The End of Religion? Some Proof Might Hasten it Along

How the fantasiacal outperforms reality

If proof is ever discovered for a god of any kind (or the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ) it will be the end of religion—or would solving the mystery only serve to create another? The nature of the game is solely dependent on faith to play on human weakness, insecurity, and boredom. Belief is the driver of our own demise. A neat trick, whereas sure and provable facts or solutions are the end of any equation, puzzle, or game, once mastered resorts to eventual boredom and depletion of secretions. It is who we are, and what we seek becomes our who, time and again through discovery. Our desire to incessant contraception to the doldrums of reality only rests momentarily after the satisfaction of conquest—then deeper we go to the next fabrication, even if it’s our own.

Nothing in history has generated more interest than the fantastic and unprovable—un-evidenced charade of the fantastical—the fake.

Video games generated more cash ($114 Billion, more than 25% of religion) than any other form of entertainment in 2018. The new religion is built on this same premise of human nature.

The new religion of gaming is still in its infancy. While old style religion in the US adds $418 billion annually to the American economy, it’s a robbing Peter to pay Paul industry scheme where nothing is created but cash flow—on par with other non-creating industries (like insurance) Religion in the USA would be the 15th-largest national economy, outpacing nearly 180 other countries and territories. It’s more than the global annual revenues of the world’s top 10 tech companies, including Apple, Amazon and Google. Is it too big to fail?

There is a reason politicians align themselves with religion and it’s not the people.

Author: jimoeba

Alternatives to big box religions and dogmas

145 thoughts on “The End of Religion? Some Proof Might Hasten it Along”

    1. Imagine that $418B going into research or infrastructure. Along with 150million minds working out something tangible like cures or logísticas for feeding the poor. The sheer volume of paid ministry in 340,000 individual churches in the US that produce nothing, is huge!

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply

    2. haha I think the private jet companies would take a hit. Those ‘ministers’ of the super churches sure like to fly. What you ask is seriously an interesting question though. I would guess the Christian sector of the economy is mostly self contained: they have their own colleges, publishing houses and other entertainment forms for example. I wonder how much intersects with the larger society. And of that percentage, how much goes to political action funds and other political bribes. Also, their 1% probably does as much wealth hoarding as the 1% of the larger community.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. Pastor Ken Copeland solicited me to help feed elderly Jews in Israel. He has a net worth of $670million. I didn’t donate. He should use his own money instead of his name.

        Liked by 3 people

        Reply

        1. Or he could do some lobbying for peace. An awful lot of money going to Israel from America feeds the war industry instead of people.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

            1. America’s reliable toe-hold in the Middle East? As the ghost says in the ‘Caspar’ movie … “I don’t think so, Bone-bag!”

              Liked by 1 person

  4. I think there’s something in human nature that draws all cultures to some sorts of spiritual or supernatural beliefs…. Problem is, just because everyone else believes, doesn’t mean it’s factually correct! 😉

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply

    1. Not even fractionally correct. Belief is given a pedestal and goes nowhere but to placate unanswered questions. Any answer is better than wondering, I guess

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

    2. I can understand and even accept “spirituality” as a result of early humans reacting to the seemingly supernatural activity around them. Remember our ancestors witnessed events well beyond their comprehension or understanding. Events upon which their very lives depended; a successful harvest, the changing of the seasons, the phases of the moon, etc. Why wouldn’t they choose to believe that there were entities beyond their world that controlled these things and that they had best make sure they were on the better side of these forces? That to me seems totally reasonable given their total lack of understanding. In fact, I’d argue that we as humans would be much better off today offering some respect toward these forces as the providers of the necessities of our own lives. The Earth, the very source of our existence, would be much better off and so would we if this spirituality were a stronger influence today. However somewhere along the lines “religion” highjacked this belief system and turned it into something nefarious, where the few owned the knowledge base, the so-called “truth.” It’s important to note that right though ancient history the word “religion” did not even exist; neither the Greeks nor the Romans would have known such a term. Religion brought a fixed dogma, a catachism, a theology you have to buy into hook, line, and sinker or you are a heretic and need to be eliminated. Religion has poisoned everything it touches and nothing is more important than perpetrating and protecting the dogma for the survival of the belief system. The history of western civilization is rife with such examples; the slaughter of vast amounts of pagans thoughout Europe, the Middle East, and Alexandria; the Crusades, where thousands of Muslims, Jews, and even Christians were slaughtered with impunity on an unspeakable scale in the name of Jesus Christ; the Albigensian Crusade where as many as two million souls, the Cathars, were essentially wiped off the face of the Earth, and of course the Reformation where BOTH sides committed countless atrocities in their claim to the “orthodoxy,” – the “right belief” – of Christianity. A simple reading of the history of Christianity – and there are many, many wonderful texts out there on the topic – will inform the reader that there has never been a more destructive source or power over civilization than religion, especially Christianity. The newer “movement” of spiritualism is at least a more personal and innocuous – even productive – belief system that puts the Earth and Nature as a moral imperative. We should be encouraging its’ growth if nothing else as a pathway toward saving our planet and fighting against the forces that would have us continue the incessant crimes against nature that we have endured since the Industial Revolution began.

