Religion is a Conjuring Trick

How to Trick your Audience

When you watch magic show, you often witness what appears to be supernatural powers at work, that perhaps the magician is bending the laws of physics...

Of course, it is not "magic" or "supernatural". It's not even a "power" at all; It is, of course, a physical conjuring trick, an illusion. This is often the most enjoyable aspect of magic, becoming intrigued or confused with how the host as outwitted your perception of reality; "how did he trick me!?"

Religion and any "description" of God is nothing more than a VERBAL conjuring trick. ("Cold reading" - see bottom of post)

Make Your Own God!

It's easy to personify what we don't know about the universe, and give it desires and commands. I can do it right now;-

"[GOD X] is the one true god, he is loving and forgiving (seems nice) but just (be scared), he wants you to pray on Wednesdays (command), to have sex only in the reverse cowboy position (more commands), to be nice to fellow believing-human beings, but not people of other religions or non believers (prejudice), you will get to dine with [GOD X] at the end of your life(false promise/hope), otherwise burn in a lake of acid forever.(threads of eternal damnation)

I can add as many human concepts onto my "GOD X" as possible. Obviously this is nonsense and i could never know these things of reveal such knowledge.

I'm literally just making it up, and I don't expect people to believe on the grounds that they can't prove me wrong. The priests do! This is deception, emotional deception.

Ask yourself these questions:-

How could i know this? Why would or should you trust me? Should "GOD" be personified? Where did i get this information from? Was it a personal experience? How could i know such specifics? Why should i expect you to worship such a horrible God? Why does this God posess petty human emotions?....Maybe it's because i gave God those emotions, as man has done to "GOD" time and time again, throughout history.

Deception, Irrationality or Both?

If the deception is unintentional, then perhaps theories of God or religion can be considered (at least)irrational guesswork as to what or who created the universe, or if creation/causation is even a definitive theory. Infinity could be a possibility, scientists don't deny this.

To me, it's seems to be a verbal conjuring trick; we don't know the answers so lets make up the best answers we can come up with.

At the time that the mono-theistic doctrines were created, man was had little knowledge in regards to many things, the causes of disease, the shape of the Earth, the solar system configuration and the nature of the Earth's orbit around the Sun. Why, with little scientific knowledge or evidence of the large universal mechanics, should be be expected to trust these "theories" of God and based on NO EVIDENCE?

No theologian, mathematician, philosopher, scientistic has ever demonstrated the existence of a higher power. If their "theory" was so convincing, wouldn't we have accepted this as current scientific knowledge?

Like mediums, fortune tellers, astrologists, tarot card readers, i believe that religious doctrine is nothing more than a mental conjuring trick, an imaginery concept that is persuasive enough reason to believe for the gullible,the easily manipulated and the dim-witted.

The techniques used to conjure supernatural deities are similar to that used by various charalatans and frauds that still practice to this day. Most use a technique called "cold reading"

I think claims to a higher power are irrational, irresponsible and detremental to the stability of human civisation by the prejudice these infectious beliefs cause. Anyone can see the prejudice and madness it has caused in this world - stating that it does "good" too is no exuse for the "bad" it has caused.

Glossary/Definitions

"Argument from Ignorance" -

.. also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa)

"Unfalsifiable" -

(relating to a statement or argument) not able to be proven false, but not necessarily true.

"Cold Reading" -

a series of techniques used by mentalists, illusionists, and con artists to determine or express details about another person, often in order to convince them that the reader knows much more about a subject than they actually do.

"Agnosticism"

...is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.

Thanks for reading,

Please take any religious bashing to another forum, this isn't the right place for it, thanks. Mod?

You are correct my friend, religion is a conjuring trick.

It always has been and always will be. More than a conjuring trick, it is a control mechanism.

I could argue that there is a higher power at work in this existence, but I do not need to. You already acknowledge that there are laws which make the universe function. You call them Ohms Law, Newtons Law, Einstein's Law, etc. because you value the discoverer of the phenomenon more than you value the creator of the phenomenon. No worries to me as none of these laws bring harmony to mankind but serve only to gain a better understanding of this existence.

