**Clothahump ** perhaps you could explain to me how the Amish are running a scam and a con
**Clothahump ** perhaps you could explain to me how the Amish are running a scam and a con
They charged me too much for an 8-ball.
Thump.
Thump.
Thump.
Trying to discuss this with you is like beating my head against my desk. It’s gonna feel so good when I stop.
I notice you very carefully omitted the second part of my explanation, because it shoots your nitpicking bullshit squarely in the ass. You keep harping on the fact that I only named three religions in my example as if that had some kind of validity as an argument; I picked those three very specifically for the reasons I stated: they are widely seperated in time and/or distance, so that the comparison wouldn’t mutate into a study of the various theologies.
Let’s turn the tables, amigo. And let’s just limit it to one religion, Christianity, because everyone is familiar with it. In a nutshell, the core of Christianity is this:
- There exists a supreme deity that created everything.
- Some 2000-odd years ago, that deity assumed an avatar and walked the earth in human form. We call that avatar Jesus.
- Jesus performed a variety of miracles that can only be explained by the use of the term magic, such as bringing dead people back to life and curing disease with a touch.
- Jesus was crucified and three days later, came back to life and then bodily ascended into what we, for lack of a better term, call heaven.
Please post conclusive proof that any of that is true.
funny 
but not exactly what I was talking about
It’s Christianity. It doesn’t matter what the particular cult is.
Since you were the one to make the original assertion that all religion is a scam it is up to you to prove it conclusively or retract it or change it.
I think you’ve demonstrated that much of organized religion includes some scam or hoax that certain people exploit to gain money or just influence over others.
Much, even , most, or even all save one , is not all.
That fact that the beliefs you’ve stated remain unprovable is not proof that it’s a scam. It only means they believe something they can’t prove scientificly. Even if you could prove that they are not true {I doubt you can} that would only indicate gullibility or stubborn unreasoning dogmatism. That doesn’t make it a scam or a con.
I’ve asked you about one specific faith. Explain how that one is a con and scam.
Here’s the sad thing, Brian. Most of them do. And they believe it with fire in their hearts. But they have been lied to, just like everyone else, by the ones who came before them, all the way up the line to the original con artist who started the religion. And as long as they continue to spread the lie, I group them in the con artist classification in their own right, because they are benefitting from the con.
Do churches have a positive benefit? Most of them do. Most of them are involved in charitable work, such as feeding the hungry, etc., and that is of benefit to the society. But they are doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.
It’s been said that there is a kernel of truth at the heart of every myth. One of the more interesting - and believable - conjectures I have read is that there really was a Jesus, and he really was the king of the Jews. Nothing divine, just a king. But he was a royal pain in the ass (sorry, couldn’t resist that) to the Romans and the local religious power structure both, so they conspired against him and brought him down. Here’s the really interesting part of the conjecture: he was crucified, but the fix was in and he didn’t die. He survived and went on to lead the rebels against the Romans until he died an old man at Masada in 72 CE.
It was the fact that his body was missing and he was later sighted in other places that supposedly led to someone framing a religion around him and claiming he was divine.
It certainly does matter. Jesus taught certain things that were corrupted by others.
The fact that the christian heritage of the Amish community contains a scam or a con does not make their particular faith one.
Here’s your chance to establish support for your outrageous claim. Have at it.
I won’t ask you about any other.
The fact is that it’s hard for any group made up of flawed human beings to not experience a little corupption. Thats not the same as your claim.
I was under the impression that I did that, back on page one, with the following link. Sure, you might have disagreed with the conclusion, but neither you, nor JThunder have refuted it, so I can not tell.
.
Now I understand your definition better. I guess if your statement is all relgions are a con and a scam under the definition I made up for myself , no one would object.
Thats Your opinion. You assume you know what their reasons are.
The fact is neither you or I know what the truth is. What’s interesting to me is how religions started by a scam artist can be used to help people to grow. If Joe Smith and Paul Twitchell tap into peoples hopes to start a new religion for their own benifit then they are con artists. People can still find the truth within the scam and use it to progress. The scam is a stepping stone for folks. Twitchell copies some profound writings and passes them off as his own. Someone reads them and learns something they might never have realized without coming in contact with the con artists. Their growth is real.
Someone claims to have invented the light bulb and sells me one for $50 bucks. He’s a con artist. Isn’t the light that comes from the bulb still light? Doesn’t it still remove the darkness and help me to see?
We don’t know for sure if Jesus even existed. I get the feeling that he probably never wanted to start a religion. That happened later with Paul and others .The same with Buddha. It seems like he just wanted to teach what he had learned and he was so revered that a religion developed.
It’s important to see the difference beween what I believe and what I know. Lots of religious folks have a hard time with that. So do the non religious.
pretty lenghty article so I skimmed. Is this the nugget?
there’s plenty wrong with this arguement. It is easily dismissed as any valid arguement that God doesn’t exist. regarding my request. Having beliefs that are untrue, religious or otherwise, are not by thenselves a scam or a con. If you can prove the Amish believe something that isn’t true so what. I assume most if not all religions teach something that isn’t true. That doesn’t make it a scam.
Right. You’re one to talk.
No, I omitted it because it’s irrelevant, for reasons that we shall see shortly.
If you want to claim that ALL religion is a scam job, then you MUST evaluate all the various theologies. Otherwise, you are guilty of cherry-picking your data.
