This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Religion
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I find metaphor to be THE most useful tool in a conversation to get one side to see where the other is coming from. Not to change their minds, necessarily, but to take the argument out of the specific area where everyone is emotionally charged, and show how the same logic works or doesn't work in a similar situation. I use it frequently (though I rarely get involved in the straight religion debates around here because I don't believe in organized religion, but neither am I an atheist, so I don't tend to have any strong opinions on the matter in general, until it's a matter of one side imposing on the other).
Of course, it's also an effective tool at dissecting an argument, by showing how it wouldn't work in other circumstances. But in general, I don't think that taking metaphor out of debate makes it any better. It's just a matter of using appropriate and relevant metaphors.
Post by
Monday
and to use another example Ive seen somebody use around here "magic elves that live in the forrest in Germany". All of which is complete $%^& that anybody older than 12 knows is 100% fantasy.
And yet, there are people who believe in those. Why are you to call them 100% fantasy? If you were going to do that, why is it any different for an atheist to call God 100% fantasy?
You didn't call atheists stupid - at least that's a discussable topic, there being studies and such. But for the general notion of taking this both ways, I already said exactly the same thing in my initial reply to you.
I missed that, my apologies. I'm going to withdraw from the previous discussion. You're correct in that it is a smear.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Because it's the topic of conversation, to be honest... either in a discussion or around the lunch table or the like. Apart from that I don't.
This might be part of your problem.
If you were in a situation where you had to either verbally profess a religious belief, or you would be killed instantly, would you say you were of that religious belief, or would you die?
Consider that I love my God, and believe my religion so fervently, so completely, and so passionately that I would rather die, without hesitation, than deny my God.
To you, this is a coffee table topic. To a religious person, the religion
is
their life. Whether you agree with it or not, can you not see how people would become indignant at the comparison to mythological creatures?
It is unnecessary to say "God isn't proven, so it's like believing in aliens, unicorns, superman, harry potter, gandalf, etc etc etc".
I've never said any such thing.Your name wasn't in my post. Try to take my points at face value, instead of trying to defend yourself, as what I say here I say without having you in mind.
Post by
Patty
Adams also believes in magic elves... like he just said.
I actually would love to have a time machine to see what exactly was so special about the particular pieces of literature making up religious scripture that people suddenly decided "This is what our lives should be dictated by". Morbid curiosity, really. I do have to wonder if literary classics of this day and age would be considered religious scripture if given enough time and attention by people to actually impose it as something divine.
Post by
Gone
And yet, there are people who believe in those. Why are you to call them 100% fantasy? If you were going to do that, why is it any different for an atheist to call God 100% fantasy?
.
Ok who the &*!@ believes in Harry Potter and and a flying Spagettie Monster?
Adams also believes in magic elves... like he just said.
The magic elves I were talking about was something that somebody just made up off the top if their head in a previous thread and started giving them a list of powers. Invisibility, cant be seen by inferred, etc. I wasnt saying the belief in elves in general, just the ones mentioned in that particular thread.
Post by
Lombax
Spagettie Monster?
I see you've not been touched by his noodly greatness.
Post by
MyTie
Adams also believes in magic elves... like he just said.
I actually would love to have a time machine to see what exactly was so special about the particular pieces of literature making up religious scripture that people suddenly decided "This is what our lives should be dictated by". Morbid curiosity, really. I do have to wonder if literary classics of this day and age would be considered religious scripture if given enough time and attention by people to actually impose it as something divine.
The people of that day believed Christ's words were religious scripture. It wasn't some kind of story about people that after centuries became a religion. People of Christ's day were martyred for their beliefs.
Post by
Patty
And yet, there are people who believe in those. Why are you to call them 100% fantasy? If you were going to do that, why is it any different for an atheist to call God 100% fantasy?
.
Ok who the &*!@ believes in Harry Potter and and a flying Spagettie Monster?
HP fandom and members of the church of the Spaghetti Monster, perhaps? If people believe "fantasy" creatures to be true, that includes versions of creatures featured in HP. Logically, I could see there being a unicorn in real life. A horse.. with a horn... that went extinct. Not that much of a stretch of the imagination, compared to phenomenal cosmic powers.
Post by
Monday
I do have to wonder if literary classics of this day and age would be considered religious scripture if given enough time and attention by people to actually impose it as something divine.
The fact that none of them were written by designated holy men for the express purpose of being used as scripture makes me think no.
Post by
Orranis
Consider that I love my God, and believe my religion so fervently, so completely, and so passionately that I would rather die, without hesitation, than deny my God.
To you, this is a coffee table topic. To a religious person, the religion
is
their life. Whether you agree with it or not, can you not see how people would become indignant at the comparison to mythological creatures?
Okay but nobody's asking you to deny your God. We're asking you to fill a hole we see in your logic. It doesn't have to be a mythological creature, it can be a teapot too. It can even be other gods or Gods.
On the other hand, you constantly boast about what thick skin you have, and nobody's trying to personally insult you or your Religion. We're not even directly trying to compare your Religion per se to other things, only in belief in something without evidence.
Post by
MyTie
Does anyone actually believe that FSM is a religion, in that it is a tenant of beliefs that people value as fact? OR, do people believe that FSM is a parody of Christianity? If it is, they what is the use in mocking religion?
Post by
Patty
I do have to wonder if literary classics of this day and age would be considered religious scripture if given enough time and attention by people to actually impose it as something divine.