When it comes to Law, I worry only about the divine Law, Love one another.

If you dispute this as a Law, by all means disprove it.

How else can 6 billion plus people, all with differing perspectives, on this planet co-habitate?

They can't do it any other way than by loving one another.

To love one is to help them achieve the same level of enjoyment in this existence as you enjoy. Anything less is not loving for it creates hate, jealously, envy, greed, violence, and war.

If you choose simply to disbelieve me without disproving me, watch carefully how the world proceeds over these next few years. The proof will come.

With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by IAMIAM

When it comes to Law, I worry only about the divine Law, Love one another.

If you dispute this as a Law, by all means disprove it.

How else can 6 billion plus people, all with differing perspectives, on this planet co-habitate?

Firstly, thanks for posting, i appreciate your wise words here, i can relate to almost everything you write.

As an answer to your question; i don't think they can co-exist peacefully on this planet, when it is concerning divine morality; people are always going to be prejudice (or act superior) to those who believe in a different God, with different rules, there is always going to be a dispute. "The human race should be following my God, everyone who is not, is a less than average human"

In regards to your "divine Law" - i agree with the message however i don't think we need to be divinely inspired to love our fellow humans. It certainly shouldn't take the threats of eternal damnation in hellfire to provoke compassion.

In many religious doctrines followers are taught to "love thy enemy" - This is something i cannot do, i think this is an immoral thing to preach and contradicts the very reason for calling them an enemy; you hate what they do. Like Nazism, i do not love this ideology, i would not love Hitler. It's called being intolerant of the intolerant. For the same reason i am intolerant of racism, sexism, homophobia etc, it's irrational prejudice, religion preaches a lot of this undeserved hatred.

Again, i appreciate your message with the essense of your "divine law" - Act with a bit of compassion and respect to fellow humans beings until you have reason to otherwise do so.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Bashing or criticism? What makes you think religion is free from critique?

Any other arena of discussion is up for civil discourse, people may demand a reason for your belief for a certain theory - medicine, physics, astronomy, politics, sport. Why is religion exempt from criticism? Why should i respect it?

In the words of Bill Maher:-

"This is what I believe."

Yeah, you believe it, and I'm going to say why it's dumb.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by awake_and_aware


What you are witnessing is narrative building or NLP.

This is not a trick, as there will indeed be subjective effects... the key here is that subjective effects outweigh objective phenomenon when it comes to things like "Happiness".

Because the subjective mindscape does not mirror the objective realm this can be quite easy, however you first must break through the limiting beliefs... those things which were *given* to the subject from "outside" or the Objective world.

Now indeed, this level of experience malleability can seem to be "just a trick", but in fact it has HUGE impacts on humanity.

Scientists hate this, because it's like the placebo effect... no one knows *how* it works, but many criticize the idea because of this, as opposed to just simply looking at the result set, because what matters most is that it works... not that it contradicts belief.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Again, i appreciate your message with the essense of your "divine law" - Act with a bit of compassion and respect to fellow humans beings until you have reason to otherwise do so.

Whoa my friend, you have taken the divine Law and made it not a "Law" by adding the exception "until you have reason to do otherwise". There is no exception to this Law. Do it even if you have reason to do otherwise!

Why?

Because if you find reason to do otherwise, so will everyone else. Then we get to keep being vicious and cruel to each other until we wipe each other out.

Love one another, period.

There is never a reason to violate this law.

With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by HunkaHunka

the key here is that subjective effects outweigh objective phenomenon when it comes to things like "Happiness".

What's your point? Happiness is an abtract word we use to describe "feeling" we experience. This has nothing to do with God, and God is not unnecessary to experience this.

My point is that we don't even know how to define God, we don't yet know the causation (if any) of the universe, so any theory of God is simply derived from human emotion, the thoughts of man. love, happiness, kindness, solidarity, sharing are human concepts, as is "GOD", we use it because we do not have the information as to what this reality is, it is simply their to attempt to explain gaps of knowledge in the emotional, metaphysical and natural perceptions of those willing to believe without evidence.

It IS a conjuring trick.

"I state as truth that the universe is infinite, i experienced this personally, this is the truth, you can't prove me wrong."

