[Bobboau]

well, first off, "because non-Muslims are forbidden from entering Mecca the cultural center should not be allowed to be built" was NOT his thesis, in fact "not be allowed to be built" is specifically refuted several times directly, this is a common misrepresentation of his position. what he was saying is that "if you consider yourself a member of a religion that will not allow someone of a wrong faith to enter a city, then you are not in a position to be talking down to anyone on the subject of tolerance." no, he is very specific, he is saying those who pray to that city are the ones who don't have the moral position to be lecturing on tolerance. now you might say, "the vast majority of Muslims do that, it's effectively all of them" well the vast majority of Christians are to some extent creationist.

[QuantumDelta]

I am thoroughly convinced Theism needs to die out (amongst other things) for our species to truly move forward.
Attacking faiths you are familiar with is reasonable if you see logical fallacies in them and can explain them coherently and without insulting the people of that religion (*I say hypocritically because that's not really how I go about religious people who are being preachy these days).
Attacking faiths you are not familiar with is dangerous, because it's much easier to fall victim to their brainwash/word twisting psychobable, it's also easier to make mistakes, as well as insulting the people of that religion.

As far as I know this guy walks a line reasonably enough, and while I admire him 'fighting the good fight', you simply can't beat off other peoples ignorance, stupidity and indoctrination with a few words, especially not 'general' ones.

[Locutus of Borg]

well, first off, "because non-Muslims are forbidden from entering Mecca the cultural center should not be allowed to be built" was NOT his thesis, in fact "not be allowed to be built" is specifically refuted several times directly, this is a common misrepresentation of his position. what he was saying is that "if you consider yourself a member of a religion that will not allow someone of a wrong faith to enter a city, then you are not in a position to be talking down to anyone on the subject of tolerance." no, he is very specific, he is saying those who pray to that city are the ones who don't have the moral position to be lecturing on tolerance. now you might say, "the vast majority of Muslims do that, it's effectively all of them" well the vast majority of Christians are to some extent creationist.

So basically, you're saying

IF you support rejections of any Non-Muslims from the city, THEN you're intolerant and not in a position to decry intolerance.
IF you pray towards Mecca, THEN you support the rejections of any Non-Muslims from the city.

chain rule allows us to say that your argument is

IF You pray towards Mecca, THEN you're intolerant and not in a position to decry intolerance.

You assume that *ALL* Muslims support the rejection of Non-Muslims from Mecca. Here we are again with the generalizations.

[Bobboau]

who said I assume that, I merely considered what you might respond with, if YOU don't have that assumption then my last line there is voided.

[Locutus of Borg]

well, first off, "because non-Muslims are forbidden from entering Mecca the cultural center should not be allowed to be built" was NOT his thesis, in fact "not be allowed to be built" is specifically refuted several times directly, this is a common misrepresentation of his position. what he was saying is that "if you consider yourself a member of a religion that will not allow someone of a wrong faith to enter a city, then you are not in a position to be talking down to anyone on the subject of tolerance." no, he is very specific, he is saying those who pray to that city are the ones who don't have the moral position to be lecturing on tolerance. now you might say, "the vast majority of Muslims do that, it's effectively all of them" well the vast majority of Christians are to some extent creationist.

[Bobboau]

"if you consider yourself"
is the key part of that which you seem to be missing.

[karajorma]

The entire argument is specious anyway.

If you start arguing that we should give people rights based on their actions the whole concepts of rights falls apart. Similarly if you start arguing that people should only be able to claim their right based on what rights they believe others should have then you very quickly end up with system where no one can claim their rights.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

So ... what's the concept of rights?

[Sushi]

So ... what's the concept of rights?

I hereby refer you to the last 600 years or so of western philosophical debate. Good luck!

[Bobboau]

kara's post wasn't very clear on his point, but one thing was clear, he as many MANY before him is talking about rights, when this has never been the issue, no mater how badly he or many other people might be trying to stawman it into that.

[newman]

well the vast majority of Christians are to some extent creationist.

