Religion Is a Scam

My problem with billboards with messages like that, and most protest signs in general, is that they tell people what to think rather than how to think. It doesn't have substance. The message carries as much persuasive weight as a "No blood for oil" sign at a war protest or "BP Kills" or "Stop Global Warming" at an environmentalist protest. Would any religious person actually stop and think "oh, this billboard has me thinking maybe I'm following a scam", not likely.

Post 21

Tuesday, January 11, 2011 - 8:21pm

I miss Ellen Johnson

Prayer is talking to yourself. We do it in groups so as not to feel foolish.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8krBx_YKWGU

Governor calls for day of prayer to beg God for rain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PspbH0kYmcY

On May 2, 2008 it was announced on the American Atheists blog that Johnson was leaving her post as President.[ On May 7, 2008, it was made public that Ellen Johnson was removed involuntarily by a vote of the board of directors. The reason was not revealed
WIkipedia here

Post 22

Wednesday, January 12, 2011 - 5:37am

Whatever happened to Ellen Johnson? is like she just disappeared...

Post 23

Wednesday, January 12, 2011 - 6:15am

Read a testimony about Ellen Johnson's removal here.

The silliness rivals that of the coerced resignation of John McCaskey from the board of the Ayn Rand Institute.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 1/12, 6:15am)

Post 24

Sunday, February 27, 2011 - 5:07am

(Edited by Kate Gladstone on 2/27, 5:08am)

Post 25

Sunday, February 27, 2011 - 5:09am

After making a post, I realized it duplicated someone else's, so I removed it.

Post 26

Sunday, February 27, 2011 - 10:17am

Good afternoon. Why am I here? A number of months ago I posted a comment -and many subsequently- on a web site operated by a follower of Objectivism. I have rarely been treated with such discourtesy. What I found astonishing about the man was that he proclaimed to be a Christian. I understand Objectivism somewhat--and this is way I have joined this website--but from what I understand the Objectivist philosophical system rejects the notion of a God. I would appreciate it if someone would explain your position as it regards Christianity. (I am a born again Christian.) Thank you very much.

Post 27

Sunday, February 27, 2011 - 11:06am

Hi Steve,

Welcome aboard! :-)

In answer to your question, Objectivism rejects any form of the supernatural and does not regard the concept of God as logically defensible. Accordingly, it rejects all religions including Christianity. It does, however, respect a person's right to believe in and to practice whatever religion he or she chooses, so long as the practice of that religion does not violate individual rights.

If you would like to discuss or to debate that position, please feel free to do so. This is an open forum, and as long as your discussion is civil and respectful, you will be treated with the same respect.

Cheers,

Bill

Post 28

Sunday, February 27, 2011 - 11:31am

Steve,

An Objectivist only accepts an idea as "true" (consistent with reality) by evidence or deduction. In other words, using sensory to collect information about what is happening, using the Scientific Method to discover cause and effect, and using induction to categorize and generalize, and logical deduction to come to new conclusions.

Christianity holds "faith" as a basis to its belief system. Faith is accepting an idea when the idea lacks evidence, or even when contradictory to evidence. An Objectivist considers faith as a corruption of one's knowledge. Ideas accepted by faith are either useless or counter productive.

For example, lets say: Someone tells you that aliens will begin flying by your house every day at 3:00pm. Also, that if you are not at your house at that time they will enter your house and fill it with video and audio recording devices. Lastly, they will come and abduct you at night when they know you are sleeping... but they are only able to do this if they first are able to spy on you.

You could either accept this as true (say mainly by faith because the person has not provided evidence, merely made the claim), and now make it a high priority goal to be home every day at 3:00pm... or you could decide that the alien story lacks evidence, and hence continue living your life as usual.

One good example in Christianity, is Jesus's example of being a pacifist. In Christiantiy, being a pacifist is considered a good thing. A bully makes fun of you, takes your lunch money, slaps you in the face. The good Christian is supposed to take the beating and in return be nice to the bully. Somehow this is supposed to make the bully become a better person and resolve the situation. In reality, bullies don't stop being bullies if you are nice to them... if you reward them as they are bullying, they have no reason to stop and they become worse of a problem for you.

Why accept that Jesus's example is the good behavior? Why not defend yourself by making the bully net lose? Because the bible says "to be a pacifist is good". "Being home every day at 3:00pm is good."

John 3:16. Cornerstone of the Christian religion. Believe in Jesus, and you will live forever. Belief in Jesus requires faith, there is no evidence of Jesus interacting with people today, only silly coincidences that people claim are Jesus. Like ghost stories. The only argument for Jesus is that a large number of people claim his truth. This is a logical fallacy that many other people believing something is evidence that something is true. It may highlight that something is worth investigating, but others believing something does not count as evidence.

