|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The slickest con ever perpetrated on mankind | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Does not the word "con" imply that the people selling you pie in the sky are themselves aware that there isn't any?
Good question. Some probably believe it, but I think that they have either been conned, or have conned themselves. Others know it is a con, but don't much care. But it's such an attractive proposition! Eternal life! It would be a rare individual who didn't want some. "Pay me now for a chance at eternal life later." If there was some real evidence that supported all of those claims that would be one thing, but faith and belief are what's required for religion, not evidence. Evidence seems to be the last thing they want.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
A very simple, lucrative, massively corrupt and corrupting example of the con was the selling of indulgencies (get to heaven quick promises) by the Catholic church. In the end, the practice led to the reformation of course, but it still exists today in a moderated form.
.........the later Middle Ages saw the growth of considerable abuses. Greedy commissaries sought to extract the maximum amount of money for each indulgence.[40] Professional "pardoners"[5] (quaestores in Latin) - who were sent to collect alms for a specific project - practiced the unrestricted sale of indulgences. Many of these quaestores exceeded Church teachings, whether in avarice or ignorant zeal, and promised impossible rewards like salvation from eternal damnation in return for money.[38] With the permission of the Church, indulgences also became a way for Catholic rulers to fund expensive projects, such as Crusades and cathedrals, by keeping a significant portion of the money raised from indulgences in their lands.[38] There was a tendency to forge documents declaring that indulgences had been granted.[38] Indulgences grew to extraordinary magnitude, in terms of longevity and breadth of forgiveness. Indulgence - WikipediaLife, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi Marc9000,
I interpreted Coyote's title as hyperbole. It wasn't my interpretation that he wanted to discuss whether there are slicker cons than religion. I thought he was expecting those on the religious side to argue that religion is not a con at all. I hadn't anticipated that someone would take the position that sure, religion is a con, just not as bad as other cons, but now that you mention it I see no reason why it should be considered off-topic. So please proceed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4
|
Wouldn't you rather follow Admin's direction, a few posts back, to stay on topic? Yes, I would.
The topic, in simple terms, is that religion and it's promises of an afterlife which shamans can provide--for a price--is a huge con. No, now you're trying to change it, your opening post said it's the "slickest" con, not just a huge one. And you haven’t specified any promises, any particular shaman, or any price, or estimates of cost to society. You seem unprepared for any type of meaningful discussion. Was admin correct, were you really expecting a religious person to claim that religion has no cons at all? I doubt that would happen, you would have an easy time with them if they did. I certainly acknowledge that religious cons can be a serious problem. Just because the con is perpetrated in the name of religion doesn’t mean all of religion is guilty, anymore than junk science condemns all of science. You were quick to point out from my link that "shamanism and organized religion are not mutually exclusive", well guess what, legitimate science and junk science are not mutually exclusive either. My biggest issue is with your claim that religious cons are the slickest, that anything comparable would land the ones making those grandiose promises in jail or worse. Your word slick or even "huge"may not be objective enough for a good discussion, ‘dangerous to society’ or ‘costliest’ would probably be better terms. The problem with your claim is that religion has no official ties with government, so government coercion cannot be used to aid the con, that is, the price paid in religious cons can really only happen by voluntary exchange. Not so with junk science, science HAS official ties with government, so when junk science is used by the EPA or trial lawyers (as only two examples) to con huge amounts of money from an often unwilling populace, the con becomes far more slick, far more costly, and far more dangerous to society, and far more difficult to fix or reverse. Unlike you, I have some examples of the cons I’m talking about. John Edwards conned millions of dollars from insurance companies, the medical profession, and in the end, the general public with his malpractice lawsuits, concerning cerebral palsy in infants and small children. HugeDomains.com
quote: Note the part I bolded above. Jennifer was inside John Edwards! She was talking to him! How slick was that? Remember that to many in the U.S., whether they were listening to him or not, it didn’t matter how slick they found him to be, they paid up, because his con is a legal one, bound by the law. Religious cons don’t have that luxury. As you may have heard, Al Gore is selling carbon credits; Is Al Gore The Greatest Con Man Of All Time?, page 1
quote: Al Gore could become the world’s first carbon billionaire reads the headline. Environment - The Telegraph
quote: Religious con men can’t get very far in encouraging Congress to adopt anything. Gore says this;
quote: He is active in business that is corrupt, is based on emotion, and has an excellent chance of failing as it continues to face the test of real world markets and efficiency. But he’ll keep his money. Pretty slick huh? Now if you claim that religious cons are the slickest, you’d need to show me how they can go above and beyond the coercion, the public establishment, of junk science cons. I’ve shown you only two, there are many more of course, and they don’t get much mainstream media attention since they’re not politically correct - the scientific community doesn't appreciate criticism too much. But I’m sure I could find you more — I’m sure you’ll demand them — I can even cite my personal experiences with the farce of auto emission testing, the complete lack of evidence that it was necessary or that it did any good, but I’ll have to ask you (for the third time) to first get started with your examples of religious cons.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
...but I’ll have to ask you (for the third time) to first get started with your examples of religious cons. You are misreading my posts. I am not saying there are cons within religion. We all know that there are, as in all human endeavors. What I am saying, and what you refuse to debate, is that the concept of religion itself is a con. It is a con on mankind, a self-delusion born of wishful thinking and mankind's desire for what religion is selling--eternal life. But there is no evidence that the pay-me-now for a promise of life after death scheme is anything but a massive con, something far surpassing any of the cons you are trying to drag me into discussing so you can avoid the point of my thread.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The Christian "Are you saved?" con is dishonest for many reasons.
