On extreme comparisons, particularly in religion

[Kamarling]

Originally Posted by Scott

I often use extreme examples to make a point.
...
The truth is some of the claims sound almost as absurd. Well, we at least know there are zebras and some animals have purple coloration so that is more likely.

I don't see why the story of Jesus has any more 'truth' to it than the story of Santa ... I mean stories of each of them.

Sorry, I have to call BS. Your examples are meant to equate to those claims you happen to disagree with: to put them into the same category. It is simple pejorative. Like Dawkins, you show contempt by the association of ideas you don't like with the ridiculous: as in God with the flying teapot.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Kamarling

Sorry, I have to call BS. Your examples are meant to equate to those claims you happen to disagree with: to put them into the same category. It is simple pejorative. Like Dawkins, you show contempt by the association of ideas you don't like with the ridiculous: as in God with the flying teapot.

Well, I normally use Santa, Zeus, Thor, Ra, FSM, than something silly like a teapot. It actually does depend on what point I am making. If it is popularity, tradition, ... Santa, or Zeus make a good comparison. Why is one of them thought to be real and the others silly. I find all the arguments used to support Jesus/God also fit the others and the arguments against the existence of the others also apply to Jesus/God. If you want to combine all the different gods into a single 'being' then it is clear that there is not much known about this creature or what it wants. Then it is just silly to assume that you know what kind of behavior it would want or that it cares.

I find it as insulting the assumption most religious persons make that they have it right and everyone else MUST be wrong.

I just find one more god that it seems silly to have any faith in - with using the same judgement that that most use to dismiss the rest.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Kamarling

Sorry, I have to call BS. Your examples are meant to equate to those claims you happen to disagree with: to put them into the same category. It is simple pejorative. Like Dawkins, you show contempt by the association of ideas you don't like with the ridiculous: as in God with the flying teapot.

You don't think there are Zebras, or purple coloration? Or are you calling BS on me putting Jesus and Santa on equal likelihood? If so, please give some specific example.

[Kamarling]

Originally Posted by Scott

You don't think there are Zebras, or purple coloration? Or are you calling BS on me putting Jesus and Santa on equal likelihood? If so, please give some specific example.

C'mon Scott, why persist? You know - anyone reading this thread knows too -they are silly comparisons - I'm not going bite.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Kamarling

C'mon Scott, why persist? You know - anyone reading this thread knows too -they are silly comparisons - I'm not going bite.

I agree they are silly. I use something silly to compare to something silly. I do try to choose something that most people would agree is silly to make a point. If you want to debate/discuss the silliness or why you think one should not be in the silly category I am game. I don't see anything that makes one any more likely though. I am not tying to attack your beliefs - really. I am trying to make the point that from the outside all religions (even cultural traditions) are silly. That does not mean they have no significance and they may even have some justifications.

[Kamarling]

Originally Posted by Scott

If you want to debate/discuss the silliness or why you think one should not be in the silly category I am game.

I don't - wasn't that clear from "I'm not going to bite"? If you want the last word - go for it.

[Craig Weiler]

Originally Posted by Scott

I agree they are silly. I use something silly to compare to something silly. I do try to choose something that most people would agree is silly to make a point. If you want to debate/discuss the silliness or why you think one should not be in the silly category I am game. I don't see anything that makes one any more likely though. I am not tying to attack your beliefs - really. I am trying to make the point that from the outside all religions (even cultural traditions) are silly. That does not mean they have no significance and they may even have some justifications.

Your comparisons make it clear that you're not discussing the subject from the standpoint of serious inquiry, yet you seem to want to be taken seriously. You can't have it both ways. Either respect the subject or lose respect for your opinions on the subject.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by Craig Weiler

Your comparisons make it clear that you're not discussing the subject from the standpoint of serious inquiry, yet you seem to want to be taken seriously. You can't have it both ways. Either respect the subject or lose respect for your opinions on the subject.

But the thing you don't seem to realize is that God (or a god) is just as silly and unlikely to hold up to the story behind either myth.
Do you believe in the religion of the Greek, Norse, or Egyptian gods? Why one over any other? Their are enough contradictions between religions that they all can't be true. It could be that one is real, if only there was some objective evidence that had one stand out. If they are all some version of the Truth then whatever the Truth is, is so mangled and twisted there is no objective way of determining what parts are true and which are not.

It is not that I find any one version of Santa more silly than another - I find the stories so outrageous and garbled - the idea that we truly Know anything about the origin silly.

Do I have an issue with anybodies stance on Santa - not unless they want to make policy and spend public money (this includes tax exemptions) based on the belief that their version is True. Personally I think that Santa and Christmas are more cultural/commercial in the US than religious. I am not sure I can think of any part of Christmas tradition that has not been co opted and brought into it - hence becoming less and less religious. For some they hold it dear and it means something spiritual. Fine, I can take it as a time to make a effort and do nice things for those around me and for strangers, just to do something nice, no strings attached.

[Craig Weiler]

Originally Posted by Scott

But the thing you don't seem to realize is that God (or a god) is just as silly and unlikely to hold up to the story behind either myth.

When you ridicule things that you don't understand, it reflects badly on you. Your statement reflects a belief system, nothing more.

[David R]

There's a difference between God and gods. Gods are personal deities with specific characteristics and functions. God is the creator behind everything, including those gods. Not being able to distinguish between personal and impersonal where it comes to God is the sign of a very non-intelligent mind.

By comparing God with the tooth fairy or santa a massive logical error is made. Behind this logical error is the assumption that God is comprehensible to a human mind. There is also the embedded assumption that a God exists, since you cannot compare santa to God unless there is something to compare it to. Then there is the added fact that Santa and the tooth fairy were never fictional creations intended to be explanations for the creation of the universe. Either the universe was created by a God or it wasn't - there is nothing fictional about the proposition.