Religious arguments and analogies that really bother you

[braces_for_impact]

That's paradoxical.
I would have thought that it takes autonomous free will to reflect upon whether or not we have the free will to reflect upon our own free will. But maybe I'm pre-programmed to think that by my Creator who freely decided to create me as a robot.



I don't think that. If one Christian thinks "x" and another thinks "y" does that suggest not all Christians have free will?

... If [you don't] then you get to go to hell and burn for all eternity.

That does not seem to be free will to me.

Doesn't the creator/owner of this forum have the right to say ...obey the rules or get banned?
The consequences of ones actions don't undermine the freedom we have to make good or bad decisions.

...Also, I really have a lot of hostility towards the ideas of simply unbelieving is no different than commtting horrible crimes against ten year old children.

Except that's not a biblical idea.

The bible says - in several places - that we are judged proportionately to our deeds and the motives for those deeds. (See Proverbs 16:2 for example.) The good and the bad deeds "weighed" in the balance like on a set of scales. (See Revelation 2:23)

...I have an exceptionally hard time fathoming that mentality.

Fathom this.

A missionary travels to a remote village and tells everyone about Jesus. He tells them, “If you do not accept Jesus, you will burn in hell for all eternity.” Before the missionary leaves, the tribal elder asks, “If we had never heard about this Jesus, would God have sent us all to hell?” The missionary replies, “No, I don’t suppose God would condemn you due to your ignorance,” to which the elder replied “Then why did you tell us about him!?”

No, it very much is the defacto Christian idea. There are more than a few verse in the Bible that condemn unbelief. Those that do not believe are condemned already.

What, are you God, like The God? There are almost no "de facto Christian" ideas. You seem to confuse/conflate your personal interpretation of scripture, for the totality of all self described Christian thought.

Then you really don't know anything about Christianity and are just revealing your own biases as what you think are facts. You also do not seem to understand the irony of your own assertion.

Chiao bella.

so then there is only one correct form of Christianity? which one? do tell. people have been in-fighting for thousands of years about this... that you have the final answer is simply amazing.

Why do I get the feeling that you are starting off with, "it's easy, I know exactly how to do Christianity"
....
and then headed to a, "No one knew how hard a universal definition of Christianity would be"

No. Those are simply your own cognitive biases revealing yourself. Your hatred and bigotry are showing.

This seems to be a reoccurring theme. It seems whenever someone has different ideas than yourself and presents them in a way that makes you feel uncomfortable, you endow their comments with malice, seemingly, so you can more easily dismiss what they have to say as the product of bigotry, hatred, or bias.

I'm sure this post feels like undue criticism to you, but I have to say, you seem to have a constant chip on your shoulder, and you seem to have a lot off bad ideological baggage you're carrying around with you and projecting onto others. We all have our flaws, mind you. Yet, by and large the people on this board are quite easy to get along with. They may critique your ideas at every turn, but that's kinda what we do here, and we all learn and grow from it. I suggest you try to consider it a learning experience and stop trying to interpret it as a personal attack on you.

 

[Malintent]

That's paradoxical.
I would have thought that it takes autonomous free will to reflect upon whether or not we have the free will to reflect upon our own free will. But maybe I'm pre-programmed to think that by my Creator who freely decided to create me as a robot.



I don't think that. If one Christian thinks "x" and another thinks "y" does that suggest not all Christians have free will?

... If [you don't] then you get to go to hell and burn for all eternity.

That does not seem to be free will to me.

Doesn't the creator/owner of this forum have the right to say ...obey the rules or get banned?
The consequences of ones actions don't undermine the freedom we have to make good or bad decisions.

...Also, I really have a lot of hostility towards the ideas of simply unbelieving is no different than commtting horrible crimes against ten year old children.

Except that's not a biblical idea.

The bible says - in several places - that we are judged proportionately to our deeds and the motives for those deeds. (See Proverbs 16:2 for example.) The good and the bad deeds "weighed" in the balance like on a set of scales. (See Revelation 2:23)

...I have an exceptionally hard time fathoming that mentality.

Fathom this.

A missionary travels to a remote village and tells everyone about Jesus. He tells them, “If you do not accept Jesus, you will burn in hell for all eternity.” Before the missionary leaves, the tribal elder asks, “If we had never heard about this Jesus, would God have sent us all to hell?” The missionary replies, “No, I don’t suppose God would condemn you due to your ignorance,” to which the elder replied “Then why did you tell us about him!?”

No, it very much is the defacto Christian idea. There are more than a few verse in the Bible that condemn unbelief. Those that do not believe are condemned already.

What, are you God, like The God? There are almost no "de facto Christian" ideas. You seem to confuse/conflate your personal interpretation of scripture, for the totality of all self described Christian thought.

Then you really don't know anything about Christianity and are just revealing your own biases as what you think are facts. You also do not seem to understand the irony of your own assertion.

Chiao bella.

so then there is only one correct form of Christianity? which one? do tell. people have been in-fighting for thousands of years about this... that you have the final answer is simply amazing.

Why do I get the feeling that you are starting off with, "it's easy, I know exactly how to do Christianity"
....
and then headed to a, "No one knew how hard a universal definition of Christianity would be"

No. Those are simply your own cognitive biases revealing yourself. Your hatred and bigotry are showing.

..... you seem very quick to dismiss people and assume you know how they are thinking better than they do...

... I stand corrected. It seems this poster DOES seem to have Christianity down pat.

 

[jab]

Any of the 1001 variations on Pascal's Wager.

Since you decided to not believe, you could just as easily decide to believe just in case the Christians are right.

Yeah, right.

Pascals Wager isn't so much an apologetic argument as it is an appeal to reasonable, rational people that they should be open-minded and consider giving an idea the benefit of the doubt - since they don't know.

Of course, if an atheist thinks there is actual evidence against God - reasons not to believe - they should never 'pretend' to think otherwise. Pascal's Wager isn't about having an each-way bet or faking belief.

But presenting Pascal's Wager to closed-minded, strong atheists / anti-theists is pointless and I can see why such people would think it a stupid gambit.

I read Pascal's Wager after I had deconverted from fundamentalist Christianity but before I moved definitely into atheism, and I thought it was just about the most mendacious bit of rationalization I had ever read; helped pushed me further into disbelief.
And there you go divining the state of atheists' minds--"closed minded"--another beef posted on this thread about religious believers' discourse relative to unbelief.

 

[jab]

No, I lack belief in the theory - your theory - that God isn't real.
It's merely a lack of the belief held by atheists.

Now, if atheism isn't a belief then it presumably is must have some evidentiary warrant.

Wanna proselytise me with respect to your beliefs about God(s)?

No I don't want to proselytize; I don't go and strike up conversations on this issue,

 

[bilby]

Pascals Wager isn't so much an apologetic argument as it is an appeal to reasonable, rational people that they should be open-minded and consider giving an idea the benefit of the doubt - since they don't know.

Of course, if an atheist thinks there is actual evidence against God - reasons not to believe - they should never 'pretend' to think otherwise. Pascal's Wager isn't about having an each-way bet or faking belief.

But presenting Pascal's Wager to closed-minded, strong atheists / anti-theists is pointless and I can see why such people would think it a stupid gambit.

I read Pascal's Wager after I had deconverted from fundamentalist Christianity but before I moved definitely into atheism, and I thought it was just about the most mendacious bit of rationalization I had ever read; helped pushed me further into disbelief.
And there you go divining the state of atheists' minds--"closed minded"--another beef posted on this thread about religious believers' discourse relative to unbelief.

Strong atheism is no more 'closed minded' than a glitzy nightclub is 'closed' if it doesn't allow admission to some bum with his arse falling out of his pants.

Having minimum standards for the ideas you allow into your mind is not a bad thing; everyone has ideas that they considered long ago; concluded were valueless; and will not consider again without strong new evidence.

The accusation that someone is 'closed minded' invariably translates to 'I want you to agree with me, but am incapable of arguing my position effectively, so I am going to blame you for my failure to be convincing'.

It's a sure sign of a person who hasn't got a leg to stand on.

If you say 'We don't know, so you should give me the benefit of the doubt', then you are only guessing about half of the people in the conversation. You don't know, and you guess that I don't know either. But if I do know, then there's no reason whatsoever for me to give you the benefit of the doubt - particularly in the light of your admission that you don't know.

If it is true that you don't know, then why would I give credence to an implausible idea proposed by a self confessed ignoramus?

If it's not true - if you secretly think that you DO know - then why would I trust a liar?

If you genuinely do KNOW, then you can persuade me of your position by use of the same sound, valid, and well presented arguments that granted you the knowledge in the first place. My rejection of any arguments that fail to meet that standard is not closed mindedness, it's perfectly reasonable and sensible.

 

[Underseer]

That's paradoxical.
I would have thought that it takes autonomous free will to reflect upon whether or not we have the free will to reflect upon our own free will. But maybe I'm pre-programmed to think that by my Creator who freely decided to create me as a robot.



I don't think that. If one Christian thinks "x" and another thinks "y" does that suggest not all Christians have free will?

... If [you don't] then you get to go to hell and burn for all eternity.

That does not seem to be free will to me.

Doesn't the creator/owner of this forum have the right to say ...obey the rules or get banned?
The consequences of ones actions don't undermine the freedom we have to make good or bad decisions.

...Also, I really have a lot of hostility towards the ideas of simply unbelieving is no different than commtting horrible crimes against ten year old children.

Except that's not a biblical idea.

The bible says - in several places - that we are judged proportionately to our deeds and the motives for those deeds. (See Proverbs 16:2 for example.) The good and the bad deeds "weighed" in the balance like on a set of scales. (See Revelation 2:23)

...I have an exceptionally hard time fathoming that mentality.

Fathom this.

A missionary travels to a remote village and tells everyone about Jesus. He tells them, “If you do not accept Jesus, you will burn in hell for all eternity.” Before the missionary leaves, the tribal elder asks, “If we had never heard about this Jesus, would God have sent us all to hell?” The missionary replies, “No, I don’t suppose God would condemn you due to your ignorance,” to which the elder replied “Then why did you tell us about him!?”

No, it very much is the defacto Christian idea. There are more than a few verse in the Bible that condemn unbelief. Those that do not believe are condemned already.

What, are you God, like The God? There are almost no "de facto Christian" ideas. You seem to confuse/conflate your personal interpretation of scripture, for the totality of all self described Christian thought.

Every Protestant and every Muslim does that.

Their version of Christianity/Islam is the "one true" Christianity/Islam.

What is ironic is that under Protestantism and Islam, there can't be a "one true" Christianity/Islam.

Catholics and Eastern Orthodox can make absolute truth claims based on the authority of the pope. Granted, this is based on an appeal to authority logical fallacy, but good luck explaining that to any Catholic or Eastern Orthodox person.

But in Protestantism and Islam, there is no ultimate Earthly authority on theological matters, and so no one has a basis for making absolute theological claims. There can't be a "one true Christianity" and there can't be a "one true Islam." No one in all of Protestantism has the authority to say "This theological opinion is absolutely, definitely true," and the same goes for Islam, and yet it seems like every Protestant and every Muslim I talk to is absolutely convinced that their version of the religion is absolutely definitely 100% correct and anyone who disagrees with them slightly is going straight to Hell when they die. They don't say "This is what I think is true and here's the list of reasons I think that," but instead their truth claims are all treated as absolute fact.

It's bizarre. Protestants and Muslims should be free of the bizarre restrictions of the infallibility claims of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox, and yet they refuse to accept the freedom and intellectual honesty (or at least some semblance thereof) that should be inherent to their belief systems.

 

[Lion IRC]

Pascals Wager isn't so much an apologetic argument as it is an appeal to reasonable, rational people that they should be open-minded and consider giving an idea the benefit of the doubt - since they don't know.

Of course, if an atheist thinks there is actual evidence against God - reasons not to believe - they should never 'pretend' to think otherwise. Pascal's Wager isn't about having an each-way bet or faking belief.

But presenting Pascal's Wager to closed-minded, strong atheists / anti-theists is pointless and I can see why such people would think it a stupid gambit.

I read Pascal's Wager after I had deconverted from fundamentalist Christianity but before I moved definitely into atheism, and I thought it was just about the most mendacious bit of rationalization I had ever read; helped pushed me further into disbelief.

Why mendacious?
Pascal doesn't ask people to lie about their belief or disbelief.

...And there you go divining the state of atheists' minds--"closed minded"--another beef posted on this thread about religious believers' discourse relative to unbelief.

I don't need to divine the state of mind of a person who says there is no God and has never been any evidence for God. That's an emphatic statement. Pascal's Wager doesn't expect such strong atheists to pretend they are open-minded agnostics. It's not a game of double-think.

 

[abaddon]

I don't need to divine the state of mind of a person who says there is no God and has never been any evidence for God. That's an emphatic statement. Pascal's Wager doesn't expect such strong atheists to pretend they are open-minded agnostics. It's not a game of double-think.

"I don't need to divine the state of mind..."

Why yes, yes you do.

Openmindedness is willingness to consider the evidence. There's nothing about strong atheism toward the abrahamic god to suggest the strong atheist hasn't always been and remains willing to consider the evidence for this god. Saying he's closeminded is to presume he's resistant to evidence.

