Why do some people make such bad arguments for the Superiority of their Religion? (church, atheism)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's certainly difficult to get believers to take on the idea that other religions have an equal claim to credibility. I'm sure it's because the one they are used to looks sensible to them and the others don't.
To atheists it comes naturally to see all religions (give or take some details) as equally valid (or not) in their claims.
the problem starts when we have to answer to a statement of belief about god and not just look around and see what claims match what we see the best. No matter what they are.
I am not so sure I need that when I say that a deity that created us sent its son to save us sinners.
The "sinner/savior" context seems to bother you, Arach, but you are so talented at making appropriate analogies you might respond better to this one. In the great cosmic chorus/orchestra, the newly-evolved humanity section is way out of tune so the conductor adds a new member with perfect pitch as the tuning fork for the rest of us.
Believers do not have to prove their beliefs. They do not have to defend their beliefs. My beliefs can withstand any challenge because they are my beliefs.
What challengers see as indefensible dogma, I see as constant beliefs. What challengers see as incredible positions, I see as constant beliefs. My beliefs are unshakable because they include unanswerable questions. The latter is what generally disturbs the non believer.
Believers do not have to prove their beliefs. They do not have to defend their beliefs. My beliefs can withstand any challenge because they are my beliefs.
What challengers see as indefensible dogma, I see as constant beliefs. What challengers see as incredible positions, I see as constant beliefs. My beliefs are unshakable because they include unanswerable questions. The latter is what generally disturbs the non believer.
Well, I'll tell you what I see - Dogma and denial. The (as yet) unanswerable questions (really, only "Who made everything, then?"...and 'nobody knows' is still the honest answer.) are accepted and ought to disturb the believer, too, but they think a faith claim in an ancient book of mythology tells them the answer, and that doesn't disturb them at all.
What does disturb them is when they preach their old book (with intent to persuade others, or why do it?) and the others come back and show it to be very unsound. Then they get disturbed, allright.
Believers do not have to prove their beliefs. They do not have to defend their beliefs. My beliefs can withstand any challenge because they are my beliefs.
What challengers see as indefensible dogma, I see as constant beliefs. What challengers see as incredible positions, I see as constant beliefs. My beliefs are unshakable because they include unanswerable questions. The latter is what generally disturbs the non believer.
You're right. You don't have to prove your beliefs. But once you start proclaiming them you can do one of two things -- you can say why you believe those things, or you can just say "I believe what I believe just cuz" (which is sort of what you're doing). The more important question is, if you're stating your beliefs to others, and you don't want to defend those beliefs, why should anyone listen to or agree with you?
You're right. You don't have to prove your beliefs. But once you start proclaiming them you can do one of two things -- you can say why you believe those things, or you can just say "I believe what I believe just cuz" (which is sort of what you're doing). The more important question is, if you're stating your beliefs to others, and you don't want to defend those beliefs, why should anyone listen to or agree with you?
"Not arguing - just telling" was a very early excuse when I arrived here in (as is embroidered on my underwear) 2006 and it was clearly theist -speak for "I came here to preach and don't expect to be questioned on it".
they didn't get away with it then and they don't get away with it now.
You're right. You don't have to prove your beliefs. But once you start proclaiming them you can do one of two things -- you can say why you believe those things, or you can just say "I believe what I believe just cuz" (which is sort of what you're doing). The more important question is, if you're stating your beliefs to others, and you don't want to defend those beliefs, why should anyone listen to or agree with you?
I don't have to defend my beliefs. No one has to listen to or agree with me. That's what so wonderful about freedoms here.
I don't have to defend my beliefs. No one has to listen to or agree with me. That's what so wonderful about freedoms here.
And, so far, I have "listened" to you. I keep waiting for the substance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
