Why All Religions Are Scams

[cleanhippie]

A scam is defined as a claim that gives results that are something other than what was promised. The truth of the matter is that all religions are scams by virtue of the claims they make. Their core beliefs cannot be proven, and this includes the very existence of their gods, angels, demons, miracles, etc.

Christianity, itself, has failed to even prove the historicity of it’s central character, Jesus Christ, or the existence of his core group of followers that we know as the Apostles. The entire Christian religion is built upon a house of cards that is dismantled with ease. Islam has it’s own set of problems with this issue, and the inumerable gods and related doctrines surrounding other religions cannot be ignored as well. The problem with religions in general is that each one teaches theirs is the unadulterated truth without the benefit of evidence and cannot reconcile the difference between what they promise to deliver and what they actually do, ergo, scams.

The purveyors of religion have convinced millions of people to exchange the truth for a lie. Where the Abrahamic religions are concerned, believers have been duped into believing as truth the narrow-minded, ignorant, archaic ideologies of primitive, iron-age men who taught that imaginary beings bring about changes in weather patterns or cause diseases, natural disasters and birth defects in response to disobedience of fairy tale commandments and that it is perfectly normal to believe that a deity has granted their request for a decent parking spot over the wholesale starvation of millions of innocent children.

--snip--

While some unbelievers may choose to remain silent or non-confrontational, there are a growing number who have decided that the time has come to vocalize the truth that all religions are scams. The days of handling with kid-gloves those who have been deluded into believing that ancient myths, legends and fairy tales and giving them all sorts of accommodation are rapidly coming to an end. Someone has got to tell the kids that there is no Santa Claus.


http://atheists.org/blog/2011/08/28/why-all-religions-are-scams

[Speck Tater]

1. With the exception of Buddhism, of course.

It promises peace of mind and serenity and nothing more, and if you pursue the meditation practices you get exactly the results that are advertised.

[Odin2005]

4. Buddhism isn't a religion, though.

:)

[ZombieHorde]

11. Religion is supernatural answers to life's philosophical questions.

Where did we come from? What is the meaning of life? What happens when we die?

Most Buddhist sects say we reincarnate when we die.

The most common type of Buddhism, Mahayana, is based around the belief in reincarnation. Mahayana wouldn't make any sense without reincarnation.

[Odin2005]

20. I suggest you reason "The Confessions of A Buddhist Atheist" by Stephen Batchelor.

The religious types of Buddhism are the result of contamination with later popular beliefs. Also, The historical context is important. Siddhartha Gautama grew up in a world where most people took reincarnation for granted and he taught in that context. But yet he was very skeptical of the theological teachings of his day, and dismissed them as not important. There is one discourse, the Kalama Sutta, I believe, where the Buddha says that even if there is no rebirth that his teachings are worthwhile and that notions of reincarnation are not an essential part of his teaching.

[ZombieHorde]

24. Seems like a No True Scotsman argument. Most Buddhists hold reincarnation as

central to their beliefs.

Additionally, some sects of Buddhism, such as Zen Buddhism, don't have gods, so Buddhist Atheists are not uncommon.

[Jenny_92808]

40. Or the definition of G-d is Not an entity, but enlightenment. G-d is everything

Reincarnation is considered by some to be the greatest "unknown" scientific discovery of modern times. In the last chapter of Dr. Ian Stevenson's book entitled Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation (1967), he provides exhaustive scientific reasoning which concludes that reincarnation is the only viable explanation that fits the facts of his study. He considers every possible alternative explanation for his twenty cases of young children who were spontaneously able to describe a previous lifetime as soon as they learned to talk. He was able to rule out alternative explanations using one or more of his cases. Later research also bolstered his findings in favor of the reality of reincarnation. His study is also reproducible for any skeptic who doubts the validity of his study to repeat it for themselves. I believe it is only a matter of time before these findings are realized by the scientific community to be one of the great scientific discoveries of all time.

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/research35.html

[Odin2005]

45. I actually don't beleive in reincarnation. That doesn't mean I don't follow the Buddha's teachings.

And just to clear things up, orthodox Buddhists don't believe in "reincarnation", they believe in "rebirth", which is not the same thing. One of the main tenets of the Buddha's teaching is that the notion of a coherent self with what we Westerners would call a "soul" is false. The traditional answer of the question "what is reborn" is "consciousness" or "neurosis". A Western Humanistic Buddhist like myself would say "the results of our actions" (AKA, our Karma). If we act badly in our lives that bad behavior will result in suffering for others even after we die.

