"Prosperity Gospel"

[sol]

@sol

Didn't expect an actual response from you and wasn't surprise that you just fought with a strawman that most major denominations abandoned shortly after Martin Luther posted his Theses.

This entire thread is rehashing old arguments.  I don't repeat them because they are novel, but because there are clearly people here who have not heard them before.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

I don't see the irony? Moral Reltivism is bad

I bet you don't see the irony in that statement either.

[brooklynguy]

I think you missed the "consistently."  IE: this is not the only time he has been inflammatory of religion and while this particular instance may not have been that offensive, it was just another in a long train of abuses (in the mind of that poster) that have repeatedly gone unmoderated.  I can not vouch for the factuality of this because I don't keep very good mental track of who says what, but when Sol is equating all Christians with the few who swindle people on television and condone rape and he doesn't realize (or at least purposefully ignores) that much of Deuteronomy is a health book it isn't hard to realize that he probably is inflammatory of religion all the time.

The events that transpired in this thread are representative of the overall pattern across the forum, and my response applies equally to the allegation of "consistent" abuses.  Sol periodically says something to the effect of "I don't know about you, but my own worldviews are derived from logic and reason and verifiable truths ascertainable from observable, objective reality, not tall tales about ghosts or vampires or invisible bearded men in the sky," which (understandably) ruffles the feathers of anyone whose belief systems are based on religion / magic.  But why should that be moderated?  Forum rule # 1 ("don't be a jerk") sets forth a standard of conduct that is, of course, subjective in nature, but sol has not, in my view, crossed that line either in this thread or, as far as I can recall, in any other where the topic of religion has come up.  People are quick to raise their torches and pitchforks when their fundamental belief systems are being questioned, but the questioner is no more blameworthy than my two-year old making an observation about the body mass index of a fellow subway passenger.

[EricP]

I don't see the irony? Moral Reltivism is bad

I bet you don't see the irony in that statement either.

Oh yes, because it's only Moral Relativism that I am using to make the statement that Moral Relativism is bad and not the realization that Moral Relativism is a self-defeating system of morality.  No point in continuing this discussion since you apparently legitimately think that busting into someone's house and killing them under the claims that this is your system of morality is a legitimate way to determine morality.

[Jack]

he doesn't realize (or at least purposefully ignores) that much of Deuteronomy is a health book

To the extent that Deuteronomy is a health book, it's also not religious. Claiming otherwise would be as absurd as claiming that the supermarket turns into a church whenever the preacher goes to buy groceries. (In other words, your statement is a fallacy of composition.)

FYI, the only "grounding" my morality needs is the Golden Rule, which is a logically obvious axiom and has no religious basis.

So moral relativism through and through.

Only if you don't know what "moral relativism" means. Here's a hint: judging everybody else's actions by my moral standards is not moral relativism.

Edit:  To answer your question.  I doubt you would be able to get sanctioned as a church.  It's not simple by any means, even though the Church of Pot got approved rather quickly.

Are you saying that it's not simple for a new religious organization of any faith to get sanctioned, or that it's not simple for an organization not of a previously-well-established religion to get sanctioned?

[Jack]

I could actually give a fuck what anyone believes or doesn't believe.

"That means you do care, at least a little" -- Weird Al Yankovic, Word Crimes

[EricP]

Edit:  To answer your question.  I doubt you would be able to get sanctioned as a church.  It's not simple by any means, even though the Church of Pot got approved rather quickly.

Are you saying that it's not simple for a new religious organization of any faith to get sanctioned, or that it's not simple for an organization not of a previously-well-established religion to get sanctioned?

The second one.  Unless your religion has a long history it's going to be difficult to get sanctioned and receive the tax benefits (minister housing allowance, property tax exemption, etc.) of a religious institution.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

I don't see the irony? Moral Reltivism is bad

I bet you don't see the irony in that statement either.

Oh yes, because it's only Moral Relativism that I am using to make the statement that Moral Relativism is bad and not the realization that Moral Relativism is a self-defeating system of morality.  No point in continuing this discussion since you apparently legitimately think that busting into someone's house and killing them under the claims that this is your system of morality is a legitimate way to determine morality.

OK, since you're being intentionally obtuse, I will spell it out for you. Here is a basic definition of moral relativism: the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.

I find it ironic that Christianity opposes moral relativism because I have sat through countless sermons where a preacher pulls out a controversial (and immoral, by today's standards) verse, and explains why it would have made sense in the time and culture in which the scipture was written. That is, by definition, moral relativity. Some of the scriptures that I've heard explained away by moral relativity include: Deuteronomy 25:11-12; Deuteronomy 21:18-21; Deuteronomy 23:1; Exodus 21:20-21; Numbers 31:17-18; Leviticus 20:15; Leviticus 25:44-46 ; Leviticus 15: 19-20; 1 Corinthians 14:34-36; etc. I won't belabor the point.

[regulator]

I could actually give a fuck what anyone believes or doesn't believe.

