It's a racket

I've said this before, but it bears repitition .....

All religions are blackmail, and are based on fear and superstition.

Religion offers a supposed comfort-blanket, or carrot to the believers, and waves a stick at the unbelievers.
"Do as we say, and you'll go to heaven, don't do as we say, and you'll go to hell." What they conveniently leave out here is the unspoken threat, which is only made manifest in those societies which are theocracies: "If you don't do as we say, we can make sure you go to hell really painfully, and quickly."
Thus all "priests" are liars and/or blackmailers. They may not be deliberate liars, but nonetheless, they are telling untrue fairy-stories.

Fear of exclusion from the community, in one form or another, is a standard part of the power-structure of any religion or cult. Excommunication, anathema, banishment, exile, fatwah, etc, ... Fear of entry being refused in "the next world", or "the community of saints", or "the party". Fear of real physical punishment by the "secular arm", the NKVD, the Saudi religious police, or whomsoever the current set of spiritual thought police happen to be.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What I find really suprising is how few people see this, or are prepared to say so.

Scott Hatfield here.

As a Christian who has experienced the argument ad baculum first hand, non-believers have my sympathies. All belief systems tend to offer carrots and sticks, heavens and hells. Speaking for myself, it is not so much the possibility of consequences that stirs me to indignation, but the certainty with which the same is offered by some in the pews.

I, for one, doubt that a rigid formula for salvation exists for all souls and, with many other people of faith, reject the idea that there is a certain known consequence for all people in the next world based upon my understanding of what their choices are in this world.

But, at the risk of offending some on this site, let me point out that skeptics often remark that if Christians were really sincere in their convictions, they would be even more proselytizing, more passionate, more intolerant of other's views precisely because they really saw in their choices the ability to influence eternity.

I make this point not to excuse intolerance, but to suggest a civil, but firm way of rejecting the extension of another's private views into the wrong arena by appealing to their own values. As all of us likely know from experience, debating theological beliefs is rarely fruitful; on the other hand, by acknowledging that the faithful are acting freely upon the choices as they understand them emphasizes the value of that freedom, and why believers and non-believers should be free to choose.

From this point of view, it seems weird to make Jesus a mafioso, proposing "an offer you can't refuse." Rather, the truly Christian response to such an approach is that Jesus stands at the door and knocks, but does not compel you to open the door. It's an 'if-then' statement, not a 'my way or else' statement.

I recognize that passages alluding to damnation and the like can be cited as well, but again the freedom to choose means the freedom to reject arguments based on fear and intimidation. And it is OK, in my view, to point out that such arguments lend themselves to tyranny, both personal and collective.

You might wonder why a believer might endorse such a strategy. It comes down to what I believe, which is to say certain non-falsifiable things like the love of God and the free will and the essential worth of human beings.
A point of dialogue (as opposed to emnity) between believers and skeptics is the latter and what it might or might not say about the former.

I hope that this post offered food for thought and I would be interested to hear what people think about it.

Scott Hatfield
epigene13@hotmail.com

My Dear Scott,

"You might wonder why a believer might endorse such a strategy. It comes down to what I believe, which is to say certain non-falsifiable things like the love of God and the free will and the essential worth of human beings."

My guess is that you are bordering on the delusional. Please seek professional help!

Rather, the truly Christian response to such an approach is that Jesus stands at the door and knocks, but does not compel you to open the door. It's an 'if-then' statement, not a 'my way or else' statement.

More like a cop out, If-Then statement. At least the god of the old testament admitted sending humans to hell for not doing exactly what he wanted, how he wanted it done and precisely when he wanted it. No ambiguity there. Then Jesus comes along and more or less states, "it's your decision, so don't blame me if you make the wrong one and I have to send you to hell".

No matter how you slice it, it's the same old "do what I tell you or I'll kill you". Except with Jesus playing good cop and old testament big daddy playing bad cop. Yea, real loving god head there.

