Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Meghan V! on May 29, 2011 at 6:25pm

"Just because that is too complex for you doesn't give your grasping the slightest credence."
You're my new hero. 

 

Of course this question is just for fun.  Why not contemplate who is more likely to kill you?  I'd say Jason, because his axe has actual physical contact with my body ;D

 

My question in particular does have more relevance than Freddy v. Jason, because no one believes in Freddy or Jason.  Thousands of people believe in Yaweh, Zeus or what have you.  I think it would be very thought provoking for a religious person to hear, "Your religion is not even one of the most plausible: X, Y and Z religions are all more plausible than yours, so why did you choose it?"

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Max Maddux on May 29, 2011 at 7:23pm

I hear you ;-)
My comments were directed at his attitude towards the question. My initial interest was due to finding your question intriguing. I just got untracked when I saw his response. I hit the "reply" button on his comment. I probably missed something because I haven't posted here much.

As for Freddie vs Jason, I think Frankenfurter would destroy them both!

For least implausible religion, gotta go atheist. So Buddhism or Raelism. Raelism gets the nod because the girls are topless so frequently. That adds credibility right? :-)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by oneinfinity on May 29, 2011 at 7:04pm

i was going to say something about "least preposterous" = most rational and go with deism or something, but honestly i don't think this question can be answered. "which religion is the least preposterous?" Irrational is irrational, one irrationality isn't any less preposterous than a hundred :(

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by R1Gami on May 29, 2011 at 7:40pm

"..one irrationality isn't any less preposterous than a hundred :("

 

Are you serious?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Andy Mills on May 29, 2011 at 7:50pm

Hmm interesting question;

I'll answer a slightly different question as we all know 'religion' is nonsense.

Which is the most understandable and tolerable ?

I would have to say Paganism,in it's many forms,why ?

Well,due to the era and lack of understanding our ancestors,any natural phenomenon was beyond their understanding so a 'god' did it. What they feared most was said natural event effecting their lives so they would do what ever they could to prevent the harvest from failing and the sun to return after winter etc .

Taking into account the understand available at the time,I get it.

 

Moving on to modern day Pagans,neo Pagans whichever term you wish to use.

Paganism today is a celebration of nature,they understand the connectedness of all things. The tree of life,the family of living beings is important to their beliefs. Taking deities out of the equation and the dancing naked in woods etc,it seems harmless,and in fact,positive enough to be valid. As a life choice,not a religion (for a religion,you need deities) the central tenet of Paganism is 'Harm none and do as you will' (none includes all living plants, animals etc) ,I find it hard to argue with that.

Another way to put it is this ; Just because we know the science behind that amazing electrical storm we're watching from afar,doesn't mean we can't be amazed and celebrate that the natural world is an amazing place and we're lucky to be part of that.  We do it by sharing our knowledge (he says humbly),others choose get naked and take part in the 'creation' of spring,the beginning of new life.   

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Marcus Persius on May 31, 2011 at 8:01am

I agree. All religion is nonsense... but some are... nicer then the others.

I think that nature, spirit, shamanism beliefs are understandable since before the scientific method this was pretty rational for that time... and then i´m talking about millennia ago.... the notion of the sun, moon, trees, ancestors and animals being forces that control everything around us is not too wierd when you live in a neolithic och even bronze-age environment. It went out of control when people started bringing one or more creators as "gods" into the picture. And all religion passed the border of usefulness many hundreds of years ago... when scientist began to unravel beyond what they had told us.

 

Those who practised this also learned alot from nature, unlike monotheistic and most polytheistic religions... they learned how to utilize medicinal herbs... and no i'm not talking of pot ;)

and they learned how to efficiently utilize what materials that was around them...

 

Dont get me wrong... i still think they are nuts... but we might be able to learn something from them... atleast when it comes to preserving nature... and use natures medicinal plants... it is only in the last decade that major drug companies have started to relly look for answers to alot of ailments in say the amazon.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reggie on May 29, 2011 at 9:36pm

I think this is a bit like asking what type of fairy is the most aerodynamic. The underlying premise of all religions makes them equally implausible, in my opinion. The details are just distractions.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on May 29, 2011 at 10:51pm

I think this is a bit like asking what type of fairy is the most aerodynamic.

 

LOL!  So true!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by R1Gami on May 29, 2011 at 10:41pm

...It’s as though we have a landscape of human ignorance and bewilderment—with peaks and valleys and local attractors—and the concept of atheism causes us to fixate one part of this landscape, the part related to theistic religion, and then just flattens it. Because to be consistent as atheists we must oppose, or seem to oppose, all faith claims equally. This is a waste of precious time and energy, and it squanders the trust of people who would otherwise agree with us on specific issues.

 

I’m not at all suggesting that we leave people’s core religious beliefs, or faith itself, unscathed—I’m still the kind of person who writes articles with rather sweeping titles like “Science must destroy religion”—but it seems to me that we should never lose sight of useful and important distinctions

-- Sam Harris

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jewelz on May 29, 2011 at 11:05pm

This is from the only Harris speech I've ever disagreed with completely. Nothing about lacking belief implies we must oppose religion at all, much less "oppose all faith claims equally."

 

I'll avoid getting into the rest of the "we should not embrace atheism and atheists should stop organizing, but I'm very honored to be here at this atheist gathering" speech before I get the twitches.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by R1Gami on May 30, 2011 at 12:53am

Hahaha.  I know that speech is one of the 'bright lines in the sand' with many atheists, but I cannot say that I think his speech is wrong from top to bottom.  His speech would make for an interesting talk, but I guess I'm too new to the community to contribute to that one now.

 

But to the topic at hand, while I can appreciate funny statements (like the one about fairies and aerodynamics) the truth is that ideas & beliefs have real-world consequences.  There are real, practical differences between the beliefs (and therefore actions) of an Amish Mennonite and a Wahhabi Muslim.  There is a real difference in claims about the world between Taoism and Catholicism.

But many people here are actually proving Sam right.  That under the banner of 'atheism' people feel ready and justified in either being ignorant of even the most basic differences between religions or being aware and for some reason pretending that such fundamental differences do not exist (or do not matter).  Either way, as long as many atheists represent their atheism in this way...we reduce the number of allies we could have on a whole range of issues from religious extremism, to stem-cell research, to science education.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jewelz on May 30, 2011 at 1:02am

There are real, practical differences between the beliefs (and therefore actions) of an Amish Mennonite and a Wahhabi Muslim.

 

Absolutely. But being an atheist does not equal being a raging anti-theist. And being an anti-theist doesn't mean you have to oppose the beliefs and practices of Amish Mennonites with the same passion you oppose the beliefs and practices of Wahhabi Muslims.

 

You really think people here are unaware of the differences? Have I somehow missed all the posts here about the dangers of Janism, Taoism, and Mennonites?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• Next ›
• Page