"That means you do care, at least a little" -- Weird Al Yankovic, Word Crimes

Meh, I plead colloquial usage.

[mathlete]

Ugh.

It's time to end "tax exempt" once and for all. That includes 501(c) too.

It's a nice idea but some people are always just going to ruin it for everyone else.

[Cathy]

It's the last part where you really go off the rails: "no real grounding to their moral compass?"  What does belief in the supernatural have to do with morality? Are you suggesting that morality is somehow derived from religion?

Religion gives an actual foundation to morality. That is, the divine is telling us how to act.  Obviously it is still up to humans to interpret it, but there is an actual grounding to it.

Here is a pithy quote on this topic:

Suppose I have a friend, Fred, who is (in my carefully considered opinion) always right. If I tell you I'm against stem-cell research because "my friend Fred says it's wrong and that's all there is to it," you will just look at me as if I was missing the point of the discussion.           — Daniel Dennett, Breaking the Spell (2006), p 296 (emphasis in original)

[sol]

Unless your religion has a long history it's going to be difficult to get sanctioned and receive the tax benefits (minister housing allowance, property tax exemption, etc.) of a religious institution.

Did you watch the John Oliver piece in the OP?  He does precisely this, and makes it look pretty easy. 

New churches are popping up all the time.  I wouldn't want some government bureaucrat deciding which to sanction and which to forbid, I guess, so they just sanction them all and then don't bother to audit any of them for fear of being accused of religious discrimination.  The whole system is ripe for abuse.

[Jack]

Unless your religion has a long history it's going to be difficult to get sanctioned and receive the tax benefits (minister housing allowance, property tax exemption, etc.) of a religious institution.

Did you watch the John Oliver piece in the OP?  He does precisely this, and makes it look pretty easy. 

New churches are popping up all the time.  I wouldn't want some government bureaucrat deciding which to sanction and which to forbid, I guess, so they just sanction them all and then don't bother to audit any of them for fear of being accused of religious discrimination.  The whole system is ripe for abuse.

I wonder if "Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption" claims to be a Christian church, or something else?

[forummm]

It's the last part where you really go off the rails: "no real grounding to their moral compass?"  What does belief in the supernatural have to do with morality? Are you suggesting that morality is somehow derived from religion?

Religion gives an actual foundation to morality. That is, the divine is telling us how to act.  Obviously it is still up to humans to interpret it, but there is an actual grounding to it.

Secular systems of morality, while still have merit, have no actual grounding.  It's just a bunch of smart people arguing over which one of their systems is "better."  I, for one, can't really determine what's better deontology or utilitarianism and end up just needing to do secular morality cafeteria style.  Sure, lying is bad, but I'm going to lie to protect some Jews, but I really don't want to pull the lever and kill the one person even when I know that I'm going to save three.

So, while secular morality still has merit, I think the statement that it "has no grounding" is factually accurate.  Most "secular morality practitioners" (and by this I mean your average atheist) are going to just be moral relativists anyways, so I have no problem saying that they (moral relativists) have "no grounding."

I disagree. People made up the "grounding" wrt religious beliefs. Same with secular morality. There's no difference. Groups of people just decided to have these morals for whatever reason. And different religions have different morals because those groups of people decided to have different moral beliefs. It's all made up by people.

In my experience, religious people who get their knickers in a twist about atheists thinking everyone should naturally respect their particular set of supernatural beliefs generally themselves don't think all supernatural beliefs deserve the same respect. Heaven's Gate, Scientology, FLDS, etc.,  How do people believe that crap?

Respecting your right to believe magic isn't the same as believing your magic deserves respect.

I could actually give a fuck what anyone believes or doesn't believe.  What I find amazing is that atheists/agnostics/heathens/whatever the hell they call themselves seem to go out of their way to attack religion/religious beliefs/religious people and it is widely tolerated on these boards.  You think Christians capping on atheists or Muslims would be similarly tolerated?  Of course not.  Yet wildly bigoted atheists like sol run around doing their thing with impunity.  Amazing.

sol suggested that we embrace religion as an important part of our cultural heritage while at the same time recognizing that its time had passed. That seemed really generous to me. Hardly the words of a bigot looking to damn the entire edifice.

sol has consistently attacked religion, religious beliefs and religious people for as long as I have been on this forum.  Pull the other one; its got bells on.

Since moderation here is so one-sided, all I can do is make additions to the ignore list.

It seems like your intentionally inflammatory comments about atheists are being tolerated. And almost nothing is moderated here.

[forummm]

sol has consistently attacked religion, religious beliefs and religious people for as long as I have been on this forum.

Did sol give offense, or did you take offense?  Sol called religion magic, and people took umbrage.  Why?  Is there a way to distinguish supernatural religion from magic, other than the fact that many people believe it to be true?

A few months ago, my two year old son pointed to an obese man seated near us on the subway and said out loud "daddy, look how fat that man is."  When I apologized to the gentleman, he said something to the effect of "that's ok, no offense taken; I am fat."

