I think it was on T/A that I read someone's response to a Christian who was rationalizing his religion.  The dissenter pointed out that even among the other religions, Christianity is one of the least plausible, with "X" religion (I don't remember; something I had never heard of) being the most plausible.  


I think that's an interesting thing to think about.  Which religion do you think is the most plausible?


NOTE:  Perhaps I should word it this way:  which religion is the least preposterous?  If I asked you to rank the religions (atheism is not a religion) by most plausible to least plausible, you would rank "1. X, 2. Y, 3. Z" and so on.  You would not say "none of the above" because I'm not asking "which religion is plausible."  I think we can all agree that none of the religions are plausible (at least not plausible enough to accept because, well, most of us here on Think Atheists are atheists :D)

Tags: comparison, logic, plausible, religion

Views: 968

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I agree with you.  In all the cases between and within religions, and among atheists, there are a range of positions.


What I'm getting at is my surprise that there are some people who when asked "which of these is most plausible?", "which of these is least preposterous?" seem to be unwilling or unable to discern a centimeter of difference between any pair of religions.  I could understand a response of "they're all, at root, equal" if we were looking at some heavily truncated spectrum of religion [Presbyterian---Lutheran---Methodist...do tell, which is the most plausible?] But with the field wide open...it's both surprising and somewhat disappointing.


So I'm challenging the idea.  I'm new, perhaps this sort of thing will ebb with time. Perhaps.

Oh, I think I see what you're getting at now.


Definitions of terms like "religion" or "most plausible" or "least preposterous" are fuzzy. Some people may have read the question as "Which philosophical or religious worldview is the most acceptable or least absurd/irrational/ridiculous, etc?" when they gave their wide range of answers.


Others took it as "Which set of beliefs and practices often involving worship of a deity/deities is most likely to be true?" This is like asking an atheist "Which is more likely to exist - fairies, unicorns, or demons?" None. They're all the same level of imaginary. I think that's why the OP added the note for attempted clarity after people started giving this response.
I vote for the pink unicorn!!!!! (It's invisible though, you can't see it!)

Just to add a little to what jewlez said, I didn't take this discussion to have anything to do with the merits or dangers of the range of philosophical and dogmatic beliefs/practices of the various world religions (which is a discussion that is definitely interesting), but rather a reply to the questions "most plausible" or "least preposterous." Which is why I ended up saying that I thought that the question was unanswerable. It was actually the note of "clarification" that "If I asked you to rank the religions (atheism is not a religion) by most plausible to least plausible, you would rank "1. X, 2. Y, 3. Z" and so on.  You would not say "none of the above"" Ah, see there's the rub, the problem is that you can't rank religions according to plausibility because they are all equally implausible, or equally plausible, however you want to look at it. 


That's not to say in any way that I'm not actually interested in a discussion about the differences between religions...

I do agree that a discussion about the differences between religions would be interesting, particularly if we had to build a "Danger Index of Religious Ideas".


That might make for a barnburner of a chat.


I wonder if a "Merit Index" would catch as much interest..it would probably be just as instructive. Perhaps a combined scale would do.

Maybe someone should make a scale. Rate religions on different aspects. Like how much do they diverge from science, how many contradictions are in the religions. How complicated is it, how many restrictions do they put on the adherents, what are the penalties, the rituals etc.
As per topic: my vote, at least ethically speaking, is on Buddhism. meditation has been proven to be very good for you.
You can meditate (as I do) without being Buddhist.
True. Except for the mystical qualities given to Buddha i still think Buddhism, in most of its forms, is the most plausible and would be the religion I would choose if I had to.
Mystical qualities are nonsense. That by itself shows that it is in the direct nature of superstitions. Meditation has health benefits as does prayer. Superstitions are not needed, cannot be explained, and are illogical.
batshot crazy LAWL...but true

@ Brian - I enjoyed the video; I mean test lol. Boy, do I know some people who are batshit crazy lol, but they *seem* to get along in life just fine.


I guess they all get together and support each other and are protected by laws which allow them to pass the batshit craziness on to their children. The problem is, I keep seeing these certain political ads on my FB which pop up because some of these people are FB friends. Therefore, I perceive this group of batship crazy people have some say in passing or not passing some laws.


Therefore, I think it would be prudent for me to try to persuade them to take this test in an attempt to get them to see... never mind.


Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service