The Con of Religion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-07-2016, 01:39 PM
RE: The Con of Religion
My brother is a preacher and we have discussed much over the years. When I have pointed out things as being nuts or outright lies he just shrugs it off. He is close to a group which goes to the "Mission fields" and builds a church in one day. I have pointed out to him what a lie this is. They send crew to pour a concrete slab one day and a week later when it has cured sufficiently the next crew goes down and in one day erects a metal structure walls as well as roof in "One day." But the electrical and plumbing aren't done in that one day, but later by others. He and I built 28 houses together over the years and he knows that no one could build a church in one day, yet he stands in the pulpit and exhorts his congregation to give to this group so they can build their churches in one day. I have pointed out to him what a lie it is, but he swallows it down and keeps on saying the same thing. Does he convince himself that it is true? Does he convince himself that lying for Jesus is OK? Or is it the amount of money that the members give that makes it all right? I don't know.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 01:42 PM
RE: The Con of Religion
(01-07-2016 11:50 AM)Armageddon it Wrote:  This question is directed at the non-believer. Theists are, of course, free to reply, yet your input is irrelevant as the insistence of the question is that belief in a certain religion, let alone a super-daddy, is laughable.

When we watch a person preach or otherwise insist on the existence of a god, do you ever get the impression that person is putting on a fairly elaborate con? It's obvious there are numerous instances of this, but I am beginning to get the impression the occurrence of con-artist preaching is rampant.

There are those who insist on the existence of a god based on upbringing and church attendance a few times a year. There are those who attend church regularly, and have a good idea about the bible, but subconsciously (or consciously?) ignore the conflicts within. There are those who have delusions and believe because they "see" things. These persons, I believe, are not trying to deceive anyone (at least not consciously). But the person who has read the Bible or Koran (or whatever magic book) and studied the material, the person who has been confronted with the evidence of science (in contradiction to religious claims), are they delusional? Is it possible they continue to put stock in a lie out of the fear of the finality of death? Or is it much worse in many cases, are the majority of religious professionals conning the masses with religion as a means of survival (and in some cases, great wealth)? There is such a preponderance of contradiction and evil in religious texts that I can't believe these "educated" religious persons actually believe the fantasy themselves.

Well Christianity is the biggest con in the history of the world as far as I'm concerned. Islam and Judaism are right up there too. I wouldn't go so far as to say that all preachers don't believe what they are preaching, after all Humans are extremely credulous, but we know that some don't believe because many have come forward and admitted it. I don't know what the percentage is though.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
01-07-2016, 03:22 PM
RE: The Con of Religion
[Image: religion-01300.jpg]

Don't let those gnomes and their illusions get you down. They're just gnomes and illusions.

--Jake the Dog, Adventure Time

Alouette, je te plumerai.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Old Man Marsh's post
02-07-2016, 05:27 AM
RE: The Con of Religion
I honesty think most believers can't see through the lies, contradictions, and "answers" if their religion. They've been told since before they were old enough to form memories that God is "there" and by an early age it's as commonplace as speaking about a relative who's passed away. They don't question it and it fills a natural void internally that gives us questions like "why are were here" and "where do we come from".

Building firm answers to such puzzling questions at an early age, combined with the fear of eternal damnation after death creates a bond rarely rivaled.

Then there are the con men and women. Then there are those who start a church or build a "flock" on honest principles and good intentions...but once that money starts pouring in it's become real easy to say, "well God wants me to have this money".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2016, 07:32 AM
RE: The Con of Religion
I consider the con of the State as being much more destructive. The State cons the poor with Welfare, where the money goes to the federal worker. It cons those who have cancer, where the money goes to cancer “researchers” (I was one for four years in the 1970s, thanks to Nixon’s War on Cancer).

Government cons the general population, causing fear and panic about saccharine, saturated animal fat, Hussein’s Weapons of Mass Destruction, and carbon dioxide. Hundreds of billions have been redistributed based on this fear mongering.

The difference between the two cons is that one is voluntary (Catholic wife), the other is not. It is very interesting to watch self described atheists whine about one while staying silent about the other.

I would expect atheists to be anarchists, but I would be wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2016, 08:01 AM
RE: The Con of Religion
(02-07-2016 07:32 AM)Walter Wrote:  I would expect atheists to be anarchists, but I would be wrong.

You are wrong because your expectation isn't logical. There is no connection.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2016, 08:10 AM
RE: The Con of Religion
(02-07-2016 08:01 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(02-07-2016 07:32 AM)Walter Wrote:  I would expect atheists to be anarchists, but I would be wrong.

You are wrong because your expectation isn't logical. There is no connection.

No, he's right, because he says "but I would be wrong". He says his expectation would be wrong. Jeez, Chaz, read it properly.

