The Falsity of Religion: Twelve Indisputable Arguments

[Asian-American]

Hello,

First, let me discuss the works of Professor John Hartung. He is ethnically Jewish and was raised in a religiously Jewish family. He describes his qualifications:

"John Hartung is the Associate Editor of the Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology and an Associate Professor of Anesthesiology at the State University of New York.

His Ph.D. is in anthropology from Harvard. About half of Dr. Hartung's publications are in social science, with the rest in medicine"

He discusses the historical origins of Judeo-Christianity. He states that today's Bible is not the same as the original religious texts. For example, many parts were made politically correct at various times of translation to make it more acceptable to the public. In fact, I recently was talking to a Rabbi and he told me that the Torah he uses is the original and is very different from the Torah of today's Bibles.

For example, the original Torah advocated a lot more violence and genocide than what is written in the modern Bible. Originally, the Jews of the Torah were supposed to pillage, rape, and exterminate non-Jews in order to ensure the purity of the Jewish people. Cultural and genetic contamination from Gentiles was something to be very careful of. But, today's Bible has these parts removed.

Also, Gentiles were not to be converted, because the original Jews were the only Chosen People of God.

Jesus Christ never pushed for the Conversion of Gentiles. At the time of Christ, Jewish society was no longer ethnocentric and Communist, but had transformed into Capitalism where Jewish elites betrayed the majority of Jews for their own gains. There was no unity and the Jewish community was failing. So Christ started preaching that for Israel to rise once again, they must abandon Capitalism and selfishness and return to ethnocentric Communism. Such a united society would then once again become prosperous.

It was the Israelite Saul who was kicked out of Israel and then decided to bring Judaism (Christianity) to Gentiles. He did this against the wishes of Jesus Christ. In other words, Jesus Christ never agreed to save the souls of the Gentiles, only the original Jews.

There is a lot more history that mainstream Christianity is unaware of. I have just provided a summary of Professor Hartung's research, but for the full research, go to his site at
_____________________________________________


Now, here is the article that deals with the title of this thread:

The Falsity of Religion: Twelve Indisputable Arguments

By John "Birdman" Bryant

Religion today hangs on the horns of a dilemma: On the one hand, it is false in the scientific sense, as we shall demonstrate below; but on the other hand, because religion in one form or another has been around as long as recorded history -- and in fact has played a central role in man's social and personal life -- it is almost certain that religion is useful in the sense that it has helped men to survive. The real dilemma of religion, however, is that it must be believed in order to be useful, yet this is impossible when people know that it is false.

The obvious solution to this dilemma -- if indeed there is a solution -- is to discover what is useful about religion, and to try to make use of this knowledge. This I have attempted to do in my book The Most Powerful Idea Ever Discovered. But we will be stymied in our attempt to accomplish this task -- or at least to bring it to fruition in the sense of teaching others -- if we do not first and finally sweep away the foolishness of religious belief by making a plain and clear statement as to religion's literal falsity. Accordingly, we cite below what we view as twelve compelling reasons why a rational person must regard religion as false.

[ . . . ]


______________________________________________

Regards

[Loki]

Very interesting thread, AA, but really...12 undisputable arguments...religious people don't like being argued with, and any arguments put forward are always false in their view. The fact is, faith requires - faith. I mean, come on, believing in witches and ghosts and stuff needs faith. Religion dwells on uncertainty. Give it facts, give it undisputable arguments - it can't digest them, it just doesn't accept them. It doesn't fit with its constitution.

This was a pretty pointless message, but what I mean to say is...you'll have a hard time trying to convince people that their religion, memetically inherited, environmentally pressed on them, is "false".

[Asian-American]

Very interesting thread, AA, but really...12 undisputable arguments...religious people don't like being argued with, and any arguments put forward are always false in their view. The fact is, faith requires - faith. I mean, come on, believing in witches and ghosts and stuff needs faith. Religion dwells on uncertainty. Give it facts, give it undisputable arguments - it can't digest them, it just doesn't accept them. It doesn't fit with its constitution.

This was a pretty pointless message, but what I mean to say is...you'll have a hard time trying to convince people that their religion, memetically inherited, environmentally pressed on them, is "false".

Most people of an average and below average IQ will probably remain superstitious, since research shows a positive correlation between IQ and religiosity, see But, regardless of the effects, I still enjoy debating.

I myself used to practice a religion: my parents raised me as such, but after lots of reading in philosophy, logic, anthropology, evolutionary psychology, behavioral genetics, and the like, I became an atheist.

