The Deception Theory of Religion

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

The Deception Theory of Religion

Post #1

Post by Jagella »

A good place to start talking about religious deception is to see what that great philosopher George Carlin has to say about it. I can paraphrase his "religion is ________" argument as:
In the baloney department, nobody can hold a candle to a clergyman. When it comes to baloney--big-time, major league, buh-lone-nee, you have to stand in awe, in AWE, of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims...

religion!

No contest--no contest. Religion easily has the greatest baloney story ever told. Think about it: religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do, and the invisible man has a list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these things he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send you to suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever...

but he loves you!

He loves you and he needs money. He's all-powerful and all-knowing but somehow just can't handle money. Religion takes in billions of tax-free dollars, and they always need more.

Now--you talk about a good baloney story--Holy Moses!
Carlin has more to say about his theory of religion, but for now allow me to interject by examining the motives for religious deception. Why does religion deceive people? In addition to the acquisition of wealth, religion is very useful in controlling people. If you can get people to believe in outlandish and false claims, then you can have power over them. In particular, if you can get people to think there's an invisible man in the sky who can do awful things to them and that you speak for that invisible man, then obviously they better do what you say or incur the wrath of that invisible man.

You might object at this point and accuse Carlin and me of bias. Neither Carlin nor I believe that there are invisible people in the sky. Of course we then accuse religion of lying to people! But you need to understand that there were people who accused religion of deception long before we came along. Those people are known as "religion." That's right, the people who accuse religion of deception are primarily the religious--all religion aside from their own is a pack of lies.

A good example of this phenomenon is that of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition. Judaism got started when its self-appointed prophets claimed to speak for their own version of the invisible man in the sky. These "prophets" assured their superstitious people that they were the invisible man's chosen people. As such they were free to slaughter men, women, and children to acquire real-estate. Such slaughter was fully justified according to the prophets because the invisible man in the sky ordered it. After all, the invisible man created us, so he can kill whomever he wishes especially when they worship "false" gods.

Judaism's deception worked brilliantly, and some of its own people got in on the act. They decided to take it a step further and have the invisible man come down from the sky and take the form of a visible man. A visible man has the obvious advantage over an invisible man in that you can actually see him or at least see a depiction of him. When Judaism objected to the visible man, the new religion, Christianity, denounced Judaism for rejecting the invisible man come as a visible man. They said that Judaism forfeited its status as the invisible man's religion and now it was they, the Christians, who were the invisible man's chosen people.

Finally, six hundred years after Christianity's deception, another religion took notice of its resounding success and came up with its own deception and called it "Islam." Islam denied the status of the visible man being the invisible man and substituted its own figure as the greatest of all of the invisible man's prophets.

There's so much more to the story of religious deception which we can discuss later. But for now allow me to ask:

Is the religion-is-deception theory a viable explanation of religion?

bjs
Prodigy
Posts: 3222
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 4:29 pm

Post #2

Post by bjs »

Personally, I think that there are better justifications for atheism than this one.

However, I understand where ideas of this nature come from. Like the “religion is mental illness� theory, it allows the person to insult those who disagree with him. There is a kind of high that comes from saying, “Everyone really knows that I am right! Anyone who disagrees with me is a liar, or duped by a liar, or just plain crazy.�

Theories like this don’t hold together rationally and they require ignoring a great deal of empirical evidence and the actual teachings of most religions. Or they rely on changing the meaning of words so that “deception� or “mental illness� when applied to religious faith means something different than when the words are used in other contexts.

I recommend setting aside arguments built on insulting anyone who disagrees with us, but I doubt that will ever happen.
Understand that you might believe. Believe that you might understand. –Augustine of Hippo

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8495
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2147 times
Been thanked: 2295 times

Post #3

Post by Tcg »

bjs wrote:
Theories like this don’t hold together rationally and they require ignoring a great deal of empirical evidence and the actual teachings of most religions.
It's hard to evaluate the validity of this claim given that you don't provide any of the, "great deal of empirical evidence", nor any of the, "actual teachings of most religions".

Can you present an extensive collection of this empirical evidence and actual teachings from most religions to support this claim?

jgh7

Re: The Deception Theory of Religion

Post #4

Post by jgh7 »

Jagella wrote:
Is the religion-is-deception theory a viable explanation of religion?
It is an explanation many people use. What do you mean by viable?

Overcomer
Guru
Posts: 1330
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:44 am
Location: Canada
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 66 times

Post #5

Post by Overcomer »

Oh, yes! That's why James allowed himself to be beheaded. And John, as an old man, let himself be boiled in oil and, later, sentenced to hard labour on Patmos. They knew Jesus had NOT risen from the dead, but were too proud to admit it, so they chose to be killed instead. And Paul allowed himself to be beheaded as well -- anything to deceive people into thinking that Jesus really rose from the dead.

Question: Would you die for something you knew was a lie? Would you allow yourself to be imprisoned and beaten and, finally, killed because you wanted to deceive people into believing that lie? Or would you die because you saw someone who you knew for certain was dead walking the earth once again and you knew that he truly was the Son of God?