An Objectivist would think that a benevolent God would not want anyone to accept an idea on faith. Because having the policy of accepting ideas based on faith results in a corruption of one's knowledge. Ideas accepted by faith are either useless or counter productive. Hence an Objectivist cannot be a Christian. Unless... his beliefs in Christianity do not include faith, then that's a different matter.

I hope that answers your question. :)

======================

Interactions between an Objectivist and a Christian can be mutually beneficial. Specialization, the products of our labor, and trading in the free market economy make most interactions mutually beneficial. The conflicts may come in when a Christian tries to limit the private life of others. Or the main conflict between Objectivists and others: Does need trump property rights?

An Objectivist holds that a person has the right to do whatever they want with their own property, that other's needs do not justify non-consensual use of another's property. For example, the most extreme case: An Objectivist may hold that a woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her own body, including performing an abortion to discontinue a child feeding off of her body. That the child's need for her in order to live does not trump her right to do what she wants to do with her own body.

A Christian on the other hand, may hold that its a person's duty to provide for other's needs. The child need's the woman's body in order to live, and hence the woman must follow through with the pregnancy and give birth to the child-- even if she does not consent to the child feeding off of her and considerably changing her life.

Cheers,
Dean
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores on 2/27, 11:33am)

Post 29

Sunday, February 27, 2011 - 11:32am

Hello Steve, that is an odd finding, I've never heard of a Christian who is also an Objectivist. I would like to to give my stance on religion (and Objectivism) if you wouldn't mind.

I was (and currently am) being raised by a Christian family. I attended CCD (Confraternity of Christian Doctrine) for eight years until I was confirmed into the Roman Catholic church. I even attend services with my family every Sunday. I've also studied many religions (mostly the major ones i.e. Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Native American religions, and some basic religions).

My first exposure to Objectivism was when I was 16 (I was an advocate of Socialism, believe it or not, before that time) and have been interested in it ever since.

I am well versed in Objectivist ethics, politics, and epistemology; I know only a little of the Objectivist take on metaphysics. Therefore I can't say much on Objectivism's view of god. However, I do know that a fair amount of Objectivists are atheists. What I can say is that Objectivist philosophy considers reason man's only means of acquiring new information and that existence is an absolute. Needless to say, I'm not an authority on the subject.

Back to my stance on religion. I can't quite call myself an Atheist as of yet. I'm more of an Agnostic on the brink of becoming an Atheist. The reason for my skepticism of the existence of god is because the existence of god is unprovable. It can neither be proved nor disproved. (I'm going to be shot down by the flak cannons of reason in 3....2.....1.....) No no no..... That isn't quite right. Many say the idea of god can't be disproved. However, this is no reason to believe in something i.e. have faith. It is the responsibility of the speaker to prove his claims with empirical evidence if he wants them to be believed and accepted. The absence of such evidence is grounds for dismissal of said claim. That is the way I currently view claims. That is also why I can't just "have faith" in something, and believe blindly.

I should add that the idea of god may be disprovable, but not by me, I currently lack the mental ability to do so.

I hope you find this comment somewhat useful.

It looks like William and Dean beat me here anyway, so your question was probably already answered.
(Edited by Kyle Jacob Biodrowski on 2/27, 11:36am)

Post 30

Sunday, February 27, 2011 - 11:40am

Kyle,

Might I propose: You believe that all religions known to you are inconsistent with reality, false. This makes you a non-believer to those religions. An atheist to those religions.

On the other hand, you are agnostic to whether a "God" exists, or what properties this "God" might have. What properties of "God" would you consider as possible?

By the way, I was raised as an Evangelical Christian. I went through the motions for my first 13 years, and followed its ethics quite closely. I was a very good Christian. On the other hand, I had always rejected faith. I simply couldn't believe something without evidence. Eventually I realized that John 3:16 implies an unreasonable God, and I rejected Christianity. Not to mention that the evidence of the history of the Earth, and the fossil record, and evolution contradict the Christian biblical creation story.
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores on 2/27, 11:47am)

Post 31

Sunday, February 27, 2011 - 12:09pm

Dean, the only properties I could think of a god possessing would all be inconsistent with reality as indicated by contradictions or other fallacies. Indeed, you may wonder why I'm not an atheist. I've always thought of myself as unprepared to deal with the question of the existence of god. Uncertainty always bogs down my mind when I try to answer this question.

Post 32

Sunday, February 27, 2011 - 1:41pm

Kyle, On the battle with uncertainty:

A is A. Reality exists. From your perspective, saying to yourself "I am thinking, I exist". These are axioms. They simply cannot be false.

All other ideas can be arranged in sets of ideas that are consistent with each other. Such a set can be consistent with reality, or inconsistent (true or false). You cannot be absolutely certain that a set of ideas is true unless the set only contains the 3 axioms.

