Atheism

[Daniel Krispin]

I, for one, got a lot out of this discussion at least, and I thank you for bringing it up Daniel. I come from a very religious family and, quite frankly, it's healthy for me to be exposed to the atheistic ideas propounded here. Not what you wanted to accomplish, perhaps, but certainly not a waste of time by any means IMO. Sorry for my useless quips -- I know that didn't help bring the level of discussion up either  .

Absolutely it's helpful - like you, my family is deeply religious. But heck, I'm reading Nitzsche with my class next semester. There's no harm in that. I'm just frustrated that certain people's views seemed so utterly unbending, that they won't countenance other opinions and deride them as immediately illogical no matter what they say... and that it was assumed I was trying to talk religiously when I was bloody well talking Kant! All logic and order Kant! But no, it's only pure empiricism, eh? Well, sorry if I burst anyone's bubble on that, but that's Locke and Hume... Kant logically contradicted them a very long time ago. I can't believe I'm getting called out on somehow living in a past age when they're philosohically two hundred years and more behind.

[Radical_Dreamer]

Hey, don't start things off on that wrong foot, the 'you know better than this' rhetorical tactic. No, this is my viewpoint. There is nothing to 'know better.' I think you're wrong. You are merely speaking your own rhetoric, and your own viewpoint, not facts (as much as you might consider them 'facts', you're clinging to them as surely as someone religious to their dogma... hey, at least I know where my faith lies. You're worse of, thinking you're free, when you're not.) No, there isn't ignorance in this all, and no, obviously I don't know this. And I'll throw it back at you: surely you know history better than to buy into the media-washed teachings that you're spouting there.

A fair point. It  is entirely possibe, and indeed likely, that you and I consume different media. I did not consider this, and I apologize. I will strip out the rhetoric and attempt to reform my question. I gave a variety of examples of what I assert are instances of religion holding back humanity, in an attempt to disprove your assertion that religion does not impede humanity.

I asserted that the church is trying to spread misbeliefs that lead to the increased spread of AIDS. That is my understanding of the expert position. You may say that this is media-washed teachings, but it's merely reporting on the effects of what the Catholic Church is teaching. I'm not sure what part of that you consider to be propoganda, or what is not factual in the reporting, but if I have made an error in my attempt to understand the issue, I would be grateful if you were to point it out to me.

My question then is this: On the topic of religion holding back humanity, is it the evidence you dispute, the conclusions drawn or both?

Yeah, Sokrates was accused of 'corrupting the youth', but guess what? We all know, and they all knew, it was a pretext. There was nothing really religious about it, and to think so is either having an agenda (ie. making the historical facts fit your view, which I see atheists doing all the bloody time) or else simple ignorance. Damn, I hate it when things get to this point, but you must know I have nothing against atheists per say. The most brilliant professor I've ever had is an atheist, and I'm switching classes just so I can get taught by him again (coincidentally, he being the one that taught me about Kant... indeed, he very much likes Kant.) But these things are just terribly misconstrued.

I don't disagre that the charges against Socrates were a pretext. I assert that in a secular and rational (as one does not guarantee the other) society, such charges would have been impossible in the first place. I assert that religion's role in the death of Socrates was that it provided a pretext when there could have been none without religion. You are of course, free to disagree, but I hope I've at least clarified my position.

I don't think that you have anything in particular against atheists, and I can see how parts of this thread may frustrate you. The internet still does not beat face to face conversation as a medium for this type of conversation.

So please, just try, try very hard, to understand your viewpoint isn't so enlightened as you take it to be. Frankly, I've read enough of antiquity to know that there were people thinking just like your 2500 years ago, so this struggle isn't exactly anything new, and will continue for a long time. And unfortunately, it's always been the religious rationalists that win out: not the theistic or atheistic fanatics. Or that's what history has shown, anyway. Progress has not been the cause of atheism, but theists who follow reason.

I don't assert that atheism has been the cause of progress, or that there have been no theists that have contributed positively to man's history and understanding of the world. You hit upon the key to this: It is the followers of reason, more than theists or non-theists, who are the main cause of human progress.

Yeah, I asserted God is needed because of death, but I broke off, because that's not a philosophical claim. If you want me to be specific, by death I didn't mean temporal death, but that's all theological, and that's an entirely different issue. That's a theological one based on my own beliefs, and that doesn't have currency here. Just like statements like 'religion has done such and such and is terrible' shouldn't, because there isn't any proof. You're just buying into one or another guru that's told you these things about history, and not free thinking. That's what's troubling me. The atheists seem all superiour (ironic because that's the same thing they accuse the religious of) in thinking they're enlightened, but they're just following the herd.

I assume you mean that there isn't any proof that religion is responsible for many of the crimes attributed to it today. Perhaps you are correct, and that religion gets a far worse reputation for it's past actions than it deserves. I don't know nearly as much about history as you do; I can make no confident claim that my understanding of history is superior to yours (or really, to all but the most ignorant people). I go off the best of what I've got, and when that seems insufficient or impossible to reconcile with what else I "know" I look in to it more. Now, ultimately I have to rely on some "guru" or another, because I wasn't there, but that isn't a flaw in my personal study of history so much as it is the nature of studying things we didn't observe. We go off of what people who were there said, or what evidence the culture left behind that has survived.

Eep, gotta make one more comment. Actually, you're off in your first comment. Fact is, it is an unknowable thing. To use the term 'evidence' in this way is to make a grave metaphysical blunder that charactarised pre-Kantian metaphysics. Your statement about 'with the present evidence' is absolutely meaningless. 'Evidence' has no currency on what I said, as I was speaking bloody 'a priori'. Prior to evidence. Specifically, I'm speaking synthetic apriori, but that's more complicated. So, simply, you're wrong. Not on belief grounds, but Kantian logic has you in a stranglehold. Your example is, to put it bluntly, ridiculous. Why are you saying 'play the lottery every time'? As though there are multiple instances? Then the chances wouldn't be fifty fifty. They would be 25/75. No, this is a single yes or no. Your example is irrelivant upon that issue, and in the 50/50 chance to believe you will win or believe you will lose has equal currency. THAT is what we're in, and it doesn't make sense that you say 'every time you play' as though there were multiple instances of this.

My analogy was unclear. I was speaking of probabilties; I was attempting to convey that the odds of there being a god are akin to winning the lottery a great multitude of times. The analogy is clearly flawed, so I'll abandon it and get to the point of what I'm saying: Even if something is unknowable, it is not equally likely to be true or false. I looked up synthetic apriori on Wikipedia, as it is a term I've not heard. One of the criticisms listed is that not all claims can be divided between synthetic and anayltic apriori. The example given is the statement "Either it is raining or not raining." As I see it, this is the sort of issue the question of god is. Either there is or is not a god. I haven't read any Kant though, so I'm probably not understanding something fundamental here.

Look, guys, what I'm seeing mistaken in you is not your atheistic belief. You simply have it for the wrong bloody reasons. Most of your reasons and 'logic' can be entirely circumvented by Kant. And that's what I find so painful: that while you're accusing the religious of being unswerving, of not having open eyes, of being stuck in their own beliefs to the exclusion of 'evidence', you fail to see yourselves as the biggest perpetrators of this. Kant, via logic, has two hundred years past dismissed many of your viewpoints - evidence, if you wish to call it that! - but still you cling desperately to it. And you'll get mad at me for questioning what you see as 'unquestionable.' You're acting for all the world like those stuck in their own beliefs. After all, if you're so open, why can't you open yourselves to the possibility that God might exist, even an equal possibility? Because just now I, a religious person, have shown myself more open minded in saying that it is, philosophically speaking, entirely reasonable to have an atheistic position. Hm? Match that one, and I'll call you enlightened. Till then, have fun in your pre-Kantian dark age.

I don't think that theism in the abstract is something believed in spite of evidence, but rather, as I see it, the evidence indicates that theism is less likely than atheism to be true. I realize that that seems terribly primitive to you, but as I've not read any Kant, I'm not in a position to address his claims directly at the moment. I'm not mad, at all. I welcome exposure to new knowledge and ideas, even if I disagree with them.

[Daniel Krispin]

Thank you!

[Kebrel]

Hmph. Well, I think I'm outta this. Sorry guys, but I guess even the Compendium isn't up for this level of discussion. Lord J, and the rest of you, I'm sorry this topic came up. I thought we could all handle it like philosophers, but all we got was a bunch of opinion ridden rants. I'll leave this discussion to my philosophy club... there there are atheists that I can brings this up with without being told what my religion believes and how horrid it is. This has utterly disgusted me. I thought for once we could talk about the reasons for ideas, rather than just accusing each other's beliefs. But heck, you guys really made a bad showing of yourselves. Like I said, my philosophy club will give me far more intellectual stimulation. I'm just sad that the Compendium wasn't able to rise above their petty vehemence against religion.

I loved this personally, if this is below your normal level of discussion then I envy you greatly. I rarely have many of these so I treat all of them as truly precious chances to learn foreign philosophies and views. If there's any thing I love about talking it how the conversion can move from topic too topic.

I do have a request, as your a devout follower of this Kant can you please point to a source the outlines it(not wikipedia please) or better yet you your self explain it. All that I have been able to pick is that the universe operates on a higher level then humans can comprehend, is that right?

[Burning Zeppelin]

@LordJ: OH FUCK! I accidentally closed my web browser and now everything I wrote is gone I said something about curiousity not being evil, err, something about the nature of atheism not being able to coexist with organized religion, and atheism not being an "absence of", like dark or cold, but rather itself being a faith that you must be dedicated to...and so on. But the major point of my argument which I was just getting in reponse to this:

Now, say there is no God in the end. No one loses.

Not true. Those who followed a religion lived a lie, constraining their behavior, sacrificing their intellectual integrity, and quite probably influencing other people to similarly demean their own lives.

What is it to you if they have lived a lie? Does it affect you? Does not every human have the right to live according to how he or she wants to? If someone wishes to live in total ignorance, then so be it. You are saying that a human must live according to reason and fact. Who are you to say how a human should live? You're displaying the very thing that you say is evil in religion: a preconcieved notion of how to live. If there is no God, then death is final. If I die, and I have lived my life according to how I want, what is wrong? When you die, you die. There is nothing left. How I lived my life does not matter, because I would be dead! How I influenced others would also not matter. The actions I partook in, the things I said, none of it would matter. If one person devoted themselves to chastity and a life of no pleasures, and another of sex and pleasure, and they die, then that's it. They lived how they wanted to live, and they can't exactly regret it can they? Do you not understand that?

@Kebrel: We used to have many heated political and religious discussions, but they stopped once people started leaving.

@Radical_Dreamer: Is it possible in getting a figure on the likelihood that there is God, and one that there isn't? How could we do it? It is the stubborn nature of humanity that leads to us thinking that we can, that everything is in our understanding. But is it? We have proved that for the Universe to exist, there does not need to be a God. However, that is only relative to if the Universe, and all the properties of matter and energy, already existed. We have not yet explained the fundamentals of this. God may not need to exist now, but can we prove that he doesn't? How can we prove that he didn't trigger evolution, that he didn't make "fire hot" and "sun bright". (this is more going towards Lord J now) You look at God as though he is a human, as if he falls to the same human follys and percieves space as we do. You give the example of being foiled by the devil; how do we know this wasn't planned? If this God did exist, then his nature would be truth, as lying is something he created only in those with a lesser free will. Therefore, he must be omniscent. Therefore, he can look forwards, backwards, and sideways not only in space, but in time. If we can descibe the world around us, does that make God false? We describe it only as we see it, however, God could possibly descibe it in terms we would not be able to comprehend.

[ZeaLitY]

What is it to you if they have lived a lie? Does it affect you? Does not every human have the right to live according to how he or she wants to? If someone wishes to live in total ignorance, then so be it.

Let's stop there.

Does it affect me? Yes. Religious people don't exist in a vacuum, and that's why religion is assaulting reason, causing atrocities, ad nauseum. But even basic altruism dictates that you at least don't want everyone else around you suffering in complete ignorance.

Secondly, I'd like to know how many of these people who "chose" to live in ignorance would have done so if they were not indoctrinated from day one of their lives. Those who are baptized at birth, sheltered, taken to church, sent to parochial schools, and generally nurtured to adulthood by a religious society...this is vastly different from asking a fresh 18 year old from a neutral planet whether God exists. No one can deny that parents largely want their children to adopt the same religion as they do. We would not have those lovable viral videos of parents vehemently reacting to declarations of atheism by their teenagers otherwise. So "choice" can be irrelevant for those completely brought up in religion. They are bombarded with lecturing and conditioning the entire span of their developmental years. Few people on this earth outside of certain places in the world have the luxury of a neutral childhood and choice.

