The Con of Religion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-07-2016, 01:01 PM
RE: The Con of Religion
(02-07-2016 08:10 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(02-07-2016 08:01 AM)Chas Wrote:  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.

I read it correctly; your reading is not the common understanding of the meaning of that phrase.

Quote: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.

The U.S. Constitution is in no way deistic. It mandates a secular government.

Quote: 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?)?

You are confused as to the nature of atheism. It is the rejection of theistic claims and that is all it is.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
03-07-2016, 10:05 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.
Walter, what's wrong with cancer research ? In my time as a nurse which is 30 years plus, treatment has improved drugs are more effective and survival rates are up significantly. All due to research your post makes no sense in that respect.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-07-2016, 08:28 AM (This post was last modified: 06-07-2016 08:39 AM by DLJ.)
RE: The Con of Religion
I am not from the religions mentioned in this post, I believe that from my religious background we don't force our belief on anyone and don't go out of our way to tell people they will go to hell unless they become one of us which we don't necessarily believe. However we speak more about experiencing god rather than you must believe in god. If you would like education about this faith visit the link below, if not it is your choice to make not mine.

Link to a video about a course for Sikh recruitment, removed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-07-2016, 02:24 PM
RE: The Con of Religion
(01-07-2016 11:50 AM)Armageddon it Wrote:  ... I am beginning to get the impression the occurrence of con-artist preaching is rampant.

Indeed it is and probably always will be. I sometimes think of the bible as the modern day "crystal ball" for magical knowledge. Especially coming from an origin of when most couldn't read it and had to rely on the local priest to tell them what it said. Unless you could read Hebrew and ancient Greek you had to take the priest at his word when he taught from it. Of course the con still works now when the average Joe can read it and it still doesn't make any sense.

The documentary of Marjoe Gortner brings to mind that the competitive market of religion and preachers is more about performance and show than anything really genuine. Certainly this is mostly true of what bubbles up to the national media stage. All to easy for non-believers like me to point at and say there ya go, they're all cons like that guy.

However, growing up I had a good friend whose father was a preacher. He was one of the most charismatic people I ever knew. He was good at what he did and from what I can attest -not a bit of con in him with the modest lifestyle he led. He could have probably been one of the top salesmen in any company or best selling self-help guru you ever seen. There's a practical side to shepherding a flock and I have no doubt that his congregants that dealt with the various struggles of daily life found value by starting the week out each sunday listening to a charismatic guy convince them to look for the good in their lives and rely on a community of like minded friends and family to make it through the rest of the week. No added mysticism needed for small town life I guess.

I also recall my grandfathers church being more akin to a group of investors that truly cared for one another and did much in the way of charity and support to members and non-members a like. Their interest was the community they lived in. I don't suspect much room for fraud in the way they conducted things. No fire and brimstone sermons. Just people helping people with a sense of a higher purpose at work. In fact, they probably rooted out more cons in the community in the practical sense than ever creating any. Interesting fact, when the preacher died, they sold the church and divided the proceeds in trust funds among the original and oldest members.

In the bigger picture I think this discussion could also lead to the Kafkaesque way that large organizations, religions, governments and institutions eventually take on a machine like quality of their own that gobble up the weak within to ultimately strengthen the whole.

So, I'm sitting here and asking myself this question: Who do I condemn more, con-artist preachers or the people they con? Do I blame a sheep for being a sheep when it gets eaten by a wolf? Or do I try to rid the land of wolves? I think it's reasonable to assume that as the world progresses, the sheep will someday learn to avoid the wolves and find something else to be eaten by. This forum seems to be proof of that.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grassy Knoll's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: