Why should religion get a free pass?

So you really don't think that someone who genuinely believes that an evil invisible unicorn (for which there is no empirical evidence either for or against due to it's magical and obviously invisible nature) whispers instructions to him and him alone that he must obey to save the planet from certain extinction, is nutty?Not even if the unicorn in question is telling him he has to skateboard to the centre of the surface of the Earth. Naked.
????
Is this non-empirical unfalsifiable claim not nutty? Not even a little bit?Your religious convictions aside - Is there any non-religious claim for which you have absoluetly no empirical evidence whatsoever but which you are reasonably certain of being true?Do you effectively give religion a free pass yourself?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I added this to my last post probably after you had read it. I would be interested in your response.Straggler asks - CS Writes Hmmmm. I cannot imagine a non-empirical and non-verifiable way in which the invisible unicorn could reveal itself convincingly. If I detected it and so did everyone else around me I might start to ask some interesting questions about reality. But if I and only I could hear the unicorn I would definitely think I had lost the plot.Independent corroboration is the key to objective empirical evidence in this respect. But are we? I am not just saying this for the sake of debate. I honestly don't see the difference between this and many religious beliefs in terms of nuttiness!!! Reasons? What reasons?Our friend who skateboards naked with his invisible unicorn tormentor believes he has reasons!! He believes that he was put here to save the rest of humanity from the threatened destruction that the invisible unicorn threatens us with. He has felt that he was chosen for this higher purpose since birth. He has always known that he was special in this respect. Even before the invisible unicorn revealed his true calling in life he "knew".At what point do the "reasons" for nuttiness merge with the nuttiness itself? In fact is it ever posible to distinguish between the two? Really distinguish between the two?

Buz I find myself almost agreeing with you. This comes as quite a shock as I am not sure it has ever happened before. I think the belief systems that get, and unjustly demand, the biggest "free pass" in Western society are the the non-fundamentalist and generally 'deemed to be more acceptable' woolly and less well defined forms of Christianity. These and the other main monotheistic religions do get a free pass in the sense that if someone proclaims that they hold a particular view based on faith and belief in God then it is almost expected that such a view is considered all but beyond reproach or criticism because faith should be respected.Christian fundamentalism however effectively claims that such faith is consistent with, and even to some extent founded upon, physical evidence. I don't think many people have nearly the same qualms about debunking evidence based assertions in the same way that they very well might if confronted with purely theistic views.I think this is justified and to be expected as evidence based arguments will always be more concrete and well defined than purely logical or philosophical ones.But for what it is worth I think you are broadly right when you say that Christian fundamentalism does not get the same sort of "free pass" as other religious, less fundamentalist and more philosophical in nature, positions often do.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.