A Question to the Theists Here

[Fluké]

You are using a summation of attributes, and when one decides to take these attributes and address them point by point you claim that it loses context?

Show me how that one sentence is taken out of context by addressing the attributes one by one.

Well yes, if I was talking about "truths which are unsubstantiated" in terms of the universe in my post, and then you refute it by discussing the vegetarian lifestyle.

My original point was the enormous distinction in the truths that are claimed, with lacking evidence.

As for the latter claim, what you are basically doing is arguing what AngelThMan does when he claims that humans aren't animals because humans have such unique characteristics nowhere else to be found on Earth. You point at the dissimilarities and ignore the huge amount of similarities.

This isn’t a true comparison for two reasons:

The AngelThMan's argument is flawed because biologically we are human. Period. The distinctions, whatever they are, are sufficiently minute and irrelevant to be ignored. Thus, we are the same because the bulk of the matter is such to allow that. That comparison can't be made between Islam (for instance) and Vegetarianism. They may be beliefs, but there are so many beliefs in the world. Do we say they are all the same? That is a sufficiently minute comparison. The main bulk of the matter lies in their distinctions. One is a preferred lifestyle, the other is a mandate from God on how to live, think and perceive every aspect of the world. They may on some fundamental level be a belief, but you’re might as well argue that socialism and capitalism are the same because they are beliefs. I would argue they have contrasting differences.

Secondly, I’m not arguing that religion isn’t some sort of social club (comparison to the AngelThMan). I am merely asserting that it is of a different categorisation. A sort of sub-division that makes it unique.

---

The "either you accept it all or you reject it all" is a funny argument. We don't demand it of any other book, but somehow when it comes to scriptures, a lot of atheists seem to think this way.

Look at another book, let's say "The Da Vinci Code". I don't believe all of that book (it is fiction after all), but I do believe some of it. I believe that Paris and France exist, that Leonardo Da Vinci painted the paintings mentioned, and that the Information Security Group where Sophie Neveu studied exists (coz I work for them).

Shouldn't it be a all or none situation?

Either the scripture is indeed the word of God, or it isn't. I don't understand the pick-and-choose aspects that some parts are true and some aren't.

The Da Vinci Code doesn't proclaim itself to be true. It is merely a fictional story.