I agree that Christian men/women have misrepresented the God they profess to follow. And the old testament is easily misinterpreted by those whose eyes are covered by darkness.

So on the one hand you are correct - the Mob, the Church...fear based "righteousness" according to the Head of the organization.

However, this is not what Christ brought to earth.

Now i ask you in regard to this...
Can a loving god be wrathful?
If so, what/who determines the objects of said wrath?
Does intention justify action?
Is a loving god required to be merciful?

Does a parent instruct a child to not play on the highway in order to "trap" that child to his/her yard, or because the consequence is too great for the child to bear?

These questions are not so difficult to think up and i am sure you have thought through all before. But why do they not apply to your view of god?

I know that you don't believe in a god but you might still be more fair in your portrayal of the personality of a god you do not know.

Similar to the ire and frustration you might feel when others portray your "beloved" theory of evolution as only an untestable pre-hypothesis.

Scott the delusional here.

I recognize the readership of this blog is highly critical of religious belief. That's as it should be. Christianity does not occupy a privileged position in the culture, much less in science.

I'm not all interested in promoting an exchange as to the credibility of faith-based claims. I realize that for many of you that ship has sailed, and further than many of you enjoy pointing out the intellectual and moral failings of this or that person in the pews. That's your right.

However, keep in mind the intent of my post was not to foist my views on anyone, but to suggest a way of dealing with 'fundies' in a manner that challenges their deeply-held presumptions in a very user-friendly way, by directly appealing to their own values.

For those of you who, upon consideration of my motives, find what I say hard to credit (as Fred the Hun), please consider that I am in the churches and that I am committed to championing evolutionary biology in that sphere. I have found it necessary to cultivate certain rhetorical strategies to avoid being characterized (ahem) as one of them "God-denying pointy-headed evolutionists." You may not feel that need, but I do. Further, I have observed that the strategy I mentioned is effective in dealing with believers.

Finally, to paleotn, I note that the very values I embrace lead me to reject the understanding that leads many people to (correctly) regard some Christians as the moral equivalent of bullies. I don't promote the views you mention and my profession of faith was not meant as a proselytization.

I appreciate any thoughtful replies regarding the merits of the strategy I offered for consideration.

Cordially...

Scott Hatfield
epigene13@hotmail.com

Scott, I was a Christian for 35 years. My group of atheist friends and I have a word we use to refer to honest, decent, reasonable, thinking people like you who are religious believers. We call them "pre-atheists." Unlike religions (particularly with reference to Christianity), we have nothing to "sell" you. In fact, we don't even want you if you don't come by yourself.

Scott, you just "keep on keepin' on." Go where your integrity leads you. Hold fast to the truth you find, rather than the Truth(TM) you're fed. Believe, if you like, that he who seeks reality will find it. It's not as lonely a journey as it's often made out to be.

Actually, if you'd asked me 6 years ago, I would have had a rather benign attitude toward organized religion. To me, they ran charities and schools, subscribed to generaly accepted views of right-and-wrong, and stayed out of my face. And the occasional religious utter whackadoo was an outlier. Other than that, I paid no attention to them.

Since then, people claiming to operate on behalf of Islam perpetuated a monstrous attack on my country while their co-religionists treat people with my kind of genitals as no better than human breeding stock. The Roman Catholic hierarchy turns out to be a branch of NAMBLA. American Protestants have shown themselves willing to advocate--criminally--for political candidates on church time (while obsessing in the most small-minded particulars over everyone else's sex lives) in return for a chance to belly up to the public trough (those "Faith-Based Initiatives"), and have marginalized their moderate voices to the point where they insist on a "right" to turn America--America!--into a theocracy.

When these groups complain about facing "anti-Christian" (or whatever) feelings, they're not entirely wrong. But what's happened, of course, is that individuals have acted like total slime in the name of their religions. And then, having themselves sulllied the honor of their faith, have the gall to claim religious bias when they get called on it. (Sort of like the boy who murdered his parents and then threw himself on the mercy of the court on the grounds that he was an orphan.) (And I might add, this find-someone-else-to-blame substitute for any sense of responsibility is unfortunately typical of the Right.)