I think you missed the "consistently."  IE: this is not the only time he has been inflammatory of religion and while this particular instance may not have been that offensive, it was just another in a long train of abuses (in the mind of that poster) that have repeatedly gone unmoderated.  I can not vouch for the factuality of this because I don't keep very good mental track of who says what, but when Sol is equating all Christians with the few who swindle people on television and condone rape and he doesn't realize (or at least purposefully ignores) that much of Deuteronomy is a health book it isn't hard to realize that he probably is inflammatory of religion all the time.

Really? That's not what I read here:

Some churches will do great things with your money, if you choose to support them. 

I've also seen Sol talk about how he actually sends his kids to church. Maybe your emotional reactions are preventing you from the nuance he provides.

[sol]

I've also seen Sol talk about how he actually sends his kids to church.

Only the one who wants to go!

The other one isn't interested in religion or philosophy yet, and the third is only two.  My oldest seems to really enjoy it, but I think it's mostly because a bunch of his friends go and the youth group has pizza, not because he's questioning his existential hierarchy.  Still, he'll find his own path eventually one way or the other.  I only wish kids with strictly religious parents had the same freedoms.

[okonumiyaki]

To be fair Sol, one can prove beyond doubt that God did exist, but he gave up his divine status in 1945 (Hirohito was divine, but the USA forced him to stop)

[Tyson]

I don't see the irony? Moral Relativism is relatively bad

I bet you don't see the irony in that statement either.

Fixed it.

[Thegoblinchief]

The mods don't get involved unless someone complains AND they see justification. Generally speaking, the justification is really only:

1. Personal attacks. No one is accusing other people of anything, except perhaps sol of bigotry.

2. Getting far, far, off thread.

For all the complaints, it's #2 that we're approaching here.

To the OP I'd be much more in favor of stripping tax-exemption than adding yet ANOTHER loophole, even if I would gladly join the church of Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption (hat tip on the name). It seems like everyone agrees the tax code is a mess, but no one wants to tighten it up.

[regulator]

It's the last part where you really go off the rails: "no real grounding to their moral compass?"  What does belief in the supernatural have to do with morality? Are you suggesting that morality is somehow derived from religion?

Religion gives an actual foundation to morality. That is, the divine is telling us how to act.  Obviously it is still up to humans to interpret it, but there is an actual grounding to it.

Secular systems of morality, while still have merit, have no actual grounding.  It's just a bunch of smart people arguing over which one of their systems is "better."  I, for one, can't really determine what's better deontology or utilitarianism and end up just needing to do secular morality cafeteria style.  Sure, lying is bad, but I'm going to lie to protect some Jews, but I really don't want to pull the lever and kill the one person even when I know that I'm going to save three.

So, while secular morality still has merit, I think the statement that it "has no grounding" is factually accurate.  Most "secular morality practitioners" (and by this I mean your average atheist) are going to just be moral relativists anyways, so I have no problem saying that they (moral relativists) have "no grounding."

I disagree. People made up the "grounding" wrt religious beliefs. Same with secular morality. There's no difference. Groups of people just decided to have these morals for whatever reason. And different religions have different morals because those groups of people decided to have different moral beliefs. It's all made up by people.

In my experience, religious people who get their knickers in a twist about atheists thinking everyone should naturally respect their particular set of supernatural beliefs generally themselves don't think all supernatural beliefs deserve the same respect. Heaven's Gate, Scientology, FLDS, etc.,  How do people believe that crap?

Respecting your right to believe magic isn't the same as believing your magic deserves respect.

I could actually give a fuck what anyone believes or doesn't believe.  What I find amazing is that atheists/agnostics/heathens/whatever the hell they call themselves seem to go out of their way to attack religion/religious beliefs/religious people and it is widely tolerated on these boards.  You think Christians capping on atheists or Muslims would be similarly tolerated?  Of course not.  Yet wildly bigoted atheists like sol run around doing their thing with impunity.  Amazing.

sol suggested that we embrace religion as an important part of our cultural heritage while at the same time recognizing that its time had passed. That seemed really generous to me. Hardly the words of a bigot looking to damn the entire edifice.

sol has consistently attacked religion, religious beliefs and religious people for as long as I have been on this forum.  Pull the other one; its got bells on.

Since moderation here is so one-sided, all I can do is make additions to the ignore list.

It seems like your intentionally inflammatory comments about atheists are being tolerated. And almost nothing is moderated here.

As I said, I really couldn't give two shits what anyone else believes.  My statements were for the sake of argument/illustration only.  Certain posters, OTOH, seem to make a habit of intentionally and deliberately crapping on others' beliefs.  That would seem not to square with the whole "don't be a fucktard" forum rule.  But then we know how the board is heavily biased, so I also know where to expect moderation and lack thereof.

[sol]

This is kind of a cheap dig so I apologize in advance, reg.  But for someone who so recently accused me of being a "profane godless heathen", you sure do use a lot of profanity in your posts. 

That's okay though.  My ears are not so sensitive that I find profanity morally offensive.

