← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Conservative
Thread ID: 8079 | Posts: 19 | Started: 2003-07-13
2003-07-13 05:30 | User Profile
The following is from [url=http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Relig/Relig-Atheist.html]http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Relig/Reli...ig-Atheist.html[/url]
The Falsity of Religion: Twelve Indisputable Arguments
By John "Birdman" Bryant
Religion today hangs on the horns of a dilemma: On the one hand, it is false in the scientific sense, as we shall demonstrate below; but on the other hand, because religion in one form or another has been around as long as recorded history -- and in fact has played a central role in man's social and personal life -- it is almost certain that religion is useful in the sense that it has helped men to survive. The real dilemma of religion, however, is that it must be believed in order to be useful, yet this is impossible when people know that it is false.
The obvious solution to this dilemma -- if indeed there is a solution -- is to discover what is useful about religion, and to try to make use of this knowledge. This I have attempted to do in my book The Most Powerful Idea Ever Discovered. But we will be stymied in our attempt to accomplish this task -- or at least to bring it to fruition in the sense of teaching others -- if we do not first and finally sweep away the foolishness of religious belief by making a plain and clear statement as to religion's literal falsity. Accordingly, we cite below what we view as twelve compelling reasons why a rational person must regard religion as false.
Reason 1: The nature of scientific vs religious belief: As I pointed out in my book Systems Theory and Scientific Philosophy, science is actually a religion: Its faith involves such beliefs as that the future will be like the past in certain ways, that explanations should be based on objectively- verifiable evidence, and that the best explanation is the simplest one which fits all the facts ("the Law of Parsimony"). However, science is different from most religions in the way it makes 'converts', and, more generally, in how it gets people to believe in its assertions. In particular, people become converts to science because they see that it works: Science builds buildings and bombs and sends rockets to the moon -- something no religion seriously pretends to do. On the other hand, people become converts to religion because they think they see that it works, but are mistaken: For example, people become converts to religion because of such things as (a) their parents shape their beliefs at an impressionable age (ie, brainwash them); (B) they have a psychic or psychic-like experience which makes them think that God is responsible, whereas in reality they may only have had a pinched spinal nerve, or perhaps a genuine psychic experience, the latter of which does not prove the existence of God, but only that there are things that science still doesn't understand; or © they survive some traumatic experience which makes them think that God is the only thing that could have gotten them thru it, eg, military combat ("There are no atheists in foxholes") or taking a subway ride in New Yawk.
Reason 2: The nature of religious theories vs scientific ones: Scientific theories are ones which are supposedly objectively-verifiable by any person of sufficient skill -- a fact reflected in the custom that a theory is not accepted as scientifically correct or useful unless it has been judged publishable in a scientific journal by the author's scientific peers, and experimentally verified by another scientist of recognized credentials. In contrast, religious theories are accepted on the basis of the babblings of religious hermits who beat themselves bloody, refuse to wash, and -- small wonder -- haven't had sex for at least six weeks (OK, make that 40 days).
Reason 3: Religion's logical contradictions: Religion contains many contradictions. For example, the Bible tells us to "love thine enemy", yet all the smiting of their enemies by God's Chosen in the Old Testament makes it plain that the roots of Christianity were far closer to hatred than love. Again, the Bible tells us that God "loves" each and every one, yet those who violate God's laws or don't believe in religious dogma are supposedly going to be sent to eternal Hellfire -- hardly an act of a loving God. One can fill a book with such contradictions.
Reason 4: Religion's incredible shrinking knowledge: About 400 years ago, the Christian religion "knew" everything. It "knew" the earth was flat, "knew" that there were witches, "knew" that animals could be tried for crimes, "knew" that the Bible was the literal word of God, "knew" the difference between right and wrong, "knew" that the difference between man and beast was that only men have "souls", "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe, and so on. Since that time the things that religion "knows" has been shrinking at the speed of light -- or at least the speed of thought. Copernicus showed that the sun was the center of our "universe"; Galileo discovered new worlds; Newton showed that it was physical laws, and not a Godhead, that determined the movement of the planets; and so on. Today, what religion "knows" can be contained in a pinhead, and generally is.
Reason 5: Religion's immoral leaders: Religion has always claimed to offer a code of "absolute morality", yet the behavior of its holiest men have often been far less than moral by any standard, religious or otherwise. For example, numerous Popes have been guilty of all sorts of crimes -- bribery, theft, fornication, murder, torture, warmaking -- you name it. Again, the Inquisition was responsible for treating many people with the most extreme barbarity -- so much so that a strong stomach is required simply to read about it. It is true, of course, that Christianity has cleaned up its act in recent years, but this has much less to do with the character of its leaders than its failing power in a world dominated by science. Accordingly, since Christians are no longer able to express their love of God thru such media as boring tongues with hot pokers, beating people till bloody at the whipping post, dipping and re-dipping them in boiling oil or ripping off their genitals, these gentle and loving people now have to content themselves with beating the bare buttocks of their children, and even this divertissement has been under attack in recent years.
Reason 6: Religion's questionable moral codes: Even with immoral leadership, religion might still claim the moral high ground on the basis of its behavioral codes. As it happens, however, these codes are usually deficient and often highly ambiguous. For example, there is no consensus on many controversial moral issues, including abortion, homosexuality, pornography, serving in the armed forces, and numerous others, tho all sects claim to know that their position on these issues -- whatever it may be -- is endorsed by The Big Guy In The Sky.
