Happy Atheist Forum

I have a question about them.
Obviously, religion is just a tool to control through fear. I mean come on, it's obvious when you look at it.

But do preachers/priests/pastors purposely preach for this purpose? Or are they really doing it because they are truly trying to spread the word, for the right reasons?

There are myriad reasons that preachers do what they do. Some are innocently following the same myths as believers. Some are ambitious but can't attain power in politics or academia because they're not up to the task (trust me, gaining power in religious is VERY easy). Some do it out of shame because they believe they're sinful and they want to earn god's love. Some follow their parents' expectations. Some think it's a vehicle for doing good.

Well, see, the oldest son gets the family property and wealth and continues doing whatever the father did, the next son goes into the military to become an officer and bring even more pride to the family and the youngest son goes into the church because there's nowhere else for him to go that's "respectable."

...Oh, you mean now! Oops. My bad.  

If you watched Religulous one of the pastors Maher talked to was very, very rich and lavishly displayed wealth in his clothes and jewelry and pathetically tried to justify it. People like that are greedy. Some pastors do just really believe though, no person is exactly the same.

Quote from: "Kevin"I have a question about them.
Obviously, religion is just a tool to control through fear. I mean come on, it's obvious when you look at it.

But do preachers/priests/pastors purposely preach for this purpose? Or are they really doing it because they are truly trying to spread the word, for the right reasons?

I don't think that that is obvious. I believe you are mistaking how religion is sometimes used, for what it is for. No matter how many people I show that have been killed by a hammer, it will not imply that hammers are for killing people -- it will merely demonstrate that hammers can be used to kill people.

One can use politics to gain a hell of a lot more power, and influence. That doesn't mean that politics are for gaining power and controlling people.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"

Quote from: "Kevin"I have a question about them.
Obviously, religion is just a tool to control through fear. I mean come on, it's obvious when you look at it.

But do preachers/priests/pastors purposely preach for this purpose? Or are they really doing it because they are truly trying to spread the word, for the right reasons?

I don't think that that is obvious. I believe you are mistaking how religion is sometimes used, for what it is for. No matter how many people I show that have been killed by a hammer, it will not imply that hammers are for killing people -- it will merely demonstrate that hammers can be used to kill people.

One can use politics to gain a hell of a lot more power, and influence. That doesn't mean that politics are for gaining power and controlling people.

It is obvious to an atheist because we've eschewed the lie that tells us we'll burn for eternity if we don't believe in sky daddy. The hell lie is a tool for control, no matter how camouflaged it may be, so yes, it is obvious.
Your hammer analogy fails simply because religion cannot show how many people have gone to hell for not believing in god. It is only speculative. We have statistics which show how many people have been killed with hammers. It is, of course, the person wielding the hammer which has done the killing. It is the person wielding the religion who does the threatening.

It is rare for someone to use a hammer for anything other than driving a nail in wood. As far as I know, ALL christians believe those who do not follow god will go to hell.

People may justify religion and use its power in all manner of ways but that doesn't stop the initial reason it was created and why it has been so successful as a system of control for so long.

As long as the hell lie exists, so will the system of control known as religion.

Quote from: "karadan"It is obvious to an atheist because we've eschewed the lie that tells us we'll burn for eternity if we don't believe in sky daddy. The hell lie is a tool for control, no matter how camouflaged it may be, so yes, it is obvious.

Not even all Christians believe in a hell, let alone all religious people.

QuoteIt is rare for someone to use a hammer for anything other than driving a nail in wood. As far as I know, ALL christians believe those who do not follow god will go to hell.

Then you don't know a lot. I was raised in a Christian sect that did not accept that there was a hell. Though, again, the assertion was that "religion" is obviously for this purpose, not most Christian sects.

QuotePeople may justify religion and use its power in all manner of ways but that doesn't stop the initial reason it was created and why it has been so successful as a system of control for so long.

This is merely an assertion. Can you demonstrate that all religions were created for the purpose of control? Beyond the opinion that those specific religious sects that have some form of hell and such control with fear?

Even this doesn't justify the assertion for those particular sects. Governments use the threat of violence to get people to comply with the authority of the state, that doesn't mean that governments were created to control people with violence.

All because something does something, doesn't imply that that was the purpose for its invention, or implementation.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"Not even all Christians believe in a hell, let alone all religious people.

Which ones? Would these be the ones other christians would label 'not true christians'? It is obvious you don't like blanket statements. Many of the things you've said have highlighted to me my ability to be a little over-zealous when trying to describe what I believe to be true. So, from now on, I'll try not to generalise everything and I'll leave a disclaimer that there is always an exception to every rule.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"Then you don't know a lot. I was raised in a Christian sect that did not accept that there was a hell. Though, again, the assertion was that "religion" is obviously for this purpose, not most Christian sects.