      Liked by 5 people

      Reply

      1. That!—Is a great summation worthy of its own post! The moral imperative is in fact the earth and caring for it. I do appreciate genuine spirituality and those connections to the energies and natural phenomena that have been difficult in the past to explain. There is no need for it any longer. By focusing on our religious tradition now, has stagnated real spirituality, and it’s time we do better than that. Every discipline has explained quite nicely what was once a religious overtone. The moment of creation is the last holdout for Christianity. The one thing that matters the most is the least respected.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

    3. I do think that spiritual and supernatural beliefs is sometimes helpful to unite a scattered population, consolidate ones position or to spur people to action

      I think religious beliefs have given people some form off identity and something to strive for

      In many cases it is some form of spiritual belief or political ideology that has held a lot of cultures together

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

            2. Me too. My four inch white platform soles ensured I bumped my head on quite a number of door frames!
              And of course, the bell bottoms had to be so wide they completely covered the very expensive four inch white platform soled shoes!
              ‘Cos that’s what we did!

              We were so cool, right?

              Liked by 1 person

          1. I’ll easily take the 1959 original from Motown, Barrett Strong on vocals, or The Beatles version. listening to the Flying Lizzards is like listening to plaster dry. Or was that the point? Boring!

            Like

            Reply

    2. Good looking, obviously honest—she’d go far in a convent, especially in the Vatican. The Pope might be a bit impoverished if he could even keep up …

      Like

      Reply

  6. Proof of the existence of a God or gods would only be the first step. Whether those gods were actually benevolent and worthy of admiration and following is the next question. I won’t say worship because that is no longer reasonable in my mind nor would it be acceptable by a worthy and benevolent God.
    Gods who demand worship on threats of pain and torture, even if they exist, are not worthy of respect let alone following.

    Liked by 8 people

    Reply

    1. And on top of that, worship is immoral anyway.
      To continuously evaluate whether a being is good requires moral judgment, which requires moral autonomy
8. Therefore it is not possible to continuously evaluate if a being is good while also worshipping it
9. Therefore, worshipping necessarily requires abandoning one’s moral responsibility, which is immoral
10. Therefore, no being is worthy of worship”—James Rachel “God and Moral Autonomy”—

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. A worthy God would not require worship. Nor would he/she/It be interested in slavish obedience. Any being who would… is closer to the devil than a god.

        Liked by 3 people

        Reply

        1. Might rarely equals right. Someone played a fast role reversal in the garden of Eden (if there was such a thing) the angry, jealous, info hoarder won the way of the world, not the other way around. Hey! How’s the Dennett book coming along? Ima curious to read your review.

          Like

          Reply

          1. Slowly. It’s a pretty dense book with thick ideas and concepts. I’m still in the section on the evolution of religion.

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

  7. Religion and things like it have worked well to control and to profit from people. I do not expect any of it to stop or even change (maybe get worse). Scary. But it is our own foolish delusions that allow us to believe so many deceptions, not all of them religion or spiritual. After I spoke at a small Southern Baptist in deep east Texas one Wednesday night, as people shook my hand while leaving the building, many kept giving me money (I had not asked for any). When I showed the Pastor, he said, “You may be missing a calling, Bill.”

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

    1. Humans are way too easily duped from the moment they are born. Just look how completely gullible a child is. They will believe anything at all, especially from someone they trust. It doesn’t change much once one settles in to the belief they rationalize the most. It makes no sense why our kids are raised in deception, even outside of religious lore. It’s a disappointing characteristic of humanity.

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply

    2. Many years ago, after I spoke at a large special church gathering focusing on ministry and missionary work. I got a standing ovation (embarrassing, that was) and was subsequently approached by a well-heeled Campus Crusade for Christ talent scout and made a rather tempting offer. “That was powerful” he said, “we can use you.” I heard the word “use” and quietly declined the offer. I’ll choose who I get used by, thank you very much. This also goes for God, all three of him. If I have to go to hell for it, that’s OK with me, I am pretty sure that Satan is a lot more fun, or as Milton said, better to reign in hell than serve in heaven.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

          1. I used to speak a lot for church too. Embarrassed about it now, but the friends I had are so disappointed in my apostasy. Funny they only believed me when I was telling them what they wanted to hear. I was so gifted then, but without that spirit of belief I’m not too smart now.

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

            1. Yeah, we can be very smart within the bullshit environment. Just like, take DT out of the white house, take away his money and put him on a road building work crew and see what happens to his lying tweets. In the same vein, what I was involved in was spreading false hope, lying and living in 24/7 delusion if I said it with enough conviction, it would be true and God would consider me worthy of a heavenly mansion… speaking of which, have you seen the movie, “The Invention of Lying”?