Reason 7: Religion's historical origins: The origin of most religions does not encourage belief. Serious investigation of the origins of religion only began in the 19th century with Sir James G Frazer's Golden Bough, and we now know such things as that the Yahweh religion of the Old Testament was actually a cult of phallic worship whose "covenant" was signed in blood by circumcision, and that many of the rituals of modern Christianity were taken from earlier religions, such as the Christmas creche, which was taken directly from the Egyptian Isis-Osiris religion.
Reason 8: Religion's appeal to the human ego: Because we now know that the earth is but a tiny speck of dust in an ufathomably large universe, the notion that human beings are "special creations of God", and in particular are so important that God "gave his only begotten Son" for their "salvation" now seems like such palpable nonsense that anyone who believes it would have to be demented. And inasmuch as all the major religions are built around the notion that they are "special creations" of the Creator of the Universe, we can forthwith assign all such religions to the dustbin of superstition. The argument here is evidently much like what Bertrand Russell had in mind when he said, "That God would bother with humans proves that he is demented; that he is demented proves that he does not exist."
Reason 9: Religion's 'explanatory' appeal: The importance of religion for many people is that it explains how the world came into existence ("Because God created it") and the purpose of their life ("To worship God and do his bidding"). However, these explanations make no sense upon close examination. In particular, 'explaining' the existence of the world as an act of God requires the believer to explain how God was created -- surely he did not create himself -- and this means that the 'explanation' leaves more unexplained about the world than before the 'explanation' was developed. Likewise, 'explaining' one's purpose in life by saying it is to 'serve God' implies that God's purposes are known, whereas in reality we know nothing about "God's purposes" except what is told to us by the babbling of religious fruitcakes.
Reason 10: Religion's psychological origins: Many years ago, the famous Harvard psychologist B.F. Skinner did an experiment on what he called "the development of superstition in pigeons." Religion, of course, falls under this rubric -- as J.B.R. Yant said in his Mortal Words, "Religion is just superstition which has been around long enough to have become respectable." What Skinner did was the following: He would put a hungry pigeon in a so- called "Skinner box", which had an opening through which food could be introduced. Food pellets were then dropped into the box at random times. The result of this setup, when done with a large number of pigeons, was that each one of the pigeons were found to be repeating a single behavior over and over: Some would continually repeat a certain type of preening, some a certain type of stretching, some a certain type of walking, and so on. The reason for these different continually-repeated behaviors was as follows: Pigeons normally are continually engaged in one or another type of behavior -- preening, stretching, etc. If they are engaged in one of these behaviors when a food pellet is dropped into their box, they form an association between their behavior and the appearance of the food pellet, i.e., (in mentalistic terms) they are caused to think that there is possibly some cause-effect relation between their behavior and the appearance of the pellet. This, then, encourages them to try the behavior again, perhaps several times -- i.e., this behavior has been "reinforced". But since this behavior has now become more likely, there is a greater chance that a food pellet will drop into the box at the time that the pigeon is engaged in this behavior. Which means that this behavior will be "reinforced" more. Which means that it will be more likely to be performed again, and get reinforced again, and so on and on, until the hungry pigeon has developed a "superstition" about what "causes" a food pellet to appear -- a superstition that it will practice whenever it is hungry. The parallel with the Skinner experiments and religion is obvious -- a person is taught how to pray, so this causes him to pray occasionally "at random" merely out of habit. Then one day after he has prayed, something he has prayed for comes about. So he is "reinforced" -- even tho there was no relation between his prayer and the happy event. So this encourages him to pray again. And occasionally it will happen that what he wishes for actually occurs following a prayer. So he is reinforced again. And so on, until like a bird-brain pigeon, he has developed a full-blown superstition, i.e., a religion.
Reason 11: The argument from the multiplicity of religions: There are dozens, and perhaps even hundreds or thousands of religions, all of which claim to be 'absolutely true', and all of which contradict one another in fundamental ways. The only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from this is that all of them are absolutely false. In recognizing the above facts, those of an ecuminist bent have argued that, while all religions are probably false in some ways, the fact that all (or at least most) have the same core beliefs about God and morality imply that the true religion is constituted of these core beliefs. While this argument has a superficial appeal, it does not in fact prove the truth of the core beliefs, but only -- at most -- their usefulness: It proves that human beings are similar in the basic moral rules and mental props (god-belief) needed for a stable society.
Reason 12: The argument from impudence: The following is a quote from my book The Mortal Words of J.B.R. Yant: It is the simplest of simple things to prove that God does not exist. Just look toward the sky, raise your middle finger, and say, "Hey, you son- of-a-bitch mother-f*cker up there, if you're so God-damned all-powerful, then let's see if you can strike down little old me, you big over-praised, over-blown ass-hole." When nothing happens, the proposition is proved, Q.E.D.
