# Fred Phelps is only the tip of the religion iceberg! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 9, 2006, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fred-phelps-is-only-the-tip-of-the-religion-iceberg/355990 "2006-05-09T00:47:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2006, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fred-phelps-is-only-the-tip-of-the-religion-iceberg/355990/121 "2006-05-12T14:26:36Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > That’s because you’re applying the religious double standard for evidence again. _Most_ of the time, if there’s no evidence for something ( much less no evidence it’s even _possible_ ), almost everyone treats that something as nonexistent. We need to do so in order to function. This is the last time I’ll explain this to you. The spiritual journey is not just objective and what you keep going on about is only objective. Because of that I don’t think your argument is valid when applying to spiritual beliefs. I’ll qualify that a bit by saying that when a religious belief makes claims about history and archeology and natural events we can and should examine those objectively. The inner spiritual journey , which is personal and subjective can not be examined objectively, and that my stubborn friend is why your repeated claim doesn’t really apply. In fact all people use subjective evidence to make their choices. It’s an unavoidable part of our humanity. You are the one who wants to remove religions special status and I keep agreeing with you about that. In this case by insisting something that is for the most part subjective be judged by objective evidence only it is you who are creating an unfair unreasonable special status for religion. > [@](#): > > Do you worry about goblins under your bed, or do you not even think about it ? There is a possibility that a bullet is headed at you _right now_; are you going to dodge ? An asteroid could be headed towards Earth, dooming us all in a year; do you live you’re life assuming everyone will be dead in a year ? We choose what we value and what our order of priorities are. A goblin, a bullet, or a pink elephant in pajamas aren’t high on my list. The spiritual journey is. > [@](#): > > Not even to yourself ? Don’t you even care if you’re right ? Yes, I;m on this journey because I care. I’m fairly sure I am partly right and partly wrong and so is everybody else. I accept my responsibility to choose my beliefs and actions and how they affect others and by being willing to seriously\* listen\* to others and question myself, I continue to learn. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2006, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fred-phelps-is-only-the-tip-of-the-religion-iceberg/355990/122 "2006-05-12T14:30:25Z")
Surprisingly this Pit thread is turning into a very interesting discussion. I want to respond to more and will later on. My thanks to you thoughtful participants. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2006, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fred-phelps-is-only-the-tip-of-the-religion-iceberg/355990/123 "2006-05-12T16:37:11Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Surprisingly this Pit thread is turning into a very interesting discussion. I want to respond to more and will later on. My thanks to you thoughtful participants. We’re not in the Pit yet. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2006, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fred-phelps-is-only-the-tip-of-the-religion-iceberg/355990/124 "2006-05-12T17:22:48Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Yes but I’ve read books by people with direct experience with God. Some even reported to be written by God. I’ve talked to people who have described direct experience with God. I think this is a good analogy when you consider how belief develops in this country. I’ve read books where spiritualists claim direct observation of Atlantis. This road would lead us to how to evaluate evidence in terms of quality and consistency. If three people came back from Paris, and one reported the most famous monument is the Eiffel Tower, one says they didn’t see that but saw Big Ben, and the third says they saw neither of those but did see a Leaning Tower, you’d wonder if Paris actually exists. Reports of god are similar to that. > [@](#): > > I understand what you’re saying but I’d like to add that an important part of my spiritual beliefs is the realization that my beliefs do directly affect the people I encounter. So do yours and everyone elses. I hope this doesn’t sound condescending because I believe you already know this. I just wanted to express it. I’m not interested in imposing my beliefs on anyone. I am interested in shareing them because I think it’s an important part of human development. By claiming my right to choose for myself I feel a moral obligation to let others do the same. Imposing is a better word than directly affecting. Say I go to dinner with someone who keeps kosher. His beliefs will directly affect where we go, but I wouldn’t consider them being imposed on me. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2006, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fred-phelps-is-only-the-tip-of-the-religion-iceberg/355990/125 "2006-05-12T18:53:52Z")