[Thegoblinchief]

regulator (or MrsPete, EricP, etc) - I'll give you a last chance: in plain, non emotionally-charged language explain what sol has said that's bigoted and attacking you?

Otherwise let's have the mods get involved for you derailing the thread with your endless complaining. If you are really that upset, leave?

[regulator]

regulator (or MrsPete, EricP, etc) - I'll give you a last chance: in plain, non emotionally-charged language explain what sol has said that's bigoted and attacking you?

Otherwise let's have the mods get involved for you derailing the thread with your endless complaining. If you are really that upset, leave?

I have sol on ignore for past transgressions and I have no idea what he has said on this thread.

As far as on topic for the original post, I think it would be a poor idea.  The whole idea of dealing with the IRS more than strictly necessary gives me the creeps, let alone the (at best) squishy morality of doing this.  In any case, I doubt you would find it to be a popular message.  I think the average Merkin most closely resembles the crazy people who write comments on articles featured on major newspaper websites.

[Thegoblinchief]

I have sol on ignore for past transgressions and I have no idea what he has said on this thread.

Doing an excellent job of ignoring then! ;)

[regulator]

I have sol on ignore for past transgressions and I have no idea what he has said on this thread.

Doing an excellent job of ignoring then! ;)

Why?  Because I took the opportunity to voice concerns about what I believe to be rather slanted moderation?  Meh.

[sol]

regulator (or MrsPete, EricP, etc) - I'll give you a last chance: in plain, non emotionally-charged language explain what sol has said that's bigoted and attacking you?

Otherwise let's have the mods get involved for you derailing the thread with your endless complaining. If you are really that upset, leave?

I'm not sure you'll get any takers on that one.  Sometimes people are more upset by the perceived tone than the actual content, but maybe I'll be proved wrong.

And I don't think we need mods to get us back on track here, because in a tangential way this entire discussion about how people talk about supernatural beliefs is directly relevant to the OP's questions about the prosperity gospel and the way it uses religion to deceive people.  I've merely tried to expand that discussion to ideological deceit rather than just financial deceit, but the two are definitely intertwined in this case.

Everyone here is trying to achieve a financially secure retirement.  On that journey, we argue with each other about investment strategies and tax loopholes and real estate decisions, all in the name of financial optimization.  I'm not sure anyone's religious beliefs are necessarily relevant to those discussions except in cases like the one posited here where religion is being used to defraud the elderly out of real dollars, but I do think the process of optimizing requires a certain commitment to looking at actual facts and not just blindly adhering to your existing beliefs.  This forum would be a lot less interesting if everyone just quoted rich dad poor dad as the ultimate arbiter of all truth and refused to learn anything new.

[ChrisLansing]

As MMM has already proved, there is no need to formally establish a church in order to preach the "true prosperity gospel".   So, from the POV of spreading the word, it would be unnecessary. 

You could of course do it just for the tax savings.   It's quite easy to set up a church.  But you should consider the moral implications of reducing revenue in your community.   

[brooklynguy]

Certain posters, OTOH, seem to make a habit of intentionally and deliberately crapping on others' beliefs.

Sort of like that dude who, using deliberately inflammatory language, started an entire website devoted to taking one giant dump after another on modern consumerist society's most closely held beliefs?

Somehow, I think the challenging of conventional wisdom falls within the spirit of this site.

I have sol on ignore for past transgressions and I have no idea what he has said on this thread.

This is too funny, and emblematic of the root issue described by sol in a subsequent post which you apparently cannot see:

Sometimes people are more upset by the perceived tone than the actual content, but maybe I'll be proved wrong.

In this thread, at least, you managed to get upset by the perceived tone of nonexistent content.

Everyone here is trying to achieve a financially secure retirement.  On that journey, we argue with each other about investment strategies and tax loopholes and real estate decisions, all in the name of financial optimization.  I'm not sure anyone's religious beliefs are necessarily relevant to those discussions except in cases like the one posited here where religion is being used to defraud the elderly out of real dollars, but I do think the process of optimizing requires a certain commitment to looking at actual facts and not just blindly adhering to your existing beliefs.  This forum would be a lot less interesting if everyone just quoted rich dad poor dad as the ultimate arbiter of all truth and refused to learn anything new.

For some reason, this ringing endorsement of our community made my heart swell.  We're all just one big extended family of bickering and squabbling financial independence and early retirement seekers!

[Jack]

As MMM has already proved, there is no need to formally establish a church in order to preach the "true prosperity gospel".   So, from the POV of spreading the word, it would be unnecessary. 

You could of course do it just for the tax savings.   It's quite easy to set up a church.  But you should consider the moral implications of reducing revenue in your community.   

If one assumed that some kind of compensation were necessary in order to motivate the person to do the "preaching"/coaching, then it seems like the choice would be between charging a fee to those receiving the advice (which isn't ideal, given that those people are, by definition, already in financial trouble) or having the community subsidize it via tax savings. (Or it could be funded by third-party donations, but that's a huge pain in the ass that would distract from the core mission.) I guess the key would be to make sure the benefit to those being helped exceeded the harm to the tax base.

