Support NeoGAF

[JGS]

More passive-aggressive posts instead of being able to counter anything posted? Whodathunkett?

Counter what? The answer that you know I'm supposed to give?

Just so I'm clear about the rules of debate:

1. Ask question
2. Asker proceeds to answer question on behalf of the person being asked
3. The asked then has to answer the question and refute the answer asker has given

Would this be the correct order of things?

 

[Jackpot]

Counter what? The answer that you know I'm supposed to give?

Just so I'm clear about the rules of debate:

1. Ask question
2. Asker proceeds to answer question on behalf of the person being asked
3. The asked then has to answer the question and refute the answer asker has given

Would this be the correct order of things?

Fine, I'll bite, what's your answer to "Why do you consider other religions a load of hooey but not your own one"? I know you're furiously trying to think of an answer that doesn't fall into the two typical ones I've given no matter what you truly thought beforehand, but be my guest.

I await your dismissive comment that doesn't address anything at hand.

 

[Air]

Fine, I'll bite, what's your answer to "Why do you consider other religions a load of hooey but not your own one"? I know you're furiously trying to think of an answer that doesn't fall into the two typical ones I've given no matter what you truly thought beforehand, but be my guest.

I await your dismissive comment that doesn't address anything at hand.

lmao, also bolded is a loaded question.

 

[Jasup]

Fine, I'll bite, what's your answer to "Why do you consider other religions a load of hooey but not your own one"? I know you're furiously trying to think of an answer that doesn't fall into the two typical ones I've given no matter what you truly thought beforehand, but be my guest.

I await your dismissive comment that doesn't address anything at hand.

Hahahahaha, you got it all figured out don't you? You know you can disprove theism in under one minute, hope you make a youtube video about it.

You're fighting against stereotypes in your own little world. It's no better than theists who claim: "atheists know there is a god in their heart but are just angry/want to sin/rebel against him".

Stop and listen what the others really have to say, and then refute them. Everyone has their own form of belief, everyone's arguments and reactions are a bit different. There aren't any universal arguments that will refute everything. There are just a bunch of individuals trying independently to figure out the world around us.

And that's what makes this interesting.

 

[slidewinder]

lmao, also bolded is a loaded question.

Ok: Do you consider religions other than your own to be a load of hooey? If so, why?

That wasn't so hard, was it?

 

[Air]

Ok: Do you consider religions other than your own to be a load of hooey? If so, why?

That wasn't so hard, was it?

Well that's much better. To answer your question (or the question at hand), I would say no. To put it simply, they're other people's beliefs that I do not have. I don't see the necessity in giving it an extra label of "load of hooey". I could go more in depth, but I think this sums up my view of that question.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Ha, perfect dodge.

 

[Air]

Ha, perfect dodge.

To me? If so:




I could go more in depth, but I try to keep my posts short and sweet. I'll elaborate a little more though. There may be value in other religions that allow people to have better access to understanding their spirituality. If it works for them and allows them to lead a good life and to do good things, than I have no problem.

Also, I'm recovering over a night of drinking. That's a pretty nice compliment considering (if it was to me).

 

[Jackpot]

Everyone has their own form of belief, everyone's arguments and reactions are a bit different. There aren't any universal arguments that will refute everything. There are just a bunch of individuals trying independently to figure out the world around us.

Yes, there are universal arguments. The Flying Spaghetti Monster analogy was invented in order to convey the argument that "absence of evidence for something being false is not evidence that that thing is true" in convenient and easy-to-understand terms. And it still has to be pulled out in every religion debate because people think they're the very first to claim something, when actually, it's the same, old, defunct arguments.

If you have a 3rd answer to my question then I welcome it, because I would actually re-evaluate my thinking and beliefs instead of dodging the issue like other people are.

Well that's much better. To answer your question (or the question at hand), I would say no. To put it simply, they're other people's beliefs that I do not have. I don't see the necessity in giving it an extra label of "load of hooey". I could go more in depth, but I think this sums up my view of that question.