So I'm leery of organized religion. But I started off pretty neutral, and the change only took a few years. And I'm not the Lone Ranger here.

If religion members are unhappy about that, they've no one to blame but themselves.

blockquote>And the old testament is easily misinterpreted by those whose eyes are covered by darkness.

Very funy quote. The fact that you can't see the obvious flaw in your statement is humorous. Another person arguing for their interpretation. One true Scotsman rides again.

Does a parent instruct a child to not play on the highway in order to "trap" that child to his/her yard, or because the consequence is too great for the child to bear?

No to keep them safe, but your analogy is pathetic. Does the parent after being seeing their child hit by a car help that child or seek to punish them in their hurt state. Or more accurately reanimate them so they can punish them forever by burning them.

In your very weak analogy the child dies. Their is no further suffering.

Is a loving god required to be merciful?

Yes. It kinda comes natural to a loving person. Love, forgiveness, mercy.

"Does a parent instruct a child to not play on the highway in order to "trap" that child to his/her yard, or because the consequence is too great for the child to bear?"

This is stupid. Why? Because if the child goes and plays in the street, the parent doesn't torture him in a pit of fire. And any parent that did torture their child would get locked up because we don't tolerate that kind of behavior as a society.

"I know that you don't believe in a god but you might still be more fair in your portrayal of the personality of a god you do not know."

Still more stupidity. Why aren't you more fair in your portrayal of the fairies in your garden?

Scott, don't get discouraged that some people are using words like delusional and stupid - it is possible to have a civil discussion here, if you don't acknowledge trollish replies.

I do agree with the substance of those replies, though. Can you expand on your "if-then" statement? Right now it is way too vague. If what, then what? And if not, then what?

You also say your religious beliefs are "non-falsifiable". I submit that if you really spelled out your beliefs, and what those beliefs entailed, they would be not only eminently falsifiable, but, well, false.

Wow - stupidity!?

Getting hit by a car is the equivalent hell. It is consequence. There is no punishment beyond that. God warns of the danger of denying Him. The consequence is hell. But unlike the parent, God mercifully grants escape from that consequence.

I guess i am wasting my time.

Regardless, "the Church is equivalent to the Mob" is an interesting and common thing. I don't think the church portrays the God that Jesus portrayed. That was my point. That despite the church's failures - God is not the "Godfather".

The God that Jesus revealed was far from the legal zealot the Religious leaders of his time taught and equally far from the one often taught in pulpits now.

He is merciful...to the point that the bible almost suggests ACTIONS don't matter at all, only belief.

I believe that science folks understand purity. How much of a substance can be tainted for it not to be pure? Can there be any bronze in PURE gold?

If you don't believe in God - you will automatically label anything that acknowledges God as "stupid", potentially anyway. I mean, you have already "proven" that God cannot exist...

Sorry, if i am considered trolling. I find your posts interesting and thought that i could add my two cents even though my view is not aligned with yours.

(i don't have a garden)

No, no one has proven that gods don't exist. Rather, you haven't provided a speck of evidence that your favorite deity does exist.

I apologize for feeding the troll, but I'm one of those people who can't resist watching a trainwreck.

Udontno doesn't seem to realize a problem with the car analogy: Hell is more like a parent who threatens to run over his kid if he steps on unapproved blades of grass in the back yard: It's inventing arbitrary consequences for arbitrary rules.

He is merciful...to the point that the bible almost suggests ACTIONS don't matter at all, only belief.

I fail to see the mercy. Especially since he provides no basis for belief... Actually, I hate that word. He needs to come up with something that'd give us scientific confidence. Thus far, God remains ill-defined and unfalsifiable. That alone makes him unworthy of consideration, much less belief.

I believe that science folks understand purity. How much of a substance can be tainted for it not to be pure? Can there be any bronze in PURE gold?

