Claim:Organized Religion was invented to separate and enslave humanity. Translation: God is the invention of the human mind for malicious intent. Origin: Atheism.
Assessment: The problem with this argument is primarily ontological as it presupposes the existence of God. To conceive of God to begin with is uniquely and inherently tied to the Imago Dei, man being made in the image of God (cf. Gen.1:26-27). Pre-fall man possessed perfect knowledge of God with no corruption or muddying of the Imago Dei. Post-fall, however, the Imago Dei remains intact but is severely tarnished with broken (almost non-existent) knowledge of God. Thus there are a plethora of religions in the world from Islam to Buddhism to atheism to remote corners of the earth where people bow to sticks and stones (see also Romans 1,2,10 for biblical proof texting). Collectively, they testify to the broken internal knowledge of God as demonstrated by the very existence of their religions. Watered down explanation: “You have a God-shaped hole in your heart and you fill it with everything but Him whom you know and refuse.”
God (who He is, His existence and reality for what it is) is primary, then, before the argument of “malicious religion.” But the atheistic claim is that the purpose for the existence (or the concept of) God(s)/religion is for ill intent. Well, if there is no God to begin with, then there is no fabrication of His existence for any ill purpose until you first conceive of who He is in nature and essence. Furthermore, creating the idea of a pure God (conceding the God of biblical/Christian theism), then, yet at the same time drawing people to Him to enslave them for malicious purposes is counterintuitive and logically impossible. These are mutually exclusive concepts being lumped together into one argument for the end goal and non-existence of said God.
So, basically, “There is no God, but I’ll entertain the concept of the existence of Him just enough to claim that religion serves to separate humanity and subjugate them.” But remember.. you must first borrow from the Christian worldview as to the existence of God before you fabricate the ill-intent-argument. And the very act of doing so testifies you are made in the image of God. And God is still the necessary precondition for the existence of “malicious religion”.
Final thought: If God did not exist, neither would atheism.
Pretzel logic
Much of what is called religion meets this description.
There's not much more counterintuitive and logically impossible than saying a chick having a snack after a chat with a talking snake means all humankind is doomed to die forever in a lake of fire—unless we take certain actions prescribed by berobed figures called priests, demanding the first 10% of all our money while claiming to intercede directly with the Creator on behalf of us underlings; or that God creates each of us with a relentless, irresistible urge to do all manner of things that irritate the HELL (!) out of him; and then when we predictably do them, punishes us forever in said lake of fire (eternal damnation, for only 80-odd years of occasional transgression? Seems like a fair trade-off, something a reasonable and just deity would do)—unless we acknowledge that he is a jealous and vengeful sort who nonetheless LOVES us enough to create a human Son and have him tortured to death, an act of murder that gets everyone who hasn't even been born yet off the hook for all their sins, as long as they can somehow make themselves believe all this is true.
Disclaimer: absolutely not atheist (which IMHO is an indefensible position) but a principled agnostic who acknowledges undeniable evidence of intelligent design everywhere but is unable to anthropomorphize it; and who recognizes that nothing creates itself, so logically there must be a Creator of the Universe, the form and nature of Whom is inaccessible to human intelligence but can't be this petty, jealous, vindictive and murderous asshole the human authors of the Bible painted Him as.
It is counterintuitive and logically impossible for an omnipotent Creator to make billions of sentient beings in His image and then torture them, forever, for acting according to their imperfect human nature He bestowed upon them. Where would we have gotten our innate sense of "the punishment should fit the crime," if not from Him Who created us?
There is a bit here to unpack. I am trying to understand each point made.
Regarding your closing two paragraphs:
A) Are you proposing that the interpretations of Scripture and authorial intent and meaning by the authors themselves was to identify God as jealous, vindictive, petty, cruel etc.? Or are you saying you disagree with the righteous and loving judge portrayal and you think He is, instead, unjust and impure, etc.?
B) If you do concede that the Bible describes God as eternal, perfect Creator, judge over Hell (as you have acknowledged in your last paragraph), then on what basis would you believe that something form him imparted to us would be sinful and corrupt. That is never mentioned in Scripture. We inherit the sin nature from Adam in the fall into sin. The Bible does tell us, however, God imputes righteousness to us in and through Christ.
C) Regarding the innate sense of justice: the heathen in the remote bush, the atheist, the agnostic, everyone has that sense of right and wrong. The very concept of codes of conduct (in tribes, communities, society) and laws to govern comes from the justice of God and His moral law. Though they don’t think of Him or give Him credit, He is the necessary precondition for the very existence of justice and morality for they far exceed/surpass the puny boundaries of “human convention” (universal in nature).
To bring it full circle, then, is God fair and just to send anyone who is unrepentant to hell? Yes! But according to whose standard of righteousness? God Himself of course. No higher appeal, no other source, especially if you (we/anyone) concede that the Bible says that very thing about the God revealed in the Bible. And if Christ is who the Bible says He is, whether you (or anyone), truly believe in Him (but if you at least acknowledge the Bible says those things about Him) then that is the standard for pardoning of sin and granting everlasting life.
To admit the Bible says God (the triune God: Father, Son, Spirit) is perfect, just, He is judge, and He is also Savior is to agree that’s what it says. To believe fully in these things is a matter of conversion. But the former is to deal maturely and reasonably with what it at least says about God.
And forgive me for not including citations of scripture and texts. If you request them I am happy to oblige but we were speaking freely and loosely and generally about broad concepts and I was merely alluding to how the Bible describes God and so on. In the academic side of my life I live in a world of proof texts and citations but i was just relaxed a bit (not being lazy of course). Still, happy to provide anything you ask for if you did. Cheers.