The best way to get more people to be rational would be to increase the average intellience of a society, see Either that or the intelligent and rational could simply create their own society/nation that would be based on scientific principles, not superstition.

Cheers!

[Jay]

I didn't have to read lots of philosophy, logic, antropologic, evolutionary psychologic, behavioral genetics, and the like, books to become an atheist myself while being raised in a Christian family with Christian background for generations.

In fact I think I became an atheist when I was 12 or so. What does that make me? Uneducated (according to AA - the main point I guess) and/or evil (according to radical religion-followers) person?

[mono]

Very interesting thread, AA, but really...12 undisputable arguments...religious people don't like being argued with, and any arguments put forward are always false in their view. The fact is, faith requires - faith. I mean, come on, believing in witches and ghosts and stuff needs faith. Religion dwells on uncertainty. Give it facts, give it undisputable arguments - it can't digest them, it just doesn't accept them. It doesn't fit with its constitution.

I entirely agree here, Loki. On this 'Religious Text' section of the forum, especially, I attempt keeping myself relatively neutral, but I find that one can argue against neither reason (logic) nor faith; one provides empirical proof for its beliefs, while the other remains entirely in its own intuitive theories. I cannot call anyone (faith or reason) more superior than the other, including in intelligence or wisdom, though various debating scientists and philosophers would think otherwise (Stephen Pinker, Immanuel Kant, William James, etc.). The point seems that they both contain one's individual caste of thought, which contains a scientific argument behind it, initially of the difference between the two hemispheres of the brain. In a more "self-reliant" (Emerson), "universal thinking" (Kant) manner, I like to think that a person's beliefs seem most suitable for him/her; if one finds logical empiricist reasoning to seem more sensible, then that surely seems best; if one finds faith-based intuition to see more sensible, then that also proves best for that individual.
If I may, I will end on the note that "the perception of reality is subjective," and we all remain biased in our own manner.
And thanks for the resources, AA, very interesting. Welcome to the forum.

[Asian-American]

AA, very interesting. Welcome to the forum.

Thanks!

[crisaor]

So, if I understand you correctly, anyone who follows a particular religion is dumb. And you, on the opposite side of the spectrum, are the smart one. Somehow I don't see you gaining much supporters...

[Asian-American]

anyone who follows a particular religion is dumb.

Research shows a positive correlation between IQ and religiosity.

And you, on the opposite side of the spectrum, are the smart one.

The correlation is positive, but not absolute. As such, me being atheist does not garantee that I have a high IQ.

Somehow I don't see you gaining much supporters

Do you mean you believe that the majority of Homo Sapiens will believe that the study on IQ and religiosity is faulty? What do you think the majority will attribute as to the cause of this faultyness? Poor research, or intentional fabrication for political reasons?

Regards.

[crisaor]

Research shows a positive correlation between IQ and religiosity.

You believe everything (anything?) that the research tells you?
The certainty of that correlation is based on nothing. As with all things, it takes but a single example to refute the theory. And obviously there are plenty.

Do you mean you believe that the majority of Homo Sapiens will believe that the study on IQ and religiosity is faulty? What do you think the majority will attribute as to the cause of this faultyness? Poor research, or intentional fabrication for political reasons?

Both of them. But I meant that insulting people isn't gonna do much to broaden their minds, assuming of course that's the purpose, and not merely gaining followers just per se.

[Asian-American]

You believe everything (anything?) that the research tells you?

I believe the research on IQ and religiosity that I have posted above.

The certainty of that correlation is based on nothing.

Is your claim just a hypothesis, or do you have alternate research that rebutts the research I posted?

As with all things, it takes but a single example to refute the theory. And obviously there are plenty.

Would you be willing to show the research that refutes the research I posted?

insulting people isn't gonna do much to broaden their minds

I agree, ad hominem attacks are an invalid debating tactic, that is why I never use them.

[crisaor]

Is your claim just a hypothesis, or do you have alternate research that rebutts the research I posted?

It's based on logic, on how an argument is constructed. Besides, to imply that any research is failproof doesn't really give it much credibility IMO.

Would you be willing to show the research that refutes the research I posted?

Any individual with a high IQ that follows a religion does that. Choose anyone you like. And if you ask my opinion, it just doesn't make sense. There's no discernible correlation between the two. You (or the research) claim that religion is "false", but this is ridiculous. It may arguably be wrong, inaccurate, etc., but it certainly isn't false.