Cultural relativism answer. Some beliefs can coexist, but some beliefs are mutually exclusive, such as the afterlife example I mentioned. If you do believe in one version, then you must think the other is false. That you say no, and by extension agree that other religions might hold more relevance or might have the "correct" version of events over your current religion's would make you an agnostic.

 

[Air]

Cultural relativism answer. Some beliefs can coexist, but some beliefs are mutually exclusive, such as the afterlife example I mentioned. If you do believe in one version, then you must think the other is false. That you say no, and by extension agree that other religions might hold more relevance or might have the "correct" version of events over your current religion's would make you an agnostic.

I'm an agnostic theist. I've never shunned the label (read some of my posts). You're assuming too much. I believe in this version (religion), but the other versions(religions) have not resonated with me to the degree it may have with other people. I think the top religions are all very interesting. I believe my religion has a better grasp on me than other religions. I see it more like saying "I like to sing, because it brings more joy to me, but playing the guitar is nice as well."

 

[Count Dookkake]

To me? If so:




I could go more in depth, but I try to keep my posts short and sweet. I'll elaborate a little more though. There may be value in other religions that allow people to have better access to understanding their spirituality. If it works for them and allows them to lead a good life and to do good things, than I have no problem.

Also, I'm recovering over a night of drinking. That's a pretty nice compliment considering (if it was to me).

That's not a compliment. It's a description of evasive behavior. You managed to answer without really answering. This was not a surprise.

 

[Air]

That's not a compliment. It's a description of evasive behavior. You managed to answer without really answering. This was not a surprise.

Be that as it may, but I elaborated on my answer in my preceding posts, which all can still be summed up by my first statement.

 

[Dice]

Be that as it may, but I elaborated on my answer in my preceding posts, which all can still be summed up by my first statement.

Even with elaboration, you're dodging the obvious intention he was trying to get at. That being, if there is something about which other religions are definitely wrong, and yours is definitely right... how do you know that such is the case?

 

[Air]

Even with elaboration, you're dodging the obvious intention he was trying to get at. That being, if there is something about which other religions are definitely wrong, and yours is definitely right... how do you know that such is the case?

I don't know if mines is "definitely" right. Again, I believe it to have had the most positive effect on me, thus I continue to follow it. Also you would have to elaborate on what that "something" is.

 

[Dice]

Okay, I will spell it out since we are pretending to be ignorant children....

Matters such as:
-Whether or not the spiritual exists and what it is like
-Whether or not we get an afterlife and how the system works
-Whether or not mankind needs to be redeemed according to some law of the universe/spiritual
-If so, what the requirements and process of redemption are

It is apparent that there are many disagreements, even direct oppositions, on these key points of religious beliefs. If yours is correct and others are not, or if yours is simply more correct than others, how do you arrive at this conclusion? What is your rational basis?

 

[Air]

Okay, I will spell it out since we are pretending to be ignorant children....

Matters such as:
-Whether or not the spiritual exists and what it is like
-Whether or not we get an afterlife and how the system works
-Whether or not mankind needs to be redeemed according to some law of the universe/spiritual
-If so, what the requirements and process of redemption are

It is apparent that there are many disagreements, even direct oppositions, on these key points of religious beliefs. If yours is correct and others are not, or if yours is simply more correct than others, how do you arrive at this conclusion? What is your rational basis?

I don't really understand where the attitude is coming from, but relating to my own religion, you can have different beliefs and different models to back up those beliefs(scripture, history, science, etc). That doesn't necessarily make them wrong, but a different interpretation of how events happened. In regards to other religions, I simply just look at what they have to offer. Again, I said my beliefs are good for me, and they make sense to me, but that may not be the case for other people. I compare it to drawing a model in a classroom. Which angle is the right angle to draw from? Each angle has its vantage points.

I'll say it again, I don't know if mines is correct, I only know that it has been of great benefit to me. If I die, and there's a different realm than what I was expecting, than I'll have to own up to that. But while I'm here, I really don't feel the need to dismiss others beliefs because they don't believe what I do. When I hear people from other religions speak, I listen to what they have to say (which is something usually interesting) and if it has value to me I may remember it. They have faith conventions too where people from all other walks of life come together to talk about their different beliefs.

