[MF] MOQ: valuable or not?

[Muzikhed at aol.com]

dmbuchanan wrote:

I don't  think anyone is served by believing unbelievable things. 
I don't think we  should disregard or disrespect intellectual validity just 
because it might  hurt somebody's feelings. I don't mean to be cruel, but if 
reality hurts  your feelings, then you've got a pretty serious problem. I 
think that  paying respect to the taboo against challenging religious beliefs 
is a lot  like giving smack to a junkie. He'll love you for it in the short 
run, but  you're not really doing the guy any favors. In fact, you're killing 
 
him.

Please, feel free to correct me.
Ted writes, to David, and Kevin:
Kevin, I think David is arguing more against people like me here.  I  think 
in David's eyes you have the delusion, it is I who am inclined to 'respect  the 
taboo against challenging' the delusion.   By David's definition,  I'm 
currently killing my sister by not fighting against her delusions  enough. 
So, as I think we found before, I tend to agree with David the MoQ is  a 
better intellectual model of reality than "God is Love", but apparently unlike  
David, I have a sense of symmetry that says - perhaps I also have a delusion,  
perhaps I think my delusion is better than his.  Maybe WAY, WAY  better.  But I 
would not want to be scrutinized, and asked to justify by  beliefs to any 
intellectual panel.  And I realize that  symmetry, fairness, the Golden Rule, 
Truth, Justice, and the American  Way require that must grant those same rights 
to have one's own delusion to  everyone else also.  
I do, however, agree with David, that it should be OK to criticize, I  
absolutely agree that we who think we have a better understanding should  have a 
voice, we should not be silenced.  But we have no right to  unilaterally decide 
that , since our thinking is better, we should probe and  root out the God 
force wherever we find it, right?
I think it's a more hopeless, like a catch 22 position, like, you can lead  a 
horse to water, but you can't make him drink.  I've tried to argue it  with 
my sister, as I've detailed in past posts.
We can argue with Kevin, or try to explore his position, but I doubt we'll  
change it much.
We seem to live in different worlds, almost with different languages, and  
ways of seeing the world.   But it comes a point where I say, OK,  I have to 
respect the other guy, too.  I don't want to have to fight with  every neighbor 
who's got another variety of religious delusion.
There's one on every doorstep. 
 
I joined an Art Gallery Co-op in the late 70's in New York  State.  The 
members were pissed at art galleries rejecting their work based  on old social 
values.  They wanted an art gallery open to  EVERYONE.   Trouble was, soon, people 
came to join that had (obvious  to all but the new applicant) snickeringly 
inferior artwork.  Now who  was going to be the new judge of quality?
 
That's my issue, David, with your critique of Kevin, and religious  faith.   
Who's going to be the new judge of intellectual  quality?  
 
- Ted