This is Chewbacca.

If you don't believe in God - you will automatically label anything that acknowledges God as "stupid", potentially anyway. I mean, you have already "proven" that God cannot exist...

Way to straw man. Or, in simpler terms, lie about the actual atheist position. I don't believe in God because there's no reason to. There's no evidence for him. There's not even a decent definition we can use to look for evidence. I can't prove the non-existence of flarschnikit if no one can tell me what flarschnikit is. Additionally, you're shifting the burden of proof. It's the advocate's job to prove his case. All I have to do is show the holes.

Purity. If something is pure it cannot have anything contrary to it within it. So if God is purely good, how can he tolerate/allow anything contrary to Him? Otherwise, He too would be tainted, right? So purity addresses two things...1) the CONSEQUENCE of not being good separates from that which is good 2) the mercy of that which is PURELY good to allow that which is not good any existence.

As for proof, aren't witness accounts considered evidence? (actually, science has no value in witness accounts, correct? Or how are witness accounts useful to science?)

Science, by very definition, denies God - for science relies on NATURAL occurence...if there is a God, He would obviously be SUPERNATURAL - outside the scope of constraints within this world...

So for proof, how can science be reliable to prove or disprove God? Likewise, might you be selling yourself short to discount God because there is no natural way to prove his existence?

But there are witness accounts. A lot of them. An entire nation of people with a well kept record of interacting with a God.

It is fine to not trust their accounts. But at least admit that you are throwing out valid evidence.

Can you prove to a blind person the color of the shirt you are wearing? Probably a few ways...finding someone that can see who the blind man trusts is as valid as any, though.

Ultimately, i apologize for ruffling feathers with old arguments. Personally, i enjoy the feedback even though it is tainted with arrogant ridicule and derision. As i said, i have no intention of trolling. I truly want feedback on the thoughts i have as to what i see as the God of the bible and what others see portrayed there, specifically, those who deny his existence or don't believe.

Unless monkeys had wings, they would not be able to fly out of your butt. Therefore, monkeys have wings.

I think you are have serious difficulties separating what you want to support from what you've assumed.

First: The word "supernatural" is a bunch of doggerel.

So for proof, how can science be reliable to prove or disprove God? Likewise, might you be selling yourself short to discount God because there is no natural way to prove his existence?

Might you be selling yourself short by not blindly believing in the Invisible Pink Unicorn? Subtle hint of argumentum ad baculum noted.

Can you prove to a blind person the color of the shirt you are wearing?

Yes.

But there are witness accounts. A lot of them. An entire nation of people with a well kept record of interacting with a God.

There were also eyewitnesses who saw a particular panda who escaped from a zoo. The problem: The panda was run over by a train almost immediately after escaping. All those people couldn't have seen the panda, unless there are a bunch of vanishing ones hanging around the city, or some equally bizarre scenario.

Also, if that record is "well kept", why are there internal contradictions?

It is fine to not trust their accounts. But at least admit that you are throwing out valid evidence.

How exactly is a pile of anecdotes, likely with much simpler explanations, "valid"?

Ultimately, i apologize for ruffling feathers with old arguments. Personally, i enjoy the feedback even though it is tainted with arrogant ridicule and derision.

"I am at my most serious when I am joking." I never ridicule without a valid point underneath. Unfortunately, most people ignore such points since they don't want to know just how ridiculous they've made themselves look.

I find this whole thread incredibly fascinating. Up until a year or so ago, I was right in with Udontno and Scott, and I can still see how their arguments are internally logical and make SO MUCH SENSE if you've been completely indoctrinated into it, preferably from birth. Now I look at it and see very clearly that it's a house of cards, sitting on a foundation of crap. I'm pondering - what's the trigger to go from one side to the other? What is it that pushes someone through the looking glass? For me, there was a slow and steady accumulation of data, but I can't even pinpoint the moment when the last card fell and I realized there was nothing left. I remember clearly noting it, and how freeing the sensation was, but not what the proximal experience was that tipped the scale. If my experience is at all typical of a fundie's transition to rationality, how do we begin trying to make an argument and educate people? No matter what logical statements are made, they can't penetrate the shells Scott and Udontno and the teeming masses of others like them have just by sheer force of being true. Aside from trying to instill critical thinking when they're young, what can be done for the older ones? It is a puzzlement.