Further arguments on the non-existence of God will be found in the author's book Systems Theory and Scientific Philosophy, especially chapter 1. The following is a relevant excerpt from chapter 3 of that book:
Systems Theory and Religion
The cause of religious belief in human beings is intimately related to the desire on the part of individuals to have an explanation for various phenomena, and in fact, if nature possessed easy, simply-discoverable laws, it is doubtful that religion would have ever developed. As it happens, however, natural law is by no means simple, and thus it undoubtedly appeared to the primitive mind that the forces of nature were chaotic and unpredictable. From this point of view, however, it was but a short step to attributing an anthropomorphic character to nature: Unpredictability became whimsicalness; the raging storm became the work of an angry god who, like an angry man, will become calm again in time; the personal calamity became the punishment of evil-doers; the occurrence of an unusual event became a sign that the deity was engaged in something special that would affect his minions; and so on. Accordingly, primitives came to view nature as the Great Man, and those actions known to please man became, with certain modifications, the sets of formulas that were thought most efficacious for getting into the Great Man's good graces. This, however, meant that religion became the Theory of Divine Psychology, since it was an elucidation of those inputs by which the Great System in the Sky could be made to give certain outputs. Most modern-day religions, of course, usually prescribe that a constant input of morally correct behavior, scripture reading, and contribution to the church's coffers will be certain to yield, in the end, that output which will reserve for the doer eternal grace in the firmament; while if the input includes such things as copulating without the specific intention of adding to the population problem, or wondering how the dictum of "love they neighbor" requires the church to expend huge sums of money for business investments, stock purchases, and ornate bric-a-brac while the poor go hungry, then the output is certain to be hellfire, brimstone and everlasting damnation.
In contrast to present-day religions, the stock-in-trade of the more primitive of man's faiths has usually been a description of those inputs that will stimulate The Great System to produce outputs useful in day-to- day affairs -- the rain dance, the war dance, and the fertility rite being among the best known of these. Nowadays, however, science has largely taken over this most ancient function of religion: If a man wants rain for his crops, he seeds the clouds or rents an ion generator; if he wants to win at war he builds big bombs and develops test-tube plagues; and in order to insure that the harvest will be abundant, he no longer feels the need to fornicate in the middle of his fields -- he simply has his hired hand spade on some manure. All this is not, of course, to say that religion does not have any influence where it was once the prime mover -- the Bible-reading of the astronauts from the moon is a case in point -- it is just that the hegemony has changed hands. Religion, I am afraid, will die very hard. But if it is true, as we have suggested above, that from a functional standpoint God is nothing more than a (markovian) System, it may be asked how man presumed himself to have discovered its laws. The answer to this, I believe, is given by a famous experiment of B.F. Skinner, who placed hungry pigeons in individual cages rigged in such a manner that food pellets would automatically drop in the cage every 10 seconds. The result of this situation was that some of the pigeons began practicing certain rituals, such as turning in circles, stretching their necks and fluttering their wings. The generally-accepted explanation of these rituals is that on one or more occasions when the food pellet was dropped, a particular bird would be performing a particular act, and the appearance of food at that time "reinforced" the act, i.e., (in mentalistic terms) the appearance of food at that time caused the bird to assume that the performance of the act in question would be efficacious in causing the appearance of more food. In short, the birds in question acquired what, at least in functional terms, amounted to superstition. The conclusion to be drawn from this, of course, is that the probable origin of religious beliefs is accidental reinforcement of peculiar behavior.
Now in conclusion, it seems appropriate to remark that the prayer wheel -- each revolution of which is believed by devotees of certain Eastern religions to send a prayer to the Deity, and from which derives the concept of "spinning one's wheels" -- is a mechanism which seems to fit quite well into the analysis we have given here of Deus ad machina. We can only wonder whether the countries in which prayer-wheel religions predominate, as they are drawn kicking and screaming into the machine age, will convert imported Western machinery into dual-tasking devices whose combined effects serve not only to do their initially-designed tasks, but in addition produce as an epiphenomenon the continual massaging of the great underbelly of God's mind.
2003-07-13 05:38 | User Profile
God will be quite disappointed :rolleyes:
2003-07-13 17:47 | User Profile
That was an excellent essay. Very persuasive. In fact, I'm converting to Atheism now after reading that.
-Jay
2003-07-14 01:25 | User Profile
Hey Ares?
Can I make a suggestion? How about, instead of "stealing" John Bryant's stuff to post here, (since most of us have already read his stuff -- ON HIS SITE!), how about just including a link to it, and your OWN comments about why you agree or disagree...
Just reposting his stuff, beyond the fact that it's violating his copyright, doesn't further any discussion here on OD. If you want to discuss his topics, we'd be glad to do so -- but let's not undercut John in order to discuss topics he has also written on, okay?
2003-07-14 02:36 | User Profile
What is your opinion Avalanche?
That was my first read from him. I liked it, but it was nothing new - it just sumed it up easy in 1,2,3 bullet-like points.
Does society need religion? Probably, but it does not prove the existance of a god.
2003-07-14 02:38 | User Profile
Besides which, Birdman sings his own praises loud enough to need no help from anyone else. :P
2003-07-14 12:17 | User Profile
That was an excellent essay. Very persuasive. In fact, I'm converting to Atheism now after reading that.
As am I. See you at temple! :D
2003-07-14 21:31 | User Profile
Actually...
.....Although I appreciate the birdman for other reasons, he is full of nonsense when it comes to this topic; I have my hands full at present, but as time permits, I will demonstrate how very much in error he is on the subject, (while agreeing that "religion", which Scripture warns against, is hog waddle, as well)... For the record, I am not the least bit "religious", but I am a "take-no-prisoners" type Christian... ;)
P.S.
.....Those of you that find this nonsense "convincing" are certainly easily convinced...
2003-07-15 13:38 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Drakmal@Jul 14 2003, 06:17 * ** As am I. See you at temple! :D **
Priceless!