There's a new book out by Sean McDowell on the fate of the apostles. See here:

http://seanmcdowell.org/blog/was-paul-beheaded-in-rome

And here:

https://voice.dts.edu/tablepodcast/fate ... -apostles/

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8495
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2147 times
Been thanked: 2295 times

Post #6

Post by Tcg »

Overcomer wrote:
Oh, yes! That's why James allowed himself to be beheaded. And John, as an old man, let himself be boiled in oil and, later, sentenced to hard labour on Patmos. They knew Jesus had NOT risen from the dead, but were too proud to admit it so chose to be killed instead. And Paul allowed himself to be beheaded as well -- anything to deceive people into thinking that Jesus really rose from the dead.
As I have pointed out before on this forum, you are using the myths told about Jesus and his followers to support the myths told about Jesus and his followers.

Question: Would you die for something you knew was a lie?
The proper question is, would people lie about events to support a religion they were lying about? The answer is obvious.

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Post #7

Post by Jagella »

bjs wrote: Personally, I think that there are better justifications for atheism than this one.
I agree, but let's talk about this one. Is the religion-is-deception theory a viable explanation of religion?
However, I understand where ideas of this nature come from. Like the “religion is mental illness� theory, it allows the person to insult those who disagree with him. There is a kind of high that comes from saying, “Everyone really knows that I am right! Anyone who disagrees with me is a liar, or duped by a liar, or just plain crazy.�
Can you explain how any of these comments relate to the OP? It's illogical to argue against your ideological opponent himself because you are upset with the implications of his argument. I would answer the question for debate and point out any logical flaws in the OP or inaccuracies in the OP if there are any. If there are no such flaws, then I would concede that the OP is a sound argument and adjust my beliefs accordingly.
Theories like this don’t hold together rationally and they require ignoring a great deal of empirical evidence and the actual teachings of most religions.


I see no such evidence, and until you post it, I will assume there is none. I also see no corrections regarding the "actual" teachings of any religion. Do you think Carlin and I got our ideas out of nowhere?
I recommend setting aside arguments built on insulting anyone who disagrees with us, but I doubt that will ever happen.
I just told the truth about religion. It is a deception. How is that an insult to you or anybody else?

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

facts presented in the OP

Post #8

Post by Jagella »

Tcg wrote:
bjs wrote:
Theories like this don’t hold together rationally and they require ignoring a great deal of empirical evidence and the actual teachings of most religions.
It's hard to evaluate the validity of this claim given that you don't provide any of the, "great deal of empirical evidence", nor any of the, "actual teachings of most religions".

Can you present an extensive collection of this empirical evidence and actual teachings from most religions to support this claim?
The facts presented in the OP are many. Here's but a few:

The false claims of religion are probably believed more than any other lies ever told.
Many religions do teach that there is/are an invisible man/people in the sky.
The(se) invisible man/people will punish people if they disobey the invisible man/people.
Despite these horrible punishments, the "prophets" of the(se) invisible man/people tell us that the(se) invisible man/people love us.
The(se) invisible man/people want the money collected by his/their prophets.
The money collected by the prophets is raked in tax free.
Examples of religions that practice these deceptions include Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all consider the two other faiths and all other faiths as false.

So again, religion belies itself!

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Re: The Deception Theory of Religion

Post #9

Post by Jagella »

jgh7 wrote:
Jagella wrote:
Is the religion-is-deception theory a viable explanation of religion?
It is an explanation many people use. What do you mean by viable?
Does the the theory explain the prevalence of religion?

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Post #10

Post by Jagella »

Overcomer wrote: Oh, yes! That's why James allowed himself to be beheaded. And John, as an old man, let himself be boiled in oil and, later, sentenced to hard labour on Patmos. They knew Jesus had NOT risen from the dead, but were too proud to admit it, so they chose to be killed instead. And Paul allowed himself to be beheaded as well -- anything to deceive people into thinking that Jesus really rose from the dead.
You don't think people can be deceived into doing crazy things like that? I don't normally take advice from deceivers or irrational people if I can avoid it especially if my life is at stake.
Question: Would you die for something you knew was a lie? Would you allow yourself to be imprisoned and beaten and, finally, killed because you wanted to deceive people into believing that lie? Or would you die because you saw someone who you knew for certain was dead walking the earth once again and you knew that he truly was the Son of God?
If you want me to answer your questions, then it's only fair to answer my question for debate. Please answer it.

Anyway, no, I wouldn't die for anything if I can avoid it. If I faced death as a result of a deception of mine, then I'm not sure what I would do. I might not have any choice but to die.

If I saw someone I knew who had died I would probably think I was mistaken, dreaming, or hallucinating. I would seek psychological counseling if I thought I needed it. I wouldn't try to convince people the dead person was alive again unless I had proof. I think it's wrong to try to convince people without proof that such an outlandish event as a resurrection has occurred. To do so would be deceptive.
There's a new book out by Sean McDowell on the fate of the apostles.
How do you know McDowell is not one of those deceivers I mentioned in the OP?

Post Reply