So you want all religious discussion on the SDMB to go away because nobody can show you a site that proves God’s existence to your satisfaction?
That’s exactly correct, in my opinion.
Objectively, Christianity is no less absurd than KGS’s beliefs. In his specific case I acknowledge that he appears to be mentally unbalanced, so he personally is not a great example of equivalence. But if one takes any given flavour of Christianity and compares it to modern pseudo-witchcraft-spirituality beliefs of the sort that KGS likes and that far less delusional people do believe in, they’re equally based in reality,which is to say pretty much not at all.
In the final analysis, one one hand you have people who believe in auras, ESP, “Magick” and whatever other silliness Shirley MacLaine’s into that can’t be demonstrated to exist and that fails all rational examination. On the other, you have a belief that the universe was created by an invisible man who somehow impregnated a woman and then had his own “son” tortured to death to forgive offenses that hadn’t yet occurred, who then rose from the dead and vanished into the sky, and every Sunday a magician takes bread and wine and turns it into that man’s flesh and blood and the followers devour it in a cannibalistic ritual meant to somehow honor their God. Which sounds weirder?
There’s nothing about Christianity that’s any more rational or sane than what KGS believe in (or Tom Cruise, for that matter.)
Yep, I would agree with this statement. It’s all woo. Some people get down on their knees in church on Sunday, and others build little shrines out of crystals, but it’s pretty much the same thing.
Please, if you have evidence that Christianity is more rational than spiritualism, I’d love to hear it.
I’d be satisfied if they got moved into Cafe Society where they belong. Theology is just fanwank. “Who’d win in a fight between the Enterprise and a Star Destroyer?” is not a Great Debate.
Aesop’s talking fox never existed, either - and foxes don’t like grapes anyway. 
The primary difference between one form of mythology and another is not that one is objectively true and the other is objectively false, but whether it is of any value - in terms of teaching lessons or inspiring people to do good or bad- as mythology.
Dismiss Christians and others as all crazy if you want, it is no skin off my back - I’m no Christian. But I think to do so is rather massively missing the point.
No he didn’t say that. What he said was he wanted it to receive the same level of scrutiny as other things that make as little sense, and have as much evidence in their favour. But if it makes you feel better to punch strawmen, you go right ahead.
From the perspective of someone who views both as mythology I agree. But that’s not the position that Christians, Muslims, or KGS-types take; they legitimately believe their religious beliefs constitute real things.
Whether or not different religions are of different worths is an interesting question and worthy of examination, but I’m simply commenting on the reality of them. Is IS true that on this board, and in Western society in general, we laugh and insult the beliefs Scientologists and Wiccans and such, but don’t apply the same rigour of challenge to Catholics, Sunnis and Hindus. (Some lie somewhere in between such as Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses.) That continuum of “laughable Tom Cruise silliness” to “I have to respec you belief in God” is not based on any objective crieria of truth or worth; it’s purely a function of the religion/cult’s history and status in our society.
I have never said Christians are all crazy.
If one person believes there’s an invisible man in the sky who speaks to him and performs miracles – he’s labeled as a schizophrenic.
If 1,000 people believe there’s an invisible man in the sky who speaks to them and performs miracles – that’s labeled as a cult.
If 1,000,000 people believe there’s an invisible man in the sky who speaks to them and performs miracles – that’s what we label as organized religion.
It’s as simple as that.
If you feel that it’s not getting the same level of scrutiny as other belief systems, then it falls upon you do make sure it happens. Don’t sit there and bitch because these people dare talk about what they believe.
However, I think it’s worth noting that you’ll be more likely to have people listen to you if you do it in a respectful manner rather than being an abrasive asshole. Coming in and announcing “There is no god, it’s a bunch of fanwank, you people are all deluded” does nothing to further the discussion.
What does the “reality” of a religion consist of?
Certainly mythological entities do not exist, or at least, if humans like Jesus did exist they did not have mythological attributes.
But the existence of a creation myth and the like is not by any means the sum total of the “reality of them”.
Some religions do not have any mythological beings at all - such as forms of Buddhism or Taoism. Others do, but belief in them is not really central - ritual is (such as Judaism).
To my mind, a beleif attracts (justified) respect or derision not simply based on whether its founding mythology is literally true or whether one is supposed to believe that it is, but based on the values that mythology expresses and how, in practice, it is expressed by its followers.
Take Scientology. Belief in aliens as a founding mythology is no more literally true in my opinion than belief in Vishnu of the deified Jesus. However, what values does Scientology appear to promote and sustain? It is basically a pyramid scheme - feeding off of greed. At its best, Christianity is nothing of the sort - it has a philosophy to it that is in many ways extremely admirable, a sort of working out of the Golden Rule.