Also, he is right that he has that expectation, for whatever reason.

And, many constitutions are based on theistic principles, such as the American Constitution which is deistic. If one were to reject governments because they are based on falsehoods, then one could easily see a connection between atheism and anarchism because the falsity of the underlying premise of, well, most governments is theistic and not believing in the underlying "grund norm" sort of leaves one in an anarchistic frame of mind...don'tchathink(sp?)?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2016, 08:43 AM
RE: The Con of Religion
(02-07-2016 07:32 AM)Walter Wrote:  I consider the con of the State as being much more destructive. The State cons the poor with Welfare, where the money goes to the federal worker. It cons those who have cancer, where the money goes to cancer “researchers” (I was one for four years in the 1970s, thanks to Nixon’s War on Cancer).

Government cons the general population, causing fear and panic about saccharine, saturated animal fat, Hussein’s Weapons of Mass Destruction, and carbon dioxide. Hundreds of billions have been redistributed based on this fear mongering.

The difference between the two cons is that one is voluntary (Catholic wife), the other is not. It is very interesting to watch self described atheists whine about one while staying silent about the other.

I would expect atheists to be anarchists, but I would be wrong.

The state couldn't get away with it if religion hadn't paved the way. Religion prepared the field for the statists and they just cashed in on that fertile ground.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2016, 09:11 AM
RE: The Con of Religion
(02-07-2016 07:32 AM)Walter Wrote:  I consider the con of the State as being much more destructive. The State cons the poor with Welfare, where the money goes to the federal worker. It cons those who have cancer, where the money goes to cancer “researchers” (I was one for four years in the 1970s, thanks to Nixon’s War on Cancer).

Government cons the general population, causing fear and panic about saccharine, saturated animal fat, Hussein’s Weapons of Mass Destruction, and carbon dioxide. Hundreds of billions have been redistributed based on this fear mongering.

The difference between the two cons is that one is voluntary (Catholic wife), the other is not. It is very interesting to watch self described atheists whine about one while staying silent about the other.

I would expect atheists to be anarchists, but I would be wrong.


I have a similar dilemma here. I had expected atheists to be open minded, but here, they aren't.

What you get here are a number of people who are, in fact, about as anarchistic as you can get, but not open-minded. They just hurl the most offensive abuse at whoever they happen to disagree with. Because they all think they are "unique" they abuse pretty much everyone. Then you have the atheists who have very strong agenda's such as revisionist mythicism. Essentially, they want to question the whole of the collected thoughts of the western/Christian world over the past two thousand years and say that this character, Jesus, is merely a "myth", because his life story as told in the New Testament echoes earlier "myths" about a "Christ".

However, if you try to bring the discussion down to earth and suggest that there was an earlier religion with a Christ/Horus figure, in Egypt, where these people supposedly came from, you are called all sorts of horrible names, even if you say it is just an idea you read somewhere.

All in all, I have to agree. Government is a huge con. Say you have 10 people on an island and six of them decide to have an election to govern the place. So, three people are voted in as rulers. Instead of keeping order, organizing getting food and water, education, and the like, with the others, they decide to borrow a huge amount of money from a visiting boat-bank and use it to pay themselves huge salaries and make the other 7 pay the loan back. When did government go beyond just using money given to it in taxes and, without any contractual right, enter into massive loans and impose the interest payments on the rest of us? It's very strange. In smaller political entities, such as volunteer organizations, etc. they spend what they raise by way of fees and raffles. They don't go out and borrow millions and then say that the members should repay it.

The worst example of this con is global warming. The main man behind it is my old boss, Maurice Strong. If you look at his CV, you realize he came out of nowhere, belonged to a socialist party which advocated the downfall of America (the CCF Party) and then magicly appeared, first in the UN and then as an oil tycoon, rising up to head the Canadian government's national oil company before becoming the chairman of the Rio Summit and Under-Secretary General to the UN. He is the strongest advocate of global warming and transfer taxes from wealthy polluting countries to poor countries.

Then when he is caught receiving millions in bribes, he runs off to Peking, and admits to having a life-long relationship with the polluting, Communist Chinese government, which is now hell-bent on dominating third-world development. Oh, and investing heavily in property in London.

Anyway, as it turns out, Strong's aunt was an American communist and "friend" of the Chinese who plainly recruited Maurice to work for the Chinese, who needed to develop a presence in the North American energy sector. Strong, from nowhere, becomes president of the largest energy producer in Canada, Norcen. Even though he was born into a socialist family...

And we are left with carbon taxes while the Chinese are choking on their own fumes. It's a global con.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2016, 10:59 AM
RE: The Con of Religion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bear100's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: