Homeopathic medicine, Jesus and Bigfoot

[Snail Shell]

Yesterday, as there usually is, we had a group of demonstrators at Yonge and Dundas Square in downtown Toronto. Nothing special. We usually have the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, the magicians, drummers, breakdancers and even the occasional religious nutbar shouting about how Jesus hates cheeseburgers or some shite.

Anywho, this specific group was a group of science nutters going on about homeopathic medicine and how water having a memory would eventually kill us all. Basically, they were disproving homeopathy.

What caught my eye though was their banner behind them listing other myths and what they believe to be half-truths that I'm guessing they have issues with. These things included homeopathic medicine, astrology, UFO's Bigfoot, Allah and Jesus.





...Wait, what?

Did this group just put little green men burning down our cities with their floating death rays on the same shelf as the Son of God? I'm not a religious person by a long shot, but I do draw certain distinctions between conspiracy nutter and the religious beliefs of others.

Which brings me to my point. Where do YOU draw that line? Is there a line between myths and theories and passionate issues like creed and religion? If there is, where is that line? If not, what's stopping someone from founding the First Methoist Church of Bigfoot?

I look forward to your responses.

SS

 

[BrightEyes1082]

I couldn't even read the post, but I will say that right now I feel
like Cokecan in your signature. 😀

 

[TropicThunder]

I bet those people are Scientologists.

 

[Bohemianne]

If not, what's stopping someone from founding the First Methoist Church of Bigfoot?

There's a faint calling somewhere... but he's bug-eyed and is still busy tickling... 😀

 

[Capnmad]

If not, what's stopping someone from founding the First Methoist Church of Bigfoot?

Utter nonsense. Everyone knows that all Bigfoot are strictly Lutheran.

 

[Jagermeistered]

I bet those people are Scientologists.

I bet Tropic is correct.

 

[Jagermeistered]

Utter nonsense. Everyone knows that all Bigfoot are strictly Lutheran.

I was going to say Mormon. Care to make a wager?

 

[darkscar]

Then there was the Bigfoot Witnesses that come door to door

 

[LD_Tickler]

Which brings me to my point. Where do YOU draw that line? Is there a line between myths and theories and passionate issues like creed and religion? If there is, where is that line? If not, what's stopping someone from founding the First Methoist Church of Bigfoot?

I look forward to your responses.

No line. I lump it all together in the "things I have no reason to believe are true" category. That said, I'm likely going to be more tactful discussion somebody's religion than, say, a conspiracy theory.

 

[miskiduk]

this specific group was a group of science nutters

No! There's the line, right there. They have nothing to do with science.

 

[Big_Dogg85]

To quote FG:

Brian - "When a religion gets too powerful, it's bound to have imitators."
Peter - "What are you talking about?"

"Hi! I'm Sherman Hemsley, and I've just established the Church of George Jefferson. Who wants to move on up?" (people leave excitedly)

"Hi, I'm Gavin MacLeod, and I've just established the Church of Captain Stubing. Who wants to come on board?" (people leave excitedly)

"Hi, I'm Kirk Cameron."

Peter - "Aw, great, you here to convert people to the Church of Mike Seaver?"

"No, I'm here to convert people to Christianity." (people leave)

If those science nutters get people to believe in them then there may not necessarily be a line, per se since everyone's different.

 

[InspectorJapp]

Where do YOU draw that line?

In theory that line is virtually non-existent.
In reality, I would say that some are nuttier than others, though. Scientology and mormonism spring to mind.

Oh, and homeopaths should be farted on.

Repeatedly.

By everyone.

After a huge meal of chili.

 

[Ticklish9's]

Well I think the best place to draw the line is at wherever the truth is.

Let's put things that are true on one side of the line, and things that are false on the other, which seems pretty simple and straightforward to me.

If religious beliefs are false, I don't see why we should treat them any differently than any other false information - and by definition, some of them MUST be false, as they are mutually exclusive. It seems a little silly for us to say "well bigfoot is ridiculous, and astrology is crap, but your 2,000 year old self-contradictory book about magic sky people gets a special pass because it's really popular."

What matters to me is not whether or not a lot of people believe it, or even that they believe it really strongly. What matters to me is that it is true, or it is false, and determining that tells me exactly what side of the line it should go on.

Very simple.

 

[john getty]

<object width="480" height="390"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/v/LbY7GODI5Dw?fs=1&hl=en_GB"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/LbY7GODI5Dw?fs=1&hl=en_GB" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="390"></embed></object>

Start at 01:20

 

[miskiduk]

your 2,000 year old self-contradictory book about magic sky people gets a special pass because it's really popular.

but of course. Anything else might mean actually learning stuff, or even *shudder* thinking a little bit.
Heaven forbid!