Hmmm. First, to Speedwell, thanks for the encouragement. I don't believe that science is a search for 'Truth' with a capital 'T' nor do I claim to have any 'Truth' that would justify arguments based on fear or intimidation. If anyone got that impression, I asked to be excused.

Second, to Pete, I really do hold to some beliefs which are non-falsifiable. Some of them are trivial, such as "I think my cat likes me", or that "the color red I see others can also see." Others are more difficult: I am convinced, for example, that a metabolic pathway from non-life to life not only exists, but that it must have occurred some time in Earth's past. I just don't see how I can ever test that proposition directly; it will always be an inference, rather than a fact. God's existence or non-existence seems to fall in the same category for me.

Finally, I resist being lumped into the same category as 'udontno', who invokes something akin to Philip Johnson's famous category mistake when he writes that "Science, by very definition, denies God." Actually, science itself denies believers the right to invoke God as an explanatory principle, and that's just fine by me.

Cordially...Scott

Carlie, I do remember my "moment" and what triggered it. But I'm so analytical that I studied it, lol. I did see the path that led me to that point, and what came together to make it happen, but it's as hard to explain what happened as it is to explain why a lit match, a pile of gunpowder, and air don't go BANG until they all get to the same place together.

You can't "do" for the "older ones," really. It is the same as someone being abused in a relationship (I have also been that person). You can tell them why you consider them abused, which often helps because sometimes they don't know what's reasonable to accept from him (or Him). You can tell them they'll be OK on their own, and provide an example of someone who's been there and survived; they don't always know it's possible to get along without him (or Him). You can convince them that all the put-downs and mistreatment that they went through were wrong and that they are good and decent and pure without having to sacrifice their lives to him (or Him). You can find or offer them a place to go when they leave.

But the person abused in a relationship with a person or with religion can only grow to a readiness point. The best thing you can do is to remove obstacles from their path as best you can.

"Actually, science itself denies believers the right to invoke God as an explanatory principle, and that's just fine by me."

It doesn't even do that. It defines (or rather names) natural phenomena as such that we can verify by repeated observations, and consequently demands its theories on such phenomena to be verifiable by repeated observations.

Since gods haven't yet made any phenomena that we can observe in spite of attempts, someone (theologians ?) invented the realm of 'supernatural', things that purportedly exists but that we can't observe. It is a variant of the gods of the gaps.

Science can't use those 'things' until they make repeatable observable effects. It isn't the fault of science, but a result of how its methods has been found to work. To me, it seems religions are the ones who denies invoking gods, since they introduced those things to be what they are said to be.

"It is a variant of the gods of the gaps."

No, I was wrong. I looked up on Wikipedia, and "the god-of-the-gaps" argument looks at observed gaps in scientific knowledge. It is related, though.

Scott,

I'm not really a troll just a gnarly old gnome that lives under the bridge and is really tired of having all that garbage dumped on me by the GOOD folks passing overhead!

BTW I also tell my mother she is delusional if she says she beleives in things she can't prove exist and I actually kinda like her.

I'm with Molly in that I have tried to be tolerant of the veiws of others in the past but have not received that same respect in return. After a while it just wears on you.
So forgive me if I seem to have lost all patience, that's because I have!

So in closing I wish you well in your quest for reality wherever that may lead you as said by Speedwell.