I would never claim the above, because this is dishonest, i don't know, science doesn't know yet, any human who claims to know should be rediculed if the basis of the belief is based on "FAITH" and not "evidence".

And the "personal experience" argument is scientifically and intelectually bankrupt. "I saw a mystifying multicolour glow in sky, i saw God"......(actually seing the Northern Lights, but lack of knowledge caused him to think it was "GOD")

I hope this explains my, perhaps provocative, thread title. But at the root, it IS cold reading, a verbal conjuring act, taking advantage of someone's lack of knowledge, and hiding behind the unfalsifiable nature of the claim....... also threats of hellfire, but thats cool 'cause it's just a belief

reply to post by IAMIAM


Fear not comrade, my mission is not hatred, but enlightenment...knowledge, and my "bible" is logic, and innate love. The benefits of cooperation, solidarity and peace amongst our species are paramount to the happiness and progression of civilisation. Even without God, this makes sense and provokes feelings of love, and hope. Pretty corny but it's true to me.

I would never conduct or advocate violence, especially to my enemy, the pen is mightier than the sword, so to speak.

This is why i debate, not for any arrogant, self-serving, egotisical objectives.

Again, thanks for posting here.

Peace and knowledge.

A&A

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

the key here is that subjective effects outweigh objective phenomenon when it comes to things like "Happiness".

What's your point? Happiness is an abtract word we use to describe "feeling" we experience. This has nothing to do with God, and God is not unnecessary to experience this.

Happiness is not so abstract. Heck it can even be mapped in brain scans.

And it has everything to do with narrative... God falls into that narrative in the majority of cultures in the world.

My point is that we don't even know how to define God,

Exactly my point as well... God is not something to be defined... it is symbol for so many different things depending on time, culture, phase of ones life, occupation etc...

we don't yet know the causation (if any) of the universe, so any theory of God is simply derived from human emotion, the thoughts of man. love, happiness, kindness, solidarity, sharing are human concepts, as is "GOD", we use it because we do not have the information as to what this reality is, it is simply their to attempt to explain gaps of knowledge in the emotional, metaphysical and natural perceptions of those willing to believe without evidence.

It IS a conjuring trick.

No it is not... it is a common conclusion which emerges out of our constant personification of the objective world as we run into forces much stronger than us.

That's hardly a conjuring trick... that's like saying a rainbow, a naturally occuring phenomenon (much like the belief in deities within human cultures) is a conjuring trick... as if there were some intent behind it...

There isn't... religion occurs as naturally in cultures as feast days... however non-objective it may be.

"I state as truth that the universe is infinite, i experienced this personally, this is the truth, you can't prove me wrong."

I would never claim the above, because this is dishonest, i don't know, science doesn't know yet, any human who claims to know should be rediculed if the basis of the belief is based on "FAITH" and not "evidence".

Of course...

But you are talking about two completely different things... there is "HOW" and there is "WHY"... the human mind always will ask why and attempt to draw some conclusion even when faced with the knowledge that there is no reason as to "WHY".

And this is what ideas like religious ones do.. they meet that existential desire to know why...

Anyone who approaches religion from the aspect of science is a fool...

Approach religion from a cultural aspect... a sociological or anthropological one and you will find lots of data...

Approach it from a scientific aspect and you might as well be reading Base 64 encoded strings with a Commodore 64 Emulator... because it's just as foolish....

And the "personal experience" argument is scientifically and intelectually bankrupt. "I saw a mystifying multicolour glow in sky, i saw God"......(actually seing the Northern Lights, but lack of knowledge caused him to think it was "GOD")

Nope not bankrupt at all... whatever serves to cause influence within the mind of the subject has plenty of power and influence, regardless of how inaccurate it may be.

Once again, the objective world has NIL to say about the subjective.

I hope this explains my, perhaps provocative, thread title. But at the root, it IS cold reading, a verbal conjuring act, taking advantage of someone's lack of knowledge, and hiding behind the unfalsifiable nature of the claim....... also threats of hellfire, but thats cool 'cause it's just a belief

edit on 29/12/10 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

Well it only goes to show that you are continuing to try to measure water in terms of joules...

like I said before... it's rather foolish.