> [@baronsabato](#): > > So I know that God exists. That, for me, is a fact. I also know that God is love. These two statements exemplify two of the things that irritate me about religion. The first claims that something is a fact just for him/her, like reality doesn’t exist. God either is a fact for everyone or no one, not just for you. The second is just sappy and meaningless; “God is love” has as much meaning as “Rocks are frustration”. Love is an _emotion_; neither God nor anyone else is love. > [@baronsabato](#): > > Anyway, I don’t believe that morality is rooted in faith, since there are plenty of atheists and agnostics who are just as moral, if not more so, than people of faith and there are plenty of people of faith who, in my opinion, are highly immoral. I do believe that morality is _ultimately_ rooted in God, but that’s just something I believe and I certainly don’t think anyone else needs to agree with me. This is contradictory; if morality is “_ultimately_ rooted in God”, why do you think those moral atheists and agnostics _are_ moral ? > [@baronsabato](#): > > In regards to your earlier question about absolutist belief systems; well, my gut reaction is, “Yes, get rid of absolutist belief systems and the world is a better place” but I also agree with **cosmosdan** that I would be okay with a group that is happy with its fundamentalism but leaves everyone else alone and is not inflicting harm on their own members. This is impossible; by nature absolutists/fundamentalists ignore reality when it contradicts their beliefs, which at best gives them poor judgment. They’ll hurt themselves or others sooner or later, even if the haven’t a nasty bone in their body. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > In this case by insisting something that is for the most part subjective be judged by objective evidence only it is you who are creating an unfair unreasonable special status for religion. I see it as _wholly_ subjective, which is a polite way of saying “imaginary”. I see no evidence that there _is_ any “spiritual journey” to make. I see no evidence to believe it’s anything more than the psychological/emotion equivalent of maturbation; it might be fun, but it’s not profound. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > We choose what we value and what our order of priorities are. A goblin, a bullet, or a pink elephant in pajamas aren’t high on my list. The spiritual journey is. Why; what rational reason can there be for elevating a purely subjective “journey” over any random imaginary concept ? Especially since bullets, elephants and pajamas are real. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2006, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fred-phelps-is-only-the-tip-of-the-religion-iceberg/355990/126 "2006-05-12T19:46:22Z")
Slight hijack…Poly, regarding this: > [@](#): > > Second, kindly stop equating Benedict XVI and the Catholic Church with Christianity. “Oi’m 'Ennery the Eighth, Oi Yam” – as an Anglican, I and my church have not been guided by the Popes for several centuries, and disagree with the Catholic stances on birth control and on gay human rights. As you may be aware, there is a serious rift in the Anglican Communion over just the latter issue: **whether the American Episcopal Church was justified in consecrating as a bishop a gay man in a committed monogamous relationship** , and whether a diocese of the Anglican Church of Canada may legitimately celebrate same-sex marriages. Are Episcopal bishops allowed to date if they are het? Or would they have to be married/monogamous as well? I’m asking out of genuine curiosity. I just wonder if there’s a double standard. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2006, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fred-phelps-is-only-the-tip-of-the-religion-iceberg/355990/127 "2006-05-13T01:39:19Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > We’re not in the Pit yet. 🙂 Whoops!! I lost track of which thread I was in. :o Man, that could have been much worse. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2006, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fred-phelps-is-only-the-tip-of-the-religion-iceberg/355990/128 "2006-05-13T02:29:00Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I’ve read books where spiritualists claim direct observation of Atlantis. This road would lead us to how to evaluate evidence in terms of quality and consistency. If three people came back from Paris, and one reported the most famous monument is the Eiffel Tower, one says they didn’t see that but saw Big Ben, and the third says they saw neither of those but did see a Leaning Tower, you’d wonder if Paris actually exists. Reports of god are similar to that. Okay. Notice that someone concluding that Paris doesn’t exist would be wrong. What I meant was that many believers accept certain beliefs the same way we accept China and Australia exist. Is the default belief for China and Australia to \*\*not \*\*believe they exist, or would the fact that we are told they do exist from our youth by people we believe and trust be a reason to call the default belief acceptance in that case? > [@](#): > > Imposing is a better word than directly affecting. Say I go to dinner with someone who keeps kosher. His beliefs will directly affect where we go, but I wouldn’t consider them being imposed on me. I see that. What I’m talking about my beliefs being the root of my judgement calls in my day to day life and interaction with people. If I am kind or not, forgiving or not, that certainly directly affects people. IMO imposing my beliefs on them would be to insist they believe the same as I do. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2006, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fred-phelps-is-only-the-tip-of-the-religion-iceberg/355990/129 "2006-05-13T02:54:00Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > This is contradictory; if morality is “_ultimately_ rooted in God”, why do you think those moral atheists and agnostics _are_ moral ? Is it possible to enjoy and use water from a well without knowing where the well is or even being mistaken about the location of the well? > [@](#): > > This is impossible; by nature absolutists/fundamentalists ignore reality when it contradicts their beliefs, which at best gives them poor judgment. They’ll hurt themselves or others sooner or later, even if the haven’t a nasty bone in their body. This sounds like a statement of faith. > [@](#): > > I see it as _wholly_ subjective, which is a polite way of saying “imaginary”. I see no evidence that there _is_ any “spiritual journey” to make. I see no evidence to believe it’s anything more than the psychological/emotion equivalent of maturbation; it might be fun, but it’s not profound. Yes I am aware of how **you** see it. Perhaps you should review subjective. The fact that \*\*you \*\* see no evidence of the spiritual journey is irrelevant to my or someone else’s subjective experience. The fact that it holds no meaning for you is your subjective experience. The fact that it holds meaning for me is mine. Neither may judge the other incorrect. > [@](#): > > Why; what rational reason can there be for elevating a purely subjective “journey” over any random imaginary concept ? Especially since bullets, elephants and pajamas are real. Do you like action movies more than you like romantic comedies? Why? What possible reason could there be. I see no evidence to find one more enjoyable than the other. If I find something meaningful that you do not does that mean one of us is stupid? No. Please review the meaning of subjective again. It’s not about what you perceive as rational. It’s simply about the individual choosing what is meaningful to them. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2006, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fred-phelps-is-only-the-tip-of-the-religion-iceberg/355990/130 "2006-05-13T04:34:02Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Is it possible to enjoy and use water from a well without knowing where the well is or even being mistaken about the location of the well? An analogy that makes no sense, and is a diversion from the question. I am an atheist, and I am reasonably moral. I don’t rob or rape or torture or kill. If morality comes from God, I’d be in a supermax prison next to that terrorist guy. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > This sounds like a statement of faith. No, simply good sense; not to mention history and the news. If you ignore reality in favor of an ideology or theology you’ll inevitably screw up, because reality doesn’t care if you believe in it or not. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Do you like action movies more than you like romantic comedies? Why? What possible reason could there be. I see no evidence to find one more enjoyable than the other. If I find something meaningful that you do not does that mean one of us is stupid? No. I don’t pretend they are real. I don’t pretend my entertainment preferences are anything but my personal taste in fun; I don’t claim to be tapping into the Fundamental Truth Of The Universe when I watch _The Trouble with Tribbles_. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2006, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fred-phelps-is-only-the-tip-of-the-religion-iceberg/355990/131 "2006-05-13T05:01:31Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > Slight hijack…Poly, regarding this: > > Are Episcopal bishops allowed to date if they are het? Or would they have to be married/monogamous as well? I’m asking out of genuine curiosity. I just wonder if there’s a double standard. Thanks. Sure, assuming the bishop is single. Presumably sex would only occur in a committed relationship, or at least that would be the ideal. Bishops and priests are regarded as being moral leaders, but in the Anglican church they are under no special obligation _because of their clerical role_ to remain celibate. (There are a couple of bishops and a fair number of priests who are members of celibate religious orders, under vows of celibacy to be sure, but that’s because of their membership in the order, not from being a bishop or priest.) Their relationship in a courtship should be chaste – there are no swinging singles clubs for clergy, I should hope! – but they’re under no special obligation beyond normal sexual mores. (And obviously a married bishop or priest is true to his or her spouse.) ---