 

[Dice]

Okay well several faiths don't define themselves as perspectives on the same thing, but as exclusive revelations. By saying that they are something else, you are saying they are wrong about that and that you somehow know more than them, that the truth is some sort of meta-reality of which we all only catch a glimpse. How do you rationally come to the conclusion that their claims of exclusive and/or direct revelation are false and that we are all missing the true form in some way?

P.S. I'm guessing you're Bahá'í?

 

[Jasup]

Yes, there are universal arguments. The Flying Spaghetti Monster analogy was invented in order to convey the argument that "absence of evidence for something being false is not evidence that that thing is true" in convenient and easy-to-understand terms. And it still has to be pulled out in every religion debate because people think they're the very first to claim something, when actually, it's the same, old, defunct arguments.

If you have a 3rd answer to my question then I welcome it, because I would actually re-evaluate my thinking and beliefs instead of dodging the issue like other people are.

Well, that's not my point. You see, the trend I see in these threads is the same arguments are being repeated over and over with very little effect as the debate is largely dictated by emotional responces. We have our own predispositions towards one notion, and as humans we are capable of dismissing any argument, however logical it is, contrary to our own ideas with ease. Cosmological argument for those who believe it is very logical and faultles. Coming into the discussion claimng "I'm right, you're wrong" doesn't help the cause whatever it is.

You've won the argument? Good for you.
We haven't gained anything with this exercise.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Well, that's not my point. You see, the trend I see in these threads is the same arguments are being repeated over and over with very little effect as the debate is largely dictated by emotional responces. We have our own predispositions towards one notion, and as humans we are capable of dismissing any argument, however logical it is, contrary to our own ideas with ease. Cosmological argument for those who believe it is very logical and faultles. Coming into the discussion claimng "I'm right, you're wrong" doesn't help the cause whatever it is.

You've won the argument? Good for you.
We haven't gained anything with this exercise.

Little effect? We've had multiple posters make the jump from theism to atheism. I'd wager some lurkers have been helped, too.

 

[The Technomancer]

We're talking about 1000s of years of human history spread out across the entire globe, from our aboriginal beginnings to the present day. Please don't pretend that you've researched and tried to understand it all - or even a tiny fraction of it. Because we both know that's impossible.

You know, atheists, it's ok to admit you don't know everything and aren't the ultimate authority on every subject known to man. We know you are all very intelligent, but you're not superhuman.

I missed this but that second point is the entire point of atheism. Its religion that claims definitive answers to things we do not know.

 

[Air]

Okay well several faiths don't define themselves as perspectives on the same thing, but as exclusive revelations. By saying that they are something else, you are saying they are wrong about that and that you somehow know more than them, that the truth is some sort of meta-reality of which we all only catch a glimpse. How do you rationally come to the conclusion that their claims of exclusive and/or direct revelation are false and that we are all missing the true form in some way?

P.S. I'm guessing you're Bahá'í?

No, I'd consider myself a Christian. It's not so much that I consider it false, but after hearing all kinds of talks between people of different faiths, there are strands of continuity between them. Its also not so much to bring other faiths down or to prop mine up, just a means of seeing what the similarities are and categorizing. I feel like there can also be an argument that can be made on the revelations content (golden rule, etc) being truth, and not the specific book itself, though I don't know if I'm confident enough in that argument to make it.

 

[Orayn]

I missed this but that second point is the entire point of atheism. Its religion that claims definitive answers to things we do not know.

Only explicit or "strong" atheism is like that. The more common type is just failing to reject the null hypothesis of "A universe containing one or more gods is indistinguishable from one that contains no gods."

 

[onipex]

This is something I struggled with as a Christian.

Paul says that people would leave the truth and turn aside to myths.
Besides being entirely dismissive other religions - are we to assume Paul knew of them? Intimately or vaguely?

Why would he need to? Jesus appear to him, blinded him,and spoke to him. That's how you learn of Paul as a Christian so after going through that he wouldn't need to.