The biggest issue I have with religious people is that they, like most all other humans find a sense of authority from outside of themselves... religion is often like the social version the superego. But even within these religions which are received as programming for the superego, there are personalities which espouse programming from within...

Now someone like yourself, may add on "as long as it's verifiable".... for whatever reason you may have for that.

Others like myself, say that hardly matters much, and when it does you wont have to take it into consideration, as it will be forced upon you. Objective realities don't really matter much in the day to day decision making of the average human... so accuracy and rectitude with objective principles isn't really all that relevant.

What is relevant is the phantasms which plague the mind of the human such as feelings of inadequacy, submission, hopelessness, depression etc... And although I will definitely say that certain religious perspectives compound these issues, they do not originate from religion... they originate from the ego's response to the knowledge of the body's finite and so easily fallible nature.

The laws of physics can say little about the narratives behind these conflicts within the psyche of man which lead to neuroses and often psychoses.

The Objective realm has it's rules... we all recognize that. But what many fail to realize is that the Subjective realm also has it's ways. And what's more, is that the latter is hardly ever predicated on the state of the former.

I will end this post by bringing it back to your original topic... religion is a lot of things... but it cannot be reduced to something as simple as "a conjuring trick". Though I will admit, that astronomy and astrophysics dont require much more of the subjective realm other than passion and curiosity, they don't require anything other than unconscious forces... i.e. it doesn't' require an objective anthropomorphic deity of sorts.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


My point is, we can't define God. You can call "GOD" nature itself, the laws of energy etc. but i find this pointless, You might as well call it "The Force" or "The Energy" - it means nothing but reality/existence itself.

This is the Pantheist approach. Personally, i refrain from referring to nature/reality as "GOD" - And i definetly don't claim that "GOD" has thoughts, feelings, desires without evidence.

Without knowing whether reality is infinity, or whether a higher power "being" created our universe, what's the point in trying to guess without evidence?

Man has always attempted to define what he can't understand. Often calling the "SUN" a "GOD" before he understood what the sun was, and it's relation to our planet.

I am agnostic as to what or WHO created our universe, i can't claim to know this truth. But if it is a "WHO" then this "BEING" certainly watches it's creation with indifference, watches as planets collide, as gallaxies engulf eachother, as comets hit planets causing desutrction. As 99.9% of all species die out on Earth, this "CREATOR" watches without care. It's not that i'm angry and i refuse to believe, it's that it is a pressumption, an uneeded presumption and a natural human instinct to personify what we don't understand.

I don't know what people can't understand regarding this humble position.

It's the "i don't know" position. This is my bible; Honesty and the search for knowledge.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


See this is my point... God has nothing to do with "knowing" or not knowing....

Talking about God is nothing like talking about science.

That's the humble position which you refuse to understand...

You can't map the concepts of God within the terms of Science and vice versa.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


God is not the same as science, science asserts a belief using the rationalisation of evidence, if there is empirical evidence for "GOD" i will happily renounce my Atheism.

Pantheism is the view that nature or reality itself is "GOD"- I don't see the need to personify or label nature as "GOD". You can't define God without understanding God, and currently no human has been able to prove the existence of a higher power, or that there is such a concept as absolute moral values.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by IAMIAM

 

I would never conduct or advocate violence, especially to my enemy, the pen is mightier than the sword, so to speak.

Yea, I got robbed by a guy with a pen one night. A lawyer I think he said he was.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
reply to post by awake_and_aware

 

See this is my point... God has nothing to do with "knowing" or not knowing....

Talking about God is nothing like talking about science.

That's the humble position which you refuse to understand...

You can't map the concepts of God within the terms of Science and vice versa.

Thats becouse God just hates giving science lessions before He does anything. He say crazy stuff like "I Am" and thats all you need to know. He has been known to preform some really crazy things first like turn a tree limb into a snake. He figures at that point if you cant understand what you are dealing with that your so stupid a science lession isnt going to help. Just think if you had that sort of power but had to do the local science symposium before you did anything. Would get boring.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

God is not the same as science, science asserts a belief using the rationalisation of evidence, if there is empirical evidence for "GOD" i will happily renounce my Atheism.

