The slickest con ever perpetrated on mankind

In the Physical Laws ....What if they were different before? thread, foreveryoung wrote: The following response would be off topic there, so I am proposing a new thread.In the past mankind was very limited in his understanding of his surroundings, and felt powerless to affect his destiny. Because of this helplessness, any hope or chance of affecting his surroundings was eagerly seized upon, whether it was hunting magic, attempts to control the weather, solstice and equinox ceremonies, healing rituals or what have you.And into this environment emerged the shamans (of all kinds) who opportunistically promised to fix things, to lure animals to the hunters, control the weather, provide the proper solstice and equinox ceremonies, heal the sick and so on. This is the origin of the "alternate realities" of which you write, brought to us by shamans.But the slickest con ever perpetrated on mankind was the one put forth by those shamans promising eternal life. Without a shred of evidence that they could deliver what they promised, the shamans made glowing promises of eternal life--if only people would do as they directed. Not surprisingly, this involved payments to the shamans. But what choice did the victims have? They desperately wanted what the shamans claimed to be able to deliver, and the shamans were the only game in town. They still are.Which brings to mind the following Heinlein quotes, that say much of what I have just said in a much more professional manner:

The profession of shaman has many advantages. It offers high status with a safe livelihood free of work in the dreary, sweaty sense. In most societies it offers legal privileges and immunities not granted to other men. But it is hard to see how a man who has been given a mandate from on High to spread tidings of joy to all mankind can be seriously interested in taking up a collection to pay his salary; it causes one to suspect that the shaman is on the moral level of any other con man. But it is a lovely work if you can stomach it. Time enough for Love, 1973

​

The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history. Time enough for Love, 1973

In any other field of human endeavor such behavior would end up with the ones making those grandiose promises in jail or worse. Only in the realm of religion do the shamans (of all kinds) get a free pass to make the most outrageous promises, and profit thereby, while providing no evidence that they can deliver on their promises.But there is hope: as our knowledge of our surroundings grows through science and rationality, there will be less and less need for superstition, mythology, and shamanism. Mankind will grow up and learn to stand on his own two feet, accepting reality courageously and without the need of shamans and their empty promises.Edited by Coyote, : New title

Hi Coyote,I think you need a different title. This proposal uses alternate realities only as a launch point for an essay about religion as a con job.

Title has been changed.

Thread copied here from the The slickest con ever perpetrated on mankind thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Yes, I agree. Any preacher that tells someone they are "Saved" is simply a con.But wait...there's more...Have you seen the bumper sticker "Not Perfect, Just Saved"?That is an even bigger con, that all you need to do is profess, to believe, (and pay the snake oil salesman) and you will be saved.AbE: the old thread The evolution of the Great Commission over time. from a couple years ago may help folk understand the origin and evolution of the marketing salvation concept.Edited by jar, : see AbE:

Hey there Coyote, I'm trying to remember....it seems like I remember one atheist here who is also somewhat politically conservative, and I think it might be you. Lets find out. Today there is a new kind of helplessness, promoted by the scientific community. That helplessness feeling comes from the promotion of evolution, that everything happens by chance, that there is no God that cares about this world or the people in it. Into today's scientific environment emerged environmentalists, safety experts, government health care advocates, and all sorts of big government liberals. At this point, lets clarify what a "shaman" is. From dictionary.com;

quote:

---

Shaman; (specially among certain tribal peoples) - a person who acts as intermediary between the natural and supernatural worlds, using magic to cure illness, foretell the future, control spiritual forces, etc.

---

They are? Who are they - can you name some that you feel a threat from? I can name you countless liberals, both elected and non-elected, who make glowing promises of safety and a cleaner environment, if we make payments in the form of liberty and money. With implications from the scientific community that there is no ~evidence~ for any afterlife, the only desperation left is to cry to the government for salvation from global warming and the greed of free markets. Not true. Last I heard, Al Gore is still running around lose. Sorry, it's quite true in the realm of scientific, liberal politics as well. Tell you what, you show me some threats to today's U.S. society from shamans, and I'll show you some from scientific liberal Democrats, and we'll see how they compare.