For example, the idea "The pencil in my hand is more massive than the feather on my desk" may or may not be consistent with reality. Measure on a scale, or a lever. Now you have evidence of which is more massive.

But... evidence is no the same thing as the thing itself. Evidence is doubtable. There may have been something that you failed to measure or take into consideration that caused your measurement to make you come to a different conclusion than what is true.

For example, maybe when measuring the feather, there was an updraft of air that you failed to recognize. The feather's mass was actually higher than measured. Try measuring the weight of a material in a gaseous state on a scale, it will read 0 mass. For measuring a the mass of a gas, you would need to perform a different kind of measurement, like encapsulating the air, putting the encapsulation in a vacuum, and then applying force to the encapsulation, and comparing the acceleration to the acceleration when the encapsulation is empty. F=MA.

So sets of ideas, even when based on evidence, can be false. Uncertainty, how terrible! :) Actually, that there is a glimmer of uncertainty is irrelevant. Irrelevant to your life, to accomplishing your goals.

When you create plans for what you will do, you simulate the results of your actions in your mental image of how reality works. To make the most accurate predictions, its best to fill that image with ideas that are true and vital. Except for non-axiom ideas, you are not absolutely certain such ideas are true. Never the less, you can be extremely certain that many ideas are true, with all evidence pointing to them being true, and most plans using them being predicted correctly and resulting successfully.

Confidence in the truth and vitality of an idea due to evidence and reason, how wonderful! :)

================

"God" exists. "God" is all knowing. "God" knows what you should do.

If we stop here, note that these ideas are irrelevant to your life. Whether they are true or not, they have no influence on anything that you will ever encounter in your life.

"God" says you should devote your life to doing what he says. "God" says if you don't believe that he is true, then you will be tortured for eternity. "God" says that if you believe that he is true, you will live forever in paradise. "God" says you should help others. "God" says you should give me (Dean) 5% of the products of your work.

Lets meet once a week and sing about how great "God" is, I'll read some things in this book that was written by people who interacted with "God", give you some advice may very well be good, and then you can give me that 5%.

Now we've added some more ideas that do have a significant impact on your life. Whether you accept them as true or not leads to a significant change in your primary goals in life and what you do with your time and money.
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores on 2/27, 1:43pm)

Post 33

Sunday, February 27, 2011 - 1:43pm

Kyle (and Steve),

To be clear, a-theism, is the absence of theism, not the presence of its opposite. All it means is a lack of theistic belief, not the "positive" belief in the non-existence of God. For Objectivists, the question of God doesn't even come up, because it is conceptually arbitrary.

And welcome to the forum, Steve.

Ed

p.s. Some folks differentiate atheism into two kinds, hard and soft. A hard atheist has conviction or is convinced that God is dead (or doesn't exist). A soft atheist is somewhat more like what people refer to as agnostic -- but without the usual criticisms of the agnostic position. In that respect, they don't share the conviction of the hard atheist because it is epistemologically improper to have any kind of conviction toward something that is arbitrary.

Post 34

Monday, February 28, 2011 - 5:01am

I made several post yesterday but none appeared in the forum. If this post is posted I will again attempt to respond to those who responded to my question.

Post 35

Monday, February 28, 2011 - 9:59am

Sorry Steve. Not sure how your posts were lost. I just gave you 10 atlas points to take you off of moderation. Don't abuse it!

Make sure to allways do a post preview/spellcheck preview before pressing "post", otherwise your last changes will be lost.

Post 36

Monday, February 28, 2011 - 10:14am

This is a test

Monday, February 28, 2011 - 12:10pm

Thank you Dean:

I am not a theologian. Consequently, I shall not assume the mantle of the apostle Paul and fight the good fight until my metaphysical beheading in defense of the faith. But I will explain my faith. I was raised in a very Christian home-mainline Presbyterian-and at some point made a commitment to Christ. Late in my teens I became more interested in drugs and heterosexual sex then attending church. Albeit I forsook the assembling of the believers I did not completely surrender my conscience to the then spirit of the age. After my sex, drugs and rock and roll phase I married, fathered two children and lived a very comfortable luke warm middle class christian life.

During this period I always felt the tug of the Holy Spirit--you would probably define "the tug" as a normal function of conscience. The next spirit of the age to effect me was feminism/materialism. The power of that "satanic" spirit(s) cost me my wife and my two children--my wife had an adulterous affair with her boss-she demanded a divorce, took our children and married her lover and his money and his professional status. During this crisis in my life the Lord delivered me from my personal hell--The "touch" was so dramatic I felt as if I was going to lose my mind. Paul describes it as being caught up in a heaven.