 

[Dice]

No, I'd consider myself a Christian. It's not so much that I consider it false, but after hearing all kinds of talks between people of different faiths, there are strands of continuity between them. Its also not so much to bring other faiths down or to prop mine up, just a means of seeing what the similarities are and categorizing. I feel like there can also be an argument that can be made on the revelations content (golden rule, etc) being truth, and not the specific book itself, though I don't know if I'm confident enough in that argument to make it.

So Christianity has been good to you and you thus say "alright, sounds good" yet in reality you don't actually commit to anything, which means you don't actually have a position on anything.

 

[Air]

So Christianity has been good to you and you thus say "alright, sounds good" yet in reality you don't actually commit to anything, which means you don't actually have a position on anything.

No, I just let it be, so to speak. I take my beliefs and live my life. I think other religions are very interesting, but as I said before, they're not for me.

 

[Buckethead]

Why would he need to? Jesus appear to him, blinded him,and spoke to him. That's how you learn of Paul as a Christian so after going through that he wouldn't need to.

That's a nice cookie-cutter answer but ultimately an intellectually dismissive one.

Also most Christians never met Jesus.

They're merely taking Paul's word for it which is funny when his letters reek with bias.

 

[Dice]

No, I just let it be, so to speak. I take my beliefs and live my life. I think other religions are very interesting, but as I said before, they're not for me.

Then you are still avoiding the question. Why do you believe what you do, and not what the others believe? For instance, to say that you believe in a monotheistic religion means you believe Taoism and Hinduism are wrong. Why? To believe in the Christian format of moral subjugation and afterlife, it means you don't believe in karma and reincarnation. Why? To believe that Jesus was/is God it means you don't believe the other religions that think he was just a man. Why?

To say you "just let them be" means you are actively avoiding these conflicts while nevertheless subscribing to a perspective that opposes them. If you are avoiding the issue, it would seem that is because you want to pretend these positions are not positions, but rather that they are genres of music or flavors of ice cream. Such is not the case. So are you saying there is no basis behind your belief and you intentionally ignore its dissonance with other beliefs?

 

[Jackpot]

No, I just let it be, so to speak. I take my beliefs and live my life. I think other religions are very interesting, but as I said before, they're not for me.

That's sort of the definition of not having a position.

 

[Air]

Then you are still avoiding the question. Why do you believe what you do, and not what the others believe? For instance, to say that you believe in a monotheistic religion means you believe Taoism and Hinduism are wrong. Why? To believe in the Christian format of moral subjugation and afterlife, it means you don't believe in karma and reincarnation. Why? To believe that Jesus was/is God it means you don't believe the other religions that think he was just a man. Why?

To say you "just let them be" means you are actively avoiding these conflicts while nevertheless subscribing to a perspective that opposes them. If you are avoiding the issue, it would seem that is because you want to pretend these positions are not positions, but rather that they are genres of music or flavors of ice cream. Such is not the case. So are you saying there is no basis behind your belief and you intentionally ignore its dissonance with other beliefs?

I spoke about it earlier. Christianity resonates better with me as a religion. The language, format or what have you compels me more than the other religions. I've said it before, I can be wrong about my beliefs. I also acknowledge that there can be different avenues for a person to improve. The question wasn't why do I believe in my religion, it was do I think other religions are hooey. I said no, because they have value and can aid a persons life like my religion aids my own.

As to the bold, people treat religions like this all the time. Why wouldn't it be the case?

That's sort of the definition of not having a position.

Other religions may describe the same (or different) aspects of truth as my own. I like to look for the similarities between the various religions, because the differences are easy to spot. That's why I don't consider them "hooey".

 

[Jackpot]

*sigh*

The question wasn't why do I believe in my religion, it was do I think other religions are hooey. I said no, because they have value and can aid a persons life like my religion aids my own.

Those questions overlap. You keep focusing on the philosophical musings contained in religion and how they can enrich your life, whilst ducking anything core to the religion's beliefs. If that's the case a book of inspirational MLK quotes could replace your faith.

