Religion Is a Scam

American Atheists raised the hackles of the locals with a new billboard.

See it and learn more here.

Can anyone name the five religions represented in the billboard?

Post 1

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 - 12:27pm

Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Shintoism - and will leave the other for someone else... ;-)

Post 2

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 - 12:32pm

I've always felt uncomfortable with militant atheism. It is wrong-headed as an approach to a philosophical issue even though it is the right position on technical grounds.

There are a number of problems with that Scam article. A scam is only a scam if the perpetrators don't believe what they are putting forward. When I read that article I'm embarressed at the poor logic being employed.

So, let me skip past all of this and jump to the conclusion. I know that there is no God because there is no evidence. That closes that issue. As to religion, that's a different story altogether. There we have belief systems (which are good in the generic), and a system of values (also important to have), a code of ethics (got to have that as well) and they tend to advocate for individual responsibility and (to a degree) for free will. Those are the things that we Objectivists have in common with religion. They also seek to achieve good and believe that people need to be held responsible for meeting universal standards. We both stand opposed to moral relativism, strict determinism, and the idea that you should have an integrated system of knowledge and values.

It is true that our greatest enemy is faith - which is a corner-stone of all the religions (possible exception being some of the Buddhist approaches). There we need to challenge the faith-based approach to knowledge strongly. And we must continue to oppose all of the altruistic ethical bases while agreeing that we need an ethical system.

I believe that we do better by winning over those who agree with us in many fundamental and sense-of-life positions while only holding the positions we disagree with lightly and out of ignorance of the alternatives.

Take two individuals: One is an employed mid-west man with a young family who believes in moderately conservative political positions, productivity, wants good things for his family and goes to church once a month or so and if asked he would say he believes in God. The other is an associate professor of political science who is an anarchist or progressive in his political beliefs and is outspoken in his atheism - using religiosity as a talking point against the Tea Party. Who do you think is more aligned with the Objectivist sense of life and more likely to be won over to being an Objectivist?

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating siding with religion - that would be a big mistake. I'm saying that we need to attack with precision only that which is wrong. And that isn't all of religion. Don't side with it while it is such a horrible mixed bag but make the attacks on the critical areas: Faith and Altruism. When people get the sense that their entire belief system is under attack you are unlikely to get an open mind in response.

Post 3

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 - 12:42pm

I have to wonder:

What kind of uproar would ensue if someone posted a billboard showing symbols for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, PETA, and Communism represented as scams?

Can anyone name the fifth religious symbol in the original post of this thread?

It has me stumped!

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 1/04, 1:14pm)

Post 4

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 - 1:40pm

Excellent points, Steve.

Ed

Post 5

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 - 3:23pm

Hinduism? Shinto is a Buddhist discipline, so the only great religion left would be Hinduism, or maybe Zoroastrianism, which is older, but I don't think its practiced anywhere anymore.

Post 6

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 - 9:33pm

I'd say it's either Hinduism or Sikhism -- the 2 most popular religions left.

Ed

Post 7

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 - 10:10pm

Hindu

The trihsula (also spelled trishul or trisula, Sanskrit for "three spear") is a trident spear that is the emblem of the god Shiva. The weapon symbolizes empire and the irresistible force of transcendental reality.

The three prongs of the trishula represent Shiva's three aspects of:

�creator,
�preserver
�destroyer

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 1/04, 10:11pm)

Post 8

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 - 4:44am

Thanks, Steve!

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 - 12:33pm

Yes, that was a great post.

And also, thanks to the frequent posters here who share their insights from the 'mostly' objectivist perspective: perhaps you folks are "altruists" after all.

Yours Truly,
Lurker

Post 10

Thursday, January 6, 2011 - 12:06am

Terry,

We're not true altruists, but what we do around here certainly does help others.

:-)

Welcome to RoR.

Ed

Post 11

Thursday, January 6, 2011 - 7:40am

Thanks ED,

And glad to read, as in Steve's post, that the philosophy of 'objectivism' can be used to help others without resorting to the denigration of the 'religious' - particularly 'Christians' who are "the individuals" most likely to be won over to a more 'Rational' way of life.

