Because the sky fairy and Flying Spaghetti Monster and Invisible Pink Unicorn are meaningless constructs. Religion is a system of socially constructed meaning that is incredibly efficient at transmitting cultural values and giving people, as a collective group, a sense of existential purpose or ethical redemption or whatever. It is a nearly ubiquitous cultural phenomenon with countless different unique manifestations and it wouldn’t surprise me if it has a specific evolutionary function. No anthropologist or historian would equate Christianity with an Invisible Pink Unicorn-- why would you?
I agree. Despite the whining, religion still gets treated with enormous deference here compared to silly beliefs that are a lot more plausible*, much less anything else equally unrealistic.
- Such as “there was no moon landing, it was faked”; which silly as it is, at least breaks no laws of physics and is far more plausible than religion. And yet, gets piled on in a way religion doesn’t.
Because it’s a way of making a conversational point about the implausibility of God. Although both flying spaghetti monsters and invisible pink unicorns are more plausible than God; nearly anything is. So if anything it’s being too soft.
I’m not asking you to take it as fact, I’m asking you to discuss in a respectful way – i.e. without condescension and name-calling. You can disagree all you want, and try to talk me out of it. I’m not calling any particular belief (or lack of belief) childish; it’s the unnecessary mockery that is.
Because despite whatever sociological benefits (that I might add have been matched by the sociological ills) that Christianity has bestowed upon society, it too is basically a meaningless construct – just like sky spaghetti, the flying unicorn monster and invisible pink fairies.
If we were to create a new religion and used Christianity as a basis but just changed all the names, it would be equally useful. And equally meaningless as a construct.
I’m not familiar with those threads, but from your description, I don’t se what they have to do with religion or skeptcism. I’m an atheist who would be on your side in that debate.
What does that thread have to do with religion? I asked for examples of hostility towards religion and you cite an example of me arguing in defense of strict liability laws for statutory rape? What is the connection there?
Agreed; I was only reacting to the implication that one is excusable because the other is worse–an implication that perhaps you did not intend.
(I am posting from my phone for the first time; apologies for any formatting weirdness. )
How respectful would you be in a conversation, on a board dedicated to fighting ignorance, about Santa Claus? Nessie? The Hollow Earth Theory?
So is Star Wars fandom. But nobody argues that Star Wars is a documentary. And if they did we would think they were crazy.
Yeah, there are lots of interesting discussions to be had about the cultural PHENOMENON of religion. But most religious people don’t want to talk about it that way. They want to talk about it like it’s the truth.
If these were sincerely held beliefs of the poster, I’d be as respectful as possible while explaining why they were obviously mistaken. You can’t debate someone without being disrespectful, mocking, or hostile to them?
No they aren’t. They have specific rhetorical and logical functions within a debate. They serve a completely articulate logical purpose. They are not just vaccuous taunts.
Religion is neither here nor there. The FSG and IPU are not analogies to religion, they are analogies to god beliefs.
No one does. The analogy is to specific beliefs in supernatural entities, not religion as a whole. If you think they are intended as analogies to religions as instutions or cultural traditions, them you flat just aren’t tracking the discussions.
Here’s where we disagree. Religion is all about meaning. If you’re trying to explain to a religious person the implausibility of God, referring to it as ‘‘sky fairy’’ or ‘‘Invisible Pink Unicorn’’ isn’t going to get you very far. Because to a Christian God has a lot more meaning than Invisible Pink Unicorn. To many Christians (speaking as a former Christian), God is a daily experience that shapes the way they look at everything, a continuous purveyor of blessings, hope, security, and, if you’re a religious charismatic like I was, constant euphoria. By definition religion is about the social construction of meaning.
You know the old phrase, ‘‘Never try to reason a man out of a position he hasn’t reasoned himself into?’’ This applies here – only in this context reason is irrelevant. Whether your meaning is built around God, family, some favored philosophy or just a friendly pragmatism, none of it can be said to be rational. There is a part of human experience that can’t ever be rational. I feel like a lot of atheists want to deny that.
Those people who were bashing me because I dared to say episodes 1,2,3 were OK seemed to think it was a documentary. 
Aren’t there any beliefs that you feel are too silly to respect and take seriously?
You monster!
Episodes 1, 2, and 3 are, on the other hand, clear proof that there is no God. Problem solved.
^^^ And all of the above gives the answer to the OP, not so much by argument as by demonstration. 
The problem is not that atheists deny that-the problem begins when religionists try to shoehorn reason and dubious “evidence” into their beliefs. That is the point where atheists step in and call “foul!”
Don’t tell Star Wars fans , but it’s partly based on Buddhism. Darth Vader’s breathing comes from meditating on the breath. And of course we see Yoda meditating.
Religion, and religious experience is immaterial to the analogy, as I said, and the anologies are made as a response to THEISTS trying to assert the existence of supernatural deities, not as an attempt to talk them out of it, so much as a simple rebuttal of their own claims. If they want others to believe in their deities, then they have to explain why Yaheh is any more likely to exist than Zeus or Thor or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The fact that they can’t offer an answer to that question does not make the question unfair or mean spirited. It’s completely legitimate and reasonable.
To go back to your euphoric experiences, how could a theist prove it was Yahweh giving them the experience and not the IPU?
From your posts, it doesn’t sound like you have a firm grasp on the the purpose and use of those analogies, though.
Now I want to see that thread, because I’ve seen that condescending tone before and I strongly doubt they seemed to think anything of the kind. More likely you were implying that anyone who hated the Star Wars prequels must do so because he’s an obsessive basement dwelling nerd (with cute little smiley faces afterwards).
Apologies in advance if it turns out I’m completely off base.