[Jenny_92808]

37. I find Buddhism...

very interesting...

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/buddhism04.html

[Warpy]

6. However, even the Buddha cautioned people not to believe a word he said

but to try the practice for themselves to see what it would do.

It's done some pretty amazing things for me.

[Odin2005]

47. There is a Zen quip that goes...

..."If you see the Buddha on the side of the road, kill him.", which is a jokey way of saying "don't fall for the Argument to Authority Fallacy."

[ZombieHorde]

8. Most sects of Buddhism teach literal reincarnation.

The basis of the Mahayana tradition, Tibetan, Zen, etc., is reincarnation.

[provis99]

42. sounds like a false-promise foolish religion to me.

Yoga yourself to Nirvana!

[LARED]

2. Evangelical atheists; seeking to save millions from themselves.

Good luck.

[thereismore]

3. What an ignorant comment. nt

[LARED]

7. Ignorant?

Please explain.

While some unbelievers may choose to remain silent or non-confrontational, there are a growing number who have decided that the time has come to vocalize the truth that all religions are scams. The days of handling with kid-gloves those who have been deluded into believing that ancient myths, legends and fairy tales and giving them all sorts of accommodation are rapidly coming to an end. Someone has got to tell the kids that there is no Santa Claus.

That comment certainly qualifies as evangelical in nature.

[edhopper]

18. That comment

says speak truth to power. It says it is better to light one candle than curse the dark.
If you want to characterize the promotion of any idea as evangelical. Well, that broad a definition would include all advocacy.
Anyone who publicly states the obvious illogic of any and all religions is an evangelical to you?
I guess we should get back in the closet.

[LARED]

49. Please don't mischaracterize what I said

I made no claim that the promotion of any idea is evangelical.

This statement:

While some unbelievers may choose to remain silent or non-confrontational, there are a growing number who have decided that the time has come to vocalize the truth that all religions are scams. The days of handling with kid-gloves those who have been deluded into believing that ancient myths, legends and fairy tales and giving them all sorts of accommodation are rapidly coming to an end. Someone has got to tell the kids that there is no Santa Claus.

conveys a militant and zealous tone that is properly called evangelical.

Am I being provocative? You bet I am. But no less provocative than the OP.

[provis99]

43. so not believing in sky fairies makes one ignorant?

Evangelical means spreading the message of religion, so you don't have the slightest fucking clue what you are talking out. You simply are itching to slur atheists, using any shoddy analogy you can. that is worthy only of contempt.

[LARED]

48. Evangelical has a number of meanings

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evangelical?show=0&t=1314572239

Definition of EVANGELICAL
1: of, relating to, or being in agreement with the Christian gospel especially as it is presented in the four Gospels
2: protestant
3: emphasizing salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion, the authority of Scripture, and the importance of preaching as contrasted with ritual
4a capitalized : of or relating to the Evangelical Church in Germany b often capitalized : of, adhering to, or marked by fundamentalism : fundamentalist c often capitalized : low church
5: marked by militant or crusading zeal : evangelistic <the evangelical ardor of the movement's leaders — Amos Vogel>


Number 5 is appropriate given the authors militant and zealous call to convert the dimwitted faithful.

[patrice]

13. Re "ignorant": ASSUMED "truths" come from enslaved minds. Free yourself before you start trying

to "free" others.

[LARED]

50. The irony of you telling me

i am trying to convert others, given the strident nature of the OP's call to convert the dim religious is too good to pass up.

[darkstar3]

52. DRINK!!

"Strident" counts for one shot.

[LARED]

53. Are there rules? nt

[darkstar3]

54. Not necessarily, just overused terms invoked to dismiss those you disagree with.

Strident atheists, angry black men, bitchy women...all these stereotypical labels, and many more, are evidence of the same attitude.

[LARED]

56. I'll keep that in mind

But I must tell you that this

The days of handling with kid-gloves those who have been deluded into believing that ancient myths, legends and fairy tales and giving them all sorts of accommodation are rapidly coming to an end.

sounds pretty strident to me.