Why do you continue to attempt to blend the two? Atheism is not contradictory with understanding cultural anthropology.

Science uses evidence, but Objective evidence....

Religion or other spiritual pursuits require only the experience of the individual... and that experience can either be a hellish experience or a heavenly experience depending on the makeup of the psyche.

See I thought you were trying to assert the supremacy of science over religion, which is akin to asserting the supremacy of digestion over writing...

Pantheism is the view that nature or reality itself is "GOD"- I don't see the need to personify or label nature as "GOD". You can't define God without understanding God, and currently no human has been able to prove the existence of a higher power, or that there is such a concept as absolute moral values.

Personification does not occur intentionally... its an unconscious process and it happens all the time... as a matter of fact I bet you personify yourself. Giving yourself attributes which aren't really there, but forms a way you can relate to your self.

You see the concept of self comes from the exact same place as the concept of God... in the subjective sphere...

I can easily agree that there is no objective evidence of an objective God... and that there is no Objective self... Self is an illusion as much as God is...

However, because I am a human, I allow myself to continue to carry on relationships with these illusory concepts simply because it works... and by works I mean allows me to be happy and successful.

I don't have any desire to be right, that comes from the superego... simply one to be happy.

And if believing in a flying spaghetti monster brings that happiness, then what is wrong with that?

reply to post by HunkaHunka

Religion or other spiritual pursuits require only the experience of the individual

No, religion is not the thoughts of everyone, when you are born you don't automatically feel Jesus and know all the commandments. Religion is the thoughts of other people, preached as truth, THIS IS TRUE, THE TRUE RELIGION. Normally people submit to the belief due to tradition or fear of eternal damnation.

It's nonsense.

Why do you continue to attempt to blend the two?

I'm not "blending" anything. I value evidence, i see no evidence for God, i won't believe in it. In the same way, if someone postulates a theory in science, why would you believe without evidence?

Atheism not contradictory with understanding cultural anthropology.

Of course it's not, i fully understand cultural anthropology - nothing to do with God, and cultural athropology should not overule empirical evidence provided by the tool of science. These cultural understandings should also not cause prejudice. Human or not, we are still lifeforms on this planet, we have the science of biology to gather empircal evidence regarding our roots.

Just because a "belief" in God is cultural does not mean it should be respected any more, if i think a belief is dumb, i will say why i think it is dumb.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


Honestly, having read what you say about religion, it sounds like you are speaking about specific religions.... i never heard buddhism claim to be the true religion.

I recommend you read up on Jean Lyotard as you still seem to think that theree is only one kind of dialogue... scientific.

You will find that the human has different types of dialogue with which the human writes their own narrative.

some of these require validation of legitimacy, and others do not. For example, a love poem does not require any proof of legitimacy, it merely has to resonate with the listener.

You say you have no problem with cultural anthropology... I suggest you do some serious research as opposed to simply throwing stones at that which you do not like.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


How interesting, two different people, in two different threads, telling a single person roughly the same thing (but in quite different ways, i might add).

What a wacky, wild, crazy, fun place we reside

I just hope one of us can break that box, neh? In the end, its up to awake.

reply to post by sinohptik

How interesting, two different people, in two different threads, telling a single person roughly the same thing (but in quite different ways, i might add).

What a wacky, wild, crazy, fun place we reside

Literally have no idea what you're talking about but i'll agree that we reside in a "wacky, wild , crazy, fun" place.

In regards to the "box" you speak off; my box is open, ready, accepting theories, possibilities, philosophical ponderings, debate, challenge, but not half-baked sloppy irrationality.

Again, i concede, that i am in no position to say "GOD" DOES NOT EXIST. This would be irrational. In the same way that i say "a teapot exists on Mars" you can't say it does not, because you don't know.

Again, i'm well aware of the argument from ignorance, i'm humble enough to admit "i don't know" but be aware that there are those who say your mind is "closed" because you say you need "evidence"

I guess i'll see you in the other thread if your not contributing to this one.

Peace
A&A