              Liked by 2 people

            2. I’ve not seen it. I look for it. I agree with you. Take these people out of their element and everything changes. Funny thing, it doesn’t even matter how you made your money, it makes your famous. From Hef to bill gates and every money man in between—it’s respected and wise if you can turn tricks for enough cash, it’s ok. Except mr madoff. Stealing from the rich will get you indicted

              Like

  8. Empirical proof which would spell the end of religion could come from scientific discovery regarding the structure and origin of the cosmos, or it could come from archeological discoveries which reveal the fraudulent origins of religion. We’ll probably have a very long wait for the former to occur, and the latter isn’t very likely either.

    However, the demise of religion doesn’t necessarily require empirical proof. If religion, through its own devices, alienates a large portion of the population, then its membership would naturally fall. See: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/young-adults-are-dropping-out-of-church-in-large-numbers-survey-finds-this-is-why/ar-BBShY9D

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

    1. It just doesn’t work any more without constant propping. On another note, I’ve noticed a lot of laws passed in Olympia really don’t apply to rural settings. There’s just not that many people for it to matter. Same with the old laws, they just don’t work or weren’t needed anymore. Things have changed, and clinging to the old wisdom of a sheep herder could just be the downfall. Kids are pretty tolerant. Secular humanism is leaving its mark in opposition with plain ‘ol common decency. Kids really don’t care about colors or orientations. It takes a special in-house indoctrination to keep that spirit alive.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

    2. I’ve never been challenged when I state that if JC Themselves* were to storm into the Vatican, go up to the Pope and bellow “You’ve got Me all wrong!” … despite the crown of thorns and nails still protruding He’d be whipped off of his feet and galloped down to the dungeons never to be see again. Any takers this time?

      No. I thought not … QED

      * All three of Him, in One

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. True. He would be relegated to street corner preaching with an old timey sandwich board over him. The big question is…do I tuck the beard behind the board, or let it blow in the whirlwinds caused by traffic?

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

  9. The fact that there can’t be by definition evidence of the supernatural origin or causation of any natural occurrence, event or existence of any natural thing clearly demonstrates that there can never be any definitive proof of the existence of God/gods.
    It’s either faith or evidence for your beliefs. You can’t have it both ways and be completely honest.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    2. Actually that reminds me, back when I was Christian I used to go to this Christian music festival, it was insanely popular. I remember one year all these politicians turning up and doing talks there, I was like WTF? I guess the politicians found a gold mine of potential new voters.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

        1. Haha yep that’s it. I remember thinking that back then, I mean many politicians in NZ don’t have religious beliefs now, so why else would they be at a Christian music festival? But then again, the festival owners were just as snakey. I mean almost all the people involved in organising were unpaid volunteers, whilst those at the top were making some sweet dough and sailing yachts.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. I used to do week-long paid medical at creationfest for the Gorge Amphitheater. It was a sight to see the pure ripoff they pull on these kids. $4 for a bottle of water, and they don’t allow any food or water to come through the gates. 100° in the shade and kids are dropping like flies, then pay for ambulance service. It was immoral.

            Like

            Reply

            3. Lol. They banned alcohol at this festival too, and no sharing tents with opposite sex unless married. Of course there was plenty of sex, drugs and alcohol there, just like any music festival really. One band set to perform got turned away due to drugs too.

              Liked by 1 person

        2. If there were “proof” of a god somehow, would there be any chance of it conforming to any of the existing dogma used as scripture over the last 2 or 3 thousand years? If it were to be the Judeo/Christian god by some chance, is there a possibility that the creation story would turn out to be true, and all of the accumulated knowledge, science, etc., would be wrong? Is there really any chance of that happening? Furthermore, what are the moral implications of living in a world full of evil, despair, inequality, poverty, starvation, etc., while there’s a real, living and breathing god somewhere that does nothing in response to such injustice? Think of everything that has happened in history over the last few millennia, maybe 4 or 5 thousand years; all the holy wars, all the world wars, all the genocide, the Holocaust, literally millions & millions of people killed, mostly innocent non-combatants actually, with no response or intervention from the deity? What kind of “god” would that be?

          Liked by 3 people

          Reply

          1. Mysterious ways for certain. Barf 🤮And then when the gig is up, he rolls the whole thing up like a scroll and tucks our teaspoon of dirt and our collective consciousness in a jar somewhere while he runs off to check in yonder galaxies. We may not matter to him. That’s a fact, but we matter to us. A god of love…we shall see.

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

          2. Rap:

            Floating around on the web I happened across a photo of scrabbling claw marks on the walls of a gas chamber in (I think? Auschwitz). Made me wonder if any of the thousands fighting in there for their last gasp were praying, and why their ‘god’ chose to ignore them — and did any, with those last gasps and final sparks of sanity, not become instant converts to atheism?

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

            1. Unfortunately the Jews have quite a catastrophic and volatile relationship with their god. Keep in mind he left them in Egypt for 400 years for some reason before he finally “heard their cries” and sent Moses to end their suffering and lead them back to the “promised land.” We can site numerous examples of their suffering throughout history since Jews were frequently blamed for everything and anything (think the plague, the Crusades, Spainish Inquisition, among many.) and yet their faith survives. I can’t imagine what would have to happen for them (as a people, that is) to collectively lose their faith.

              Liked by 2 people

            2. So God will just have to heave a sigh, bite the bullet and keep on testing ’em.

              (Seems a bit extreme to me, but that’s loving Gods for you …)

              Liked by 1 person

    3. Obvious … kiss a few babies regardless of whether you actually like ’em or not, you score the Motherhood vote. Go to church with TV coverage and regardless of true feelings you score the religious vote …

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  11. That’s an interesting statement/question you make at the start. If proof were found of a God, and they were from one of the existing religions (Christianity, Islam in particular), it would be VERY unsettling to me. OK, firstly it would suggest almost everything I learnt and ‘knew’ was wrong, much like finding out general relativity or evolution was wrong. I would be seriously questioning everything around me at that point. But secondly, I have to follow and worship this asshole of a God otherwise I suffer eternally after death. And like, even if I follow them, said God might throw my relatives and friends to Hell who don’t. But alas, the characteristics of the biblical God contradict each other, which makes their existence an impossibility, or they did exist but the Bible was somehow wrong.

    However, if said God were NOT from any of the religions we know, yeah that would create more mysteries to solve. Could we communicate with this God? Is there any objective purpose to our lives? How much control has this God have over their universe? If this God did have control, well they are responsible for a crap tonne of problems. Ahh the list goes on…

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. Then I suppose next you would have to evaluate whether you would want to align with a character like that or not. That was one of the reasons I started questioning faith. I felt my integrity was at stake to defend such atrocious behavior over and over. So I suppose there might be reasons to believe at that point, but worship? Then, here we go again. Not sure if you saw this quote, but it is a truth. To continuously evaluate whether a being is good requires moral judgment, which requires moral autonomy
8. Therefore it is not possible to continuously evaluate if a being is good while also worshipping it
9. Therefore, worshipping necessarily requires abandoning one’s moral responsibility, which is immoral
10. Therefore, no being is worthy of worship”—James Rachel “God and Moral Autonomy”. I would need some serious explanation. If this deist god exists (which he has shown to be, regardless of what people teach) and this is truly his doing, that would be an easy call, but a difficult one as well when eternal suffering is in the table. Then you wind up like a Saddam Hussein loyal—out of fear, not love. Hail Caesar!!
      Excellent observations CA.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

      1. An interesting quote, have to wrap my head around that one. So I’m guessing he’s saying that worshiping a deity contradicts morals, since you have to throw your own independent morals out the window?

        Yeah believing in a God and worshiping them are two separate things. Most Gods require worship, but maybe this God doesn’t require it and doesn’t feel insecure and jealous if we don’t (talking to you Yahweh). But yeah, you also point out another interesting contradiction: how can you love a God if you’re scared of the threat of eternal suffering? It just doesn’t work so well. I mean, you can PRETEND, but God sees everything and Christianity is supposedly concerned about ones heart.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        1. I am inclined to to think if there was a god, he is indifferent. Men have made the rules, and men have fashioned those rules from their heritage—the apes. Everything is geared toward protecting sex, territory, and food. You see the teenagers forbidden to partake of the harem, kept as near slaves while the patriarchy maintains control well into old age (think of the children of Israel) working their way to having a wife, etc. Killing foreigners that try to mingle with the troop… I think you get it. It’s all very tribal and evolutionary. Wait! How did I get here?

          Liked by 5 people

          Reply

            1. Looking at history it appears that if you can be the first to come up with an appealing explanation for phenomena you are quids in. Milch cow writ huge, in fact … and of course you are going to milk it for all you can get (sex, booze, money, land, more power etc) .

              But such glories are temporary, even if ‘temporary’ lasts hundreds (or thousands) of years. So vigorously protect your meal-ticket for as long as you can, even if it means being a wee bit unpleasant to anyone who even might perhaps almost be considered a threat.

              The good news is that we aren’t allowed to burn ’em at the the stake these days … but will it last? I posted about a moslem guy who was sentenced to a thousand lashes for taking the name of God in vain (sentence was mercifully commuted to a mere fifty lashes—

              —every Friday for twenty weeks (wasn’t that merciful?). Allah who? Don’t ask …

              Liked by 2 people

            2. I think we should come up with our own cult/religion and rake in that sweet sweet dough.

              As for the bit about burning people at the stake, well it depends on who ends up getting all the power at the end of the day. They will do whatever is needed to retain their power and quash dissidents. If they are accountable to other powerful people, then it might not be such a bad thing, but if they don’t answer to anyone? yeah that can’t be good.