You are saying that a human must live according to reason and fact. Who are you to say how a human should live? You're displaying the very thing that you say is evil in religion: a preconcieved notion of how to live. If there is no God, then death is final. If I die, and I have lived my life according to how I want, what is wrong? When you die, you die. There is nothing left. How I lived my life does not matter, because I would be dead! How I influenced others would also not matter. The actions I partook in, the things I said, none of it would matter. If one person devoted themselves to chastity and a life of no pleasures, and another of sex and pleasure, and they die, then that's it. They lived how they wanted to live, and they can't exactly regret it can they? Do you not understand that?

Okay. You must not bathe in nuclear waste. Oh fuck, I'm preaching!

How I influenced others would also not matter.

When religion stops impeding humanity, forcing itself upon people, and holding the entire world collectively back in ignorance and fear, I'll stop caring about religious people.

[Kebrel]

Yep I think that taken care of. Let people believe or not believe what they want but they sure as hell shouldn't mess with me or any one.

[Radical_Dreamer]

Radical_Dreamer, I don't find the traps set by scripture any more nefarious than the traps set by evolution itself -- the very physical differences between human beings can sow hatred even in the absence of religion, I daresay. But finding it within ourselves to overcome the various traps with which we are confronted -- those things, be they scriptural doctrine or otherwise, which cause hate -- is, to me, the essence of ethical growth. And in that way, religious differences, racial differences, differences in orientation, etc., are absolutely desirable. Humanity cannot advance if it is not challenged. Woe, indeed, that the price of failure is so great.

You're trying to compare apples and oranges. Evolution is an unconcious process. It can no more set traps than gravity can. If there is a god who inspired deliberately imperfect scripture, so that many would have to suffer so that others could grow, then god is a tyrant who likes to play favorites. Hardly gives us a meaningful existence. And there are no racial differences in a biological sense. The social concept of race is simply that, and it causes nothing but sorrow. Think of everything that happens because of racism. Are we really better for those absurd superstitions? Why must we grow to the point of acknowledging the observable? Why not start there? It's a fair starting point, particularly if there is a god that gets to decide arbitrarily where we start out.

As far as the Creator setting the traps, well -- the Creator didn't fax it from heaven IMHO. People gave us scripture, and thus through the human element were the traps set. As for why a merciful God allows people to fail ethically, I can only say I would loathe a God who prevents suffering by controlling human behavior. If that were the case, we would have no free will to begin with, and there would be no meaning in our actions.

Did people give us scripture out of their own imaginations, or out of god's inspiration? If it is their own imaginations, then it is completely worthless for basing ones life and outlook on. There are moral lessons that can be learned through allegory, but to declare scripture objectively true would be a falsehood. If god inspired scripture, which scriptures did he lay out? All of them? Some? And why impart imperfectly? It would be well within the power of god to give perfect inspiration, rather than chose to condemn man to suffer needlessly on earth. If god chose to inspire imperfectly, then he chose to make us suffer needlessly. We are but ants under the magnifying lense of a cosmic toddler.

When asking of a god that can said to be morally good, I won't ask for a good that prevents all suffering, only needless, arbitrary suffering. The god you described has failed in this task, and in giving meaning to our lives.

Also, I object to the notion of life needing an external meaning. Your life belongs to you; it is up to you to decide the meaning of your existence. That is free will.

[FaustWolf]

I do agree more or less completely with your definition of free will, Radical_Dreamer. Though on the [relatively] religious end of the spectrum here, I believe that the Creator allows us to make of our lives what we will, with little to no external control besides the mechanistic laws that restrain us directly.

I believe any scripture isn't entirely worthless, regardless of its source, as long as it inspires ethical behavior in its adherents. But we can go in infinite circles here, pointing out the acts of violence that have resulted from religion as well as examples of religiously-inspired charity. I guess the balanced approach is thus: any belief system, including atheism probably, can be warped to the point that it is injurious to harmony among human beings.

Although not a "belief system" in the sense of acknowledging or denying a supreme being's existence, one worldview that *might* be less susceptible to such warpage is found in Kant's writings, which have already been alluded to in this thread but I'm not sure if his ethical scheme has been considered in detail yet. To my understanding, Kant's basic jist is that an individual has a duty to act in such a way that, if his or her actions were to represent the behavior of all, he or she would accept living in such a world.