A simple, direct question. It's Easter. A core tenent of Christianity is that Jesus, the son of God, rose from the dead on this day. For other religions, that never happened. Which do you believe and how did you reach this conclusion? How do you justify such a conclusion over the opposing religious viewpoint?

 

[Dice]

As to the bold, people treat religions like this all the time. Why wouldn't it be the case?

Because...

to say that you believe in a monotheistic religion means you believe Taoism and Hinduism are wrong.

To believe in the Christian format of moral subjugation and afterlife, it means you don't believe in karma and reincarnation.

To believe that Jesus was/is God it means you don't believe the other religions that think he was just a man. Why?

This is how beliefs work. If you say "I believe this, but it's probably just a load of crap and has equal chance of being true as anything else" that is not a belief. You are simply subjugating yourself to a premise without any real trust or reason.

 

[Feep]

Yeah, I hear a lot of religion folk try to reconcile the issue by saying "they're all just different facets of the same gem" or something similar, but no, they aren't. They are directly contradictory in hundreds upon hundreds of ways, some as incredibly obvious as "Is Jesus the son of God?"

There's an incredible amount of cognitive dissonance going on if anyone can say that with a straight face. You picked a side; at least show some backbone and stick to your guns.

 

[Air]

*sigh*
Those questions overlap. You keep focusing on the philosophical musings contained in religion and how they can enrich your life, whilst ducking anything core to the religion's beliefs. If that's the case a book of inspirational MLK quotes could replace your faith.

A simple, direct question. It's Easter. A core tenent of Christianity is that Jesus, the son of God, rose from the dead on this day. For other religions, that never happened. Which do you believe and how did you reach this conclusion? How do you justify such a conclusion over the opposing religious viewpoint?

Well seeing as how Jesus rising is a tenet of the faith, I'd think it to be natural that I would believe that since I said I'd classify myself as a Christian. To the other part of the question, is where the faith answer would go.

Because...

This is how beliefs work. If you say "I believe this, but it's probably just a load of crap and has equal chance of being true as anything else" that is not a belief. You are simply subjugating yourself to a premise without any real trust or reason.

"I believe this because it better translates the nature of reality to me, I don't know if I'm right or wrong. I also know that there are other religions out there that may better translate the nature of reality to their followers like my religion does for me. It is possible that whatever the truth is, there may be other avenues to reach that destination."

I have my belief, but it simply boils down to an understanding that I can be wrong. I won't know if I'm right until I'm dead or reincarnated or something.

 

[The Technomancer]

Well seeing as how Jesus rising is a tenet of the faith, I'd think it to be natural that I would believe that since I said I'd classify myself as a Christian. To the other part of the question, is where the faith answer would go.

Sure, so you say that you have faith that Jesus rose. But you also think that other religions that don't think that he rose are equally valid and respectable. So why do you have faith in your religion if you don't give its claims more weight then those of other religions?

"Translating the nature of reality" is all well and good for things like "what is the nature of God and the universe" but almost all religions make very specific and contradictory claims. Jesus can't both have risen and not have risen.

 

[Feep]

Well seeing as how Jesus rising is a tenet of the faith, I'd think it to be natural that I would believe that since I said I'd classify myself as a Christian. To the other part of the question, is where the faith answer would go.

You are completely ignoring the real question here, which is "why are you Christian"? You're using that good 'ol circular reasoning, here..."I believe in Jesus' resurrection because I'm Christian, and I'm Christian because I believe in Jesus' resurrection."

We're asking you why you believe this core tenet of Christianity in the first place. I think we all know the real answer...because you were raised as a young child to follow this belief system...but we're curious to see if you admit that, or if you can find some logical justification why Christianity's view of events is more accurate, for some reason, than a Muslim's or Jew's or Buddhist's.

 

[Air]

Sure, so you say that you have faith that Jesus rose. But you also think that other religions that don't think that he rose are equally valid and respectable. So why do you have faith in your religion if you don't give its claims more weight then those of other religions?

I have faith in it because with how I perceive life, and how the religion has helped me, I can say that this is probably the path for me.

"Translating the nature of reality" is all well and good for things like "what is the nature of God and the universe" but almost all religions make very specific and contradictory claims. Jesus can't both have risen and not have risen.