2003-07-15 18:04 | User Profile
Byrant really does a poor job when addressing religion. For example, the Bible is absolutely and emphatically clear that homosexuality is a sin, yet Bryant complains that there's no consensus, as if he thinks the Bible should pay the costs of all the liars and morons who blatantly abuse the Bible. I should also add that the point of the Bible (at least the NT) is not to enumerate sins.
A better example of Bryant's fundamental misundestanding of the nature of God, Christianity, and the Bible are his comments about love and hate.
He says:
The Bible tells us to "love thine enemy", yet all the smiting of their enemies by God's Chosen in the Old Testament makes it plain that the roots of Christianity were far closer to hatred than love. Again, the Bible tells us that God "loves" each and every one.
The Bible never says God loves everyone. In fact, the Bible in a number of places refers to God hating certain individuals, certain sinners (e.g. homosexuals), and evil people. But, Bryant's knowledge of the Bible doesn't come from the Bible.
Christians are to love their enemies, but they are to hate God's enemies.
When God is smiting or damning someone, it's not an act of love for that evil person. When Jesus was telling jewish adversaries that they were going to Hell, He wasn't loving them, He was hating them because they deserved His hate -- Jesus never pretended it was anything else.
You can't really love what is righteous unless you hate what is wicked.
2003-07-15 20:49 | User Profile
This article failed to convince to become a revert to atheism. I've heard these types of arguments before and for several years argued them myself.
Byrant tries to make it sound like that the scientific community is more united in their theories than is the religious community. Nothing could farther from the truth. Scientists bicker and argue often the most irrelevant details in theories and are just divided over things as theologians are. Galileo for example was as much condmened by fellow scientists for his theories as he ever was by theologians.
Byrant tries to argue that religious belief is based on lack of knoweldge about science. Well Atheism is often equally based of lack of knoweldge of religious doctrines.
Byrant tries to argue that religious belief is based on abnormal incidents. > they have a psychic or psychic-like experience which makes them think that God is responsible, whereas in reality they may only have had a pinched spinal nerve, or perhaps a genuine psychic experience, the latter of which does not prove the existence of God, but only that there are things that science still doesn't understand; or é they survive some traumatic experience which makes them think that God is the only thing that could have gotten them thru it, eg, military combat ("There are no atheists in foxholes") or taking a subway ride in New Yawk.
Atheism equally comes about because of a person's beef with religious doctrines or experiances with religion. Victimized by a pedophile priest, pissed that their cat con't get into heaven, Verdi claimed that during his childhood a priest kicked him during services. Often nowadays, people are pissed because the churches(well traditional ones) refuse to embrace the free for all sex doctrines the premediates our current society.
**. In contrast, religious theories are accepted on the basis of the babblings of religious hermits who beat themselves bloody, refuse to wash, and -- small wonder -- haven't had sex for at least six weeks (OK, make that 40 days). **
This is simply an immature and childsh knee-jerk remark. I doubt scientists' sex lives are any better, and what does that matter? Does sex give you knowledge? If so, then Byrant is arguing from a Tantric religious point of view as opposed to a scientific one(Tantra is a Hindu sect that teaches sex is the key towards enlightenment).
Religious belief is based on brainwashing? What about the communist and secularist practices of drilling atheism into childrens' minds by way of public education? Atheist parents raise their children to be atheists as much as Christian parents raise their children to be christian. Spare the BS!
Also I like to know why Byrant and other atheists only target Christianity? They never seem to target other religions, in fact even prefer their teachings to Christian ones. As a former atheist, I know this!
But Christianity is the major religion in our society, so we target that
Ok but still you give absolutely no attention often towards anyother religion's teachings, which as an atheist you oppose all religions. So many atheists just betray themselves as being anti-Christians as opposed to being anti-religion in general.
I will add more arguments later.
2003-07-16 17:57 | User Profile
Simplistic, artificial/superficial criticisms.
2003-07-16 18:08 | User Profile
*Originally posted by perun1201@Jul 15 2003, 15:49 * ** Also I like to know why Byrant and other atheists only target Christianity? They never seem to target other religions, in fact even prefer their teachings to Christian ones. As a former atheist, I know this! **
Excellent point, perun. Kierkegaard wrote that the main reason why people reject Christianity is not disbelief, but rather an unwillingness to submit to Christ's authority because of the demands it makes upon them as individuals. My experience tells me there is a good bit of truth in that statement.
2003-07-16 18:49 | User Profile
.....Let me predicate my remarks by saying that, in a sense, I agree with Mr. Bryant, insofar as ââ¬Åreligionââ¬Â is concerned; ââ¬Åreligionââ¬Â, per se, is an abomination before My Father, and Scripture is replete with warnings concerning His children, Israel, (the caucasian race), avoiding such fallacious activity...
.....Itââ¬â¢s when Mr. Byrant blankets his statements to include true Christianity, and Our Father, YHVH, The God of Israel, in his wayward assessment that I take issue; as mentioned above, Mr. Bryant obviously doesnââ¬â¢t learn about God from Scripture, but from nonsense told to him via other outlets... He presumes far too much about his own knowledge concerning this topic and bases his pathetic arguments upon such, and if he believes himself capable of explaining either Scripture, or The Author thereof, he has proven woefully inadequate with this particular article...