An example is in order -- a simple one for now, then a more complex one. If I have a choice between lying and telling the truth, Kant's overriding command -- the categorical imperative -- states that I should stop for a second and imagine a world in which everyone always lies. It would be impossible to place trust in others in such a world, business transactions involving loans would be impossible, heck, language itself might even lose its ability to convey ideas effectively (at least that's how one professor described it to me). Since life would suck in such a world, the logical thing to do is just always tell the truth.

The above could be taken apart in so many different ways (should I tell my girlfriend that outfit looks great if it really doesn't?), but let's jump to an example that could be taken apart in even more ways: murder in self-defense, which Burning Zeppelin brought up earlier IIRC. I'm personally unsure how to apply the categorical imperative in this case. Should I imagine a world in which everyone always murders in self-defense or should I imagine a world in which everyone always murders, period? In the previous case, I could logically conclude that murder in self-defense is alright because I could accept living in a world in which everyone who is attacked defends themselves. On the other hand, if I generalize the scenario to the point at which I'm wondering whether I could live in a world in which everyone is slaughtering one another on the streets, I would logically conclude that I should not murder at all, under any circumstance. Daniel or another student of Kant, can you help me figure this out? Just how far should I go in determining "the maxim of my action?"

As far as potential for warpage goes, Kant provides us with a sort of logical "Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you," but without the passions inflamed by supernatural beliefs. It could be more consistently Christian than Christianity, in a way.

[Burning Zeppelin]

@Zeality: If those people affect you, then yes, you have every right to stop it. In fact, if those people present to you a fatal danger, then you have every right to kill them. But am I affecting you? Are my beliefs causing you irreparable damages? And you seem to think that religion is, by way of existing, terrorizing the world. I'm not sure where you get your information from, but religion is hardly the only motive for mass murder. And let us not forget these. The major motives for mass murders are in fact, race and land. Now you tell me what is a greater evil, ignorance to reason or the concept of race itself. More violence has been caused in the names of nations than religion. Should we destroy nations? Many people say yes. What do you say?
 
 Your attack on religion, that it is a natural enemy to reason, is also false. Some sects of religion may hinder reason, but others cherish and propagate it. We have given you many examples.
 
 However, you do bring up a point with your views on children who are sheltered from other ways of living, and brought up under yada yada yada. But surely this is exaggerated! I see only a few of these around, religious nuts and all. No danger to society. Most of my religious friends look at it objectively, and most of my Christian friends were given the choice whether or not to follow it. In fact, my sister's fiance was brought up atheist, by scientific professors. He was brought up without commercial television and religion. However, his life felt empty, and his mother, again, an atheist, recommended Islam for its fairness and so on. Does that sound like a man without reason?

And in fact, you are preaching, even if what you say is common sense. You are in fact imposing your knowledge on to someone else.

Now, for something a bit different. I'm not one to brag, and this may sound a bit immodest, but I'm quite sure that I think about things more deeply than most of the people I know. And I can say first hand that a deeper sense of reason and knowledge does not equate happiness. In fact, it has left me colder, and made me more apprehensive and pessimisstic. Most people around me, I think they are phonies. They're fake. Whenever they laugh, or joke, all they are trying to do is fit in, or please someone else. That's not to say that reason and knowledge is bad, in fact, it is the very foundation of humanity. But what I'm saying is that, you can argue and argue all you want, but in the end, will it make you any happier? I do not think so. But we all think it will. Why? Because when we hear someone agree with us, it pleases us. When we see someone change their beliefs to one we share, it pleases us. When we find someone who shares the same beliefs we do, it pleases us. We can talk and talk about how we wish to save humanity from some dark pit of disaster, but all we want is to fulfil our need of belonging. (sorry if this is a bit incomprehensible. I tend to be that way when I'm ranting)

And much of what has been displayed in this thread, it displays the very ignorance of the author which he very much wishes to annihilate.

@Radical_Dreamer: If God existed, then of course his motives would appear odd to us. We could be but a game to him. The hardships we face in life could be a test. The imperfectness in the history and structure of religion could be to test our knowledge or reason. The contradictions in faith could be to see which of us would think before we choose the religion we want. Or, maybe the scriptures have been altered throughout the ages. Whatever it is, we may never know.


Now on a very different note!