Maybe zealous would be a better word.

[darkstar3]

57. And why is that strident? Why is it zealous?

Not only are you engaging in stereotypes designed to dismiss the words of someone you disagree with, you are engaging in special pleading if you think that religion should, in any way, be above criticism.

[patrice]

10. ding!

:hi:

[ZombieHorde]

12. Many deeply religious people are also atheists, such as Buddhists.

So your statement seems nonsensical.

I do appreciate your use of a religious label as an insult. :evilgrin:

[cleanhippie]

27. Look-ie here, kids. This is the ignorance room, where all the ignorant comments are kept.

These creatures still exist in large numbers, but unfortunately, most of them are willfully ignorant, so there is little hope for them.

[LARED]

51. These creatures??

I'm sort of new to this forum so maybe others know what you mean, but I don't.

Please explain.

[wundermaus]

5. Studied religions of the world and came to the conclusion...

That George Carlin is as close to a Gawd (the Sun) as anything the pretenders of antiquity could come up with - Religion is bullshit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

[patrice]

9. ANYTHING that interferes with or otherwise obfuscates an authentically personal organically grounded

relationship with truth is a SCAM . . .

NO MATTER WHAT LABEL IT WEARS

NOT just religion.

[cleanhippie]

28. Let me fix that for you. Anything that interferes with or obfuscates REALITY is a scam...

[patrice]

14. Does it seem even slightly self-contradictory to rail against mind-control by essentially demanding

that others think a certain way?????

[patrice]

16. P.S. I have no problem with what you are saying as a proposition for YOURSELF, but you contradict

any value you say you place on freedom by saying that you should act to make others more like you.

[edhopper]

19. Well I guess stated the obvious truth and

asking others to listen and understand your point of view should be frowned on.
I guess we shouldn't let modern science force us into accepting reality.

[patrice]

23. My point is that people MUST free themselves & the limit of our responsibilities for that

are the conditions in which that is possible. Those conditions include modern science.

To the extent that the proposition is evangelical, it is a prescription for error.

[edhopper]

25. I see what you are saying

I am saying the modern atheist writers are not evangelical, just very good at writing about the fallacy of religion and the logic of atheism.
Writing a best seller that allows people to read a well thought argument is not evangelical.

[patrice]

34. Agreed.

:hi:

[cleanhippie]

29. It would, if anyone was DEMANDING it. But they are not, so, no its not.

:hi:

[patrice]

39. Golden Rule fanatic here. I love the proposition that Atheists should be more assertive, but

if that depends upon belittling their opposition, if it depends upon paternalism, well then the implied coercion not only damages the Reason of their basically rational position, it also undercuts their case that the religious oppress athiests, by being guilty of the same thing as that of which they accuse others.

[cleanhippie]

75. Fell free to point out any examples that demonstrate that which you claim.

[madrchsod]

15. WHAT?! ............there`s no santa claus?

why the fuck do atheists give a shit what i think?

[cleanhippie]

31. They don't, but ther are MANY believers in superstition that DO care what atheists DON'T think.

They try to pass laws based on "what they think" even though "what they think" is not grounded in any way to reality.


Atheists don't give a shit what you think, as long as what you think stays with you. Feel better?

[LeftishBrit]

17. I would disagree with the term 'scam' here

A scam means more than just a claim that gives results other than those promised; it means a deliberately false claim in order to bring profit, financial or otherwise, for the claimer(s). There are many scam artists who have used, and do use, religion to gain money, or to gain or retain power for themselves. But not all religion is in itself in this category. Many founders and preachers of religions believe what they claim. Precisely because of the existence of real con men in religion, it's important to differentiate these from people with whom one simply disagrees, or considers their conclusions to be wrong.

Whether religion's claims are accurate, is another matter. I do not see convincing evidence for many of the claims of the various religions; and others are simply unprovable/ unfalsifiable. Also, different religions make/have made conflicting claims, that cannot all be correct: e.g. the multiple gods of Hinduism, the different multiple gods of the Greek, Roman and Anglo-Saxon religions (that disappeared due to cultural changes and military conquests, not because they were formally disproved); and the one God of the Abrahamic religions.

