any story with a 'miracle' in it, for instance. these are made up and we will only proceed into a progressive phase of social interaction when that's a moribund factoid.

thx for this poll btw i'll be interested to see how it turns out even tho of course it's not scientific. it's at least.. telling.. if one follows DU at all.

More likely to believe Gandalf kicked the shit out of a Balrog and came back to fuck with Saruaman.

i love that scene. loved it the book when i was a pimply faced teen and loved in the movie. it's when we get to realize Gandalf's true nature.. basically a 'st. michael' angelic archetype if one reads the Silmarillion.

he could easily have abused his power to dupe fans into a cult. some deep myth-making..

hell, maybe i am..

nobody can *prove* that hobbits weren't real.

It sounds like a collection of legends that were written down many decades after they supposedly occurred, and a couple centuries later, a group of men got together and figured out without any scientific or literary method which legends to keep and which ones to throw out.

But, it's no dumber than Scientology.

Of course, that's ignoring lime Jello with carrot shavings. At least the Mormons have that.

At what point I cultural evolution do gods become myths?

I would say that it is when a substantial number of people in a culture no longer actively believe in the god or gods. We have a Western culture that has a large number of people who may identify with a religious tradition as being part of a family background, but they evidence their belief (or lack thereof) by not actively attending services beyond weddings and funerals, or contributing financially, or even observing the customs and practices that make members of that faith tradition different from others in the same area.

My lady nominally calls herself Catholic, yet she and I were out eating hamburgers last night on Good Friday. However, when she went into a local Catholic hospital for a minor surgical procedure, the nun who came by asked what religion she was, and she replied Catholic, and let the nun pray with her. I guess it's that "no atheists in foxholes" kind of thing.

But my lack of belief does not invalidate anyone else's belief - nor should it.

ditto

But reason and logic can.

It's absurd.

Why you care about the religious beliefs of others is the question that might lead to some enlightenment.

the religious belief of others has no impact on us?

However, actions based on those beliefs, may have considerable impact.
Those actions may be as drastic as flying a plane into a building or as simple as preaching or as in-your-face nasty as mocking another for his religious beliefs.

ever acts in any way on their personal beliefs, your okay with any one's beliefs?

You see I think you are making a distinction that does not exist in the real world. For good or ill everyone's beliefs have an impact, because everyone acts based on their beliefs.

And when they act for ill, then their actions should be addressed, regardless of any religious beliefs the actor may hold.

like killing gay people or people who work at abortion clinics, or enslaving black people. You ONLY want to address the actions and leave the underlying beliefs be.
Cause everyone is entitled to their beliefs no matter what they are.
Do I have that right?

If we all felt that way, then there would be few people left outside prison.

occasionally this is done with legislation as with legal intervention in faith-healing of potentially terminal illnesses or the criminalization of reefer to address the rise of marcus garvey's (1st person busted by the FBI) recent importation of the rastafarian religion by allegorical black star liner.

obscure example but i'm on a rasta roll lately.

one would hope, and for the most part in the u.s. it's been the case, that such legislation is rarely used or needed.

far better to change society and let politics and law correct itself under democratic pressure. maybe i have more faith in my countryppl than i should but there it is. i prefer to change bad traditions by social means rather than legal.

and why are you going right to a government solution? I am talking about addressing beliefs as an individual.
How about not accepting those beliefs, debating them and showing where their logic or facts are wrong.

they directly address the location of the wall of separation.

that tells us where the line is drawn today and when we look at the issues, where do we *want* that line to be drawn?

for example we want it drawn on the other side of marriage equality, but that's not the only place we as progressives want the wall to stand. i for one want rastas to have their harmless right to puff (yes i went there again as a most excellent example of hypocrisy in the application of 1st amendment free exercise clause) but don't think jim henson should've been left to die.

the law's not on my side. how do i change that?

behind the laws.

I respect their right to have those beliefs and am prepared to discuss them. If I think those beliefs may lead someone to behave negatively or destructively, then I am more likely to challenge them.
However, the OP talks about a literal interpretation of the Christian version of Easter. When I was a Christian, I never took it literally and seriously doubt that many do so. The bible is full of allegory and metaphor, and in my experience, that is how most people see it, be they Christian, atheist or agnostic.
When I encounter dogma, of any kind, I challenge it in a quest to understand and share thoughts and ideas, not in some attempt to convert or change another's beliefs. What people believe doesn't preoccupy me. I am much more interested in how they behave. I prefer the company of those who ask provocative and interesting questions than those who dish out facile answers.
I once asked an Orthodox Rabbi friend if he considered ritual circumcision to be child abuse. His answer was "Yes, unless the child is Jewish." An interesting conversation ensued, though neither of us had any desire to convert the other or change the other's religious beliefs in any way.

I think we are actually quite close in are view of this.

That's not to say that I don't have my doubts from time to time...but, yes.

Tim