believe in the what they have been told is true and follow good moral laws which are just and honorable.Its not their fault.Muslims who go contrary to justice and morals are scams.When a religion teaches things which go against are own moral consceinces its a scam.They are not hard to distinguish.

 

[Betterave]

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.

The funny thing about this comment is that is is clearly just a set of honest observations, which to a Christian who was concerned about the kind of witness he was presenting would be cause for self-questioning, and to any rational person would elicit a rational response addressing the substance of the observations made about the rational weakness of his arguments; yet instead of any evidence of considering, “what if those comments are well-founded?” it predictably draws the response “You’re breaking the rules, you’re being rude to me.” You responded rationally to this: essentially, “really? - then where?” And you get the same old kind of question-begging non-response to your request for clarification which occasioned the criticism in the first place. In other words, “the original observation was true, and here’s some more evidence.” Thanks for coming out!

 

[tonyrey]

God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. If the atheists don’t believe in God or God as a form of religion, why do they try so hard trying to dispel the existence of God? Obviously to try and disprove something means that something (God) has to exist in the first place.

Peace :banghead:

You are right! If religion is mere superstition they should leave it to die a natural death rather than attack it so ferociously. However some Christians are so malevolent they bring religion into disrepute and arouse hostility…

 

[tonyrey]

If my guess about what you mean by “rational existence” is inaccurate, please either state what you mean, or if you are unwilling or incapable of doing so, just say so.

The term “rational existence” has been in use since Plato and Aristotle - who described man as a “rational animal”. You have only to google the term to see how its meaning is taken for granted, e.g.:

Richard of St. Victor († 1173), for example, criticizes that a person can never be a substance as in Boethius’ definition, but can only be something from which substance can be predicated. He defines “person” as “…something which exists through itself in the unique modus of rational existence”

//www.braungardt.com/Essays/subject.htm

“The Houyhnhnms represent an ideal of **rational existence **because they are reasonable, rational characters, and they seem to embody the principle virtue of friendship and benevolence, and all the perfections that humans strive to achieve.”
//www.essayforum.com/writing-feedback-3/describe-satire-gullivers-travels-27346/

“Atheism does not deny the reality of … man’s animal and rational existence”.
books.google.co.uk/books?id=Po0rhLSFx0wC&pg=PA321&lpg=PA321&dq=history+of+idea+of+“rational+existence”&source=bl&ots=gCIu6b3yny&sig=nyqFT-0eXxLd6phypXiQEB7Xpg8&hl=en&ei=onqjTbOuM46AhQepmayCBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q&f=false

“This embrace of direct experience in the face of alienation necessarily engenders conflict with those in power: ecstatic religious experience often runs counter to modern rational existence.”

maps.org/news-letters/v12n2/12239hus.html

“Everyone seeks to lead a happy existence. But how do we achieve true happiness in life? By following a **rational existence **and living life our own way.”

matus1976.com/eudaemonists/index.htm

“They believed a science of man could be developed which would allow government and society to be designed to give rise to a more just, rational existence”.

On the rule of law: history, politics, theory - Brian Z. Tamanaha p.39

These examples suffice to prove that your criticism is unfounded…

 

[tonyrey]

Religion is an ordered way to serve God.Since man has always believed in a creator of higher power than man religion is not a scam.One may say that the Egyptians worshipping idols was a scam but they didn’t know any better.Muslims worshipping Allah is a scam.True Muslims may not know the true God and they believe in the what they have been told is true and follow good moral laws which are just and honorable.Its not their fault.Muslims who go contrary to justice and morals are scams.When a religion teaches things which go against are own moral consciences its a scam.They are not hard to distinguish.

Precisely! In his book The Perennial Philosophy Aldous Huxley gives many examples of how the great religions of the world are all based on the same fundamental truths and values.To be moral is to lead a rational existence…

 

[Betterave]

You are right! If religion is mere superstition they should leave it to die a natural death rather than attack it so ferociously. However some Christians are so malevolent they bring religion into disrepute and arouse hostility…

LOL! And some Christians are so obstreperously irrational and rude that they give the appearance of perhaps being trolls posing as Christians.

Question (Originally Posted by TruthSeeker60):
By “rational existence” do you mean something along the lines of “ability to reason”?

1. A rude and irrational answer:
   “I have used the term “rational existence” many times in philosophical discussions and you are the only person who has failed to grasp what I mean. Perhaps you have little experience in that aspect of philosophy - or perhaps you are averse to the implication that the truth is essential for a rational existence. …”

This answer a) is a fallacious ad hominem, b) commits a fallacious appeal to popular attitudes, c) is a red herring that doesn’t answer the question, d) makes a false assertion, e) ignores what TruthSeeker has repeatedly stated about his own position.

1. A respectful and rational answer would do none of those things. It would be something like:
   “Yes, that’s what I mean.”
   or
   “No; what I mean is…[fill in this space with *an honest attempt to explain what you mean].”