...you are taking things totally off topic.About the only thing that is on topic is your definition of a shaman:

Shaman; (specially among certain tribal peoples) - a person who acts as intermediary between the natural and supernatural worlds, using magic to cure illness, foretell the future, control spiritual forces, etc.

Do you disagree with my characterization of the origin of shamans in primitive societies?And are you suggesting that we don't have shamans (under different names) in our culture today?

I disagree that it's the "slickest con ever perpetrated on mankind", because it's not even close to what we're seeing from liberal politics in the U.S. today, promoted by the (largely) atheistic scientific community. Yes I am, if you can't name them. (second request)

The topic in the Faith and Belief forum explores whether the designation of religion as con job can be adequately defended. Please take political discussions to the Coffee House.

Oh.
You are unaware of the existence of priests?
Unusual - but that kind of ignorance no longer surprises me.
Here is a link to some information about them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priest

The word "priests" wasn't used in the opening post. There are huge differences between shamans and priests.

quote:

---

Shamanism contrasts markedly in several important aspects with the tenets that motivate formal religious establishments and the procedures associated with them. First, at the institutional level, the shaman is an individual practitioner whose unusual powers are personal in nature. He usually owes no formal obligation to any faction within the community itself for positon. In fact, he is usually considered an equal among equals and constantly attempts to difuse any power that could be derived from his abilities. This status differs sharply from the priest who derives authority from his constituted office in an established religious organization.

​

The shaman’s powers are personal and immediate. He directly confronts spirits whose significance to his society. The expectations of receiving prompt response to urgent group or individual needs. By contrast, the priest of a formal religion is usually concerned with the conduct of group events in which, through ritual practice, he brings a participating public into contact with sacred forces that are believed to possess universal authority. Moreover, it is far less common for the priest in organized religious ceremonies to encounter supernatural beings directly or to expect immediate results from them. Instead he acts as mediator and intercessor for the participating group with a more remote divinity whose sacred power transcends the exclusive interest of local communities.

---

Why Anthropology? | Anthropology | Mesa Community College Right back atcha! The problem that we seem to have here is that the thread title, and content of the opening post are political in nature, since it makes an accusation of the ~slickest con~ perpetrated on mankind, as if there could be a comparison between it and lesser cons - that's the only thing I can think of that the discussion could be about. So it couldn't be much of anything other than a political discussion, and yet it was placed in a forum where political discussions are taboo. It's four days old and only has a few responses, so there doesn't seem to be much interest, Coyote seems to have lost interest.If you're interested in a discussion about religious cons versus secular cons, maybe you could find a way to re-propose this thread and get in the proper sub forum. You could then use the word "priest" if you like, and we could look at their numbers, their methods, and the dollar amounts you feel they've dishonestly acquired, and compare them to some secular cons that many conservatives in the U.S. feel are a significant problem.

In your quotation attempting to differentiate shamans from priests, you somehow left out the last line: I chose the word "shaman" to group religious practitioners under one of the earliest and broadest terms for them, as that is where the con I describe, that is, religion in general, originated.I don't feel that minor differences in approach, methods, or techniques are sufficient to separate particular religious practitioners from one another, or to make the term shaman inappropriate when describing them all collectively.Rather, the term shaman helps to clarify my point.

I left it out because I knew it would only be minutes before someone gleefully brought it up. I don't deny that there is a relationship, though I believe it's much more vague than the relationship between evolutionists and atheists, or evolution and abiogenesis. And one of the earliest and broadest terms for evolutionists, was atheists. Then you'll excuse me for doing the exact same thing with evolutionists and atheists. Or do you have double standards? Do you then accuse me of not knowing enough about evolution to do that? Do you know enough about religion to describe all religious people collectively?Do you want to join with Panda to get this in the proper sub forum so we can have a look at some secular cons for comparison to your claim, or did my message 6 convince you that maybe your thread wasn't a very good idea for the home team?

Wouldn't you rather follow Admin's direction, a few posts back, to stay on topic?The topic, in simple terms, is that religion and it's promises of an afterlife which shamans can provide--for a price--is a huge con.

Does not the word "con" imply that the people selling you pie in the sky are themselves aware that there isn't any?