But many non-religious ideologies, from free-market dogma to Maoism, also make excessive or false claims, and yet people continue to believe in them.

[patrice]

22. Ergo, the basic issue is COGNITION and how to facilitate its development & the conditions under whic

h it can free itself, NOT just limited to its specific contents.

If people are wrong about something, the issue SHOULD be how they got that way and what THEY can do to free THEMSELVES.

[ngant17]

21. People who want to do good and live an honest life

can often be found in churches. And if you take away their social network in which the church exists, it would make life very difficult for them.

Churches in their respective denominations can and do perform useful social activities: helping the homeless, assisting the victims of economic and family hardships, tending to the sick in hospitals.

An atheist should just see thru the shallow dogmas of each particular religion and look at the bigger humanist pictures by recognizing the important social functions that churches and church members can play in society.

Whether or not you believe in some higher spiritual being is irrelevant. It's dharma. Altruism is a main component of most world religions, a little more obvious in Buddhism and Jainism. The "golden rule" is found, in one form or another, in most of the holy books or bibles of every religion.

Granted that all religions are unscientific, faith-based belief-systems, but we should not throw the babies out with the bathwater. There is beauty in nature, even weeds have their rightful place in our biosphere.

[Kalidurga]

26. I have no problem with the idea of social networks....

churches are poor places for that networking though. You sit in a pew for an hour or so there is little interaction with the people you go to church with. You give them money most of which is just used to run the church. No matter how you slice it the church you go to at the very least infers that being an xian is better than being an unsaved sinner, so you have a huge group of people to feel superior to. Then there are the churches that just out and out preach hate...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

38. "You sit in a pew for an hour or so; there is little interaction with the people you go to church

with"

Not always. Not even usually.

There are ways to get involved IF YOU CHOOSE TO.

[ngant17]

59. some churches are better than others

just like there are some scientists who are rightwing and attempt to disprove global warming, or justify the use of thermonuclear warfare, have racist ideas, ect. That doesn't mean science is bad, but there are just bad scientists.
Religions aren't necessarily bad, there are just bad people within the religions.

I have trained my mind to sit in church for a hour without becoming too annoyed at some of the silliness, although I admit to have dozed off once or twice in the process of a boring sermon. I just try to meditate like a Zen master might do. You tune it out with the right focus and concentration. It is a mental exercise.

I go mainly to give my mother the physical exercise of walking back and forth, she stays home a lot, 90 yrs. old, you see. She needs to move around as much as possible.

As for the social networking, there have been opportunities to take advantage of, in my case once I was introduced to some of the members, I had some good luck. Buying a house at a super cheap price, finding extra work, money, jobs, ect. It's all happened to me in one way or another. Maybe some of it was luck but some of it was getting to know the right people at the right time when you needed it. This is what social networking is all about. It can happen in other environments, to be sure.

There is no requirement to tithe at the church if you don't want to put any money on the plate. The preacher at the church I go to, once she becomes an elder, it is a guaranteed salary and pension for life as that is regulated by the district office. It won't make much difference how much money is in the plate then. And the bigger churches are in the credit union/financial business these days.

Being a Xian means different things to different people. It's really a hodge-podge of other (pagan) religions, and I am certain Abraham was mythical as well as most of the other major figures of the Bible. But we're stuck with what we got, as silly as it is. You try to make the best of it.

I suppose things are much worse with Islam, but again, I can't reject the whole based on the craziness of a few.

[cleanhippie]

32. You are right, and for the most part, atheists DO just that. But far too often, beleivers pass laws

based on those "shallow dogmas" and refuse to see the "bigger humanist pictures"...

And that is a problem.

[The Magistrate]

30. Indeed, Sir: the First Priest Was The First Grifter, And The Second Was The Cleverest Serial Killer

[cleanhippie]

33. Well put, friend, well put.

[Kurmudgeon]

35. Prejudice is ugly, no matter who it is directed at.

[cleanhippie]

36. Agreed, but in this case its directed at a WHAT, not a WHO.

There is a very distinct difference. I hope you are able to see that.