              Liked by 1 person

      2. Thanks, but I’ll forego moral anything. All we have are choices, and no choice can be right for every circumstance or situation. I just said this same thing to S’T last night. There are circumstances where it is wrong to kill, there are situations where it is right to kill , and then there sre sihuations where the choice can go either way. And the same can be said of anything I can imagine. Morality is just a way to try to make people believe there are absolute answers. IMO. there are none.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. So your statement here is only correct for the moment, using your logic. True we have to use judgement but good to err on the side of caution when passions and beliefs run so high one would plan to hurt another. Then there is something wrong in the ol noggin. But, I agree with you…for today. 🎯

          Like

          Reply

          1. I don’t see the situations changing anytime soon. You have medical experience. A person is brain dead, but their body lives on. Do you sustain, or do you euthanize. The same body then lives through a fire, but half its skin is burned off, and you know the pain must be agonizing, do you repair or euthanize? Where is your moral imperative now? Are these really moral choices? To some they are, to others not. Which side are you on. A lawyer says you cannot euthanize, they do not have a DNR request signed. The common-law spouse says, no, do not resusitate. Who do you listen to? What do you do?
            Fiction, sounds like it, but truth is stranger than fiction. How do you deal in real life?

            Like

            Reply

            1. There was frequently a lot to consider on scenes like you describe. A lot of the time we’d work em just to salvage organs as well. The advanced directives, dnr’s and so forth are only as reliable as the family left behind. And they don’t really apply to trauma patients, but only sometimes do. It is interesting the differing cultures views on this. In Panama they are much more likely to allow natural death. In the USA, your last illness is the most expensive and families routinely request all measures even when its obviously hopeless.

              Like

            2. Ok, but I’m asking you, the hospital worker? When do you step in and take charge, or do you never step in. You know your patient is suffering horribly; do you always follow the rules? Do you never say, “Enough is enough!”

              Liked by 1 person

            3. Yep. I always followed the rules. I even intubated a dog once at a house fire.
              My wife’s first husband died of a brain injury. He was on life support and his siblings were dragging it out for a week. He was brain dead. She got them finally to turn off the machines and he was gone in less than a minute. You never know how people will react. Death is an overblown fear here.

              Like

    2. Covert:

      “OK, firstly it would suggest almost everything I learnt and ‘knew’ was wrong”

      —a simple question: God knew before you were born that you’d ask it. No? So everything that ever happens, will, or ever did happen, is all entirely in accordance with God’s will, Plan, and desires.
      Ergo God is in His Heaven and all is well with the worlds (regardless of how it may look to us).
      Invoking Godwin’s Law yet again—Adolf Hitler was God’s will too—couldn’t be otherwise, there’s only one omnipotent omniscient.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

        1. Lets not forget that they knew about fourteen thousand million years ago. So?

          So They/He also knew in the ultimate vacuum of nothingness before He/They they got their alpha into golf and kicked off The Creation. Being omniscient They know exactly how the universe will end, or not end … no novelty, so life must be one unending unendable boring non-event for them. (Life? Ye gods …) (Oops.)

          No-one has ever challenged me on this (they can’t, that’s why) but “Pity God, for He the Omnipotent Almighty is entirely incapable of a spontaneous act or thought).

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          1. It’s got to be a boring existence when you know everything that’s going to happen ha. So if said God knows everything, then what is free will? Everything we plan to do leads to an outcome which God has ultimately planned, which also means we can’t rebel against God? Now that’s getting deep.

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

            2. Have you been reading me, or do we drink from the same well?

              I word it myself to the effect that God’s omniscience makes a total mockery of any concept of ‘Free Will’ … and the silence is not only shattering, it reminds one of stunned mullets.

              (Actually, they ignore it because there is no answer … one of the reasons I keep pushing The Law of Contradiction.)

              Liked by 2 people

            3. Yes I see what you’re saying, and I’m surprised it’s something I never thought of all these years. But when you try to think about free will and predestination too much as a Christian, thinks get pretty uncomfortable.

              Liked by 2 people

            4. Psychotherapy is complete the moment the organism can quit defending itself for being an organism—Alan Watts. You are a product of your biology and a life of input received through no will of your own. You may be able to direct your choices by randomly selecting a variety a sources, but in the end, we do what we do because of the influences received by a lifetime of exposures outside of our control.

              Liked by 1 person

  12. It’s the vast scale of the religious followers in the 21st century that blows my mind. It is such cult like behavior and willful ignorance and herd mentality that I find utterly amazing.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. They still use fear to sell tickets. Funny, this is the safest time to be alive in the history of the world. And this world is much less religious, not more. Here in the states is a baffling puzzle of religious entitlement. Fear-mongers. Look at the damage someone like Alex Jones can do to people’s lives. Stockpiles and hiding, anti-vaxers hoping for a quick turn of the Jesus.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

  13. On a different angle, you said religion was a $418 billion industry, but how much tax money does that generate? ‘Most every industry has to pay taxes, so why not religion? El dumpo could build his wall just on taxes from the faithful, if he wanted. And they would probably just smile and say, “Please take mine!”
    “Yuck!”

