a nice thing to see and religious con-artists

[fahrenheit 451]

I have'nt posted here for a while, the place seemed to be over-run, by (guess).
but tonight was the first time in ages, that only two of the last posts, of each thread out of the forty threads, were by lightgigantic, what a nice thing to see, maybe theres a light at the end of the tunnel, after all.(pun intended)

anyway enough of that.

Lots of people here have mentioned that theists have told them variations on "You're too nice/friendly/kind to be an atheist." It seems like there's a flipside to this. My brother lives in SW scotland, and he was telling me about a big investigation going on about a reliogious con-man accused of swindling millions of pounds out of many people. The funny thing is, many people who where swindled refuse to believe that he--and his henchmen--could possibly be guilty and will not report that their money is missing, because the fraudsters are xian or posed as xians. The con-men would join churches and religious organizations to find their marks. Now investigators are having a hard time getting people to come forward because these people have this near unshakable belief that it's all a Big Mistake. Likewise, I know many Muslims who refuse to believe that any Muslim could ever be a terrorist, because Muslims must be "good people" by definition. ... Do you ever get the impression religion is a system ideal for con-artists and probably created by them? Just like a con, it requires faith in the absence of evidence, there's always a really good story why there's no evidence, you must first invest something before the guarenteed payback, which never arrives.

so religion is a con and yet not one religious person realises it.

how do you convince a brick wall?.
how do you teach reason to an unreasonable person?.
how can you show what's rational to the irrational?.

 

[scorpius]

you cant ,like the leader of the bandits in Magnificent seven said:
"they are sheep and they were born to be sheared"

 

[Cris]

Of course the biggest con over here is the Mormons, and the victims still can't see that they have been conned. Absolutely incredible. I guess no one really wants to admit that they were stupid enough to fall for a con.

And there is the Church of Scientology - gee even the founder said if you want to make money then you should create a religion, and he was a master of science fiction as well. Why cannot these victims see how stupid they are?

 

[soccerace1214]

i have spent many hours of my life pondering over the reason behind the creation of religion. I believe that religion was created by wishful people who wondered about death and beyond (heaven). I also think that it keeps people in order and in line with the rules, for disobeyment results in eternal suffering (hell, according to many religions). I think your idea is just as reasonable because it makes perfect sense. I think it was a combination of many factors.

 

[lightgigantic]

I have'nt posted here for a while, the place seemed to be over-run, by (guess).
but tonight was the first time in ages, that only two of the last posts, of each thread out of the forty threads, were by lightgigantic, what a nice thing to see, maybe theres a light at the end of the tunnel, after all.(pun intended)

anyway enough of that.

Lots of people here have mentioned that theists have told them variations on "You're too nice/friendly/kind to be an atheist." It seems like there's a flipside to this. My brother lives in SW scotland, and he was telling me about a big investigation going on about a reliogious con-man accused of swindling millions of pounds out of many people. The funny thing is, many people who where swindled refuse to believe that he--and his henchmen--could possibly be guilty and will not report that their money is missing, because the fraudsters are xian or posed as xians. The con-men would join churches and religious organizations to find their marks. Now investigators are having a hard time getting people to come forward because these people have this near unshakable belief that it's all a Big Mistake. Likewise, I know many Muslims who refuse to believe that any Muslim could ever be a terrorist, because Muslims must be "good people" by definition. ... Do you ever get the impression religion is a system ideal for con-artists and probably created by them? Just like a con, it requires faith in the absence of evidence, there's always a really good story why there's no evidence, you must first invest something before the guarenteed payback, which never arrives.

so religion is a con and yet not one religious person realises it.

how do you convince a brick wall?.
how do you teach reason to an unreasonable person?.
how can you show what's rational to the irrational?.

The same could be played back on atheism - you could be conned.

In otherwords all you are doing is declaring your vantage point .... you don't actually present anything that is not a tentative claim.

 

[lightgigantic]

i have spent many hours of my life pondering over the reason behind the creation of religion. I believe that religion was created by wishful people who wondered about death and beyond (heaven). I also think that it keeps people in order and in line with the rules, for disobeyment results in eternal suffering (hell, according to many religions). I think your idea is just as reasonable because it makes perfect sense. I think it was a combination of many factors.