[humblebum]

61. Choke, guffaw, har har har?! nt

[cleanhippie]

73. Wow, bum, that the most intelligent response you have ever posted.

[The Magistrate]

41. Educated Conclusion, Sir, is Hardly Prejudice

The root of religion is indeed a claim to perform services, for remuneration, that the priest cannot possibly carry out, such as ensuring replenishment of game animals, or rain for crops, or cure of illness. That is certainly a con-game, and so the title grifter is appropriate.

Killing, as sacrifice to a diety or deities, whether of animals or of human beings, emerged very early, and almost universally, in the establishment of religions as bodies of practice and belief. Someone thought of this, or perhaps more precisely, saw what a splendid outlet making such acts a part of religious practice would be for his own murderous nature.

"Truth, in religion, is that opinion which has survived."

[Thats my opinion]

46. if that were the core of religion I might agree with you

It is always interesting listening to categorical statements from critics outside a tradition who probably don't have a clue as to what really happens inside that tradition. This string contains an interesting numbers of such examples. Efforts to describe a a religious tradition from inside are here met with peculiar reactions.

[The Magistrate]

55. History is What It is, Sir

Believers make the poorest historians of religion, because they think they know how it had to come out, and read their own views back into the record. Religion began as summarily described above, with claims to understand and control the natural world, which was the means by which the priests earned their living. One of the chief means of exerting this claimed control was killing, of humans and animals. These claims were, it should not need repeating, wholly without foundation, and so constitute on the one hand a splendid example of the grifter's art, and on the other, a self-created license for the exercise of psycopathic cruelty, not only with community sanction, but from a leadership role. The sort of ethical garnish that concerns you is a late graft. You may feel it is the true essence of the thing, and that may even be true for you, but it is not the root of the phenomen of religion in human society.

[Leontius]

58. I take it that you disagree with the new trend in the history of

religions that the first dominant religious trend was in a benign loving Earth Mother and her priestess whose position was usurped by a Sky Father with all the attributes of the warrior/hunter and his male priests who began to dominate early social structure.

[The Magistrate]

63. That Is Hardly A New Trend, Sir

In the writings Of Prof.Bachofen, it was current in the latter portion of the nineteenth century.

In Mr. Graves''White Goddess'it was quite popular seventy-odd years ago.

[Leontius]

79. You forgot Gimbutas but that's okay my point still holds, you

disagree with the loving benign Earth Mother priestess model as the first religious practices of man or do you retract you previous statement on religious origins?

[The Magistrate]

82. When Demonstrating Age, Sir, There Is No Need To Mention The Young....

It seems more of a just-so story than other-wise.

One odd bit concerning her views is that the patterns of expansion she identifies as bearing the patriarchal model track very well with societies that, according to ancient commentators, and some archaeological evidence, sent women armed into the fore-front of battle, and accorded them considerable legal and social standing.

[humblebum]

62. History is what it is, but you are speaking of historiography, not history.

And certainly not doing that particularly well. Ranke would be turning in his grave.

[The Magistrate]

64. If You Really Mean To Provide Some Fun For Us All, Sir,You Will Need To Step Up Your Game

[humblebum]

65. That's what I thought. If you are going to interpret history, then

then write it as it was, not with a 21st century atheistic spin added to it. That is called revisionist history, sir, in it's purest form.

[The Magistrate]

66. Anything Specific To Deny, Sir?

Are you going to seriously question the roots of religion in magic, in claims to influence and control natural events, or to deny the early developments of blood sacrifice?

[humblebum]

67. You know quite well that is not what I am referring to. That is why

I referred to the atheistic spin - terms such as "grifter", "graft", etc. Must be that new type of "atheistic critical historiography" I've been hearin' about.

[The Magistrate]

68. So You Agree, Sir, the Origin Was A Grifter's Gambit, And A Killer's Epiphany

Because my language is the plainest in which to put both things; the claim to do things one cannot in exchange for pay, and the institution of killing selected victims, not as an exercise in private compulsion or delight, but as a public ritual, at the core of the community's life,for which the killer receives homage rather than condemnation. That you do not like plain speech on the matter is no surprise.

"Where it is a duty to worship the sun,it will be a crime to inquire into the nature of heat."