[Asian-American]

Besides, to imply that any research is failproof doesn't really give it much credibility IMO.

I never said the research was failproof. Scientific theories are always being thrown out and replaced, or altered. Rather, at the moment, the research I posted has not been debunked to my knowledge. This is why I was asking if you are aware of any actual research that does indeed debunk my claims.

Any individual with a high IQ that follows a religion does that.

And my research does not deny this. That is why I was trying to clarify with you that the IQ/religiosity correlation is not absolute, but just positive. Are you familiar with statistical models and how they work? Correlations indicate the degree to which two events are related. A positive correlation indicates that there is parallel relation between events, while a negative correlation indicates an antagonistic relation (as one goes up, another goes down). The research I posted shows that higher IQ people are more likely to be atheist than lower IQ people. But this does not mean that every high IQ person will be an atheist, or every low or average IQ person will practice a religion.

There's no discernible correlation between the two.

I again would ask for scientific research to back this up. If you want to simply say that this is your hypothesis, than that is fine. But to claim it as scientific truth will require evidence.

You (or the research) claim that religion is "false"

Scientifically speaking, it's false. But philosophically speaking, anything is possible.

Regards.

[Asian-American]

Mind-reading machines will soon discover religious programming in the brain. Already scientists are proving the validy of biological determinism and the claim that humans are nothing more than Turing machines:

Mind-reading machine knows what you see

15:26 25 April 2005

It is possible to read someone’s mind by remotely measuring their brain activity, researchers have shown. The technique can even extract information from subjects that they are not aware of themselves.

So far, it has only been used to identify visual patterns a subject can see or has chosen to focus on. But the researchers speculate the approach might be extended to probe a person’s awareness, focus of attention, memory and movement intention. In the meantime, it could help doctors work out if patients apparently in a coma are actually conscious.

[ . . . ]

[crisaor]

I never said the research was failproof. Scientific theories are always being thrown out and replaced, or altered. Rather, at the moment, the research I posted has not been debunked to my knowledge. This is why I was asking if you are aware of any actual research that does indeed debunk my claims.

Ah. You didn't say it, that's true. But you did post part of an article called The Falsity of Religion: Twelve Indisputable Arguments. And that's claiming failprof. You must at least support it in some way in order to post it, otherwise there'd be no point in it.

And my research does not deny this. That is why I was trying to clarify with you that the IQ/religiosity correlation is not absolute, but just positive. Are you familiar with statistical models and how they work? Correlations indicate the degree to which two events are related. A positive correlation indicates that there is parallel relation between events, while a negative correlation indicates an antagonistic relation (as one goes up, another goes down). The research I posted shows that higher IQ people are more likely to be atheist than lower IQ people. But this does not mean that every high IQ person will be an atheist, or every low or average IQ person will practice a religion.

I see what you mean. But still, this is very far of being as conclusive as you approach it. It's merely a matter of statistics. A different sample universe might come up with the exact opposite result. That is very little justification for the point you're trying to make, generalising for the whole lot of people.

I again would ask for scientific research to back this up. If you want to simply say that this is your hypothesis, than that is fine. But to claim it as scientific truth will require evidence.
Scientifically speaking, it's false. But philosophically speaking, anything is possible.

Well, it is my hypothesis. I'm sorry if it's not relevant to you. I don't base my ideas entirely on the basis of science, so I'm not into providing a justification that relies solely on that. And how would you prove religion is scientifically false? What are the false premises, or the wrong conclusions?

[kilted exile]

Ok, I normally try to steer clear of this section of the forum because I do not believe in a God/Creator/Divine Power (choose which term you will) and I do not wish to offend anyone who does believe.

However, I felt that I should add this: Asian-American, from what I can gather from your posts (in both this thread & the one which has been closed), you appear to more interested in arguing with people, and converting them to your viewpoint than having a normal civilised discussion of viewpoints. Just in-case you missed it on entry to this area of the forum it quite clearly says "Remember to respect the beliefs of others." Your posts about believers generally having a lower IQ than non-believers, is in no way respecting the beliefs of others, and if you do not wish to completely alienate the intelligent, thoughtfull, generous, good natured members of this forum, I would suggest that you cease post haste.

As a side note, statistics can be used to prove anything. For example, with little difficulty I could show using statistics that eating ice-cream at the beach kills people. However, all reasonable people would be aware that this aint true, it just means there are more people at the beach & as a result more people drown. As the great Benjamin Disraeli said " There are three kinds of lies: Lies, D*mn Lies and Statistics"