Which leads me to wonder, resistant to what evidence?

About agnosticism... his agnosticism can be a failure to have considered the evidence much at all. Or it might be a close-minded insistence that nothing is or can be known about God or other immaterial beings.

So your contrast between strong atheism as close-minded and agnosticism as openminded doesn't work.

Is Pascal's Wager advocacy for agnosticism? If it is, why? The agnostic, as a person who doesn't know and therefore does not actively believe, is a variety of atheist too.

 

[Jobar]

There's some great YT videos debunking Pascal's Wager, but for many years this has been my favorite.

[YOUTUBE]fZpJ7yUPwdU[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Pascal doesn't ask people to lie about their belief or disbelief.

Not to the public, but to themselves. Pascal's Wager is a risk v benefit analysis. It tries to weigh the risk to an atheist if there is a benevolently ruthless god verses the risk to a Christian is no such god exists.

Pascal isn't trying to convince people a god exists, but convince people that a threat exists, and that it is tangible enough to warrant pretending to worship said god.

I don't need to divine the state of mind of a person who says there is no God and has never been any evidence for God. That's an emphatic statement. Pascal's Wager doesn't expect such strong atheists to pretend they are open-minded agnostics. It's not a game of double-think.

Well, it isn't a game at all, it is faith via accounting.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

As a strong atheist who sees that the God concept of Christianity, Islam et al has serious logical problems that make that concept self defeating, I no more have to think Pascal's wager can have any benefit to me than belief in the Easter Bunny would possibly benefit me. To me, it is a form of special pleading.

 

[Keith&Co.]

To me, it is a form of special pleading.

It's not even that. It's a pat on the back for those who believe, to think that whatever reason they came to have a belief, there's logical argument to support the choice they made. It's a rationalization for those who already believe, not an argument to persuade anyone to believe.

 

[Infinite Monkey]

Why mendacious?

Because it's ubiquitous and polyglottal. Like donkeyballs.

I hope someone gets that reference.

 

[Brian63]

Besides the one mentioned in the OP and many others in this thread, another religious practice that I am sooooo tired of seeing and hearing is the extremely superficial altering of words and sentences in particular ways, to make them sound reasonable when really they are not. Namely, you can take a statement like “Robert has black skin and therefore is a dumb person” and recognize that as being a revolting statement both in its ethical context and just a hugely stupid one in terms of the logic involved as well, and people will largely reject it out of hand. If you use certain other wording though, make it sound prettier, and capitalize certain words, say --- “The Creation of Robert does not have the Lighted skin of others in Creation and therefore lacks the Wisdom and Grace of Thine Creator and others in His Glorious Creation” then that suddenly would be a statement of profound wisdom and insight.

I used that as a made-up and exaggerated example to try and make the point clearer, but you still see this sort of behavior on places like Rapture Ready, where I sometimes just lurk for fun and to try to understand the fundy mindset. They just frequently write out vacuous but pretty-sounding words and phrases like “faith” and “Thine Creator” and ”blessed enchantments” to make their points. Those positions they hold are so substanceless though, or when they have substance and useful meaning they are often morally and rationally repulsive. Still, they keep repeating them over and over without any thinking about the issue to any kind of meaningful depth. Just make the sentences sound fluffy and pretty, and make sure to capitalize certain words, and it gives the illusion of great philosophical truth.

Ugh.

Brian

 

[Opoponax]

Besides the one mentioned in the OP and many others in this thread, another religious practice that I am sooooo tired of seeing and hearing is the extremely superficial altering of words and sentences in particular ways, to make them sound reasonable when really they are not. Namely, you can take a statement like “Robert has black skin and therefore is a dumb person” and recognize that as being a revolting statement both in its ethical context and just a hugely stupid one in terms of the logic involved as well, and people will largely reject it out of hand. If you use certain other wording though, make it sound prettier, and capitalize certain words, say --- “The Creation of Robert does not have the Lighted skin of others in Creation and therefore lacks the Wisdom and Grace of Thine Creator and others in His Glorious Creation” then that suddenly would be a statement of profound wisdom and insight.

I used that as a made-up and exaggerated example to try and make the point clearer, but you still see this sort of behavior on places like Rapture Ready, where I sometimes just lurk for fun and to try to understand the fundy mindset. They just frequently write out vacuous but pretty-sounding words and phrases like “faith” and “Thine Creator” and ”blessed enchantments” to make their points. Those positions they hold are so substanceless though, or when they have substance and useful meaning they are often morally and rationally repulsive. Still, they keep repeating them over and over without any thinking about the issue to any kind of meaningful depth. Just make the sentences sound fluffy and pretty, and make sure to capitalize certain words, and it gives the illusion of great philosophical truth.