ââ¬Â(Reason 1:), On the other hand, people become converts to religion because they think they see that it works, but are mistaken: For example, people become converts to religion because of such things as (a) their parents shape their beliefs at an impressionable age (ie, brainwash them); ( they have a psychic or psychic-like experience which makes them think that God is responsible, whereas in reality they may only have had a pinched spinal nerve, or perhaps a genuine psychic experience, the latter of which does not prove the existence of God, but only that there are things that science still doesnââ¬â¢t understand; or é they survive some traumatic experience which makes them think that God is the only thing that could have gotten them thru it,ââ¬Â
.....True enough, about some folks; however, those that embrace true Christianity are well-beyond the ââ¬Åreligiousââ¬Â mambo-ja-hambo...I was neither ââ¬Åbrainwashedââ¬Â into accepting Christianity, nor had I a traumatic experience that drove me into The Word, (unless, of course, one considers the deeper studies of ââ¬Åjewishââ¬Â communism/satanism to be traumatic); a pinched nerve may well be a minor judgement for a violation of His Ways, just as ingesting parasites from eating filthy swine could be so considered... One neednââ¬â¢t rely upon "familiar spiritsââ¬Â in order to validate the God of Scripture, but need only study the prophecies, and the actuality of the fulfillment thereof, to be assured that The God of Israel is exactly Who He says He is; I would recommend much more study for Mr. Bryant, as well as any other ââ¬Åbig brainââ¬Â that would be as arrogant as he...
ââ¬ÂReason 2: In contrast, religious theories are accepted on the basis of the babblings of religious hermits who beat themselves bloody, refuse to wash, and ââ¬â small wonder ââ¬â havenââ¬â¢t had sex for at least six weeks (OK, make that 40 days).ââ¬Â
.....Nonsense; Scripture is what it is... Our Prophets did no such thing as to literally beat themselves bloody, or the other discrediting foolishness that passes among the unlearned in this day; it is the antiChrist element in our midst, (read: ââ¬Åjewsââ¬Â), that perpetuate such stories, be they concerning our Prophets, or our founding fathers, all in an effort to denigrate their legacy, and cast down upon their operating principles, that their knowledge vacuum may supplant our foundations...
ââ¬ÂReason 3: Religionââ¬â¢s logical contradictions: Religion contains many contradictions. For example, the Bible tells us to ââ¬Ålove thine enemyââ¬Â, yet all the smiting of their enemies by Godââ¬â¢s Chosen in the Old Testament makes it plain that the roots of Christianity were far closer to hatred than love. Again, the Bible tells us that God ââ¬Ålovesââ¬Â each and every one, yet those who violate Godââ¬â¢s laws or donââ¬â¢t believe in religious dogma are supposedly going to be sent to eternal Hellfire ââ¬â hardly an act of a loving God. One can fill a book with such contradictions.ââ¬Â
.....Again, Mr. Bryant reveals his profound ignorance of matters Scriptural; the admonishment, as stated above, to ââ¬Ålove thine enemiesââ¬Â, was, contextually, limited to relations between brethren... likewise the ââ¬Åturn the other cheekââ¬Â concerns only Israel-to-Israel relations, (be it of the flesh, or adoption), but not to foolishly lie down for oneââ¬â¢s enemies to walk over you; those that were to be smitten in the Old Parchment were mongrels, therefore, not recognized as men in Scripture, but as ââ¬Åbrute beastsââ¬Â... the wisdom of the need to exterminate such, (Israel failed to follow YHVHââ¬â¢s Command), is more than evident today, as the mongrel hoard rides roughshod over the landscape, eating our sustenance, and destroying civilization by way of the plan put forth from the antiChrist ââ¬Åeldersââ¬Â... Neither does Scripture teach the Babylonian nonsense of ââ¬Åhellââ¬Â, as it is commonly ââ¬Åunderstoodââ¬Â, (misunderstood, says I); the only one sentenced to death is satan, (the sissy), himself... his nephilim/progeny are already considered ââ¬Ådeadââ¬Â in Scriptural terminology, therefore, they have no chance of life eternal, (which is the only life recognized by Our Father), and are ââ¬Åreserved unto judgementââ¬Â in ââ¬Åthe deepââ¬Â; that too many Christians have allowed themselves to be deceived, to the point of failing to even correct such blatant error issuing forth from the baââ¬â¢al priests in todayââ¬â¢s pull pit, (sorry whores that they are), is the problem...
ââ¬ÂReason 4: Religionââ¬â¢s incredible shrinking knowledge: About 400 years ago, the Christian religion ââ¬Åknewââ¬Â everything. It ââ¬Åknewââ¬Â the earth was flat, ââ¬Åknewââ¬Â that there were witches, ââ¬Åknewââ¬Â that animals could be tried for crimes, ââ¬Åknewââ¬Â that the Bible was the literal word of God, ââ¬Åknewââ¬Â the difference between right and wrong, ââ¬Åknewââ¬Â that the difference between man and beast was that only men have ââ¬Åsoulsââ¬Â, ââ¬Åknewââ¬Â that the earth was the center of the universe, and so on. Since that time the things that religion ââ¬Åknowsââ¬Â has been shrinking at the speed of light ââ¬â or at least the speed of thought. Copernicus showed that the sun was the center of our ââ¬Åuniverseââ¬Â; Galileo discovered new worlds; Newton showed that it was physical laws, and not a Godhead, that determined the movement of the planets; and so on. Today, what religion ââ¬Åknowsââ¬Â can be contained in a pinhead, and generally is.ââ¬Â
.....This entire point is in reference to deceived Christianity, as opposed to the Scriptural variety; the ââ¬Åphysical lawsââ¬Â he attributes are the selfsame Laws established by YHVH... Job, 38, Proverbs, 8, Jeremiah, 4, and the Psalmist all relate to the ââ¬Åage that wasââ¬Â, (that which was destoyed in Genesis, 1:2), and the foundations established for our very existence... Mr. Bryant foolishly puts the cart before the horse with these wayward musings...
