A Question to the Theists Here

[leo-rcc]

Fluké, do you think vegetarianism is only a social group? There is very much a doctrine there (eating meat is bad, as its unhealthy and/or immoral) and has some very hardcore fundamentalists defending it (even outcasting other vegetarians when they do eat cheese or eggs or drink milk). Sae's example really is a good one. And it would not be fair to other vegetarians to compare them to these fundamentalists and condemn them as crackpots either. Now I realise you probably don't generalize all theists either but it seems my fellow Pastafarian here did.

[Fluké]

Fluké, do you think vegetarianism is only a social group? There is very much a doctrine there (eating meat is bad, as its unhealthy and/or immoral) and has some very hardcore fundamentalists defending it (even outcasting other vegetarians when they do eat cheese or eggs or drink milk). Sae's example really is a good one. And it would not be fair to other vegetarians to compare them to these fundamentalists and condemn them as crackpots either. Now I realise you probably don't generalize all theists either but it seems my fellow Pastafarian here did.

Vegetarianism doesn't claim to be the voice of God on Earth, proclaim to have truths which are unsubstantiated and claims that we should follow their agenda to be rewarded with salvation.

It may be a social group on a basic point, but it operates on a different level to the rest. That's how I see it anyway.

[Violet]

Vegetarianism doesn't claim to be the voice of God on Earth, proclaim to have truths which are unsubstantiated and claims that we should follow their agenda to be rewarded with salvation.

Actually... to an extent Vegetarianism does do the bolds...

It may be a social group on a basic point, but it operates on a different level to the rest. That's how I see it anyway.

It doesn't even have to be a social group. All it has to be is a classification system.

Take for example 2 chairs. One is black, has an aluminum skeleton, has lots of padding, and has a strange discoloration where a poor small child puked on it. The second is not so much a skeleton as a body of hard tungsten inlaid with lighter gold and silver, has a relatively thin layer of very good padding, is decorated in jewels worth millions of euros, and is routinely sat upon by the King.

They are similar in their being chairs, regardless of whatever else they may be. That was my initial point at any rate

[leo-rcc]

Vegetarianism doesn't claim to be the voice of God on Earth,

Just because vegetarianism doesn't worship a carrot doesn't make it any less dogmatic.

proclaim to have truths which are unsubstantiated

That they do. Vegetarians and Vegans in particular claim that you have a healthier fuller life as a vegetarian, while that is in no way substantiated.

and claims that we should follow their agenda to be rewarded with salvation.

The amount of times I've heard hardline vegans claim that you feel so much better if you just stop eating that junk and your quality of life gets so much better.

It may be a social group on a basic point, but it operates on a different level to the rest.

How do you figure? Just because their claims are more outrageous then other groups doesn't separate them from other social groups.

[Fluké]

Vegetarianism doesn't claim to be the voice of God on Earth,

Just because vegetarianism doesn't worship a carrot doesn't make it any less dogmatic.

Does everyone here cut up each individual clause (not even sentence) and attempt to refute that, and as a consequence the essence of the post (as a whole) is lost?

Vegetarianism doesn't involve any worshipping (carrots, or otherwise). If I was a militant vegetarian, I might have very passionate beliefs. But I don't think my beliefs are mandated from God and heaven. I don't believe that my vegetarianism is a path to eternal salvation, or that I am saved and everyone else will burn. I might think it is ‘good’ or even ‘better’ but no where near the levels religion provides.

proclaim to have truths which are unsubstantiated

That they do. Vegetarians and Vegans in particular claim that you have a healthier fuller life as a vegetarian, while that is in no way substantiated.

Again. This is where context is vital.

When I said "truths which are unsubstantiated", I didn't mean about carrots or healthier lives. I was referring to truths about human existence, our origins, the existence of angels and devils, and the after-life etc ...

Official vegetarianism is backed-up with, at least, some evidence. It doesn't have a Holy scripture that orders them on how they should live their lives.

and claims that we should follow their agenda to be rewarded with salvation.

The amount of times I've heard hardline vegans claim that you feel so much better if you just stop eating that junk and your quality of life gets so much better.

"feel so much better" is not (at all) the same as eternal salvation.

The latter is a proclamation of the after-life and it's nature, whilst the former is merely an emotion.

It may be a social group on a basic point, but it operates on a different level to the rest.

How do you figure? Just because their claims are more outrageous then other groups doesn't separate them from other social groups.

It's not about which is more outrageous.

The comparison lies in that one is a mandate from heaven on how one should live their lives, think, raise children etc … it is a proclamation of absolute unparalleled unsurpassed truths that have no basis or evidence, it is the belief that one should live a certain life according to the wishes of an eternal entity, through some Holy scripture. That way of life means people believe they are acting according to the wishes of a being who will reward them in the after-life and that creates an air of superiority and the affirmation that bigotry etc is permitted as it is divine. No political party or social group is like this at all.

[leo-rcc]

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.

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.

[Tiberius]

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).

[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.

[fr0d0]

Wow amazing answers already! Damn... today has seen so much time for replies already!!!

Yeah it's a strange requirement to "accept it all". I guess that's expected given the history of scrutiny. Another requirement for faith is skepticism. Last I saw the only thing to accept was the Christ thing. And faith acknowledges things we don't fully understand.

Now the precepts of my faith I've studied diligently, and made a logical conclusion on all points to the affirmative. Then followed confirmation into my faith.

[tavarish]

Another requirement for faith is skepticism.

LOL OK.