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

        1. My wife has her life church minister license. She got it so she could do a friends wedding. We’re all set!! 💰 💵 And I take Apple Pay and PayPal too. Bring it!! Ahh, I’m too honest to be a cheat.

          Like

          Reply

          1. Who would you be cheating, lol? We could always bank the money, and use the interest to pay back those who donated.
            Ah, what the hell, no one would send us anything anyway. We couldn’t sell them the stairway to oblivion if we tried.

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

  14. I have often argued that even if there was proof of God, it would likely be rejected because such evidence might contradict religious doctrine in some way and there would still be people who refused to accept that evidence. And I do think there are people who just like to tout their faith as some sort of skill to be impressed by. In a way it is…to maintain a belief without evidence takes some skill I suppose.

    I don’t think belief or faith is purely without evidence though. One of my very early blog posts was about the fact that I think the problem is a misunderstanding about what evidence actually is. If I pray to get a job and I do get it, it is believed that this is evidence that my faith in the deity I was praying is justified. If you faith in your wife to come through for you, this is usually based on something. The fact that she has come through for you in the past, is the evidence you use to have faith in the future. Theists will consider the bible as evidence, anecdotal evidence as evidence. We make false patternicity errors all the time, but the errors we make in correlation doesn’t mean we don’t have evidence only that we misunderstand the evidence. Whenever I talk to a theist they claim to have evidence for their beliefs. I simply disagree with what they claim to be evidence.

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply

    1. While you have a point related to the prayer for the job, I tend to think most non-believers want cold, hard evidence. Something that anyone/everyone can look at and see it’s real. “Stuff” that simply happens because an individual asked some ethereal being is evidence only to those who “believe” it is. JMO

      Liked by 5 people

      Reply

      1. For me it’s quite simple: if the same results can, and do, happen to someone who doesn’t pray or doesn’t believe then that cancels all and sundry would-be evidence. Show me something that can only happen because of prayer, and that can be verified through repeted experimentation and I’ll take another look at “your” evidence. If it fails, even once, there is no evidence.

        Liked by 4 people

        Reply

      2. I agree with you…but again you and I will have a difference of opinion on what cold, hard evidence actually is. The theist will stack their anecdotal experience against your scientific evidence as being equal. They will then say science has often been wrong, it has made in correct conclusions and the the evidence didn’t show what we initially thought it was showing. Such that even if you say your own personal experience has bias, they will just see it as one bias vs another bias.

        IF the voice inside your head is telling you to do something and you believe that it is God speaking to you, then you will be convinced that you have evidence that God speaks to you. It as real in the brain as your observation that objects fall to the ground because of gravity.

        Liked by 3 people

        Reply

        1. So using this reasoning, Swarn, are you saying that everyone should accept the evidence that believers submit simply because it’s real to them?

          It seems to me that for evidence to be truly authentic, every person would need to accept it as such. I know that’s stretching it a bit, but when push comes to shove, what it really boils down to is our beliefs … which, to take it a step further, originate in the brain/mind. 🙂

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          1. That’s not what I’m saying at all, what I’m saying is that it’s worth understanding where a theist is coming from in regards to evidence rather than just accusing them of having no evidence to support their beliefs. Through analogy and other techniques I think we are better off talking about why some types of evidence are worse than others.

            Liked by 2 people

            Reply

            1. OK … thanks for clearing that up. Although IMO knowing where they’re coming from doesn’t make their “evidence” any more real. 🙂

              Liked by 4 people

            2. I didn’t say it makes it more real. It’s the difference between curing the disease than the symptoms. I hate to use that analogy. I’m just saying that if someone feels they have evidence even when it’s not, accusing them of having their beliefs based on nothing doesn’t put them in a receptive frame of mind. What a typical theist calls evidence is often based on the same cognitive biases we all have which takes a good deal of training and effort to get out of that mindset. So maybe it just pays to be respective before being dismissive.

              Liked by 1 person

            6. I know some of them do look for trouble to be counted as a worthy defender, not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, so they make themselves fools to receive more bendiciones.

              Liked by 2 people

            7. As in “fools for Christ” – 1st Co. 4:10… such ass-backward approach to life, as if becoming a fool for anything was either difficult, or something to aim for.

              Liked by 1 person

        2. Of course they’ll create a host of their world famous fake equivalents and yes, science hasn’t always been right. But science doesn’t hold on to dogma and resist any changes to it, that’s what religions do. Science holds on the theories until they are displaced by further research and discovery. Discovery that has been made due to careful scientific methods; experimentation, testing, public disclosure of the data, rigorous challenges by the rest of the scientific community and so on. Darwin was so nervous about his first presentation of the evolution theory at the Royal Society he had Henry Huxley do it for him. One can just imagine the outrageous backlash he/they received by scientists refusing to believe they were related to hominids! Yet over the next 175 years or so they tried to disprove his theory but guess what? He may not have had everything right, but he certainly was on the right track and he still hasn’t been disproven. Believe it or not the Christian community STILL refuses To accept the theory of evolution despite decades and decades of scientific research supporting the theory. Their minds are completely and utterly closed to any other notion but creationism so what are we going to say to them at this point would change their minds?