ââ¬ÂReason 5: Religionââ¬â¢s immoral leaders: Religion has always claimed to offer a code of ââ¬Åabsolute moralityââ¬Â, yet the behavior of its holiest men have often been far less than moral by any standard, religious or otherwise. For example, numerous Popes have been guilty of all sorts of crimes ââ¬â bribery, theft, fornication, murder, torture, warmaking ââ¬â you name it. Again, the Inquisition was responsible for treating many people with the most extreme barbarity -- so much so that a strong stomach is required simply to read about it. It is true, of course, that Christianity has cleaned up its act in recent years, but this has much less to do with the character of its leaders than its failing power in a world dominated by science. Accordingly, since Christians are no longer able to express their love of God thru such media as boring tongues with hot pokers, beating people till bloody at the whipping post, dipping and re-dipping them in boiling oil or ripping off their genitals, these gentle and loving people now have to content themselves with beating the bare buttocks of their children, and even this divertissement has been under attack in recent years.ââ¬Â
.....This one, I will grant him, but note he refers to ââ¬Åreligionââ¬â¢sââ¬Â immoral ââ¬Åleadersââ¬Â, (he-goats), as opposed to true Scriptural Christianity; collective behaviors of the ââ¬Åpopesââ¬Â hardly count for much, particularly in light of the fact that the ââ¬Åjewsââ¬Â have had control of the RCC since 1530, shortly after the break by Martin Luther... The inquisition was likewise executed with a ââ¬Åjewââ¬Â at the helm, in the person of Torquemada; the other atrocities are unworthy of mention, in the context offered...
ââ¬ÂReason 6: Religionââ¬â¢s questionable moral codes: Even with immoral leadership, religion might still claim the moral high ground on the basis of its behavioral codes. As it happens, however, these codes are usually deficient and often highly ambiguous. For example, there is no consensus on many controversial moral issues, including abortion, homosexuality, pornography, serving in the armed forces, and numerous others, tho all sects claim to know that their position on these issues ââ¬â whatever it may be ââ¬â is endorsed by The Big Guy In The Sky.ââ¬Â
.....Mr. Bryant uses faulty reasoning; YHVH states, unequivocally in His Living Letter what His position is, and regardless the poor deluded masses out there that make erroneous claims they blame upon Scripture, there is no ambiguity in Our Fatherââ¬â¢s Word... abortion? Innocent life, thereby, murder; homosexuality? Abominable, period, and paragraph; pornography? Properly studied, just another form of baââ¬â¢al worship, (whoreship); serving in the armed forces? For defense, always justified; to scamper around the globe installing ââ¬Åjewishââ¬Â communism under the guise of ââ¬Ådemocracyââ¬Â, at the behest of their antiChrist masters is again, tantamount to murder of innocent life... ambiguous? Not at all...
ââ¬ÂReason 7: Religionââ¬â¢s historical origins: The origin of most religions does not encourage belief. Serious investigation of the origins of religion only began in the 19th century with Sir James G Frazerââ¬â¢s Golden Bough, and we now know such things as that the Yahweh religion of the Old Testament was actually a cult of phallic worship whose ââ¬Åcovenantââ¬Â was signed in blood by circumcision, and that many of the rituals of modern Christianity were taken from earlier religions, such as the Christmas creche, which was taken directly from the Egyptian Isis-Osiris religion.ââ¬Â
.....This is utter nonsense, as well; it was the fallen Israelites that went ââ¬Åwhoring after false ââ¬Ëgodsââ¬â¢Ã¢â¬Â. spoken of in our Scripture, btw, that were the origin of that which he herein decries... likewise, it was the ââ¬Åjewishââ¬Â pharisees that used the ââ¬Åletter of The Lawââ¬Â to establish their ritualistic abominations and force them onto the masses, all in an effort to control...