First, even if there is an afterlife, no one will know if they are saved or not until after they are judged. Second, it is too often marketed to the young, those who's brains have not yet developed. Third, it is most often marketed in a culture where critical thinking and questioning is not just discouraged, it is condemned. Fourth, there is no recourse; if someone dies and is judged and they find they are NOT saved, saying "But I got saved when I was eight" carries no weight. BUT... in reality, it is a great, very productive con. As long as the snake oil salesman evangelist reports his income and pays his taxes, the US Constitution protects his right to market a product (salvation) with NO product liability.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4
|
You are misreading my posts. You used the word "slickest", that's "SLICK EST in your opening post and now you're running and hiding from it. You mentioned anyone but religious con-artists being "put in jail or worse" for equivalent non-evidenced cons. It's there in message 1 for anyone to see, unless they misread it. No misreading going on from my end.
What I am saying, and what you refuse to debate, is that the concept of religion itself is a con. It is a con on mankind, a self-delusion born of wishful thinking and mankind's desire for what religion is selling--eternal life. What is there to debate? You, the majority of posters here, and 93% of the National Academy of Scientists are militant atheists. So what? You'll still be a tiny minority in the U.S. for generations to come. You started the thread off talking about shamans, a small handful of people, especially in today’s society, who use religion as a method for their con games. So it’s clear now that your implication is that because a tiny minority of religious people are con men, then ALL of religion is a con. If your thinking is that shallow, there's nothing more for us to discuss.
But there is no evidence that the pay-me-now for a promise of life after death scheme is anything but a massive con, something far surpassing any of the cons you are trying to drag me into discussing so you can avoid the point of my thread. Pay me now for a promise of life after death IS a con, it’s not the legitimate Christian religion. The word of God actually instructs against seeking salvation from humans other than Christ. Evolutionists here often lament how creationist posters post in science forums with little knowledge of science. It would be nice if atheists would learn something about religion before trying to weaken its hold, as Nobel Prize winner Steven Weinberg instructs them to do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.0
|
You used the word "slickest", that's "SLICK EST in your opening post and now you're running and hiding from it. So, what? You are happy to agree that religion is a con, but you just don't think it's very slick? Would you settle for second slickest con?
You, the majority of posters here, and 93% of the National Academy of Scientists are militant atheists. No. The 93% figure includes agnostics. It certainly does not discriminate between "militant" atheists and otherwise.
Check it out. You should know this; you've posted this link yourself.
Pay me now for a promise of life after death IS a con, it’s not the legitimate Christian religion. No argument here. Personally, I would say that none of the various Christian sects is truly legitimate, since none of them is true. Certainly though, some are better or worse than others and those groups who are in the business of stripping the gullible of their cash are the lowest of the low.
The word of God actually instructs against seeking salvation from humans other than Christ. Except there's the tricky bit. Jesus ain't around to speak for himself and the accounts of his life are written by... humans other than Christ. That leaves you officially fucked. Mutate and Survive Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given. Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
Pay me now for a promise of life after death IS a con, it’s not the legitimate Christian religion. But Christianity isn't the only religion, though, now is it? I know you won't believe anything I say, and if I tell you X you'll consider that ample reason to believe Y - you'll do this because, frankly, you're not that smart, and believing the opposite of what your enemies believe is your only tool for cognition - but I think you're getting hung up because you see an attack on religion as an attack on Christianity. But there's other religions. Buddhism, Islam, Shinto, Hinduism, even those goofy Ba'hai cultists. I mean, you can't believe that their religions encapsulate truth, or something. So what's the deal, there? Don't you have to look at the vast wealth amassed by their high priesthoods, the crushing poverty at the foundations, and at least suspect a con?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
OK, if you don't like the terms "shaman" and "slickest con" perhaps we can change it for you to better convey my intended meaning.
How about the promise of an afterlife as made by "religious practitioners" is the most "egregious swindle" ever perpetrated on mankind? I'm not referring to the actions of a few crooked shamans/priests/etc. but rather the entire concept of religion as put forward by self-appointed religious practitioners, accompanied by unsubstantiated claims of being able to grease the way for their customers into a favorable afterlife--for a price.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
So, what? You are happy to agree that religion is a con, I never said religion is a con, I only acknowledged that it can be used as a con by dishonest people. That doesn’t make religion any more guilty than science is guilty for those who dishonestly promote junk science.
but you just don't think it's very slick? Would you settle for second slickest con? As a wild guess without any research, I’d say it would come in about 10th. Junk science would probably fill up the first 9 positions. Maybe someday when I have more time I’ll start a thread on junk science.