**Author:** ![Othersider](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/cab0a1/32.png) [@Othersider](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Othersider)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2006, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fred-phelps-is-only-the-tip-of-the-religion-iceberg/355990/132 "2006-05-13T05:45:57Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Actually, I’d say there are several truth values. Does God[1] exist? God[2]? …and so forth. Maybe a God exists who cares about some other people, not us. Then of course there is the question of what our reaction to God’s existence should be. Should we toe the line, like the fundamentalists of all stripes want us to do, or should we find comfort in his existence, but no direction, like a deist would say? Lots of the arguments for god’s existence don’t address which god. Personally, I don’t like the whole “God 1, God 2, etc.” thing. But that’s probably because I’m not a polytheist. I don’t consider a whole host of god concepts, and then evaluate each one’s existence. To me, it seems more likely that there’s just one God (yes, assuming he exists), and that there are many different perceptions of him. After all, it’s not like God showed most of us what he looks like (assuming he even _has_ a form), so possibly a lot of different religions out there are worshipping the same God, even if they call him different names and attribute different things to him. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2006, 11:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fred-phelps-is-only-the-tip-of-the-religion-iceberg/355990/133 "2006-05-13T11:08:38Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Sure, assuming the bishop is single. Presumably sex would only occur in a committed relationship, or at least that would be the ideal. > > Bishops and priests are regarded as being moral leaders, but in the Anglican church they are under no special obligation _because of their clerical role_ to remain celibate. (There are a couple of bishops and a fair number of priests who are members of celibate religious orders, under vows of celibacy to be sure, but that’s because of their membership in the order, not from being a bishop or priest.) Their relationship in a courtship should be chaste – there are no swinging singles clubs for clergy, I should hope! – but they’re under no special obligation beyond normal sexual mores. (And obviously a married bishop or priest is true to his or her spouse.) Thanks, Poly. (I am Soooooo getting a visual of a bunch of guys in clerical attire standing around sipping martinis. Then the porno music starts and some nuns walk in in mini-habits…boom-chicka-boom-chicka…) ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2006, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fred-phelps-is-only-the-tip-of-the-religion-iceberg/355990/134 "2006-05-13T11:42:08Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > An analogy that makes no sense, and is a diversion from the question. I am an atheist, and I am reasonably moral. I don’t rob or rape or torture or kill. If morality comes from God, I’d be in a supermax prison next to that terrorist guy. It does make sense but it was clumsey. I don’t sgree with your conclusion. It assumes that as an atheist you have no access or connection to God. IMO \*if \* God is the well from which all love is drawn then those who choose love, compassion etc. are darwing and drinking from the well even if they don’t acknowledge it. > [@](#): > > No, simply good sense; not to mention history and the news. If you ignore reality in favor of an ideology or theology you’ll inevitably screw up, because reality doesn’t care if you believe in it or not. funny, that also sounds like a statement of faith or dogma. What you’re doing is assuming your own belief sustem is the only correct one the same way the fundies do. > [@](#): > > I don’t pretend they are real. I don’t pretend my entertainment preferences are anything but my personal taste in fun; I don’t claim to be tapping into the Fundamental Truth Of The Universe when I watch _The Trouble with Tribbles_. Okay, but you do pretend your belief system is the obviously correct and rational one and those who choose a different{spiritual} one must be fools. What’s the differnece between what you do and what believers do? By that I mean\* in the choosing\*. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2006, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fred-phelps-is-only-the-tip-of-the-religion-iceberg/355990/135 "2006-05-13T11:55:04Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > It does make sense but it was clumsey. I don’t sgree with your conclusion. It assumes that as an atheist you have no access or connection to God. IMO \*if \* > God is the well from which all love is drawn then those who choose love, compassion etc. are darwing and drinking from the well even if they don’t acknowledge it. That’s pretty insulting. Now we’re not _smart_ enough to know that god is pouring love all over us? Get a clue, Cosmo. > [@](#): > > funny, that also sounds like a statement of faith or dogma. What you’re doing is assuming your own belief sustem is the only correct one the same way the fundies do. I have no _reason_ to believe that your belief system is the correct one (and neither do you). Faith and knowledge are two different things. > [@](#): > > Okay, but you do pretend your belief system is the obviously correct and rational one and those who choose a different{spiritual} one must be fools. What’s the differnece between what you do and what believers do? > By that I mean\* in the choosing\*. Atheists don’t “choose” not to believe. Theists are doing the choosing. I’m simply waiting for evidence of a higher power. A wish or a vibe is not evidence. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2006, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fred-phelps-is-only-the-tip-of-the-religion-iceberg/355990/136 "2006-05-13T13:19:08Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > That’s pretty insulting. Now we’re not _smart_ enough to know that god is pouring love all over us? Get a clue, Cosmo. I quailfied my statement with an “if” It’s not insulting at all unless you make it that way. I’d rather you didn’t misrepresent my posts with exaggeration. A very smart person could drink from a stream without knowing the source of the stream. > [@](#): > > I have no _reason_ to believe that your belief system is the correct one (and neither do you). Faith and knowledge are two different things. They certainly are. You are incorrect that I have no reason to believe mine is the correct one. {for me} My subjective reasons are valid reasons. What I acknowledge is that my belief system is not the right one for everybody else. > [@](#): > > Atheists don’t “choose” not to believe. Theists are doing the choosing. I’m simply waiting for evidence of a higher power. A wish or a vibe is not evidence. I won’t argue the semantics of choosing. For whatever reasons, people believe what they do. There are quite a few factors that are mental and emotional, subjective and objective experiences. The fact is you are already use a subjective belief system just as Theists do. For you that translates into being an atheist or agnostic. Fine. I respect your choice. I happen to choose another way. I don’t think that makes either of us superior or “more right” than the other. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2006, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fred-phelps-is-only-the-tip-of-the-religion-iceberg/355990/137 "2006-05-13T13:57:06Z")
> [@Jotun](#): > > No, it’s not at all a valid comparison. I’ve actually encountered this type of question before. What should we believe? I think Sam Harris said it best. > > I am more of a lurker than a poster around here, so you’re probably not familiar with my take on this subject. I am not against spirituality, (provided it doesn’t make claims to “the truth” without evidence to support it) spirituality needn’t have fantastic world views associated with it. Spirituality can even be objective. I believe unreason is destroying our world, and that can certainly come from religion, but it can come from other beliefs that are equally unreasonable. > > Normally one would view religious moderation (which, I’ve noticed, the majority of religious dopers seem to support) as a positive thing. It is, in a way, however religious moderates give legitimacy to the fundamentalists. I’m sure this has been discussed on these boards before, so I won’t go any further with it unless asked. It is in what Sam is saying that I think the comparison is valid. How are our beliefs established and why and when should we challenge them? As a spiritual person the question for me became , am I really seeking truth and love? Am I really trying to explore the boundaries of spirituality or am I just accepting what I’ve been told and not questioning because I want to belong more than I want the truth. It became apparent to me that in Jesus words he was telling us that the thirst for truth had to come first. But truth is not only objective because there are so many things we don’t know and can’t know objectively. Faced with that reality we all must choose and take responsibility for our choices. Jesus and other teachers helped give us guidelines but as Sam correctly points out , it is ultimately up to us as individuals. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2006, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fred-phelps-is-only-the-tip-of-the-religion-iceberg/355990/138 "2006-05-13T21:38:12Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I quailfied my statement with an “if” It’s not insulting at all unless you make it that way. I’d rather you didn’t misrepresent my posts with exaggeration. A very smart person could drink from a stream without knowing the source of the stream. A smart person would not compare an unknown source of water with a higher power because a smart person would follow the stream to its source. A smart person would not “follow” a stream that didn’t exist. > [@](#): > > They certainly are. You are incorrect that I have no reason to believe mine is the correct one. {for me} My subjective reasons are valid reasons. What I acknowledge is that my belief system is not the right one for everybody else. The problem is, you apply a different standard of evidence to this than you do to other things you believe. They’re not valid because you’re the only one who’s satisfied by them. It’s your right to interpret vibes in any way you choose. But that doesn’t make them “valid.” In order to have your parking ticket validated, someone has to see a receipt. Where’s your receipt? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2006, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fred-phelps-is-only-the-tip-of-the-religion-iceberg/355990/139 "2006-05-13T21:49:31Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > It assumes that as an atheist you have no access or connection to God. As there is no God, I don’t. Nor do I want a god, or a connection to one. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > IMO \*if \* God is the well from which all love is drawn then those who choose love, compassion etc. are darwing and drinking from the well even if they don’t acknowledge it. The claim that God is "well from which all love is drawn " is both silly and insulting. It’s part of the standard religious claim that one’s only worth is from religion. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > funny, that also sounds like a statement of faith or dogma. What you’re doing is assuming your own belief sustem is the only correct one the same way the fundies do. No, I’m saying the sky is blue, because I can look out the window and see it; faith has nothing to do with it. People who mindlessly follow dogma tend to come to bad ends; that’s not a statement of faith, but an observation of what actually happens to such people. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > Okay, but you do pretend your belief system is the obviously correct and rational one and those who choose a different{spiritual} one must be fools. What’s the differnece between what you do and what believers do? > > By that I mean\* in the choosing\*. I at least try to base my beliefs on reality, believers don’t. Religion is based on it’s followers emotional neediness and self delusion, and has no connection to reality. It’s madness under a different name. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2006, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fred-phelps-is-only-the-tip-of-the-religion-iceberg/355990/140 "2006-05-13T23:49:20Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > A smart person would not compare an unknown source of water with a higher power because a smart person would follow the stream to its source. A smart person would not “follow” a stream that didn’t exist. A smart person would probably quench their thirst and not even ask. Two smart people who drank would still get their thirst quenched even if they didn’t know the source or agree on what the source was. Look, I qualified it with an\* if \* It’s obvious you don’t agree, and I don’t care. I explained that it wasn’t insulting but you in this post are implying that believers must not be smart people. That _is_ insulting as well as blatantly and obviously wrong. > [@](#): > > The problem is, you apply a different standard of evidence to this than you do to other things you believe. They’re not valid because you’re the only one who’s satisfied by them. It’s your right to interpret vibes in any way you choose. But that doesn’t make them “valid.” In order to have your parking ticket validated, someone has to see a receipt. Where’s your receipt? No I don’t. I’m simply noting the difference between subjective evidence and objective evidence and how it applies to spiritual beliefs. It is you and **Der Trihs** who keep trying to judge something that is objective and subjective by using only objective evidence. That IMO is incorrect. It\* is\* valid if I realize that my subjective evidence isn’t objective proof for anything and I don’t try to force others to accept it as such. That’s why I think Christians who insist their interpretation of the Bible is the only correct one and God’s will are morally and spiritually wrong for doing so. My own subjective evidence is perfectly valid for me to deicde what I believe, SINCE EVERY HUMAN DOES THAT Speaking of lousy analogies, whats that parking ticket stuff? SHeesh. If I was a smart ass I’d answer “God has my reciept since he is the one who collects and tallies the bill.” but that would only be smart ass and doesn’t refelct my actual beliefs. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fred-phelps-is-only-the-tip-of-the-religion-iceberg/355990.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fred-phelps-is-only-the-tip-of-the-religion-iceberg/355990.md?page=8)