Ugh.

Brian

I get that. That is, I've witnessed something similar in my family growing up. During holidays, there was always one or two men who were asked to say the prayer before dinner. These men could quote verses from the King James Bible, deftly using all the thee's, thous's, and thine's one could possibly ever wish to hear.

As a kid, it sounded impressive. It imparted a kind of higher-sounding language that implied a grander meaning of some kind. Maybe something along the lines of "This is how you talk to God, and this is how God talks back." Of course, I know that's silly now because God didn't speak English to his supposed scribes be it Elizabethan or otherwise, but it seems that many people never grow out of that impression.

But yes, attach a certain style of prose to thoughts on God and it will create a sense of the profound in many believers regardless of how stupid the message conveyed may be.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I can control reality with my thoughts

Here's another one that really rubs me the wrong way. Let's call it, "I can control reality with my thoughts".

I took a couple of hours looking at various "Why I am an [insert religion]" videos on yourtube. There's a pattern to them. Here's how they're usually set up.

1. "This is something I've considered a long time and I hate how followers of [insert religion] are misrepresented in the media. It's the religion of peace and love and cudliness". This is followed by a longish rant, completely out of place, and full of non-sequiturs.

2. "I've always been attracted to the religion and curious about it. I've loved the [insert religious building] it's art and traditions". Which is the only honest thing they ever say, and which explains the entire conversion.

3. "These are the religious rules that I follow". Then goes on to say why or why they don't follow certain rules. "But this is only what is true for me. You can do what you feel is right for you. I won't judge. It's not up to me to judge it's up to [insert god/gods]". This is the bit that annoys me.

Hey religious person, you don't get to decide what God values or wants. You can't use your own judgement/the feels to deduce what the emperor of the Galaxy is planning or wants from you. "This is what feels right for me" is a retarded thing to say. Saying that you don't judge, doesn't make you come across as smart or humble. You're still being an arrogant ass because you just dictated the will of God, which you then expects him to follow. Rules which trump all of science and psychological research.

It doesn't feel right that we're supposed to have clothes on at work. So I'm deciding that it's immoral to wear clothes and will take mine off. But I won't judge. It doesn't feel right to me to sit in a traffic jam right now, so I'm not going to break and floor it instead. It doesn't feel right to me that my wife cooked me fish for dinner, so I'm deciding it's beef, and I'll be surprised if it doesn't magically change. It doesn't feel right to me that my colleague sitting across from me doesn't have big boobs, so I'm now deciding that she does. That's what they're doing. It's so incredibly dumb.

None of them argue in this form:

"Based on this research I've deduced that [insert God] wants this from me." And then go on to present the support for it. If the support is from a holy text, they should then present arguments for why this holy text is an authority on anything. They should conclude with saying that they don't really know and that they're just guessing.

There's quite a few that argue in this form:

"Following these religious rules makes me happy and aides me in my life and makes it work better". But they often go on to explain how they're atheist/agnostic. Buddhists often fall into this category.

Does any of this ring a bell?

 

[LordKiran]

Here's another one that really rubs me the wrong way. Let's call it, "I can control reality with my thoughts".

I took a couple of hours looking at various "Why I am an [insert religion]" videos on yourtube. There's a pattern to them. Here's how they're usually set up.

1. "This is something I've considered a long time and I hate how followers of [insert religion] are misrepresented in the media. It's the religion of peace and love and cudliness". This is followed by a longish rant, completely out of place, and full of non-sequiturs.

2. "I've always been attracted to the religion and curious about it. I've loved the [insert religious building] it's art and traditions". Which is the only honest thing they ever say, and which explains the entire conversion.

3. "These are the religious rules that I follow". Then goes on to say why or why they don't follow certain rules. "But this is only what is true for me. You can do what you feel is right for you. I won't judge. It's not up to me to judge it's up to [insert god/gods]". This is the bit that annoys me.

Hey religious person, you don't get to decide what God values or wants. You can't use your own judgement/the feels to deduce what the emperor of the Galaxy is planning or wants from you. "This is what feels right for me" is a retarded thing to say. Saying that you don't judge, doesn't make you come across as smart or humble. You're still being an arrogant ass because you just dictated the will of God, which you then expects him to follow. Rules which trump all of science and psychological research.