Then I stand corrected. Replace 'all' with 'almost all'. Out of interest, what sect would that be? Looks like I have some learning ahead of me.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"This is merely an assertion. Can you demonstrate that all religions were created for the purpose of control? Beyond the opinion that those specific religious sects that have some form of hell and such control with fear?

No, generally, the forms of religion we know today began as our first collective attempt to ascertain where we are from and to contextualise the universe around us. As time passed, they mutated into systems of control by people who crave power. There are some people who crave power and other people who don't mind being led by the powerful. There are people with the drive for power in all sorts of positions. MD's of a company, politicians, army generals, leaders of cults and aristocracy, to name a few. These people seem inherently more driven than those content to reside in lesser positions of power (there was a study about the gene responsible for this, but I'll have to try to find that later). If the pope didn't crave the power he currently has, he wouldn't be the pope. The pope wields an enormous amount of power and to a certain extent, tells his followers how to run their lives. That is a system of control. And, I should point out, seeing as this seems to be your largest point of contention - not absolute in all cases, but almost definitely as a majority.

Quote from: "Hitsumei"Even this doesn't justify the assertion for those particular sects. Governments use the threat of violence to get people to comply with the authority of the state, that doesn't mean that governments were created to control people with violence.

I never said they are there to control people with the threat of violence but they are a system of control, are they not?

Quote from: "Hitsumei"All because something does something, doesn't imply that that was the purpose for its invention, or implementation.

I agree. Things mutate. Times change. Different people get into power and transcribe their own views and values to the modus operandi.

Quote from: "karadan"Which ones? Would these be the ones other christians would label 'not true christians'?

Just run a google search. Their are hundreds of Christians sects, and none of them have very original names, so many of them have similar, or the same name. The one I was raised in was called "The Church of God". There is no relevance to whether other Christian sects think that the other ones are right. Almost tautologically they don't, or there wouldn't be a multitude of Christian sects.

QuoteNo, generally, the forms of religion we know today began as our first collective attempt to ascertain where we are from and to contextualise the universe around us. As time passed, they mutated into systems of control by people who crave power. There are some people who crave power and other people who don't mind being led by the powerful. There are people with the drive for power in all sorts of positions. MD's of a company, politicians, army generals, leaders of cults and aristocracy, to name a few. These people seem inherently more driven than those content to reside in lesser positions of power (there was a study about the gene responsible for this, but I'll have to try to find that later). If the pope didn't crave the power he currently has, he wouldn't be the pope. The pope wields an enormous amount of power and to a certain extent, tells his followers how to run their lives. That is a system of control. And, I should point out, seeing as this seems to be your largest point of contention - not absolute in all cases, but almost definitely as a majority.

This isn't a demonstration, it is a story. I didn't ask you to tell me a story, followed by a personal assessment. The anthropological position is that religion evolved as to benefit social cohesion. To offer social, moral, political, economical, agricultural, and societal guidance, and re-enforced it through ritual observance, and by taking advantage of various preexisting cognitive frameworks, such as by adopting family positions, and titles, as well as using -- I forget the name of the effect, but it is like when a mother tells their kid "you just wait until I tell your father" to get them to comply. It is taking advantage of our ability to feel threatened by individuals who are not present.

In any case, I'm going to have to side with them on this one.  

QuoteI never said they are there to control people with the threat of violence but they are a system of control, are they not?

No, you said that because hell is a tool used to control people with fear, that the purpose of religion is to control people with fear. My analogy is meant to demonstrate that that is a non sequitur.

QuoteI agree. Things mutate. Times change. Different people get into power and transcribe their own views and values to the modus operandi.

Then you retract the assertion that the purpose of religion is to control with fear?

QuoteObviously, religion is just a tool to control through fear. I mean come on, it's obvious when you look at it.

When you preface a question with such a simplistic, trite assumption, I'm not sure what kind of response you expect.  

As one who was a preacher I can honestly say I had no intention of controlling anyone through fear.  I genuinely believed I was trying to help them, that it was desperately important for people to "get saved".  In fact I routinely preached that "getting saved" was to do away with fear; you no longer had to fear death or judgment.

I don't believe that now, but I certainly don't lump every religious person into that ridiculous stereotype of yours.  But then, obviously, you reject religion because you want to live an amoral, evil life, raping and murdering and stealing, without any consequence.  I mean come on, it's obvious when you look at it.