ââ¬ÂReason 8: Religionââ¬â¢s appeal to the human ego: Because we now know that the earth is but a tiny speck of dust in an ufathomably large universe, the notion that human beings are ââ¬Åspecial creations of Godââ¬Â, and in particular are so important that God ââ¬Ågave his only begotten Sonââ¬Â for their ââ¬Åsalvationââ¬Â now seems like such palpable nonsense that anyone who believes it would have to be demented. And inasmuch as all the major religions are built around the notion that they are ââ¬Åspecial creationsââ¬Â of the Creator of the Universe, we can forthwith assign all such religions to the dustbin of superstition. The argument here is evidently much like what Bertrand Russell had in mind when he said, ââ¬ÅThat God would bother with humans proves that he is demented; that he is demented proves that he does not exist.ââ¬Âââ¬Â
.....Anything relying upon Bertrand Russell for evidence is not worth addressing; without understanding the true nature of the Sacrificial Lamb in YHVHââ¬â¢s Eternal Purpose, Mr. Bryant, as well as this Russell character, are not qualified in the least to speak to the issue... Mr. Bryant fails to make the distinction between ââ¬Åredemptionââ¬Â and ââ¬Åsalvaionââ¬Â, as well, and it appears he couldnââ¬â¢t ââ¬Årightly divideââ¬Â sliced bread, much less the most Profound writings on the planet... :)
ââ¬â¢Reason 9: Religionââ¬â¢s ââ¬Ëexplanatoryââ¬â¢ appeal: The importance of religion for many people is that it explains how the world came into existence (ââ¬ÅBecause God created itââ¬Â) and the purpose of their life (ââ¬ÅTo worship God and do his biddingââ¬Â). However, these explanations make no sense upon close examination. In particular, ââ¬Ëexplainingââ¬â¢ the existence of the world as an act of God requires the believer to explain how God was created ââ¬â surely he did not create himself ââ¬â and this means that the ââ¬Ëexplanationââ¬â¢ leaves more unexplained about the world than before the ââ¬Ëexplanationââ¬â¢ was developed. Likewise, ââ¬Ëexplainingââ¬â¢ oneââ¬â¢s purpose in life by saying it is to ââ¬Ëserve Godââ¬â¢ implies that Godââ¬â¢s purposes are known, whereas in reality we know nothing about ââ¬ÅGodââ¬â¢s purposesââ¬Â except what is told to us by the babbling of religious fruitcakes.ââ¬Â
.....We know His Purposes by virtue of His Living Letter, ââ¬Åreligiousââ¬Â fruitcakes notwithwithstanding; mensan fruitcakes, either, for that matter... if this is the best he can muster for a point, I would have to ask, ââ¬Åwhy bother?ââ¬Â; in this case, it would have been better for Mr. Bryant to remain silent and be thought a fool, as opposed to leaving us no doubt...
ââ¬ÂReason 10: Religionââ¬â¢s psychological origins: Many years ago, the famous Harvard psychologist B.F. Skinner did an experiment on what he called ââ¬Åthe development of superstition in pigeons.ââ¬Â Religion, of course, falls under this rubric ââ¬â as J.B.R. Yant said in his Mortal Words, ââ¬ÅReligion is just superstition which has been around long enough to have become respectable.ââ¬Â What Skinner did was the following: He would put a hungry pigeon in a so- called ââ¬ÅSkinner boxââ¬Â, which had an opening through which food could be introduced. Food pellets were then dropped into the box at random times. The result of this setup, when done with a large number of pigeons, was that each one of the pigeons were found to be repeating a single behavior over and over: Some would continually repeat a certain type of preening, some a certain type of stretching, some a certain type of walking, and so on. The reason for these different continually-repeated behaviors was as follows: Pigeons normally are continually engaged in one or another type of behavior ââ¬â preening, stretching, etc. If they are engaged in one of these behaviors when a food pellet is dropped into their box, they form an association between their behavior and the appearance of the food pellet, i.e., (in mentalistic terms) they are caused to think that there is possibly some cause-effect relation between their behavior and the appearance of the pellet. This, then, encourages them to try the behavior again, perhaps several times ââ¬â i.e., this behavior has been ââ¬Åreinforcedââ¬Â. But since this behavior has now become more likely, there is a greater chance that a food pellet will drop into the box at the time that the pigeon is engaged in this behavior. Which means that this behavior will be ââ¬Åreinforcedââ¬Â more. Which means that it will be more likely to be performed again, and get reinforced again, and so on and on, until the hungry pigeon has developed a ââ¬Åsuperstitionââ¬Â about what ââ¬Åcausesââ¬Â a food pellet to appear ââ¬â a superstition that it will practice whenever it is hungry. The parallel with the Skinner experiments and religion is obvious ââ¬â a person is taught how to pray, so this causes him to pray occasionally ââ¬Åat randomââ¬Â merely out of habit. Then one day after he has prayed, something he has prayed for comes about. So he is ââ¬Åreinforcedââ¬Â ââ¬â even tho there was no relation between his prayer and the happy event. So this encourages him to pray again. And occasionally it will happen that what he wishes for actually occurs following a prayer. So he is reinforced again. And so on, until like a bird-brain pigeon, he has developed a full-blown superstition, i.e., a religion.ââ¬Â
.....B.F Skinner?! Worse than Russell, actually; he was the one responsible for driving his own daughter mad, by way of his experimentation... today, our school children are ââ¬Åeducatedââ¬Â, (read: indoctrinated), right past their intelligence by the Skinnerian model of psychobabble and bovine excretia; the entire field of psychiatry/pyschology is a false science instituted by the ââ¬Åjewishââ¬Â communists, straight out of the Frankfurt school of psychopolitics... herein lies the aforementioned ââ¬Åbrainwashingââ¬Â decried by Mr. Bryant; seems heââ¬â¢s had a goodly dose of his own... His point about rote prayer may well have merit, but again, it is concerning those of deceived Christendom, for the most part...