I think the some of core ideas of love, charity, justice, inner peace, etc. is generally the essence of most major religions. This is what I accept amongst the other religions and I think other religions translate this to their believers as well. I guess I should have clarified on that part. But as a Christian, obviously I would sit on that side of the fence, but I don't think it means discounting the views of others or that they may be right.

You are completely ignoring the real question here, which is "why are you Christian"? You're using that good 'ol circular reasoning, here..."I believe in Jesus' resurrection because I'm Christian, and I'm Christian because I believe in Jesus' resurrection."

We're asking you why you believe this core tenet of Christianity in the first place. I think we all know the real answer...because you were raised as a young child to follow this belief system...but we're curious to see if you admit that, or if you can find some logical justification why Christianity's view of events is more accurate, for some reason, than a Muslim's or Jew's or Buddhist's.

When I was raised, I had the choice to choose to follow a religion, or to abandon it. My parents were very understanding of that and allowed me to make the choice for myself. I talked about this earlier in this thread as well. Religion played a part in my upbringing, but I was never forced to do something I didn't want to do. Also if that was the real question, the guy should have said it in the first place.

 

[The Technomancer]

I think the some of core ideas of love, charity, justice, inner peace, etc. is generally the essence of most major religions. This is what I accept amongst the other religions because I think other religions translate this to their believers as well. I guess I should have clarified on that part. But as a Christian, obviously I would sit on that side of the fence, but I don't think it means discounting the views of others.

But if a Muslim said to you "Jesus did not rise from the grave" you would say that they are wrong?

 

[Feep]

I think the some of core ideas of love, charity, justice, inner peace, etc. is generally the essence of most major religions. This is what I accept amongst the other religions because I think other religions translate this to their believers as well. I guess I should have clarified on that part. But as a Christian, obviously I would sit on that side of the fence, but I don't think it means discounting the views of others.

Yes it does. You just discounted the view of most other religions that Jesus was not the son of God. Directly. You can't have it both ways.

When I was raised, I had the choice to choose to follow a religion, or to abandon it. My parents were very understanding of that and allowed me to make the choice for myself.

Then can you answer our question, please? Why is Christianity's view that Jesus is the son of God correct, and Islam's view that Jesus was not the son of God incorrect?

 

[Jackpot]

See, I told you the question stymies them. Every time, not a single person has managed to provide an answer.

 

[TacticalFox88]

I find it disheartening that we atheists have to "come out the closet" to our religious families.

 

[Air]

But if a Muslim said to you "Jesus did not rise from the grave" you would say that they are wrong?

Then can you answer our question, please? Why is Christianity's view that Jesus is the son of God correct, and Islam's view that Jesus was not the son of God incorrect?

I'd probably say they were wrong, but I would clarify that as per the belief system I hold, I view that Jesus had to have risen. I'd probably tell them this is how the faith I belong to views that particular story. If you're looking for a scientific answer of that, than I don't know if we can get that(we all know this).

When I say I respect other religions, I respect the image of those qualities I posted earlier (love, justice, etc), and how many of the modern religions share that same connection. I'm not trying to make an argument here, I'm simply trying to share my viewpoint on this subject.

 

[Buckethead]

I find it disheartening that we atheists have to "come out the closet" to our religious families.

Coming out doesn't bother me.

It takes courage and bravery. Builds character.

It's the persecution and condescension afterward that really bothers me.
Especially when it comes from people who don't have strong spiritual convictions in the first place.

Speaking personally, I needed support and respect after I came out, not the opposite.

Not being supportive only drives people away further.

 

[The Technomancer]

I'd probably say they were wrong, but I would clarify that as per the belief system I hold, I view that Jesus had to have risen. I'd probably tell them this is how the faith I belong to views that particular story. If you're looking for a scientific answer of that, than I don't know if we can get that(we all know this).

When I say I respect other religions, I respect the image of those qualities I posted earlier (love, justice, etc), and how many of the modern religions share that same connection. I'm not trying to make an argument here, I'm simply trying to share my viewpoint on this subject.