[Eric]

I have sol on ignore for past transgressions and I have no idea what he has said on this thread.

Doing an excellent job of ignoring then! ;)

Why?  Because I took the opportunity to voice concerns about what I believe to be rather slanted moderation?  Meh.

I'm curious as to why you think moderation is slanted.  There's hardly any moderation on this forum, which is why we all like it.  It promotes free discussion.  Do you think this would be a better place if all dissenting voices were summarily silenced?

But if you really feel a post is intentionally offensive, the best way to affect change is to report the offending post to a moderator using the button on the bottom right of every post.  Then explain why you're offended by someone else expressing different beliefs and why they should be silenced.  Or even better, you could take part in the discussion in a calm and rational manner.  But the continual whining about these perceived slights doesn't really earn you any sympathy, it just makes you a whiner.  Especially since this thread is about hucksters and con men using religion to fleece old people for the sole purpose of lining their own pockets.

[wenchsenior]

As I said, I really couldn't give two shits what anyone else believes.  My statements were for the sake of argument/illustration only. Certain posters, OTOH, seem to make a habit of intentionally and deliberately crapping on others' beliefs.  That would seem not to square with the whole "don't be a fucktard" forum rule.  But then we know how the board is heavily biased, so I also know where to expect moderation and lack thereof.

Bwah! :slaps knee:

If I'm not mistaken, a huge portion of this forum is devoted to many posters crapping on the beliefs that are held 'sacred' by the majority of society (consumerism, etc.), and said posters patting ourselves on the back for not believing or behaving in such an illogical way.

Objectively, supernatural beliefs are ridiculous. There is no evidence for them and believing them is irrational. That's why they are so bashable. HOWEVER, humans (including all of us secular/atheists) do and believe lots of things that aren't very rational. Humans aren't wired to be very rational, and we have to fight to improve that tendency. (I try to self-check all the time, because I have lots and lots of irrational responses to things...just not supernatural, magical, gods-things).

Now, while my opinion is that most belief in magic/superstition is destructive to us and to our planet, I would never argue that supernatural beliefs cannot, in some cases,  actually improve quality of life for the believers (most certainly emotionally), or help stabilize or improve society in some ways. Belief in the things for which there is no evidence is apparently an evolutionary quirk of the human brain, which confers some survival advantage (I suspect because it increases 'tribal' behavior, and thus small group cohesion). I acknowledge that, and I think the secular/atheist community sometimes loses out on some of the benefits that faith-based communities have.

Does that mean belief in magic is the only way to be ethical/happy/a good member of society/etc. No. Obviously.

Does it mean that I think believing in magic is irrational and (usually) silly? Yup.

Does this mean I'm 'bigoted' against my believer friends? Well, it depends on how you define it. They are friends, so of course I like and admire many of their qualities, including some that are undoubtedly influenced and shaped by their faith. I occasionally envy them the emotional support or structure that their belief system appears to provide. I find many of the specific beliefs they hold inexplicable and dumb. Maybe that's bigoted? I don't think it is.

[sunday]

I find the whole "atheists' morality has no foundation" to be a curious argument. If, as someone else mentioned, foundation is to mean some immutable law, then I think all of the intellectual pursuits we human pursue has no "foundation." Science had to start with a human making a previously unmade observance and then following to a conclusion. Someone had to make cave drawings before writing was formed. At the core, our collective morality is founded on history, which, at its base, was founded upon the human animal. We feel pain, it is unpleasant, we avoid it. We fear death and avoid it. We need to eat because we find hunger unpleasant, and thus avoid starvation and death. To avoid pain and death, we share resources and form communities. Rules on how to treat one another forms on top of previous ones and are tested, based largely on avoiding pain and death. So on and so forth. Along the way, we evolved to value cooperation and empathy.
And unfortunately, empathy is what these televangelists are sorely lacking, giving no care as to the people who raid their own savings and retirement to give more and more to these vultures.

[forummm]

I find the whole "atheists' morality has no foundation" to be a curious argument.

Many Christians are taught that the world is inherently evil because of sin. Before a baby is born it is already a sinner. All babies. Satan and his demonic forces have corrupted the world and everything in it. Even Christians themselves are corrupted sinners (although some seem to forget this). And without a conscious and committed, day-by-day, and minute-by-minute struggle waged against the forces of darkness, Christians would also fall into the moral-free ways of the heathens. That's the narrative. Maybe Christians think that they would all be terrible people if they walked away from their faith.

I don't think it makes sense--but then Christianity (as with most religions) isn't about making sense. It's about being told what to believe and then believing it. When you are in that faith and acceptance mode, you put your skepticism aside. This is true for many situations outside of religions. We find people we trust and then believe what they tell us. And sometimes they lie to us or are misinformed and then we believe them. There were a lot of things my mom said that I believed at the time, only to find out they weren't true later. A lot of people believe religious leaders who say that the Bible is against abortion when it doesn't really address the topic and even provides instances endorsing the practice of giving your wife poison to cause a miscarriage if you think she might have cheated on you, or providing a small fine for causing a miscarriage in some other man's wife (not the death penalty, but a fine because you harmed the man's property.