          The issue with religion is simple; it’s mythology, period. Some of the greatest minds of history have dismissed it out of hand as such: mythology, written by man for man. In fact you can say that science (in the form of archeology, study of a ancient documents, languages etc.,) has already disproved a whole lot of at least the Judeo/Christian dogma. Was there a world-wide flood that wiped out all of humanity? No. Was the planet formed in 6 days 6,000 years ago? No. Did Moses write the Torah? No. Did Joshua destroy Jericho and the rest of Canaan? There is nothing in the archeological record to support such a notion even after hundreds of years of digging. Is there any proof of the Exodus? No. That theory has already been widely disposed. Remember: it’s is NOT incumbent upon atheists to prove that something DOESN’T exist. As the propagators of such theories the burden of proof is on the Judeo/Christian community and all they have to support that is their dogma! There is a reason for the Latin expression Sapientium sapientum perdum: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise!”

          Liked by 4 people

          Reply

          1. I agree with everything you’ve said here. My argument is not that they are equivalent only that many theists don’t have the expertise or the knowledge to understand why they aren’t equivalent, hence the reason why they don’t get how their anecdotal evidence isn’t as meaningful as the type of evidence that science relies.

            I will say that I think science can be dogmatic, but the half life is much shorter. But there are numerous examples in scientific history where scientists wouldn’t let go of what they believed was true, but as evidence continues to pile up as you point out with evolution, the erosion continues and the scientific community has no trouble admitting it was wrong. Much different than with religion.

            Like

            Reply

            1. Yes, agreed. Of course there has always been reluctance on the part of scientists to accept new theories and hypotheses, true enough. The impact theory of the extinction of the dinosaurs comes to mind for one. The Alvarez’ were almost laughed out of the room the first time they present it. But I do believe that skepticism plays a vital role in the eventual discovery of “truth” (for lack of a better word) and that, if we are to truly search for such truths, we must be rigorous in our doubt until it is eventually removed through the scientific process. Even then, to be sure, there will always remain some skeptics, but I believe that is good. Einstein was spitting on sacred ground when he proposed that Newtonian physics had it wrong. What gall! Newtonian physics were held as sacrosanct for centuries, indeed, right into the 20th century and he comes this young upstart thinking he knows more than Newton? But that works for science, it can not work for religion which is why skepticism in religion is met with harsh criticism, even violence and worse.

              Liked by 1 person

            3. Of course scientist wouldn’t let go—of what they believe is true—regardless of facts. Too often the truth/reality had to be pounded into them by genuine martyrs who’d climbed over mountains and waded through swamps of entrenched dogma. (One Dr Semelweiss always springs to mind …)

              And often “Yesterdays unarguable scientific fact is todays hilarious Big Giggle” …

              Liked by 1 person

            4. Scientists change their mind far often than you think. And while both RaPaR admit that scientists definitely can be dogmatic, it’s fairly obvious that scientific thinking evolves at a faster rate than religion. I think that matters.

              And often “Yesterdays unarguable scientific fact is todays hilarious Big Giggle” …

              I don’t find this to be the case at all. Sometimes a not well-supported idea is yesterday’s giggle, but my venture it to scientific history finds that not only is it interesting, but actually that former thinking is quite reasonable given the information they had available. The geocentric theory makes quite a lot of sense given no telescope and observations only with the naked eye for instance. I also find that without earlier lines of inquiry we would not even have made the progress we had. Without earlier work we would be be asking the same questions over again and repeat a lot of effort. I would argue that people who laugh don’t really understand how science works and aren’t familiar with the historical context for previous lines of thinking.

              Liked by 1 person

    3. I guess a big difference between the ‘evidence’ you describe in your second paragraph, and what most non-believers count as evidence is that the first evidence isn’t verifiable or corroborated separately. Someone thinks something happened to them, or they have an explanation for something, but no one else can confirm this.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Well if two Christians who make the same false patternicity error they will corroborate each other giving them more fuel for their beliefs. So basically appeal to popularity piled on top of type I errors. They can’t untangle it all.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

    4. SWARN:

      evidence that is conclusive proof for some may well not be worth doggy doodoos to others.

      I’ve had experiences that can only (r) only be explained by using the paranormal/supernatural. These I keep religiously to myself, lest I be thought another nutcase. (Hey! Who just said ‘Too late’? Dammit, I heard that …)

      So I argue as best I can for reality; versus unsubstantiated/unverifiable beliefs.
      There are more things in heaven and earth, Bloggers, than are dreamt of in your philosophies. (With due apologies to Willy Shakespeare.)