If I wanted to, I could very specifically select three atheists, widely separated in time and/or distance, and use them to “prove” that all atheists are lying, sex-crazed philanderers. Such a methodology would be widely denounced though, and rightfully so.
And yet this has not stopped you from using that same methodology to “prove” that all religion is a scam. For shame.
And FTR, you have yet to prove that the three religious systems you described are indeed “con games.” You have asserted that they are, and have used further assertions (with a hefty dose of reckless logic) to “substantiate” your claims.
I think it has become increasingly obvious that you haven’t actually performed the “research” that you claim to use in arriving at your conclusion.
I did, in an earlier message.
Here’s an analogy that might help. Remember the old chestnut that you learned in Algebra I about how to prove that 2=1? Religion works the same way. Everything is logical and hangs together and “follows the rules” until you get to one point. And that point is the existance of a supreme deity. That’s where it falls apart. Religions present that as a truth: there is a supreme deity. Nobody, **and I mean absolutely nobody, ** knows whether a supreme deity exists. They may have a fervent wish that this be so, but that’s not proof.
As such, they are lying when they tell you definitely that one exists. I probably wouldn’t have issues with religion if they were open and honest and said, in effect, we really don’t know if one exists, but we think one does and here’s the shape, size and flavor we think it comes in. Actually, if they did, none of us would have problems, because I don’t think we would have any kind of religion extant.
We do know one aspect of the truth, as I said earlier, and that is that no one knows if there is a god of any kind.
An interesting analogy. However, I’m not sure if anyone grows in any manner from the study and practice of a religion of any kind. This may have to be a YMMV point.
Agreed. Actually, if you assume the bible story of Jesus is true, then he was actually a practicing Jewish rabbi who was interested in cleaning up the corruption of the temple and his faith. He wasn’t trying to start a new one.
Oh, bullshit. As I have repeatedly pointed out and you have chosen to ignore, I started with a base of three religions for simplicity. Plug as many as you want into my methodology AND IT STANDS UP EACH TIME.
FTR, it has become increasingly obvious that you don’t want to accept the vaguest possibility that I might be right, because it would upset your applecart too badly. As far as claiming that I didn’t spend nearly twnety years doing the studying that I did, JThunder, then you lose. Prove that I didn’t. That will be interesting.
I’ve carried on conversations with tree stumps that were more productive. It’s becoming clearer on a daily basis that discussing this with you is a waste of my time, because you’ll reject anything and everything I say simply because you don’t like it.
Which to me means those that believe have just as much chance of being right as those that don’t. You might be interested in reading the last few posts by **Kalhoun ** and NaturesCall in the spirituality thread. It kind of pulls it together for me. God is only a word that each person asigns meaning to based on his own understanding. I object when people try to limit the scope of that understanding to include only their own definition. You’re right that it has been exploited a great deal.
I might agree that strict adherance to any dogma is pretty limiting. It hinders growth rather than promoting it. In my own case I see my earlier experience as just my own path leading me to where I am now. I had to come to a place where I was willing to let go of certain concepts in order to move on.
Ummm pardon my ignorance,…whats YMMV?
good point. I also saw him as a great philosopher who saw some essential truth and taught it framed in religious context that he and those around him were familar with.
Do you mean it’s a con because it sprang from Christianity? That’s an inadequate explaination for me.
Absolutely nobody? Well now you have to prove that by naming everyone on the planet and offering evidence that they don’t know.
Whoops, sorry,…I thought I was Jthunder for a second there.
Two points; Since you can’t prove they’re wrong I’m not sure that fervent belief qualifies as lying? Even if I grant you that point lying alone doesn’t qualify as a scam or a con. That would apply only to those who knew they were lying and did so for the specific purpose of profiting.
You raise a good point. I hold the same objection. Those who hold their own beliefs and respectfully allow others to do the same, I have little beef with. Those who teach their followers not to question but instead go out and spread the good news of their own personal doctrine, I have much less respect for.
In thinking about this I have an observation and a question.
If someone says,“The spirit of God moved within me and testified that God is indeed real, and his love for me is real” you may consider them a gullible crackpot if you like but you can’t prove they are lying.
The fact that God’s existance can’t be proven scientifically to everybody doesn’t prove that by process of that internal testimony by the Holy Spirit doesn’t take place for that individual. It only means it’s personal and can’t be passed by external means from one person to another.
That being the case your assertion that absolutely nobody knows whether a supreme deity exists is a detail that you can’t know or prove. Doesn’t that mean that by making that assertion, you are lying in the way that you accuse religious folks of doing?
You are taking something that you have a fervent belief in and presenting it as a fact when you can’t actually prove it to be a fact,and in this case, even know.
This is where your arguement breaks down. I know many practitioners of Zen Buddhism, myself included, who have what we would consider sufficient evidence for the existence of something beyond this existence. I can’t show you this evidence, because seeing it requires a vast time investment in mental training you’re likely not willing to undergo.
For the record, I would love to know the scam inherent in Zen Buddhism. Given the lack of belief in any kind of supreme deity, a healthy dose of “we can’t say” about the afterlife, and the fact I’m not encouraged to give my money to anyone (full disclosure: I do pay to be taught at Zen retreats. I make more money than the average full-time teacher/leader on a yearly basis, so I’d be really disappointed if I went in it for the money, myself. =P) except the poor and/or needy people whose suffering it might ease…
I’m dead serious. No animosity. I’ll readily agree with you that many religions are set up to foster a structure of control and power/money-hoarding (Pauline Christianity is a great example).