So people believe all kinds of wacky things. Like that Christians are constantly being persecuted in the US for their beliefs, when the opposite is true. Every president and 98% of Congress has been Christian, and there are entire TV channels that spend a lot of time vilifying Muslims.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

I find the whole "atheists' morality has no foundation" to be a curious argument.

Many Christians are taught that the world is inherently evil because of sin. Before a baby is born it is already a sinner. All babies. Satan and his demonic forces have corrupted the world and everything in it. Even Christians themselves are corrupted sinners (although some seem to forget this). And without a conscious and committed, day-by-day, and minute-by-minute struggle waged against the forces of darkness, Christians would also fall into the moral-free ways of the heathens. That's the narrative. Maybe Christians think that they would all be terrible people if they walked away from their faith.

I was raised in a very conservative Christian family, so I was taught this from birth: Humans are wicked and evil, and the only good that exists in this world comes from God himself. It's a very effective teaching if your goal is to prevent people from even entertaining the thought that God/Jesus/the Bible might actually be fallible.

I still remember when I was in middle school and we had to read the diary of Anne Frank. And because of my upbringing, one quote stuck out in my memory that I'll never forget: "In spite of everything, I think people are basically good at heart." I remember thinking, here's a young girl who hid in an attic for years and was eventually killed by Nazis, and she can still believe that people are basically good. Who am to believe otherwise, when I've lived a life without knowing hardly a single discomfort? I think that was the beginning of the end of my faith in Christianity. One by one, I began to observe and quietly critique tenet after tenet that I'd always been preached, and so many were found provably wrong (Creationism) or laughably outdated (gay people are an abomination), that started to ignore them, one by one. Finally, when I got sick of attempting to piece together a coherent belief system from the wisdom that remained (and of course, there are many good parts to Christianity that just don't seem to get preached quite as loudly), I eventually shed the entire weight of my religious beliefs. The beauty of my transformation, however, was that it was the beginning of my faith in humanity. Fortunately, there's no doctrine to go along with humanity, so I'm free to inspect its faults and to try to judge it rationally rather than blindly.

[sunday]

I don't think it makes sense--but then Christianity (as with most religions) isn't about making sense. It's about being told what to believe and then believing it. When you are in that faith and acceptance mode, you put your skepticism aside.

I agree. So there's no reason to for people to feel personally offended by someone saying faith is illogical because it IS inherently illogical. That's why it's faith. As in leap of faith. As a reformed Christian, I remember going to sermons where the preacher specifically talked about how faith isn't based on pure reason, and that's why god gives you more credit for it. Because it supposedly transcends our puny human brains. Now that I'm an atheist, I personally don't care what other people believe as long as they don't try to infringe on my rights, but to be upset that someone brings up that faith is not based on reason is illogical. Lack of reason in faith is a feature, not a bug.

Just as a fun aside, if you think your beliefs (religious or not) are internally consistent, try this out: http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/god/

[midweststache]

Me - "Gee, I hope this thread has stories of people dealing with relatives and the prosperity gospel pundits and how to deal with them, since I could totally see my parents getting sucked into this BS in thirty years or so)."

This thread - "These are not the droids you're looking for..."

[sunday]

Well, having grown up living well below the poverty level, with religious parents who still gave $ dutifully to our church, it's not just the mega churches/televangelists who hurt their poor congregation members by pushing the donation baskets through the pews and sending the contribution letters home. There are also a lot of Reader Cases on this site where someone with "hair on fire" will be giving away a significant portion of their income and then tell everyone it's non-negotiable. Of course, these aren't the people who are donating to take the tax deductions anyway, so you'd think the churches would back off that segment of the congregation.

On the other hand, this behavior isn't only applicable to religion. I've seen this with family/friends and multi-level marketing, where they are fully bought in to the product/method/scam. They spend more and more money buying the product trying to succeed, believing it MUST make them money in the end. If you're not careful, relationships can be destroyed.

[Annamal]

I find the whole "atheists' morality has no foundation" to be a curious argument.

Many Christians are taught that the world is inherently evil because of sin. Before a baby is born it is already a sinner. All babies. Satan and his demonic forces have corrupted the world and everything in it. Even Christians themselves are corrupted sinners (although some seem to forget this). And without a conscious and committed, day-by-day, and minute-by-minute struggle waged against the forces of darkness, Christians would also fall into the moral-free ways of the heathens. That's the narrative. Maybe Christians think that they would all be terrible people if they walked away from their faith.

I was raised in a very conservative Christian family, so I was taught this from birth: Humans are wicked and evil, and the only good that exists in this world comes from God himself. It's a very effective teaching if your goal is to prevent people from even entertaining the thought that God/Jesus/the Bible might actually be fallible.