Getting hit by a car is the equivalent hell. It is consequence. There is no punishment beyond that. God warns of the danger of denying Him. The consequence is hell. But unlike the parent, God mercifully grants escape from that consequence.
Who created hell and decreed that anyone who didn't meet his standards should go there? The hypothetical parent isn't whizzing up and down the street in a Ferrari just waiting for the kid to step out so that he can run him over. Traffic and fire are dangerous for reasons *unrelated to the actions of the parent* - in fact, when there are dangers that the parent can do something about, most parents *do* - putting covers on electric sockets, not leaving choking-inducing objects lying around, etc. They don't poison fruit and leave it within baby's reach, or strew thumbtacks on the floor where Junior is going to take his first steps.

You make it sound like hell was a natural phenomenon that your god has no responsibility for... do you really think that?

Furthermore: grow up. It's unhealthy not to eventually assert your independence from your real parents and use your own judgment even when it conflicts with theirs; why do you think this doesn't apply to your mythological parent? It's a pathetic abdication of the responsibilities of adult life.

Personally, I think that a loving god would never tell one of his followers to murder his own son, even if he then said "nah, never mind" - what kind of sick joke is that, anyway? What do you do when your god commands you to do evil (particularly with the threat of hell if you refuse)? It's a difficult question, but why would a loving god put you in that situation in the first place?

For these and similar reasons, if I believed a god actually existed more or less as described in the Bible, I'd be morally required to oppose him.

It's a pathetic abdication of the responsibilities of adult life.

Sounds familiar.

High Priest: Great Wall Of Prophecy, reveal to us God's will that we may blindly obey.

Priests (chanting): Free us from thought and responsibility.

High Priest: We shall read things off you.

Priests (chanting): Then do them.

High Priest: Your words guide us.

Priests (chanting): We're dumb.

As for proof-of-existence .....

1.No "god" can be detected.
{ - even if that god is supposed to exist. }

Not detectable directly or indirectly. No events or causations exist that are not explicable in the normal course of natural causes and random occurrences. This includes, most importantly, the information-flow that must pass to and from any "god", so that he, she, it, or they can themselves observe, or intervene in "their" universe. If there is any god around, then that information-flow will also be detectable. Where is it?
Please note, even if only for the point of argument (!) : - NOT "God does not exist". That is the viewpoint of the committed atheist, who believes an unprovable(?) negative, with as much evidence, or lack of it, as any deist believes in any sort of god.
This applies equally to any god at all: Marxist, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, etc....
Religions fulfil certain criteria. One of the most obvious is that of unalterable belief in the holy words of the prophet(s), whose word may not be questioned, and whose sayings must be learnt. People who do question these teachings will be persecuted, and possibly killed. This leads towards points 2 and 5.
Monotheistic religions, in particular, are mutually exclusive. A maximum of one of them can be "true". Their central beliefs and tenets make this so, and this also leads to points 2 and 5. The attempt by ecumenicals to blend or blur the distinctions between major faiths and sects, or to say, as they do: "We worship the same god under different aspects", will not wash. This is because the central core beliefs of each religion in the divinity or the divine revelation of their own leader(s), and the secondary nature of "other" prophets make them incompatible. What these relatively enlightened, but deluded people are looking at are the common ethical rules that should govern any civilised society. It is not a good idea to kill, lie, steal, or otherwise make one's self obnoxious. But, one does not need any god, or religion, to have these rules.

Believers appear to derive comfort from the statement that science cannot prove the nonexistence of god. They describe any attempt at such proof as an arrogant mistake. We are supposed to infer that an equal weight is assigned to the alternatives of existence and nonexistence, and that a believer is no less reasonable than a non-believer. It is amusing to extend this line of argument as follows by examples. Can a scientist, in his laboratory, perform an experiment demonstrating that there is no such creature as the mystical invisible pink unicorn? No. Can he deduce that conclusion from quantum mechanics, relativity, or the theory of evolution? No. Thus, is a belief in the mystical invisible pink unicorn intellectually respectable? No. Advocates of the science-cannot-disprove gambit are opening the door to unwelcome guests. The mystical invisible pink unicorn is only one example; don't forget the tooth fairy, or the Ming-period vase orbiting the Sun in an oppositional orbit, or ...