[humblebum]

69. You simply proved my point. nt

[The Magistrate]

70. Actually, Sir, You Conceded Mine, And Had No Real Point Of Your Own

The root of religious practice and belief is the claim of a clergy that it can do things it cannot actually do, and will do them (even though it actually cannot) in exchange for goods and considerations: this is a confidence trick, the thing grifters make a living at.

Very early in religious practice, blood sacrifice, the killing, often by torturous means, of animals and human beings, emerged as one of the chief means clergy employed in their proclaimed control over natural events. This is what persons we are accustomed to consider serial killers do; they kill without compunction for some benefit to themselves, whether of pleasure or some other gain, and do so repeatedly, with an ever-greater elaboration of ritual in most cases..

Again, your discomfort with a blunt description of the thing is not an argument against its validity.

[humblebum]

71. You still don't see it do you. Your version of history is seriously flawed.

In order for things like blood sacrifice and other early forms of religious practices, to be called a confidence game, the priests would have had not to have believed in the things they were doing, which probably was not the case. More likely they believed just like those whom they were serving in their capacity as clergy. Historical interpretation requires one to be as objective as possible and to not add details to suit one's desired outcome.

My only discomfort here is seeing the truth stretched, as you are doing.

[The Magistrate]

72. So Your Argument, Sir, Rests On Believing People Used To Be Very, Very Stupid

Because it is quite obvious the rituals did not actually control, say, the amount of rain-fall in a given season. Belief in them past the failure was willed, was a deliberate decision to proceed despite evidence to the contrary. This decision would have been fortified by attachment to the perquisites of office; to admit the thing did not work would have been to surrender to the need to earn an honest living.

Now if you want to press the matter on the discourteous assumption that people thousands of years ago were dim creatures lacking self-awareness, incapable of reasoning from events and evidence, and incapable of seeing what was to their own advantage and acting in accordance with their self-interest if they had some edge over others, you are free to do so, though it still leaves you with the basic problem, which is that the things the clergy claimed it could do it could not do, and the means it frequently employed to look like it was doing something, even though it could do nothing, were sanguinary and murderous in many cases. You purchase innocence at the cost of arrogance in your own person, and confession foolishness and delusion lies at the root and heart of religious belief and practice. But something rooted in delusion and foolishness cannot produce anything that does not partake of the foolishness and delusion from which it springs, anymore than you can produce a building of cut stone when you have only timber to hand. My condensation of the actual lineaments of the matter at least does the ancients the courtesy of presuming them to be sentient as anyone nowadays would be presumed to be, and of treating them as responsible moral agents.

Of course, another reinforcing factor in not acknowledging the evidence the rituals did not work was the role religion quickly came to play in complex societies as a powerful means of social control. The ruler, and the leisured elite (of which the priests were one element) were always presented as being in their positions by sacred right, and to acknowledge any failure of religious practice to perform properly would have greatly weakened these claims. Indeed, suggestions the rituals of the cultus were ineffective would be rigorously suppressed, and this would be at its sternest precisely when it was most obvious that they were ineffective.

"The religious superstitions of the Empire were, to the people, all equally true, to the philosophers, all equally false, and to the officials, all equally useful."

[cleanhippie]

74. Game, Set, and Match. Well played, sir, well played.

I have taken a new path in my responses to that one lately, which was to summarize its posts into this emoticon: --->

but you, sir, have taken that exact same sentiment and eloquently put it into words that not only convey that message strongly, but dispatch his ignorance back into the cesspool from which it came. You certainly enlightened me with your prose, and I can only hope it learned something as well.


:applause:

[humblebum]

78. Sir, you are no historian, as you pretend to be. Trying to ascribe

21st century atheistic thought to ancient cultures that were steeped in ritual and superstition is either calculated deception on your part or naivete.

[The Magistrate]

80. You Know, Sir, You Going To Have To Actually Display Some Knowledge Of History One Of these Days....

No one familiar with your ouvre will be holding their breath for this, of course....

[humblebum]

85. It obvious that you have NO knowledge of historical methodology.

[The Magistrate]

86. This Repeated Charge Of Ignorance, Sir, Grows Tiresome Without Demonstration Of Your Expertise....

[humblebum]

87. I think that you are the one that made the claim that ancient civilizations

displayed the "enlightened" thinking processes of 21st century atheists. And yet there is not one bit of evidence to support your claim. Totally revisionist.