Two things were shown to my soul at that time: Heaven and hell. The images were seared into my mind. Even if I choose not to believe the experiences the experiences will not leave me. They are in my mind and each experience has its own power. It took my almost 10 years before I would allow my consciousness to look at the memory of hell--it was that terrifying.

Since then my understanding of God has come to me in visions as well as the written. My father past away last year. The vision that followed his death is an example. I am looking at my father in my minds eye, he has died-and angel who ministers to the dead appears and lifts my father's spirit out of his dead organic body. The angel has my father in his arms and as he is walking away the angel stops turns his head to look at me, smiles and winks. The most profound vision I have received was Christ on the cross. I do not think vision is the right term. It was if I was there. I was seated at the foot of his cross with my back pressed to the vertical beam of the cross. I was very angry--filled with resentment-I could hear him groaning in pain, but I was trying to ignore what was going on above me. The sky was thick with clouds and looked like rain so I did not think much of several droplets of liquid as they struck my forehead ( my spiritual eye) and began to run down between my eyes and along the side of my nose. I reached up with my right hand to wipe the moisture away. Which I did, but when I looked at my hand it was streaked with blood. It was at that moment I turned and looked up at Jesus and in anger asked him " Why are you doing this ?! " He looked down at me smiled and said " Because, I love you!" His smile disappeared then he lifted his head and gazed at the sky before him. He then said" Behold!" I turned and looked at the sky as a spiritual veil was opened. It is hard to describe what I saw. It was the war in heaven, but the creatures were entities I had never seen or imagined before. Nevertheless they were locked in combat. The experience gave meaning to Ephesians chapter 6 verse 12:

"For we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places." Those I some of the reasons I believe.

Dean you wrote:

"Christianity holds "faith" as a basis to its belief system. Faith is accepting an idea when the idea lacks evidence, or even when contradictory to evidence. An Objectivist considers faith as a corruption of one's knowledge. Ideas accepted by faith are either useless or counter productive."

I would argue that the events I have described were divine knowledge transmitted to me in a fashion I could understand--it is not knowable to man in his/her current spiritual and intellectual state how God exercises His Will and power. It is my understanding that we do not have the ability to understand the concepts partly because we do not understand the language of God,( but mostly because we can not be trusted with that knowledge..)but with out a mastery of the language of the divine no one will ever be able to see or experience the kingdom of thought He rules. It is not that God wishes to withhold truth--it is that "You can not handle the truth." That is why it is by faith fueled by amazing visions that I believe.

I had a question to ask you about Abortion.

You wrote : "An Objectivist may hold that a woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her own body, including performing an abortion to discontinue a child feeding off of her body. That the child's need for her in order to live does not trump her right to do what she wants to do with her own body."

In 1964 Rand stated:

" The right to life is the source of all rights--and the right to property is their only implementation without property rights, no other rights are possible."
After reading Rands quote it seems to me that Rand believes the unborn child's right to life trumps the property rights of the expecting mother.Your thoughts please.

Also,if the right to life trumps all other property rights. Does the woman who is an Objectivist duty bound to give the gift of life to a child? Rand was childless was she not? Did she choose not to have a child or was she infertile? If she refused to bear children how can that be justified by her? Is it a woman's duty to give life? Thank you for your time.

Blessings Steve

Post 38

Monday, February 28, 2011 - 3:20pm

There is no such thing as an 'unborn child' - a child is what has been born... a fetus is NOT a child, but a 'child-in-the-making', a potential, not an actual - and it is when it breaths the air, and its systems are on their own, that a child's life begins - and that is at birth...

an egg is not a chicken - only when the egg hatches is it a chicken, and the chicken's life begins at the hatching, NOT before... if the egg never hatches, it is because was infertile, or the potential chicken never developed into the chicken...

this is biology 101, and it pertains across the board... indeed, as Dawkins points out in his The Greatest Show on Earth, there is no 'blueprint' which directs to the end of birth, but that of 'locale effects' which together, by the nature of the interactions, ends - usually - with the birthing of a new life... and with which there are, as consequences, a number of miscarriages due to one or many factors...

in humans, as they, possessing volitional consciousness, and recognising their bodies as being their own, their initial property, this miscarriage includes as one of the factors, their conscious decision not to carry forth the completion of the potential for whatever reasons the individual woman involved chooses... there is no 'duty' because we are not slaves, and 'duty' is a slaver mindset - procreation takes a back seat to choice, so to speak - individuals exist for their own sake, not that of a group, to the well-being of the individual woman, not that of the aggregate around her... if the individual woman chooses to bear a child, and circumstances make it not to her well-being to continue the bearing, then there is no child - if she chooses to bear a child and it carries forth into having a child, then she does, as a matter of choice, of consciously wanting the child - not of any supposed 'duty'...

Post 39

Monday, February 28, 2011 - 4:05pm