      Gods and Jesuses and Allahs and things that otherwise stretch Reality too far, no. But happenings I cannot explain, yes. Perhaps I could start a religion and milk it for all I can get …

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. But I think that we can have agreed upon standards of evidence…even if it might be doggy doodoos to others I think rejecting evidence solely based on the fact that you don’t like it doesn’t make the evidence less substantial.

        Certainly there are many unexplained things. Now of course you could try investigating these unexplained occurrences in a systematic way. Now perhaps not enough is known at all to effectively find the answer. I imagine this was very much what it would been like to try and investigate someone dying of influenza a couple thousand years ago. Somebody got sick, nobody knew really why, and they died. Someone trying to investigate such a phenomena would maybe even have collected what they considered evidence, which might have even been good at the time, but would have led to a false patternicity error due to the simple fact that the microscope hadn’t been invented.

        We can relegate the unexplained to simply the unexplained now more easily than they could back then…maybe because so much was unexplained, and now we know there are ways at deriving truth (the scientific method) that are extremely effective, and we know that it is limited still by perhaps technology, and perhaps the necessary pre-requisite knowledge to effectively study and answer the question we are asking. I think humans have the ability to ask questions that we are far away from answering and so we are left with two options…a mystery that will just sit there and likely never be solved in our lifetime, or handing it over to mysticism. I think the former makes a lot more sense, but clearly that isn’t the path that humans took historically and of course even today.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. Rejecting evidence because a person simply doesn’t like it—there must be reasons why one doesn’t like it.

          Personal bias could be due to a lifetime’s experiences; and not to be discounted.
          I cannot explain ‘God’ and have a personal bias against gods but to explain why so in any depth would fill volumes; just as many earnest scientist-religiosi likewise. To each his own. My objection is when their own is inflicted on me.

          I understand that science can reduce a spider to its component parts and by analysis tell us everything about the spider. No argument there.
          And science had no problem coming up with machines that can reason enough to thrash me hollow at chess, or blowing bubbles, or painting cars; or even reproducing themselves (brrrr).

          I guess the ‘final frontier’ will be Life itself—at what point will ‘life’ by us be indistinguishable from life by Nature?
          Will that make us God?

          (Rhetorical question, don’t answer; down that track lies endless correspondence. Carpe diem!)

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

  15. If evidence if found for a theist kind of god or any kind of god. I don’t think that this would cause religion to end
    I think a combination of the following would happen
    1. Some people would leave their old religion
    2. Someone would capitalize on the situation and create a new kind of religion
    3. Some christians would stretch the bible to accommodate this discovery
    4. Some people would just ignore the evidence

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Jon:

      you’ve forgotten the ‘military strength’ option. As always, in accordance with the extant precedents, it would involve nailing people to crosses or lots of bonfires. The newly created ‘god’ would have to step in before a dearth of believers condemned Him (and us all) to the status quo …

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  16. “If proof is ever discovered for a god of any kind (or the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ) it will be the end of religion” … bugger … why didn’t I ever think to say this?

    Can anyone even begin to attempt to refute it?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Hey, Argus,
      Doesn’t it all depend on what you define as religion, and the 50 or so definitions I read last night all fail to do so adequately, not just in my opinion. If religion, at its most simple, is just unevidenced belief, then of course evidence of a god of some kind would rescind the need for belief, for those whose needs are matched by the evidenced god. But would it end religion? For anyone who wanted a different kind of god, I doubt it. Humans are peculiar that way, they want what they want. Nothing else would be good enough. However, I think proving the existence of one god would envourage others that their “god” might exist too. How many christians would accept Shiva as their god just because he did exist? One per cent, maybe. Most would ignore him. And that would still be unevidenced belief, and therefore “religion.”

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. This whole tug of war over a belief in the words of another is so ridiculous I can’t put it into words. Why is a belief so important?

        Like

        Reply

        1. Apparently because we are human, and humans have this crazy need to believe. What’s worse than belief, to me, is having faith in your beliefs, even though there is no substance to those beliefs.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. I would venture a quick thought, that belief is the root of all war, contention, division and hate. But I’d have to give it a couple minutes to prove it…Done!

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply

            1. Minutes? Don’t you mean milliseconds? Some theology student a while back told me belief (religion) never caused even one death, it was just man’s misunderstanding of religion. He wouldn’t budge, How can you fight disbelief?

              Liked by 1 person

      2. If Shiva existed, and proved Himself to me … I’d be a believer. (Likewise Aphrodite.)

        So all a god or God or goddess, or godling needs do, for me, is to front up in person.
        And there’s the cruncher—apparently they can do anything or almost anything—except front up. (Damn. I knew there’d be a catch …)

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        2. Again, so totally agree. Just show up. You don’t need to move mountains or make oil come out of a Bible… just f*****g show up!!! And stop sending your ignorant, cartoon character minded lobbyists to my door.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

Leave a comment