So you believe in a set of ideals but you don't believe in any actual events. Not enough to defend them to someone who says that they don't happen. Why are you Christian then? Can't you believe in love and justice without also saying that Jesus was the son of God who rose from the grave?

 

[Air]

So you believe in a set of ideals but you don't believe in any actual events. Not enough to defend them to someone who says that they don't happen. Why are you Christian then? Can't you believe in love and justice without also saying that Jesus was the son of God who rose from the grave?

No I believe in the events. The ideals that are common are why I respect the other religions. I elaborated why I believe earlier and in other topics. As to the bolded, you can believe whatever it is you want.

EDIT: To clarify the post before this, I'm not going to write a thesis as to what I would write to the pretend Muslim in question. I wanted to write something that would generally get the point across to you guys. I try to avoid writing really long messages since it takes too much time.

 

[Timedog]

No I believe in the events. The ideals that are common are why I respect the other religions. I elaborated why I believe earlier and in other topics. As to the bolded, you can believe whatever it is you want.

EDIT: To clarify the post before this, I'm not going to write a thesis as to what I would write to the pretend Muslim in question. I wanted to write something that would generally get the point across to you guys. I try to avoid writing really long messages since it takes too much time.

If you believe in the events than other religions' account of events is indeed a "load of hooey", whether you like the particular wording of that or not.

 

[Air]

If you believe in the events than other religions' account of events is indeed a "load of hooey", whether you like the phrasing of that or not.

To be fair, I'll concede that the recollection of the events would be as you say, regardless of the phrasing. I still stand by what I said early though about the shared connection of the ideals the other religions have. The question should have been more specific than, I think.

 

[Ruas]

how is the flying spaghetti monster used as an analogy for Christianity when the creator of it has stated that it's fake and just a parody? Therefor you can't compare the two; one was openly written as a joke, fly spaghetti monster and the other was written as being true, the Bible. But I see why atheists have latched onto to it though, its quirky,amuses them and they love to use it as an insult to the religious.

 

[surly]

how is the flying spaghetti monster used as an analogy for Christianity when the creator of it has stated that it's fake and just a parody? Therefor you can't compare the two; one was openly written as a joke, fly spaghetti monster and the other was written as being true, the Bible. But I see why atheists have latched onto to it though, its quirky,amuses them and they love to use it as an insult to the religious.

Yeah, the spaghetti monster guy fucked up. He should have said "this is true!" and then it would have been just like the Bible.

 

[soul creator]

"I like/prefer this story more than others" seems to be the essence of Air's position. Which is probably why there doesn't seem to be a straightforward answer to why "I believe religious claim A (with no evidence) to be true, but religious claim B (also with no evidence) to be false".

That said, that's basically the same as saying "I like Star Wars more, but I respect some of the themes presented in Star Trek as well". Which is fine and all, but that would technically make "Trekkies" religious followers now

Of course, if the majority of religious believers actually treated religious claims that way, then atheists wouldn't have any issues (hell, atheists would no longer exist), just like how "Atrekkiests" don't exist. And no one would make a big deal of someone saying "those claims don't have any evidence for them, therefore they are incorrect".

In reality, atheists are often be accused of being "close-minded" or "not knowing the true meaning of religion" when they simply point out that a religious belief isn't true. Of course, the utility or "niceness" of a belief is a completely separate discussion (and could even be seen as a distraction) from whether that belief is actually true. I often find these two discussions get muddled together when religious claims are defended. It might even be considered an implicit admission that the belief in question isn't actually true.

 

[astroturfing]

im curious, has anyone found god or religion through this thread? or has it been only the other way around, some people giving up their faith..?

how is the flying spaghetti monster used as an analogy for Christianity when the creator of it has stated that it's fake and just a parody? Therefor you can't compare the two; one was openly written as a joke, fly spaghetti monster and the other was written as being true, the Bible. But I see why atheists have latched onto to it though, its quirky,amuses them and they love to use it as an insult to the religious.

what??? joke post?

i understand how it can be annoying though, i absolutely hate it (as an atheist). never used the analogy myself.