A hierarchy in which “belief in the irrational” was equal to status makes less sense (for one, it would put Judaism automatically above ‘salvation by faith alone’ Protestantism). To my mind it is simply not all that important. Who cares whether Noah or Gilgemesh really existed, except when people are trying to add them to our geology and biology curricula?
[Emphasis added]
To my mind, it sounds like “Christianity = not rational, insane”. Admittedly not exactly the same as “Christians are all crazy”.
You have a bad straw habit. No one is bitching “because these people dare talk about what they believe”. Personally, if I found myself continually having to strawman people to make a point, I’d reflect on why that might be.
Okay then, please restate your position since I obviously didn’t get it the first time.
If Christianity and other mainstream religions were treated in our society as the equivalent of Aesop’s Fables or the Greek and Norse myths, I don’t think we’d be having this discussion. (Though maybe we’d be better off - anyone believing that Zeus and Ganymede had something going probably would be okay with SSM.) Myths survive because they tell good stories and give a perspective on how our ancestors thought. We only run into problems because of people thinking the myths are real, and thinking that the god or gods in the myth want everyone to obey their rules. And the problem with “moderate” religions is not that they want to oppress anyone, but their support of the god is real concept empowers the branches of the religion that do.
prr’s post at #526 is perfectly clear. He says (correctly in my view) that religion is not (but should be) given the scrutiny that is given to other topics that make as little sense, and have as much evidence in their favour, because many give religion a free pass. No suggestion whatever that he is upset that religious people say what they believe. But you knew that, really.
The fact that he is upset is a given, considering that it’s PRR. He’s always got a bug up his ass about something.
Who exactly is giving Christianity a free pass? I don’t mean in society in general, I mean here on the SDMB. Certainly not you, PRR, Der Trihs, Diogenes, or many others here. I’ve seen more lucid, intelligent criticisms of it here than I have almost anywhere else. I’ve also seen more “OMG Xtians are teh insane and stupid suxx0rz lolol!!!11” posts as well. And I’ve read a lot more of the religion threads than I’ve posted in.
I genuinely do not understand what your issue is here, and I really want to.
Right because you couldn’t handle the notion of me typing Akhenaten when I meant Aten. :rolleyes: Maybe that’s actually because you wanted a cheap ass rhetorical device to hammer away with rather than actually advancing an argument.
Ha nonsense. I once got in big trouble with the mods for making a joke that atheists are blind to the divine truth. Der Trihs comes into threads he has no intention of participating in with any good faith and says that theists are evil and stupid, ad nauseum, and no one says anything to him ever.
If you really think the double standard goes in the other direction then you’re possibly one of the stupidest people on the forum.
Der Trihs Has no place in religious discussions. He has not said something new in the entire time I’ve been here. We all know his position. He’s trolling because he hates religious people with a passion. Any other display of such raw and naked hatred for their fellow posters would get mod attention, but he gets a pass even though he fights very hard to derail almost every discussion on religion. Most of the religious threads aren’t even asking whether or not God exists, and he comes in trying to hijack it into an argument about whether or not God exists.
I’m sorry, but I don’t feel sorry for his Aspergers. I know people with Aspergers who aren’t half the asshole he is. I think that his condition is the reason he gets a pass.
Except the whole diatribe about how atheists shouldn’t look for harmonious discussion with theists, shouldn’t want to be their friends (or as a charitable interpretation, they shouldn’t attempt to be friendly with theists while discussing belief) and that non-believers should be terrified that if there were more theists, atheists’ and agnostics’ lives would be difficult if not impossible.
I must admit to having somehow missed out on the “oppression” enabled by, say, Reform Judaism. Methinks it is not among the most serious of concerns. 
The thought that somehow that “moderates” support or empower the real fundies or fanatics seems both counter-intuitive and contrary to experience. Smacks of the sort of slippery-slopism that red-baters used to approve of (“I’m not saying liberals are all communists, but …”)
That being said, I think that religions are generally made up of different elements: there are rituals, there are ethical codes, there is mythology and philosophy, and there is theology and the like; the “reality” of a religion embraces all of these things and more besides. Naturally they are to an extent related, but one can disagree with some aspects (say, the literal existence of heavenly beings) while remaining polite and deferential on others (such as rituals) and even finding value and common ground on yet others (ethics, philosophy).
Or of course one can simply call everyone who is religious - some large majority of the population of what is a democracy - a bunch of ignorant, irrational people who have no more grasp of reality that lunatics who believe in magic moon fairies, who at best are fellow-travellers or useful idiots for blank-eyed fanatics just waiting to torch the latest auto-de-fe. I myself think the latter approach is only useful for gaining applause from those who think alike. Worse, it isn’t even close to being true.
Aww man, we had a perfectly good thread full of high quality crazy going on, and you guys screwed it up. We just can’t have nice things. 