I still remember when I was in middle school and we had to read the diary of Anne Frank. And because of my upbringing, one quote stuck out in my memory that I'll never forget: "In spite of everything, I think people are basically good at heart." I remember thinking, here's a young girl who hid in an attic for years and was eventually killed by Nazis, and she can still believe that people are basically good. Who am to believe otherwise, when I've lived a life without knowing hardly a single discomfort? I think that was the beginning of the end of my faith in Christianity. One by one, I began to observe and quietly critique tenet after tenet that I'd always been preached, and so many were found provably wrong (Creationism) or laughably outdated (gay people are an abomination), that started to ignore them, one by one. Finally, when I got sick of attempting to piece together a coherent belief system from the wisdom that remained (and of course, there are many good parts to Christianity that just don't seem to get preached quite as loudly), I eventually shed the entire weight of my religious beliefs. The beauty of my transformation, however, was that it was the beginning of my faith in humanity. Fortunately, there's no doctrine to go along with humanity, so I'm free to inspect its faults and to try to judge it rationally rather than blindly.

I just wanted to say, I really love this post, thank you :)

[WGH]

I find the whole "atheists' morality has no foundation" to be a curious argument.

Many Christians are taught that the world is inherently evil because of sin. Before a baby is born it is already a sinner. All babies. Satan and his demonic forces have corrupted the world and everything in it. Even Christians themselves are corrupted sinners (although some seem to forget this). And without a conscious and committed, day-by-day, and minute-by-minute struggle waged against the forces of darkness, Christians would also fall into the moral-free ways of the heathens. That's the narrative. Maybe Christians think that they would all be terrible people if they walked away from their faith.

I was raised in a very conservative Christian family, so I was taught this from birth: Humans are wicked and evil, and the only good that exists in this world comes from God himself. It's a very effective teaching if your goal is to prevent people from even entertaining the thought that God/Jesus/the Bible might actually be fallible.

I still remember when I was in middle school and we had to read the diary of Anne Frank. And because of my upbringing, one quote stuck out in my memory that I'll never forget: "In spite of everything, I think people are basically good at heart." I remember thinking, here's a young girl who hid in an attic for years and was eventually killed by Nazis, and she can still believe that people are basically good. Who am to believe otherwise, when I've lived a life without knowing hardly a single discomfort? I think that was the beginning of the end of my faith in Christianity. One by one, I began to observe and quietly critique tenet after tenet that I'd always been preached, and so many were found provably wrong (Creationism) or laughably outdated (gay people are an abomination), that started to ignore them, one by one. Finally, when I got sick of attempting to piece together a coherent belief system from the wisdom that remained (and of course, there are many good parts to Christianity that just don't seem to get preached quite as loudly), I eventually shed the entire weight of my religious beliefs. The beauty of my transformation, however, was that it was the beginning of my faith in humanity. Fortunately, there's no doctrine to go along with humanity, so I'm free to inspect its faults and to try to judge it rationally rather than blindly.

Good post

[Frugal D]

Sol is my new favorite mustachian. That was awesome.

[sol]

Sol is my new favorite mustachian. That was awesome.

I'm sure it made me some people's least favorite mustachian, too.  So it goes.

[Kris]

I find the whole "atheists' morality has no foundation" to be a curious argument.

Many Christians are taught that the world is inherently evil because of sin. Before a baby is born it is already a sinner. All babies. Satan and his demonic forces have corrupted the world and everything in it. Even Christians themselves are corrupted sinners (although some seem to forget this). And without a conscious and committed, day-by-day, and minute-by-minute struggle waged against the forces of darkness, Christians would also fall into the moral-free ways of the heathens. That's the narrative. Maybe Christians think that they would all be terrible people if they walked away from their faith.

I was raised in a very conservative Christian family, so I was taught this from birth: Humans are wicked and evil, and the only good that exists in this world comes from God himself. It's a very effective teaching if your goal is to prevent people from even entertaining the thought that God/Jesus/the Bible might actually be fallible.

I still remember when I was in middle school and we had to read the diary of Anne Frank. And because of my upbringing, one quote stuck out in my memory that I'll never forget: "In spite of everything, I think people are basically good at heart." I remember thinking, here's a young girl who hid in an attic for years and was eventually killed by Nazis, and she can still believe that people are basically good. Who am to believe otherwise, when I've lived a life without knowing hardly a single discomfort? I think that was the beginning of the end of my faith in Christianity. One by one, I began to observe and quietly critique tenet after tenet that I'd always been preached, and so many were found provably wrong (Creationism) or laughably outdated (gay people are an abomination), that started to ignore them, one by one. Finally, when I got sick of attempting to piece together a coherent belief system from the wisdom that remained (and of course, there are many good parts to Christianity that just don't seem to get preached quite as loudly), I eventually shed the entire weight of my religious beliefs. The beauty of my transformation, however, was that it was the beginning of my faith in humanity. Fortunately, there's no doctrine to go along with humanity, so I'm free to inspect its faults and to try to judge it rationally rather than blindly.

Amen! ;)

[Kris]

Just as a fun aside, if you think your beliefs (religious or not) are internally consistent, try this out: http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/god/

Thanks for this! Very fun!

