New religion

[mayor of simpleton]

Well, the Dracula narrative clearly states that crosses and sunshine are a no-no, so that's settled.

Yes sir, your argument dazzles me with its brilliance! Who can argue against such intellect?

(This actually is directed at the entire forum, thought it is a reply to Carnavon.)

Don't be sarcastic with Christians. They don't understand mockery.

If you say you worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster, they won't understand this is a mockery of their own god, a god which is just as unlikely. They'll think you're being serious and try to argue against the existence of the FSM.

If you joke that you look forward to Hell for the company, they won't understand that you don't really believe such a place exists and you're poking fun at their ridiculous ideas of an afterlife. They'll think you're serious and try to warn you about how terrible Hell will be.

If you joke that you're going to get your morals from Star Wars, Dracula, Harry Potter or some other work of fiction, they won't understand that you're mocking their claim to gain their morals from their own (badly written) work of fiction, the Bible.

Some of these people are like the Thermians from the movie Galaxy Quest. They've read the Bible and think it's a collection of "Historical Documents". They don't understand how to not take something literally. Sarcasm, parody, satire, mockery, it all goes over their head.

Actually, I could not agree more with you.

The problem for many a believer is that such similies tend to be interpretated as attacks. It is difficult to see this tight bond that believers have with their particular flavour of faith, especially for those who happen to be faithless.

What we as faithless tend to label as "fiction" is indeed for many of the believers a "holy text". The problem with this concept of "holy" is that it is an intuitive perception and not an empirical observation.

Perhaps my rules of thumb might be of help in this context. If someone tells me that they believe in a religion founded upon a god/deity and make the claim that this is supported by religious faith, I am not really at liberty to attack them with arguments of that have the standard of measure in the realm of empirical evidences. Faith is not an empirical argument, but rather an intuitive assumption stating that things are so... why? Because it is so... why? Because it is how I view the world... why? Because I have "religious faith".

A counter argument is not necessary nor appropriate, as an expression of faith is not an argument. It is a statement.

Now if the reasoning as to why someone believes in theistic religion and an argument is put forth in terms of suppot via empirical evidences as premises, well then.... this is fair game.

Deism is another kettle of fish... a bit too anthropomorphic for my taste. The application of Occam's Razor tends to render the god/deity assumption redundant, but if the foundation here again is faith, then we are not speaking empirically, but rather intuitively.

Though I am indeed a gnostic atheist (theism) and an ignostic atheist (deism) I cannot really get behind bashing and insulting to make a point.

Bullying was the bargining tool of many a theist who sat upon the throne of power for many a century. I do not wish to lower my principles to the level of these abuses. Sure jokes and jabbs can be made, but this is to keep the situation from getting out of hand.

Sorry the long and drawn out word wall, but hey... not everything can be answered within the context of a SMS text.

Meow!

GREG