You can call my analogy facile I suppose, but again you are hypocritical in doing so.
This quote is facile. Elvis was never portrayed as the son of God, a title that carries supernatural abilities.

Welp, we're obviously not going to see eye to eye on this. I think your quotes suggesting that people of faith belong in an assylum are very rude and cruel. I'm not personally offended by the quote... just the hypocrisy. I have flagged this quote, and will continue to flag quotes that violate the rules, regardless if their persuasion. No matter what anyone's personal beliefs are, practicing kindness is always a good way to approach any situation.

I will be bowing out of this conversation now as I don't think we'll be able to reach an accord, making this conversation unproductive. I wish you all a good day. Enjoy your weekend

Once again, it's not hypocrisy - at least it's not intended as such. It's intended purely to ensure that this site doesn't get overrun with christian ideas. ALL ideas/beliefs should be represented or NONE should be represented. I make a point of posting an anti-religios quote every time I come across a religious one so as to balance things out

A religious figure was not being compared to a rock-star, rather, the BELIEF in an unseen religious figure is being compared to the belief that a dead rock-star is alive. And your hotel analogy is far too facile

What idea is being presented here? A false equivalency of comparing a religious figure to an overweight rock-star? Would you compare Buddah to Bart Simpson? Zeus to Sylvester Stallone?

Regardless of your intentions, you are willingly breaking the rules in a vitriolic quest that no one asked you to embark on. If you go to a hotel that doesn't allow cats and dogs, and you see a patron with his dog do you rush home to get bring your cat?

But you always call out people who leave religious quotes, citing that they're violating the rules, and you're often kind of nasty about it. Then you turn around and violate the rules by posting anti-religious quotes. Do you not see the hypocrisy?

It's not about "two wrongs making a right" or "an eye for an eye".....it's about presenting a wide range of ideas. As I said, I will continue to counter religious material with anti-religious material so as to ensure that all voices/views are represented. Flagging quotes does not offset the religious material by presenting a different view - so flaggiing does not help my cause.

It would be great if the admins would remove religious/anti-religious material from this site. Then we can start fresh and all follow the rules and we would never have to have these conversations again

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

So why not just flag the quotes that offend you and move on? Still sounds like you're being hypocritical. Because here's the thing - I have come across some religious quotes (and I flagged them), but I have yet to see a religious quote that insinuated that people who don't believe in God are stupid. Usually they're just inspirational platitudes. I've seen quite a few from you that strongly suggest that people of faith are ignorant and delusional. There is a difference.

No. As I clearly stated, it's about ensuring that a broad range of views is presented rather than just one. IF people are to be exposed to religion, it should be to a number of religions/ideas so that they can gather information and make informed decisions for themselves. Ideally there would be no religious or anti-religious material at all on this site, but if the religious folks insist on breaking the rules by posting their material, I feel it must be balanced out by other ideas - whether those ideas are atheist, buddhist, muslim etc

So two wrongs make a right?

Obviously religious folks would find my anti-religious comments to be offensive. I don't go out of my way to leave anti-religious quotes. I do, however, take the time to respond when people post religious quotes as doing so is against the rules. And I feel that a balance is needed - if people don't post anti-religious comments in response to the religious quotes that are deliberately posted despite being against the rules, then all we'd have is a whole whack ton of annoyingly religious quotes. If people stop posting quotes about their gods, I will stop posting anti-religious comments in response to those quotes.

If people are going to insist on posting religious materials, the least the rest of us can do is to post responses to that material so as to ensure a broad range of views so that users don't feel that religion is being crammed down their throats on this site

Weesin - if you click on the drop down to flag a quote, you will notice that it gives you the option of flagging a quote because it is "religious/against religion". You seem very keen to attack people who merely mention the word God in their quote, citing that it offends you. But don't you think that all of your extremely insulting quotes about people of faith might be just as offensive? Or do you not care about that?

Haha, you as well!

Glad you enjoyed it. Perhaps that second cup of coffee today is making my brain synapses fire on all cylinders! Enjoy your day

Haha, yeah, the author does make a great point. And your explanation/interpretation is perfect.

Okay that makes a bit more sense then, thanks for taking the time to explain. I believe that's the point that the author is trying to make - Christians seem to believe that Jesus is still alive (inside them) and some even "hear" Jesus talking to them. Apparently it's normal and so acceptable for these Christians to feel someone living inside them and to even talk to them that these same Christians are voted into positions of power. Yet, if someone else says they see/hear Elvis or see/hear their dead relatives, they're considered bats-in-the-belfry-crazy and would be relegated to a mental institute for visual/auditory hallucinations - they certainly wouldn't be voted into office

Well, I don't believe Jesus is still alive, which leads me to think that any explanation regarding his present existence would be unrealistic.

I think you may be misusing the word "outlandish" as I can't see how an explanation to this very practical and logical question would be considered "outlandish"

Any explanation would seem outlandish to me...