It doesn't feel right that we're supposed to have clothes on at work. So I'm deciding that it's immoral to wear clothes and will take mine off. But I won't judge. It doesn't feel right to me to sit in a traffic jam right now, so I'm not going to break and floor it instead. It doesn't feel right to me that my wife cooked me fish for dinner, so I'm deciding it's beef, and I'll be surprised if it doesn't magically change. It doesn't feel right to me that my colleague sitting across from me doesn't have big boobs, so I'm now deciding that she does. That's what they're doing. It's so incredibly dumb.

None of them argue in this form:

"Based on this research I've deduced that [insert God] wants this from me." And then go on to present the support for it. If the support is from a holy text, they should then present arguments for why this holy text is an authority on anything. They should conclude with saying that they don't really know and that they're just guessing.

There's quite a few that argue in this form:

"Following these religious rules makes me happy and aides me in my life and makes it work better". But they often go on to explain how they're atheist/agnostic. Buddhists often fall into this category.

Does any of this ring a bell?

Hey I like Buddhism. Don't mention my petty favorite, Zoidberg! >:0

 

[DrZoidberg]

Hey I like Buddhism. Don't mention my petty favorite, Zoidberg! >:0

Sorry if I wasn't more clear. That belonged to the category of religious argumentation I like. Still atheists. But there's retarded Buddhists to.


"Love and compassion are necessities, not luxuries. Without them humanity cannot survive."
/Dalai Lama

Ie an ex theocratic dictator who wants to be reinstated into power and rule over a theocracy that used mindbogglingly cruel punishments for crimes. The communists were actually way nicer. This form of Buddhism also believes in a rigid class system that's not nice to us liberally minded people.

"Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible"
/Dalai Lama

"This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness."

Unless you're gay

“Even with your wife, using one’s mouth or the other hole is sexual misconduct. Using one’s hand, that is sexual misconduct. [...] what we Buddhists call bad sexual conduct. Sexual organs were created for reproduction between the male element and the female element—and everything that deviates from that is not acceptable from a Buddhist point of view.”
/Dalai Lama

The guy has switched sides of late. But is an excellent example of how this isn't eternal and ancient wisdom and rules. It can't replace thinking for yourself and never claim you've figured all this shit out. We're all just winging it. And he shouldn't claim to be or be seen as a spiritual leader. He's clearly no better than any random person.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Hey religious person, you don't get to decide what God values or wants. You can't use your own judgement/the feels to deduce what the emperor of the Galaxy is planning or wants from you.

I kinda disagree, but i kinda don't.

See, when i write a story about, say, the little blue man that lives in my microwave, i can decide what he wants, what he says, what he feels, how he goes about his day, and his commentary on my cooking. It's all made-up, so it's whatever i want it to be.

OTOH, if i write a story about Captain Kirk beaming down to a planet of space hookers and lining them up by species, height, technological background, and sex, we're into a shared universe. LOTS of people will have an opinion on what Kirk does or doesn't want from a space hooker. To a degree, it's my story, my interpretation, my need to create a sex scene involving tentacles, thigh-high boots and the Prime Directive, but others have just as much a say as i do about the character. The opinion of others will matter if i want to upload my story to a fandom site, or try to get it made as a feature film with someone else's money. So if i'm going to use familiar names and build upon traditions established by others, it does mean i kinda have to play by the traditional rules. It's still all made up, but now it's been made up over years by many, many people.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Hey religious person, you don't get to decide what God values or wants. You can't use your own judgement/the feels to deduce what the emperor of the Galaxy is planning or wants from you.

I kinda disagree, but i kinda don't.

See, when i write a story about, say, the little blue man that lives in my microwave, i can decide what he wants, what he says, what he feels, how he goes about his day, and his commentary on my cooking. It's all made-up, so it's whatever i want it to be.

OTOH, if i write a story about Captain Kirk beaming down to a planet of space hookers and lining them up by species, height, technological background, and sex, we're into a shared universe. LOTS of people will have an opinion on what Kirk does or doesn't want from a space hooker. To a degree, it's my story, my interpretation, my need to create a sex scene involving tentacles, thigh-high boots and the Prime Directive, but others have just as much a say as i do about the character. The opinion of others will matter if i want to upload my story to a fandom site, or try to get it made as a feature film with someone else's money. So if i'm going to use familiar names and build upon traditions established by others, it does mean i kinda have to play by the traditional rules. It's still all made up, but now it's been made up over years by many, many people.

It appears that my brain is broken, because I'm not sure what you're trying to say?