ââ¬ÂReason 11: The argument from the multiplicity of religions: There are dozens, and perhaps even hundreds or thousands of religions, all of which claim to be ââ¬Ëabsolutely trueââ¬â¢, and all of which contradict one another in fundamental ways. The only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from this is that all of them are absolutely false. In recognizing the above facts, those of an ecuminist bent have argued that, while all religions are probably false in some ways, the fact that all (or at least most) have the same core beliefs about God and morality imply that the true religion is constituted of these core beliefs. While this argument has a superficial appeal, it does not in fact prove the truth of the core beliefs, but only ââ¬â at most ââ¬â their usefulness: It proves that human beings are similar in the basic moral rules and mental props (god-belief) needed for a stable society.ââ¬Â
.....There is only one Christianity; there are no ââ¬Ådenominationsââ¬Â, (meaning ââ¬Ådivisionsââ¬Â, which are an abomination, and of which, there were none in the first century Church), save those created by antiChrist ââ¬Åjewryââ¬â¢sââ¬Â divide-and-conquer strategy; when true Christ men begin to ââ¬Åprove all thingsââ¬Â, as admonished, and ââ¬Åstudy to shew thyself approvedââ¬Â, denominations will go the way of the dinosaur... His observation concerning ââ¬Åmental propsââ¬Â is superficial to the nth degree...
ââ¬ÂReason 12: The argument from impudence: The following is a quote from my book The Mortal Words of J.B.R. Yant: It is the simplest of simple things to prove that God does not exist. Just look toward the sky, raise your middle finger, and say, ââ¬ÅHey, you son- of-a-bitch mother-fcker up there, if youââ¬â¢re so God-damned all-powerful, then letââ¬â¢s see if you can strike down little old me, you big over-praised, over-blown ass-hole.ââ¬Â When nothing happens, the proposition is proved, Q.E.D.ââ¬Â*
.....This fool is stricken, without even being aware; I pity such ignorant arrogance... to attempt to tempt Our Father in such a fashion probably causes Him a belly-laugh; there comes a day soon when ââ¬Åevery knee shall bowââ¬Â, and that includes the ignorantly arrogant humanists that believe themselves ââ¬Ågodââ¬Â, as Mr. Bryant so obviously does, therein falling for the adversaryââ¬â¢s second lie...
.....The balance of his nonsense is merely more of the same vain imaginings; if there was a point worthy of addressing, Iââ¬â¢m sure I missed it... Mr. Bryant is worse than one who knows not; he knows not that he knows not...
.....If one were to consider my objections superficial, I would be more than happy to elaborate, but be sure your ducks are first in a row; Scripture is not at all a light topic, and many of todayââ¬â¢s ââ¬Åscholarsââ¬Â are completely confounded by operating upon their own ââ¬Åwisdomââ¬Â, (which is to say, no wisdom at all)...
2003-07-16 19:35 | User Profile
**Excellent point, perun. Kierkegaard wrote that the main reason why people reject Christianity is not disbelief, but rather an unwillingness to submit to Christ's authority because of the demands it makes upon them as individuals. My experience tells me there is a good bit of truth in that statement. **
True Texas Dissident. My atheism was more based on anti-Christianity than really anti-religion. In fact my "atheism" actually grew out of my early fascination with European pagan faiths which I thought made more sense than christianity. Never once when I was an atheist did my interest in religion really decline, in many ways it increased. I really had nothing against most religions, my beef was with christianity.
After a few years(and I matured more) my attitudes towards christianity started to warm up, and even began to respect many chrisitan teachings. Soon I became a "non-theistic" christian(a person who believes in christian teachings but not in Christ's divinity or in God's existence) which eventually led me to becoming a full believeing christian.
So yes I know the major bias that atheists have against Christianity(I once held that bias). Once in a while they'll attack Islam(especially since 9/11) but other than that its almost completely against chrisitianity. Just look at some of these websites and count the arguments they make against Christianity and those made against other religions. [url=http://dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Religion_and_Spirituality/Faiths_and_Practices/Atheism/]http://dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/R...ctices/Atheism/[/url]
Oh and good arguments Patrick!!
2003-07-17 12:47 | User Profile
....."Shouldest thou help the unGodly and love those who hate YHVH? Therefore is wrath on you from before YHVH."...
.....What does that do to your belts?
2003-07-20 03:45 | User Profile
Ares...
.....Do you intend to defend the birdman, or do you agree with his views?
2003-07-27 09:26 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Patrick@Jul 19 2003, 21:45 * ** Ares...
.....Do you intend to defend the birdman, or do you agree with his views? **
I agree with John Bryant. I can't accept as true something which I have no direct or indirect evidence of. I have no tangible evidence of deities, souls, angels, Heaven, and Hell, thus I can't take such ideas as true. Rather, I am a seeker of knowledge: the search for deities is something I value, I am always talking to various religious people and I am reading literature on the paranormality, such as UFOs, aliens, abuctions, ghosts, psychic abilities, the ability to predict the future, and the like. I keep an open mind and give everyone a chance to make their case. And I do understand that just because we are unaware of a certain reality, or that we don't have any evidence of something, does not mean that certain something does not exist. For example, back in the days, we had no evidence that atoms existed, but that did not change the fact that atoms are real.
So, I will keep on seeking knowledge and keep an open mind, but I will not mold my life to any theologies since evidence for such things are weak at best. And who knows, maybe some day a deity will appear before me and prove his powers, and then I shall believe.
Regards,
Ares
2003-07-27 16:26 | User Profile
"And who knows, maybe some day a deity will appear before me and prove his powers, and then I shall believe."
Well...
.....It seems you spend an inordinate amount of time trying to further convince yourself that Mr. Byrant's take on this has merit, when I have illustrated what folly it is; I would suggest you keep those knee-joints limber, as they will be required to bend one day in the not too distant future... :)