[The Magistrate]

88. Are You Of the View, Sir, That Human Beings Are More Intelligent Now Than Ten Thousand Years Ago?

The question, mind, is not, has there been an increased accumulation of knowledge, but are human beings brighter, smarter, more acute in their perceptions and mental processes, today, than they were ten thousand years ago?

[cleanhippie]

91. I'm not sure he believes that humans even EXISTED 10,000 years ago...

And good luck getting anything resembling a straight or honest answer...

[humblebum]

93. Sir, you need evidence to support what you claim.

We are not talking about intelligence, nor increased accumulation of knowledge. We are talking about the actual religious thoughts and practices, in general, of ancient civilizations. You keep throwing out this straw man. Show me some evidence that the "priests" of the ancient Chaldeans, as an example, knew that their gods really didn't exist, but that they were only doing a snowjob on their subjects to keep them in line.

Or even something more defensible, such as Tenskwatawa, the Shawnee Prophet, around the turn of the nineteenth century. He gained a huge following of Native Americans, who believed him to be their Savior. Did he really believe as his followers did? The answer is yes, he did. So for you to imply that as a rule, the ancients invented gods, or became gods, simply to keep people in line, knowing all along that it was all a hoax, is ridiculous. Having said that, I am sure there were a few con men in every age. But there is certainly no evidence to indicate such was the norm.

[The Magistrate]

95. Willed Belief, Sir, Is A Real Phenomenon

We have no evidence what the inner thoughts of Chaldean priests were; a statement they were certain of their deities' existence and the efficacy of their rituals is as speculative as any other other. There certainly is evidence their views were revised over time, as doctrines and practices did change, and by a few hundred years before the common era, there is evidence some were beginning to view many of their deities not as individual beings in their own right, but as facets of a central, singular deity.

In assessing things where there is no substantial internal evidence, one has to examine the outward form, and determine what it is, and what it does. My summation of the case does this accurately. For there can be no doubt that the rituals did not control natural events, and there can be little doubt the people in charge of performing the rituals failed to notice this. There are a few common alibis, of course; failure to perform the ritual correctly, some imperfection in persons performing the ritual, or some imperfection in the people on whose behalf the ritual is performed. But these are, actually, pretty shaky in their own right, and require a determined credulity to sustain.

It is at this point that the question you will not answer comes into play, because it is only if one postulates a noticeably lower intelligence that the idea people on the inside of a power structure do not notice its chinks and weaknesses becomes plausible. If one postulates no difference in perspicacity among humans down the millenia, then it becomes reasonable to conclude people by and large knew what they were doing, and that even the standard internal defenses of willed belief and confirmation bias must have given way on many occasions. It is certainly true that by the Classical Era in the Mediterranean world philosophers were quite easy with the idea of inculcating and maintaining in a populace beliefs they knew themselves to be false, because these would make ruling over them easier. Moving farther afield, this same idea can be found well-rooted in old China.

Your second bit opens up one more possibility, which is hardly a comfortable one from your point of view, and that is the effects of simple mental illness. If a person genuinely believes himself to be a supernatural savior, and is not at some level of awareness manipulating through that claim, then it is a flat statement of incontrovertible fact that that person is afflicted with serious mental illness, and would certainly meet a reasonable standard for commitment to involuntary treatment as a danger to oneself and others. Ability to convince others of the truth of one's delusions does not alter the fact that they are delusions. Press this line, and you gain innocence at the price of acknowledging mental illness must lie near the root of a great many religious figures, among them some of the most major of the breed.

Indeed, in the course of this discussion, you have given away for future use against you concession that unthinking superstition and diminished mental capacity, both in terms of intelligence, and basic soundness of mind, are chief features of the origins of religious belief. Trees are known not just by their fruit, but by their roots; indeed, it is the root determines what the fruit will be....

[humblebum]

99. You answered the question with the first sentence:

"We have no evidence what the inner thoughts of Chaldean priests were." Good night.

[The Magistrate]

100. This Is Why You Are So Reliable A Source Of Laughs, Sir: You Honestly Think This Scored You A Point

"Saints preserve us from the Ostritches!"

