Mosque at Ground Zero? What's the latest?

[tater]

Originally Posted by August

You're not going to get much support for your ideas from religious people if you insist on calling their beliefs "nonsense" and "fantasy".

Myth, then?

Extant religious call the beliefs of Romans and Greeks, "myth," correct? Or of stone-age peoples... what makes one belief obvious fantasy, while another deserves respect?

[August]

Originally Posted by tater

Myth, then?

Extant religious call the beliefs of Romans and Greeks, "myth," correct? Or of stone-age peoples... what makes one belief obvious fantasy, while another deserves respect?

Oh I dunno, how about a few Billion members worldwide? Now tell me why I should ever support a person who likes to mock my beliefs?

[Fish]

Originally Posted by August

Oh I dunno, how about a few Billion members worldwide?

Argumentum ad populum.

Originally Posted by August

Oh I dunno, how about a few Billion members worldwide? Now tell me why I should ever support a person who likes to mock my beliefs?

Because Christ was just ONE man and look at how he got Billions of people to follow his way of life! And Christianity continues to grow.

[August]

Originally Posted by Fish

Argumentum ad populum.

Irrelevant. I didn't say anyones argument was right or wrong. Only that if you seek peoples support perhaps it isn't good policy to mock their beliefs.

[Skybird]

http://www.welt.de/die-welt/kultur/a...higstellt.html

[tater]

I only mocked literalism. Didn't mean to, but it's just so easy.

So the cutoff is billions of believers. Gotcha. So a few hundred years ago Christianity was a myth?

[August]

Originally Posted by tater

I only mocked literalism. Didn't mean to, but it's just so easy.

So the cutoff is billions of believers. Gotcha. So a few hundred years ago Christianity was a myth?

I didn't say that either.

Y'know I was on the fence about this whole mosque thing but since people like you oppose it then maybe the idea isn't so bad after all. I'll drop an email to my congressman telling him I don't have a problem with the idea.

See what happens when you make fun of peoples beliefs? Or is the cutoff too low for you?

[tater]

Originally Posted by August

I didn't say that either.

Y'know I was on the fence about this whole mosque thing but since people like you oppose it then maybe the idea isn't so bad after all. I'll drop an email to my congressman telling him I don't have a problem with the idea.

See what happens when you make fun of peoples beliefs? Or is the cutoff too low for you?

I didn't say I was against it, in fact I said the opposite. I said it was unconstitutional to forbid a mosque, but not a church. That would be "establishment."

Since forbidding ALL would likely also run afoul of the 1st Amendment, it''s better to make sure there are NO zoning laws that particularly pertain to places of worship at all. Build the mosque, but I can build the "I hate stupid literalists" shop next door. Or a XXX Live Girls! place, complete with booze next door to the mosque—or any church I want.

The Islamists are counting on the support of non-coreligionist fundies to help them with establishing medieval laws in what is now the free world since they have so very much in common.

BTW, you said that a belief with a few billion worldwide deserves respect. Since the question was to make a cutoff between getting respect or not, I can only assume that any religion with fewer than a few billion gets no respect from you.

I'm always interested in what makes one religion a religon, and another a "cult" or "myth." Why, for example is Zeus any less deserving of respect than any other god? Also, what about sects? If one sect, say Catholicism, has more adherents than some particular sect of Christianity here in the US with a church in a strip mall, does that make the former more valid or deserving of respect?

[August]

Originally Posted by tater

BTW, you said that a belief with a few billion worldwide deserves respect. Since the question was to make a cutoff between getting respect or not, I can only assume that any religion with fewer than a few billion gets no respect from you.

Oh please. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. I said that perhaps you shouldn't mock the beliefs of those whose support you might need. Period.

I never told you not to respect any group, regardless of size. I never told you that you had to believe what they believe either. Clear?

[tater]

Originally Posted by tater

... what makes one belief obvious fantasy, while another deserves respect?

Originally Posted by August

Oh I dunno, how about a few Billion members worldwide? Now tell me why I should ever support a person who likes to mock my beliefs?

I put no words in your mouth, I asked what makes one belief fantasy, while another deserves respect, and you immediately replied "a few billion members worldwide".

If a roll call is not the difference, what is? Do you judge yourself which story is believable, and which is silly? Mormon golden plates are "dumb, dumb, dumb," while walking on water is not? As a monotheist (you are Christian, correct?) you must think that your flavor is right, and that all other religions are wrong. That's not the same as saying they have a right to their own beliefs, you can till think that, but inside you must of course think they are not right, else you'd switch to their flavor, correct? Everyone talks of "greek mythology," but why not "greek religion?"

Me calling extant religions "fantasy" is no different than calling greek gods "myths." Though again, I was talking about fantasy in science classrooms. Extant, religious just-so stories are without question fantasy—which says nothing at all of the veracity of the religion necessarily (unless you are a literalist).

[August]

Whatever tater. Feel free to continue ignoring my point.

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by Fish

Argumentum ad populum.

Is that real latin or did you make it up?

[Moeceefus]

Originally Posted by tater

I put no words in your mouth, I asked what makes one belief fantasy, while another deserves respect, and you immediately replied "a few billion members worldwide".

If a roll call is not the difference, what is? Do you judge yourself which story is believable, and which is silly? Mormon golden plates are "dumb, dumb, dumb," while walking on water is not? As a monotheist (you are Christian, correct?) you must think that your flavor is right, and that all other religions are wrong. That's not the same as saying they have a right to their own beliefs, you can till think that, but inside you must of course think they are not right, else you'd switch to their flavor, correct? Everyone talks of "greek mythology," but why not "greek religion?"

Me calling extant religions "fantasy" is no different than calling greek gods "myths." Though again, I was talking about fantasy in science classrooms. Extant, religious just-so stories are without question fantasy—which says nothing at all of the veracity of the religion necessarily (unless you are a literalist).

Numbers aren't important when it comes to faith. Faith is a personal thing and therefore, nobody elses business. Its fine to think someone's belief is silly to you, but to mock them is wrong. You are supposed to be free to believe what ever you wish without being shamed for it. Which back to topic, I agree there should be no issues with mosques, or any other buildings (ie strip clubs) in any given zone, except for school zones. I believe religion, alchohol, and strippers should be kept well away from schools.

[tater]

Originally Posted by August

Whatever tater. Feel free to continue ignoring my point.

Which point? The point that it's bad politics to insult a religion, then tell members they should listen to you?

Yeah, you're right, it is bad politics. Regardless, it is in the self-interest of those who are religious to heed my call for separation, since they have more to lose in many ways. Why? Because they are more "brittle." A biblical literalist has their entire world-view fall apart if one little literalism is put into question—if the earth is NOT 4000 years old, then the bible is 100% wrong! A non-literalist believer is not disturbed by that, they'd say, "the creation story is just a story, the universe is billions of years old, and the god of the bible is still real."

That literalism and the brittleness of belief in such a system goes a long way to explain why Islam is so regressive—because all major sects are what are called "fundamentalists" in Christian sects.

I'm still curious what the cutoff is for fantasy/cult/myth vs "real" religion is—or are all beliefs equally valid and deserving of respect?

If the all deserve respect , then you must respect, say, satanism, or some random "cult" as you do a major church. If the some are less deserving (cults, etc), then you can disrespect some religions for a particular set of reasons, in which case it is presumably OK for others to be less than respectful of yours for their own reasons (or even the same reasons).