Bye for now. And thanks again for being a voice of reason in a world that sometimes seems to have gone completely bonkers.

Terry

Post 12

Thursday, January 6, 2011 - 11:37am

Terry might have misinterpreted a part of my post. Altruism is a moral philosophy based upon valuing others above one's self - as a philosophy that values sacrifice - and I am not in favor of that at all.

Self-sacrifice is a disvalue.

Generosity and kindness ARE virtues, but the they are minor virtues and only so long as the 'helping others' doesn't involve sacrifice and isn't cast as a duty or obligation.

Objectivists know that rational self-interest, practiced in an environment free of coercion will automatically produce the greatest human flourishing - both for the individuals acting in their own interests, and, as a byproduct, for those around them. It generates the wealth that makes both opportunities and generosity possible.
---------------------

From Ayn Rand:

What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice�which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction�which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.

Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: �No.� Altruism says: �Yes.�

�Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World,�
Philosophy: Who Needs It, page 61.

Post 13

Friday, January 7, 2011 - 5:51am

Steve,

I am not familiar with the works AR so no doubt there may have been a misunderstanding on my part regarding the usage of the word in the philosophical context of 'objectivism'.

My wife has had a (yet unread) copy of the 'Fountain Head' on our book self for years; I plan to get better acquainted with the subject, perhaps moving on to "faith and Force" after reading FH.

And now I can, 'read the book - and see the movie.

Anyway - religion may be something I consider to be a sham; but still can not reconcile the fact that it does serve society as force for 'human Flourishing'.

Not sure why, perhaps because it is still in many ways the sole custodian of 'morality & ethics' in America; and in that respect I think it best we don't go and throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Well, keep the faith my friend, I read all your post - consistently good material to be found here at ROR that for sure.

Terry

Post 14

Friday, January 7, 2011 - 6:13am

Terry, an unusual book written from a Christian perspective, The Art of Selfishness by David Seabury, might help you. Here is a passage from Chapter 49:

Your self-concern is for the end of protecting and fostering your abilities, that you may continue to grow. Believing that what is best for you is, ultimately, best for the other person also. You allow yourself time to think, to decide, to develop. You seek the larger ends and the broader services, and from a respect for your own nature, you protect yourself against others. You love your neighbor as yourself, remembering that Jesus thus advocates self-love in no uncertain terms.

The book is out of print but you can usually find it at a local library or purchase it used from Amazon for less that $20.

Post 15

Friday, January 7, 2011 - 9:24am

Terry,

The issue of whether or not a god exists is not an ethical issue but a metaphysical one. "Metaphysical" means pertaining to the nature of reality. So why is the issue of a god's existence or non-existence relevant to how we live? Well, how we live -- whether in obedience to a god for the sake of a life after death or for the betterment of our lives here on earth -- depends on whether or not there is a god and a life after death.

So the ethical issue -- how we should live -- depends on the metaphysical issue of what exists. It also depends on the proper means of addressing and answering that question. Do we answer it on the basis of faith or feeling, or on the basis of reason and evidence? As Nathaniel Branden put it, the science of philosophy asks the following questions: What exists? How do you know? So what? These three questions correspond to the first three branches of philosophy: Metaphysics, epistemology (the proper means of knowledge) and ethics.

Although religion has a code of ethics, it is one based on a false foundation -- a false metaphysics (supernaturalism) and a false epistemology (faith in the commandments of a god) -- which leads to a false code of ethics. The fact that religion has a code of ethics does not mean that its code is rational. What is needed in place of religious morality is a rational, scientific code of ethics based on the survival needs of human beings. That is what Objectivism offers, which is why it is so important.

Post 16

Friday, January 7, 2011 - 10:29am

Bill,

That's a very well written post!

Post 17

Friday, January 7, 2011 - 3:10pm

Thanks, Steve!

Saturday, January 8, 2011 - 7:56am

O'Reilly Debates Atheist Group President Over Religions Are 'Scams' Billboard

The Colbert Report responds.

Post 19

Saturday, January 8, 2011 - 10:40am