This is so wrong I don't even know where to start. First of all, creationists are mostly based in the US of A - that's not where the majority of Christians live. Sure, there are creationists elsewhere in the world but their numbers are very few compared to the states. Secondly, they're hardly a majority in the US either.
But I guess you know that so I'm going to assume that you're saying since they believe in the bible they're to some extent creationists - that is just utterly wrong. The vast majority of Christians don't see the bible and the theory of evolution clashing - it's rather a common practice to regard the bible as a metaphor, not taking it literally. Those that do take it literally tend to be recruited from the shallow end of the gene pool - they usually pick a bible segment that they like, stick to that like glue and ignore the rest; this kind usually ends up as sect members and/or creationists. Those people, thankfully, aren't in the majority.
What I can say is that the vast majority of Christians would probably find your statement insulting

[Bobboau]

most Christians don't believe that in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth?

I live in the USA, so maybe I have a biased experience.

[QuantumDelta]

Actually, he might not be that wrong, it's quite hard to define since the term 'christian' has changed in the last 50~ years.
I *HATE* the whole "bible as a metaphor" thing, because it's just an excuse to pick and choose from the bits of the bible that you like and ignore the rest.
If you view the bible in this way I don't understand how you could possibly call the bible "The Truth", or accept any part of it as actually not being a fairy story.


And I can't really speak for non-Brits confidently but I'd like to believe most of them(Brits) aren't stupid enough to ignore evolution, we're a bit more advanced than that (as a culture).

[Bobboau]

I'm fairly sure most Christians hold at the very least that God started the universe and 'guided' evolution, I doubt most Christians truly accept we came into our current form via a constant hostile competitive environment selecting the most successful out of a randomly changing population.

I consider that to be a form of creationism.

[newman]

I'm just saying, most Christians (I sincerely hope) don't really believe that God created everything in 6 days, that woman was created from Adam's rib, that Noa built a ship that was big enough and had proper facilities to house a pair of every non-aquatic species on the planet (let's ignore the fact that a pair of a species isn't enough to repopulate it..), etc.. Intelligent people just can't take that sort of thing literally. It's not an excuse to pick and choose which segments to want, it's a way of looking at the whole thing. We should have grown past this sort of thing anyway but I guess we're slow.
I met a lot of Christians, albeit here and not in the US, and none of them had a problem with the theory of evolution. And yes, all of them believed exactly that, as you say, we came to this form "via a constant hostile competitive environment selecting the most successful out of a randomly changing population".
This doesn't stop them from going to church on Sundays though. You can attribute that to most people not really being fanatical about religion. They were brought up in a certain spirit so they go to church; they accept the basic moral values that stem from Christianity but don't take the bible literally. And it's a good thing, too. Taking any religion completely literally is a form of fanaticism. And we all know where that leads.

[Bobboau]

I was pretty shocked when I found out too.

[QuantumDelta]

If those aren't real one would also suggest nor is the whole christ bit, or the moses bit, etc.

If it's all metaphor then it should simply be regarded as philosophy and not 'religion', but - it is.
The reason it's called religion is because it's an attempt to define the undefinable and give rise to the concept of a greater existence when there most likely is none, and instead of being any form of historical accounts you wish to tell me these 'more intelligent than bible literal' people, wish to face down the light of science with metaphors?
Honestly, if you're intelligent enough to decide god didn't make the world in 6 days you're intelligent enough to realise that the likelihood of god actually existing in the form the christian bible depicts is practically zero.

Creationism _is_ very strong amongst the indoctrinated, even here in England, one of the most scientific nations in the world you occasionally get people laugh ignorantly and suggest we never evolved from monkeys, and even some go on to taunt you about being a monkey.


Honestly? The entire subject is retarded.

[Bobboau]

I actually remember almost weeping for humanity when it finally dawned upon me how utterly pervasive it was, and the only reason that I hadn't figured it out up to that point was a combination of me assuming that no one believed it and me not associating with the strongly religious. it was a sickening sensation of loss. you see the key thing to remember is that most people don't actualy care, and just accept the first explanation that seems somewhat passable.

[Aardwolf]

This is why I started that thread, once... about "if you don't believe in such-and-such, cut it out of your Bible".

And then, optionally, get in fights-to-the-death with as many people with slightly different versions of it as possible. But not atheists... I prefer to live.

[newman]

I actually remember almost weeping for humanity when it finally dawned upon me how utterly pervasive it was, and the only reason that I hadn't figured it out up to that point was a combination of me assuming that no one believed it and me not associating with the strongly religious. it was a sickening sensation of loss. you see the key thing to remember is that most people don't actualy care, and just accept the first explanation that seems somewhat passable.

Yea, I think I'm going to spend the rest of my days in denial about that