Personally, I would say that none of the various Christian sects is truly legitimate, since none of them is true. Certainly though, some are better or worse than others and those groups who are in the business of stripping the gullible of their cash are the lowest of the low. Lower than John Edwards? He has little girls inside of him to talk only to him, but that's okay because he's a liberal?
Except there's the tricky bit. Jesus ain't around to speak for himself and the accounts of his life are written by... humans other than Christ. That leaves you officially fucked. There we go again, you assess Christianity without knowing anything about it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4
|
But Christianity isn't the only religion, though, now is it? It’s the main one in the western world, and it’s the one that is by far under the most attack from the scientific community.
I know you won't believe anything I say Now now, you're too hard on yourself, I'm making every effort to give you the same equal time I'm giving to everyone else.
and if I tell you X you'll consider that ample reason to believe Y - you'll do this because, frankly, you're not that smart, and believing the opposite of what your enemies believe is your only tool for cognition Could the pot be calling the kettle black here? Do you have evidence that evolutionists don’t do the exact same thing to creationists?
but I think you're getting hung up because you see an attack on religion as an attack on Christianity. Because that’s what attacks on religion in the U.S. are, and it’s documented. There are many cases where separation of church and state results is laws requiring restrictions in Christian public displays/actions, while giving a free pass to muslim displays/actions.
But there's other religions. Buddhism, Islam, Shinto, Hinduism, even those goofy Ba'hai cultists. I mean, you can't believe that their religions encapsulate truth, or something. So what's the deal, there? They encapsulate beliefs of other cultures in other governments, usually on the other side of the world. Most all discussions on these forums are about governments and religions of the western world.
Don't you have to look at the vast wealth amassed by their high priesthoods, the crushing poverty at the foundations, and at least suspect a con? No. The details of societies in the far east don’t interest me. That doesn’t mean I look down on them, I’m just not involved with them. They don't promote any junk science that poses a threat to the society I live in. The scientific community seldom if ever seems to refer to them, or oppose or try to change them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1509 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.4 |
OK, if you don't like the terms "shaman" and "slickest con" perhaps we can change it for you to better convey my intended meaning. No, I actually loved them, because they obviously were your intended meaning, and you’re still in shock from getting busted so quickly. No need to change anything.
How about the promise of an afterlife as made by "religious practitioners" is the most "egregious swindle" ever perpetrated on mankind? A simple atheist talking point? Your opening post could have been much shorter and easier to understand with that — it would have been just another tired invitation for a 20 against 1 religious versus atheist battle. Aren’t there enough of them on these forums? I’m not interested in any new ones, nothing new would ever be accomplished. Your embarrassment should be starting to ease up now, your helpers are moving in, we see that one used a vulgar word, and another called me not very smart, so those should be major victories for you. I'm sure you'll get more support, but my work in this thread seems to be done, from here on I'll only respond to something substantial. Maybe when the dust settles in a few days, I'll do a summary. May Darwin bless you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
It’s the main one in the western world, Which is, by far, the least populated of the Earth's hemispheres.
it’s the one that is by far under the most attack from the scientific community. No religion is "under attack from the scientific community."
Do you have evidence that evolutionists don’t do the exact same thing to creationists? If all an evolutionist had to do was believe the opposite of a creationist, we wouldn't have to go to school for as long.
There are many cases where separation of church and state results is laws requiring restrictions in Christian public displays/actions, while giving a free pass to muslim displays/actions. At most you have one or two cases you can construe as "Muslims getting a free pass", and for every example you have, I can give you the reverse - Muslims under restrictions that are never applied to Christians. Remember the "Ground Zero Mosque" that was neither a mosque nor at Ground Zero? Remember Herman Cain asserting that Muslims had no First Amendment right to construct places of worship because Islam was not "technically a religion"? Separation of church and state applies as equally to Hindus and Muslims as it does to Christians. If that principle is not upheld, that's a failure of the secular agenda, not the result of it.
Most all discussions on these forums are about governments and religions of the western world. I don't see any indication in Coyote's posts that he's restricted the conversation to the West.
The scientific community seldom if ever seems to refer to them, or oppose or try to change them. Because the scientific community is engaged in a search for reliable physical models, not in a quest to oppose or change the world's religions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow71 Member (Idle past 2933 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Coyote writes:
How about the promise of an afterlife as made by "religious practitioners" is the most "egregious swindle" ever perpetrated on mankind? I assume you have some proof for that statement. As I have been told many times on this board. Show me the evidence that there is no afterlife. Are you of the belief that Jesus was a Shaman?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024