Who has the Agenda?

[Divine Insight]

Who has the agenda? Person A, or Person B?

Person A:

Person A believes in ancient myths about a God.

Person A spends much time and money on making apologies for why the original myths don't actually say what they mean or mean what they say.

Person A argues for abstract non-literal interpretations for the meanings of the original myth they claim are about a God.

Person A builds temples and preaches to the masses that the God myth they believe in is true.

Person A tells their congregation that these myths are true and that when the people die they will either be rewarded or punished depending on how well they have pleased this imaginary God.

Person A begs their congregation to donate money so Person A can use it to further their agenda of proclaiming that their interpretations of these ancient myths are true.

Person A spends the money on missionary missions to further proselytize their beliefs.

Person A spends the money on printing pamphlets and making videos to further proselytize their beliefs.

Person A may even go door-to-door trying to convince strangers to believe what they believe.

Person A claims to have no "agenda" and accuses the people who refuse to believe them of having an "agenda" to reject these religious beliefs.

Person B:

Person B tries to explain to Person A why they aren't buying into their agenda to spread their religious beliefs.

Which person truly has an "agenda"? Person A, or Person B?

I ask you.

Please try to vote HONESTLY.

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 1 by Divine Insight]

Rather it's forcing religious views onto other, or being an example or just living their lives to make themselves happy, everyone has an agenda to some degree.
I've found that most people who claim others have some super big/bad agenda are typically the ones with the largest agenda of all.

If people would just live and let live, allowing their lives to be the example, everything would be so much better.
But people (religious or not) can't seem to live their own lives w/o creating issues for others. I suppose it's their way of over compensating from something missing within their own lives.

[Goose]

The poll in the OP is a classic false dichotomy.

Option 3. Both person A and person B have an agenda.

[Divine Insight]

The poll in the OP is a classic false dichotomy.

Option 3. Both person A and person B have an agenda.

Sure you could take that cop-out. But I think it's pretty clear who has the actual agenda. The reason I started this thread is because in another thread I was accused of having an "agenda" against Christianity simply because I point out the myriad of self-contradictions and flaws in the religion.

But this would be like saying that if someone has the agenda of accusing you of beating your wife, you then have the agenda of defending against those hopefully false accusations.

But clearly that's stretching things quite a bit. You didn't originally have the agenda of defending against false accusation made toward you. And I think the situation in the OP is very much the same. Atheists wouldn't even exist at all if it wasn't for theists trying to push their belief in invisible Gods onto them.

To claim that they both have an "agenda" is to seriously ignore or miss the point.

But then again, Theists are very used to using these kinds of "Table-turning" tactics so they probably see this as being a perfectly natural way to justify their religious agendas.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 1 by Divine Insight]

Both.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 1 by Divine Insight]

Both.

Sorry, but that's just outright wrong based on the actual description given in the OP.

I'll grant that an atheist could have an "agenda" to be out to challenge religions. But that's NOT the scenario I offered in the OP of this thread.

So once again, we see the theists refusing to pay attention to what's actually being described.

And this is so typical of how they approach their dogma and their apologies. They refuse to actually address what's actually written, and instead pretend that they can imagine their own totally unrelated "interpretations" onto something that was never offered in the first place.

Notice in the OP that I clearly stated that Person B is simply trying to explain to Person A why they aren't buying into their religious agenda.

Was my scenario "rigged"? Perhaps so. But the fact that theists aren't paying attention to what the OP actually says only shows how they treat their very dogma and apologetic arguments. They simply refuse to actually address what's actually written.

Did I have an "agenda" when I created the OP? Absolutely, but that's not what the OP is asking.

The OP makes it crystal clear without any ambiguity that Person A has a clear agenda. Even even states this in several places in the description Person A. Building temples, teaching congregations that what they believe is "truth", asking the congregations for money, using the money to further proselytize their beliefs via missionary work, printed materials, and videos, etc.

Person A CLEARLY has a very strong agenda.

How did I define Person B?

Simply as someone who is trying to explain to Person A why they aren't buying into the agenda of their religious cult.

The fact that theists are so prepared to argue with the OP clearly shows that they aren't interested in any sort of actual truth. All they want to do is argue that the theist in the OP doesn't have any more of an agenda that Person B. Which is clearly FALSE.

See theists refuse to even pay attention to logic or the actual situation given in any specific scenario. Instead they just want to support that their "AGENDA" isn't any more of an agenda that anyone else has. Which is absolutely false.