I used to think that it was mostly people of my own faith- followers of Jesus- of various sects- had the mentality that "Jesus is the only way" and things of that nature. But lately, I've noticed that other faiths do that as well. They believe that their religion is best and have nothing but criticism for other faiths (No, not everyone of a faith, but a few of them).
I don't like this mentality at all, even in my own religion and faith. It is pretty sad to find out that a few people of other faiths have it as well.
If you are of a faith do you really believe yours is better? Do you believe that all or nearly all faiths are good in their own way?
If you have no faith, do you believe that your lack of faith makes you better than those who don't follow it? Or do you believe "To each his own"?
If you are a theist, do you believe you are better than a non-theist?
This may make a pretty good discussion if we don't start arguing.
It seems to me to mostly come down to one of two things.
-Some things are correct, and some things are incorrect. There are shades of correctness, but some things are simply more accurate than others.
-Tribalism. Egos.
If a religion preaches, as the absolute most fundamental concept of the religion, that there is a personal god, then philosophies that do not include gods at all are at odds with that religion. In this situation, some people are simply more correct than others. If a person worships the goddess Athena as a literal goddess and considers it important for all people to worship Athena and be celibate for Athena and puts laws in place because Athena wants them, then if it turns out Athena doesn't exist and never existed, then this person ends up looking almost objectively foolish.
If a religion preaches that X has to be believed to go to heaven or avoid torture or death, and most of the world doesn't believe X, then there are going to be issues.
The wording of calling people who don't accept certain fundamental truths "fools" and so forth are embedded right into the text of many scriptures. It comes straight from the so-called inspiration of God in many cases.
I believe that some propositions about reality are less evidenced, less consistent, less altruistic, and ultimately less accurate than other propositions about reality. If two people argue about what is inside a box, then either they're both equally wrong, or both managed to be equally partially correct, or one of them is more correct than the other.
-Some religions propose that X must be believed as a fundamental tenant. To not view other religions as inferior requires changing this belief.
-Some religions propose that X is true, but that other religions are incomplete and preach only part of X, or a misguided version of X, and they will ultimately find the truth of X in one lifetime or another. It's not necessarily incorrect to believe that a person's position is more evidenced than another. But it is funny to see two cultures with unfounded claims arguing about who's right.
-Some people assert truths and believe claims at face value, while others ask for peer-reviewed evidence before accepting things as truth.
-If a person wants to outlaw something, such as homosexuality or blasphemy or whatever, then the basis for their outlawing it better be accurate or they're making fools of themselves and harming other people.
In other words, some religions are better than others, and some philosophies are better than others, if a person considers truth and rational methodology to be important things.