[laconicsax]

94. Excuse me, Magistrate, you've been trolled. n/t

[The Magistrate]

97. In Any Case, Sir, My Grand-Daughter Is Now Commandeering The Machine For Curious George Videos

Wife does not like to take sport in this forum for very long stretches of time, considering it a pointless waste of my time, at least once the initial joie de bataille fades, and really, she is right.

"On the whole,I'd rather be in Philadelphia."

[rug]

77. Jesus was a grifter and Peter was a serial killer.

I don't know who the first and second priests were in other religious traditions.

Nevertheless, that post ranks near the top of the stupidest posts among the 55,000,000 posted on DU.

Even as rhetoric, it's embarrassing.

[The Magistrate]

81. It Is The Concept Of Religion Itself, Sir, Not Any Particular Religion, Under Discussion

Christianity is a pretty late bloom on the tree, whose trunk and roots reach back many thousands of years.

Your comment illustrates the often reflexive conflation of 'Christianity' with 'Religion' that both marks, and frequently hampers, discussion here.

[rug]

83. Likening priest to grifters and serial killers does nothing to advance discussion.

Besides being stupid.

[The Magistrate]

84. Accurate Description is Always Helpful, Sir

Again, the origin of religious practice is the claim by some persons that they can do things they are actually incapable of, such as ensure plentiful game, plentiful rainfall, prevent or cure diseases, and similar things, and that they will provide such services to a community in exchange for goods and considerations, from which they live. This is a confidence trick, and persons who live by perpetrating confidence tricks are properly called grifters.

A chief tool of religious practice, appearing very early in its history, is blood sacrifice: the killing of various creatures, animals, and human beings, with these killings being presented as the means by which deities are moved to act in certain ways regarding natural or political phenomena. This is a pattern of behavior which, on its face, is that displayed by budding and mature serial killers, and it must have been a very clever one who insinuated his obsessive desire to kill into the heart of community rituals, gaining license for his need to shed to blood, rather than ostracization as a murderer, and even securing high social status in the community.

[rug]

89. It is. You should follow that advice.

Are you now limiting your description to religions that practice blood sacrifice?

Are you also limiting your description to religions that practice magic?

If you're not, your original post remains stunningly, stupidly inaccurate.

If you are, your post describes very few religions with very few adherents.

[The Magistrate]

90. The Question Is Origins, Sir, Of Religious Practice

The roots of religion are in magic, and religion even today bears the marks of this, like the hip-bones of a python. Simply to take the Bible for one example: it would be a wearying exercise indeed to catalogue all the various points at which it is stated certain behavior by the people will be rewarded by the deity with plentiful rain and good harvest, while other behavior will be punished by the deity with ruinous catastrophe. Even today there are, quite literally, millions of people in our country who hold the view that difficulties our nation faces stem from features of our culture that offend their deity, who is punishing the land for disobedience, and that the way to solve these problems is to cease giving offense to their deity.

Blood sacrifice has been a major component of religious practice, through-out its history, and the fact that it has fallen out of style in the modern era does not alter its foundational and historical significance. And again, even today religion bears the marks of this: after all, the founding myth of Christianity is the blood sacrifice of the Messiah to the deity Jehova.

[rug]

92. Your answer was in reply to Why All Religions Are Scams.

Your latter-day refinement does not reduce the baldness of your original post.

Nor, despite your insertion of anthropology, its naked stupidity.

[The Magistrate]

96. In Their Origin, Sir, They Certainly were' Scams'

And by and large they maintain that character to this day. If flat statement of this fact bruises the feelings of some believers, that is not my problem.

[rug]

98. I take back what I said about your insertion of anthropolgy.

Or perhaps it's the concept of a scam that confuses you.

Unless you actually believe the earliest religions were devised to knowingly perpertrate a fraud.

I'm eager to see which anthropologist has peddled this swill to you. If indeed there are any.

The issue is not bruised feelings but stupid statements.

[ladjf]

44. Snake oil. nt

[rrneck]

60. If religion promised only what it actually delivered

there wouldn't be a problem. Of course if it did that it would lose its edge over sports. It's a marketing thing...

[rug]

76. Poor Al is still doing penance for his past misdeeds.

http://mojoey.blogspot.com/2010/05/introducing-al-stefanelli.html