I just got a strange idea, partially from this thread (which is why I'm posting it here instead of making a new thread). Imagine if the world nations were based on land owners, so if I bought a piece of land from another nation holder for a million dollars, I could make laws for that piece of land. However, the only universal law, upheld somehow by a group of wordly police, was the right to move from land to land. This way, to keep their nation from dying, they would more and more make their land a better place to live.

I need to go have a lie down.

[FaustWolf]

It's a damn good point you make about attempts to convert others to one's own point of view, Zeppelin. Attempting to do so results in more personal unhappiness than not, I think, because the chances of being successful are often nil. For example, Zeality isn't going to become a believer simply because I am, and I'm not going to abandon my religion despite the excellent points Zeality and the others have made about just how harmful religion can be (I would only add the words, "if it's abused"). The only way to "win" in these discussions is to arrive at the conclusion that you greatly respect the other persons despite differences in worldview. But even that could be spun to make us look like greedy bastages who are just trying to fit in.

[ZeaLitY]

Some sects of religion may hinder reason, but others cherish and propagate it.

Any religion which, at its core, demands belief in a being that defies reason is inherently unreasonable. There is no escaping this damnation of logic and humanity. This is the head of the poisonous, ignorant octopus.

As for atrocities, religion's largest sin is squelching science and the human spirit in billions of people. That alone has affected the entire human race on a staggering scale, and continues to overtly hold nations back, whether an African country or the United States. The assault on reason does not kill funding only for stem cell research. It cheapens and limits the education and critical thinking capabilities of an entire majority of the populace. One grotesque symptom is the presence of snake oil salesmen ads on BET. I was casually browsing channels last night and discovered reverends marketing healing oil, sackcloth, and prayer cloth at liberty. How can something so obviously fake (like relics) be allowed to practice business on a mass scale cable channel? But I forget; religion is immune from tax, scrutiny, and criticism. I hope the people who donate to televangelists, buy miracles, and anoint their street signs with olive oil eventually wake up and stop helping to perpetuate deep superstition and ignorance in America -- ignorance which manifests itself negatively in education, civil life, and politics.

If God were loving, beneficent, and did intend for his children to return to heaven, he would not shield his truth behind a cabal of thousands of unique religions each professing truth and drawing from an assortment of self-contradicting religious texts of questionable veracity, each delivered under the threat of hell. It is an irony that people are so ready to embrace humanity's past evils and shortcomings in taking apocryphal, motive-written religious text as truth (just the good parts, remember) and believing in tribal god images, but refuse to believe in or give humanity credit for its own clear advancement and gradual maturity.

There is no, "what if you are wrong as an atheist?" in the face of, "what if you, a Christian, are wrong about Waaq? Ra? Tabaldak? Ehecatl? Pariacaca? Alom? An? El? Mazda? Kumarbi? Hucau? The Jade Emperor? Amaterasu? Bathala? Raedie? Belobog? From this expansive approach, it is easy to see that someone on this earth is damn wrong about something. But it's not you, the religious reader, of course, since you were brought up in childhood several years to believe yours is the true one. That feeling of indignation and safety is natural given your conditioning. It's okay; tradition is automatically right, eh? If your ancient forefathers did it, it must be logical, so go on feeling good about your God of choice. But good luck to you; maybe your branch of religion happens to be the "right" one, and all the others God let erroneously worship him in ignorance who will burn in hell, he let just for laughs.

In fact, it has left me colder, and made me more apprehensive and pessimisstic.

Perhaps people would have a more vested interest in making this world a better place if the majority of them didn't believe it was doomed to fail in the first place.

[FaustWolf]

Holy cow! They're still practically selling indulgences, and on BET no less?? That IS alarming. 

Speaking from the more religious side of things, I must say that I do not believe the religious tradition I happen to have adopted has a monopoly on truth by any means. To believe that your religion is objectively 100% "correct" whereas other religions and atheism are objectively "wrong" is pure arrogance. Every worldview has something to bring to the table as far as ethics is concerned, and it's important for religious people to recognize that.

[Burning Zeppelin]

Any Christian minister who attempts to dupe his followers by selling them products that he himself knows will fail is a hypocrite. But it is no different from a "million dollar mentor" professing he knows the way to make you rich, or a doctor who tells you he has the cure to your incurable disease, and runs off with your 10 grand. Is it really a problem with religion that causes these scenarios, or a problem with wealth and the acquisiton of it?

[ZeaLitY]

Religion is guarded by tax deductions, shelters, and rules for non-profit organizations.