The fact that none of them were written by designated holy men for the express purpose of being used as scripture makes me think no.
For "designated holy men", there must first be an order of religion to class them as such. I am talking about the beliefs which must have existed before the organisation which then would have formed the foundation of it.
Post by
Gone
And yet, there are people who believe in those. Why are you to call them 100% fantasy? If you were going to do that, why is it any different for an atheist to call God 100% fantasy?
.
Ok who the &*!@ believes in Harry Potter and and a flying Spagettie Monster?
HP fandom and members of the church of the Spaghetti Monster, perhaps? If people believe "fantasy" creatures to be true, that includes versions of creatures featured in HP. Logically, I could see there being a unicorn in real life. A horse.. with a horn... that went extinct. Not that much of a stretch of the imagination, compared to phenomenal cosmic powers.
Im not saying belief in creatures from Harry Potter. Im saying who teh @#$% believes that Harry Potter, the entire story was real? Thats an example Ive seen used. And your just proving my point.
Your saying that peoples religious beliefs shouls only be accorded the same level of credibility as any type of fantasy somebody can spout off. Comparing the HP fandom to real religion. Comparing religious texts to literary classics.
Also has there seriously not yet been an MLP joke about the unicorn thing?
Post by
Adamsm
I do have to wonder if literary classics of this day and age would be considered religious scripture if given enough time and attention by people to actually impose it as something divine.
Such as L Ron Hubbard and Scientology? If said book was really meant to be his last as opposed to being the opening scripture for a religion that is.
Post by
Monday
I do have to wonder if literary classics of this day and age would be considered religious scripture if given enough time and attention by people to actually impose it as something divine.
The fact that none of them were written by designated holy men for the express purpose of being used as scripture makes me think no.
For "designated holy men", there must first be an order of religion to class them as such. I am talking about the beliefs which must have existed before the organisation which then would have formed the foundation of it.
The beliefs were given directly to the prophets by God Himself.
Otherwise, we don't really know what happened that long ago, and thus we have no idea how it came to be. Perhaps they were oral traditions, and not necessarily written until they became the main religion.
Post by
Gone
I also wanna point out that if it were somebody like Adam, who actually does believe in uncorns, who made that comnparison, it wouldnt piss people off as much as fenomas who probably holds the mainstream belief that unicorns are bull*!@#.
Post by
Patty
And yet, there are people who believe in those. Why are you to call them 100% fantasy? If you were going to do that, why is it any different for an atheist to call God 100% fantasy?
.
Ok who the &*!@ believes in Harry Potter and and a flying Spagettie Monster?
HP fandom and members of the church of the Spaghetti Monster, perhaps? If people believe "fantasy" creatures to be true, that includes versions of creatures featured in HP. Logically, I could see there being a unicorn in real life. A horse.. with a horn... that went extinct. Not that much of a stretch of the imagination, compared to phenomenal cosmic powers.
Im not saying belief in creatures from Harry Potter. Im saying who teh @#$% believes that Harry Potter, the entire story was real? Thats an example Ive seen used. And your just proving my point.
Your saying that peoples religious beliefs shouls only be accorded the same level of credibility as any type of fantasy somebody can spout off. Comparing the HP fandom to real religion.
Also has there seriously not yet been an MLP joke about the unicorn thing?There was actually. A Marxist echo, if I recall correctly.
And yes, I am. Because there's just as much proof of Gods as there is, say, a Ministry of Magic or Sauron. That is not me being inflammatory, that is me stating my view on the matter. It's a possibility, but if one acted as though all possibilities were real every one of their actions would be, to some degree, paradoxical.
Post by
MyTie
Okay but nobody's asking you to deny your God. We're asking you to fill a hole we see in your logic. It doesn't have to be a mythological creature, it can be a teapot too. It can even be other gods or Gods. I'm not saying people are. This was just said to show how religious people view their religion. My desire is that some understanding at religious people's reactions would come from it.
Further, it is sufficient to say that there is a "hole in logic". It isn't necessary "to be a mythological creature, or a teapot".On the other hand, you constantly boast about what thick skin you have, and nobody's trying to personally insult you or your Religion. We're not even directly trying to compare your Religion per se to other things, only in belief in something without evidence.Ok. I'm not trying to say you're wrong. I'm not taking personal offense. Again, my only goal is to demonstrate WHY you are encountering the issue you are. I understand perfectly WHY you use the unicorn example. I get it. I'm amazed, though, that you don't understand WHY religious people would take offense to it. Don't explain to me what the unicorn example means. I already get it. No one is somehow confused as to how the unicorn example applies. There is no proof for either God or unicorns. EVERYONE gets that. Stop making that point. Just, attempt, to place yourself in the shoes of the receiving end of the unnecessary example that is being made.
Imagine two people were getting married and you mocked them and said there was no proof of their love, and they might as well believe in unicorns. Yeah, that's a good point. You cannot prove love. But, what I'm trying to explain to you is why offense might be taken. That's the mystery that needs to be cleared up.
Post by
Adamsm
More then likely not; no matter what you compare a religion to, you are going to make someone angry in some way. It's far easier to just make a well thought out post then decide to just go 'screw it, God is like a unicorn(which for those who seem to forget, were mentioned in the Bible)' is lazy and follows the same line as Godwin'ing a thread with the Hitler/Nazi argument.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.