Then this makes you no better than the (assumed) creators of religion - you say religion was is just the result of a speculation, but then so is your analysis of it.

 

[SkinWalker]

The same could be played back on atheism - you could be conned.

In otherwords all you are doing is declaring your vantage point .... you don't actually present anything that is not a tentative claim.

The onus of proof lies with the superstitious to validate their magical claims. There are so many different and often contradictory notions of religious superstition, that the only logical course of action is to be agnostic until one rises to the occasion. Since none have....

 

[lightgigantic]

The onus of proof lies with the superstitious to validate their magical claims. There are so many different and often contradictory notions of religious superstition, that the only logical course of action is to be agnostic until one rises to the occasion. Since none have....

this is different than taking an affirmitive stance on the non -existance of god, which is the topic of the OP

 

[SkinWalker]

No, the topic of the OP was that religion is a con, which is demonstrably true. There could be a god in the universe and that statement would still hold true since religion is a human invention designed to pretend to offer appeasement to supernatural agency.

Whether or not a supernatural agent really exists is irrelevant to the fact that it is painfully obvious that if one does, humans obviously haven't the first clue about what it is. A god such as that described by any of the thousands of extant and extinct religious superstitions almost certainly doesn't exist since none of them has demonstrated any ability to possess knowledge of it.

Which brings us back to the OP's topic: religion is almost certainly a con. I would add that this is only true in most cases for most religions since I think there are those within religions who have right intentions for right reasons. They're still deluded, of course, but at least their intentions are in the right place.

 

[lightgigantic]

SkinWalker

No, the topic of the OP was that religion is a con, which is demonstrably true.

whatever

There could be a god in the universe and that statement would still hold true since religion is a human invention designed to pretend to offer appeasement to supernatural agency

.
ok

Whether or not a supernatural agent really exists is irrelevant to the fact that it is painfully obvious that if one does, humans obviously haven't the first clue about what it is.

or so it seems

A god such as that described by any of the thousands of extant and extinct religious superstitions almost certainly doesn't exist since none of them has demonstrated any ability to possess knowledge of it.

whatever

Which brings us back to the OP's topic: religion is almost certainly a con.

whatever

I would add that this is only true in most cases for most religions since I think there are those within religions who have right intentions for right reasons. They're still deluded, of course, but at least their intentions are in the right place.

or so it seems

 

[SkinWalker]

whatever

godsdamn right.

 

[lightgigantic]

godsdamn right.

I see

 

[Enterprise-D]

Wow someone was able to stall Lightee's posts for the moment. I'm marginally impressed

I am reminded of the point that religions have garnered for themselves a shield of undeserved respect...or rather a shield of undeserved protection from derision. The fact that the folks were swindled pales in comparison to the awe they have at the christianity outwardly displayed by the seemingly pious team of christians. They refuse to believe that christianity would allow for crooks.

Lightee, yes you can say a team of athiests conned folks, but you didn't follow that to the obvious conclusion...they'd be in jail and their victims will have already sworn, signed and delivered testimony affidavits to that effect. Whatever and no matter the belief of the victim(s).

One of the purposes of the OP was to show that these particular con artists are getting away with their crime because of their use of the victims' greatest weakness...blind faith.

 

[lightgigantic]

Enterprise D

I am reminded of the point that religions have garnered for themselves a shield of undeserved respect...or rather a shield of undeserved protection from derision. The fact that the folks were swindled pales in comparison to the awe they have at the christianity outwardly displayed by the seemingly pious team of christians. They refuse to believe that christianity would allow for crooks.

so if one is crooked they are all crooked? How many parents have failed in their duties? How many husbands have cheated on wives? How many wives have cheated on husbands? How many politicians have been found red handed in embezzling - doe s that mean we should also disband parents, wives, husbands politicians and everything else too?

Lightee, yes you can say a team of athiests conned folks, but you didn't follow that to the obvious conclusion...they'd be in jail and their victims will have already sworn, signed and delivered testimony affidavits to that effect. Whatever and no matter the belief of the victim(s).

I wasn't aware that they were in jail for being religious - I thought they were in jail for breaking the law - its not clear how an atheist is immune from such allegations

One of the purposes of the OP was to show that these particular con artists are getting away with their crime because of their use of the victims' greatest weakness...blind faith.