[sol]

Just as a fun aside, if you think your beliefs (religious or not) are internally consistent, try this out: http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/god/

Thanks for this! Very fun!

I think that site is a little logically sloppy.  They should really review their if p then q rules.

Particularly for people who don't believe in gods, any question that begins "if god exists" isn't going to have a clear true/false answer.  The premise of the question is clearly flawed.

I suppose it wasn't really targeted at people like me.

[Kris]

Just as a fun aside, if you think your beliefs (religious or not) are internally consistent, try this out: http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/god/

Thanks for this! Very fun!

I think that site is a little logically sloppy.  They should really review their if p then q rules.

Particularly for people who don't believe in gods, any question that begins "if god exists" isn't going to have a clear true/false answer.  The premise of the question is clearly flawed.

I suppose it wasn't really targeted at people like me.

No, I agree.  I found some of their adjectives problematic, as well.  E.g. "justified." 

Still fun, though.  Probably more interesting for believers.

[Gin1984]

However, your point seems to be that you can insult people's beliefs, calling them "magic" ... just because it's perfectly legal to do so.

It is no more insulting to call a belief in religion a belief in magic than it is to call a rose a flower.  Religious believers may not like the use of the word "magic" because, in our culture, it carries a connotation of falsity, but supernatural religion is, by definition, a subcategory of magic.  If you believe in supernatural religion, then you believe in a type of magic.  Recognizing the truth of that statement may create cognitive dissonance in the religious believer, but that truth is unassailable.  To take offense at the labeling of a type of magic as a type of magic reveals something about the offense-taker, not the other way around.

So you would not take offense at a religious person characterizing atheists/agnostics as Godless, profane heathens that have no real grounding to their moral compass?  Like you say, let's call a rose a flower.

A heathen is a person who worships multiple deities, a pagan (they originally were used to insult the same people), so that is not correct.  Heathens are not Godless, in fact we have a over pouring of them.  :)
Therefore heathens are not atheists (or the reverse) and paganism has as much, if not more grounding for their moral compass, given that the Jewish faith had its moral grounding in pagan faiths.

[forummm]

Just as a fun aside, if you think your beliefs (religious or not) are internally consistent, try this out: http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/god/

Thanks for this! Very fun!

I think that site is a little logically sloppy.  They should really review their if p then q rules.

Particularly for people who don't believe in gods, any question that begins "if god exists" isn't going to have a clear true/false answer.  The premise of the question is clearly flawed.

I suppose it wasn't really targeted at people like me.

I also disagreed with the reasoning behind the 2 inconsistencies it said I had. It's a lot easier to rule out the Loch Ness Monster in that finite sized lake with modern technology than it is to say definitively there is no god in the infinite universe.

[Poorman]

Just as a fun aside, if you think your beliefs (religious or not) are internally consistent, try this out: http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/god/

Thanks for this! Very fun!

I think that site is a little logically sloppy.  They should really review their if p then q rules.

Particularly for people who don't believe in gods, any question that begins "if god exists" isn't going to have a clear true/false answer.  The premise of the question is clearly flawed.

I suppose it wasn't really targeted at people like me.

I also disagreed with the reasoning behind the 2 inconsistencies it said I had. It's a lot easier to rule out the Loch Ness Monster in that finite sized lake with modern technology than it is to say definitively there is no god in the infinite universe.

I happen to be a church-going Christian and I scored a perfect on the quiz.  What happens now?  Do I explode or something?

[Zx]

Yet oddly enough the moderators seem to tolerate/encourage this garbage.  Bigotry is everywhere, it seems.

Let's not be dishonest about it.  There is no bigotry here.  I encourage everyone to find their own path in life, and to let others do the same.  You seem to be the only one intolerant of dissenting opinions.

Some churches are great.  Others are scandalous.  You get to pick which kind you belong to, or you get to choose not to belong.  So do I.  Please respect that choice.

Yes, but do you get to also SAY it? Why can't everyone just say what they believe except for you? I think that would be fair. Or maybe it isn't. But I wouldn't want to say so.

[forummm]

Just as a fun aside, if you think your beliefs (religious or not) are internally consistent, try this out: http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/god/

Thanks for this! Very fun!

I think that site is a little logically sloppy.  They should really review their if p then q rules.

Particularly for people who don't believe in gods, any question that begins "if god exists" isn't going to have a clear true/false answer.  The premise of the question is clearly flawed.

I suppose it wasn't really targeted at people like me.

I also disagreed with the reasoning behind the 2 inconsistencies it said I had. It's a lot easier to rule out the Loch Ness Monster in that finite sized lake with modern technology than it is to say definitively there is no god in the infinite universe.

I happen to be a church-going Christian and I scored a perfect on the quiz.  What happens now?  Do I explode or something?

I think it just means you are theoretically logically consistent in your beliefs (with respect to the limited topics addressed and as arbited by the developer of the questions). It does not mean your beliefs are right or wrong. Relax, your spontaneous vaporization is not pending.