Religious "moderates" and atheists

[Angrboda]

I think you're conflating the doctrines of a religion with the individual adherents of a religion.

I'm conflating? You're the one who is asserting that my membership in a group makes me responsible for the acts of individuals in that group.

Bad acts can certainly be associated with capitalists, liberals, or communists but that's different than those actions being fundamental to the doctrines of liberalism or communism themselves.

And there are also systematic flaws associated with each. Feel free to elaborate on what fundamental doctrines of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Shintoism you are referring to so that I may respond to your implicit claim that it is the fundamental doctrines of religion that are responsible for the bad acts of those within these faiths.

My point is that many of the criticisms directed at religion, which are disavowed by the moderates, are intrinsic to the religion, part of the creeds, essential to the texts. If the overwhelming number of communists "misinterpreted" the original ideas to commit crimes against others, and one persists on being a communist, then it is THEIR job to stigmatize and discredit the majority who have gone so wayward. It's not the job of the capitalist to fight the misconceptions of communism. So when the moderates complain that atheists are attacking straw-men or a brand of faith that isn't true to the tenets of their religion, why aren't the moderates either 1) distancing themselves by a different label than the one that has been corrupted, or 2) forging alliances with the atheists to do what we are attempting to do, which is discredit the ideas we all agree are horrible.

This is fucking weak. First you imply that I have a positive duty to criticize and condemn other Hindus, and when pressed on the matter, it becomes an argument that I have a negative duty not to participate in bad acts such as defending bad actors, associating with them, or defending corrupt doctrines. Your goalposts are moving.

My suspicion is that the moderates only claim to be separatists from the mainstream faith but when one gets down to it, their actual beliefs differ very little.

My suspicion is that these are your concerns, not mine, but you want to make me responsible for your concerns by painting me with a very broad brush.

Is one a moderate if he or she believes that the path to heaven is very narrow and can only be achieved by daily commitment to Jesus' Gospel, and that everyone else on earth is going to burn in hell for eternity? No. But that's what mainstream Christianity teaches. Is one a moderate if he or she believes children who doubt or question their beliefs are somehow faltering from the narrow path? No. But that's what the majority of Christians encountered in my life have believed. Where are all the moderates when the good Christian faces these external and internal pressures? It seems they only come out of the woodwork and speak up when the concerned atheist does first. Are there any moderate churches that encourage the believer to read dissenting material, to question the faith?

Again you're conflating the acts of individuals with those of a group. Since I'm Hindu, not Christian, I'll leave this rant where it fell — far from the point.

Certainly, some moderates exist. Kenneth Miller comes to mind as one, particularly on the topic of creationism. I don't know what his views are on the ideas I've mentioned...perhaps he's not so moderate after all. I don't know. My thesis is simply that the religious moderate is, like the atheist, on the fringe. I wonder why we don't both recognize this and do more to forge alliances in fighting religious fear-mongering and the suppression of intellectual faculties.

Again, I think you want to make me responsible for what is your concern by linking me to Hinduism globally with a weak "guilt by association" argument. I fail to see how any of the shit you mention is my problem as a religious moderate.