>OK, please explain this to me like I’m a 3 year old:
A group of people who identify with various religions (I know this because I read their Facebook Info) were criticizing Scientologists on Facebook this morning as having crazy beliefs and practices. The “discussion” ended with this comment:
“To each their own…except for loony toons like these.”
How does someone say that any one set of religious beliefs, practices, or gods is any more or less ridiculous, silly, bad or wrong (or more sane, believable, true or real, if you prefer) than any other?
How? On what basis and criteria?
I mean, we do all understand that religious and deist beliefs are an accident of our birth and geographical location, right?
We do know that we would probably believe something completely different had we been born into another family, society or area of the world, right?
We can all admit that the sole “proof” of any of our beliefs is that it’s what we were told and taught, we choose to believe, and/or we feel to be true, without a single shred of empirical or scientific evidence, right?
So, if we accept that, how does someone argue against someone else’s deist and/or religious beliefs while arguing FOR their own?
I just don’t understand. I really don’t and I want to. I really do.
It reminds me of the argument the boys have in “Stand By Me” about who would win in a fight, Mighty Mouse or Superman.
Vern: Do you think Mighty Mouse could beat up Superman?
Teddy: What are you, cracked?
Vern: Why not? I saw the other day. He was carrying five elephants in one hand!
Teddy: Boy, you don’t know nothing! Mighty Mouse is a cartoon. Superman’s a real guy. There’s no way a cartoon could beat up a real guy.
Please, someone explain this to me because my head is about to explode. Yeah, I’m an atheist, so I don’t believe any of it, but don’t you either have to accept all beliefs are possible or none are? If not, what make some any more or less believable than the other?