People susceptable to blind faith (or its binary opposite, "blind doubt") are apt to be cheated with or without theism/atheism.
Despite what you believe, theism doesn't have the monopoly on blind faith (and atheism doesn't have the monopoly on blind doubt) anymore than they have the monopoly on brown hair

 

[Godless]

Here you go Fahrenheit have a nice laugh, and he also tells ya about religion!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzHlMs2rSIM

 

[Enterprise-D]

I forgot I posted on this thread lol

Enterprise D


so if one is crooked they are all crooked? How many parents have failed in their duties? How many husbands have cheated on wives? How many wives have cheated on husbands? How many politicians have been found red handed in embezzling - doe s that mean we should also disband parents, wives, husbands politicians and everything else too?

I wasn't aware that they were in jail for being religious - I thought they were in jail for breaking the law - its not clear how an atheist is immune from such allegations

People susceptable to blind faith (or its binary opposite, "blind doubt") are apt to be cheated with or without theism/atheism.
Despite what you believe, theism doesn't have the monopoly on blind faith (and atheism doesn't have the monopoly on blind doubt) anymore than they have the monopoly on brown hair

You missed the entire point Lightee; what I was saying is that the victims here aren't testifying against THESE particular crooks because of their affiliation with Christianity. Were THESE crooks athiests they'd be in jail with full disclosure and lawsuits from the SAME victims.

You are of course quite correct that jail time is for lawbreakers no matter what religious belief or lack thereof they have. You are also quite correct that anyone can be swindled.

Side note: I've never heard of blind doubt, I suspect that this is yet another theist coinage in defense against logic. However that said, I think I can safely say that most athiests or agnostics are skeptics rather than "blind doubters".

 

[lightgigantic]

I forgot I posted on this thread lol





You missed the entire point Lightee; what I was saying is that the victims here aren't testifying against THESE particular crooks because of their affiliation with Christianity. Were THESE crooks athiests they'd be in jail with full disclosure and lawsuits from the SAME victims.

You are of course quite correct that jail time is for lawbreakers no matter what religious belief or lack thereof they have. You are also quite correct that anyone can be swindled.

Side note: I've never heard of blind doubt, I suspect that this is yet another theist coinage in defense against logic. However that said, I think I can safely say that most athiests or agnostics are skeptics rather than "blind doubters".

Blind doubt is a philosphical premise that for every extreme there is an opposite extreme (and such opposites tend to be quite similar - like compare fascism and communism - politically opposed but the same in terms of social practicality) - so if someone can believe in something for no good reason a person can also doubt something for no good reason (like for instance, a person who drops dead from dehydration because they doubt water is healthy)

 

[Cris]

Enterprise,

Looks like LG doesn't like being constantly reminded that all his beliefs are all using irrational blind faith and is inventing nonsense terms to fight against the rational among us. Looks like desperation to me.

 

[lightgigantic]

Enterprise,

Looks like LG doesn't like being constantly reminded that all his beliefs are all using irrational blind faith and is inventing nonsense terms to fight against the rational among us. Looks like desperation to me.

or alternatively it is the inability of the atheists to address the issue of blind doubt that causes the use of the language of unconsciousness.

PS - just some general advice - when I feel the need to post message that can be viewed as an ad hom I tend to PM them to people i want to speak to rather than unnecessarily flaming 3rd parties inthe cross fire by posting them on the open post -

 

[Enterprise-D]

LOL ah love it!

Page one of google search on the phrase blind doubt reveals nothing of use. I would think if "blind doubt" was a real term it'd have a Wik definition at least. A similar google search of "blind faith" however reveals 4 sites of relevance. One of which is a Wik definition.

Of course a google search does not answer much with absolute certainty, but it's a pretty good start

Lets try it on Britannica.com

Blind doubt reveals nothing of use (no surprise there). Blind faith reveals an article on fideism...which is a philosophical view promoting blind faith!

See: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9034189/fideism

Oh dear Lightee...

At any rate, in Lightee's defense that was a quick lookup done in 10 minutes, merely glancing at the first few articles. Maybe there's an authoritative youtube video somewhere on blind doubt?


Lightee I forgot to tell you I like your latest avatar