(October 19, 2013 at 2:10 pm)Sword of Christ Wrote:

(October 19, 2013 at 12:23 pm)DLJ Wrote: But I asked that question in all seriousness...
What term would you prefer to use (instead of moderates)?

Would you like to be called a moderate atheist? There is say an extreme form of atheism and a more closer to a normal person where you're not denying God quite so much and being more reasonable in your unbelief? When you say "moderate" you mean they have a lesser form of insanity. They're just people with a genuine faith who don't deny science, reason or have any prejudice. That's how it's meant to be.

Yup. I know what I mean by it and I understand what you mean by it but you said...

(October 19, 2013 at 12:10 pm)Sword of Christ Wrote: There are people with a strong well reasoned faith in God and people with weak blind faith in God I would reject the term "moderate".

So if we reject the term 'moderate', what would you prefer?

(October 19, 2013 at 12:10 pm)Sword of Christ Wrote: There are people with a strong well reasoned faith in God

I have yet to meet one.

(October 19, 2013 at 11:49 am)Sword of Christ Wrote:

(October 19, 2013 at 9:55 am)Tonus Wrote: This is too vague. In what way would it encourage them?

I think a lot of it is reactionary against a perceived challenge or threat to their faith. Fundamentalist will tend to have a very insecure and weak faith.

Yes, that seems logical. But it shows that they're just really bullies. I think it's a bad idea to back down from a bully, because the only source of their courage is your fear. In that sense, the OP has a point-- those who don't directly challenge the radical elements within their faith are unwittingly strengthening them.

(October 19, 2013 at 2:40 pm)DLJ Wrote: So if we reject the term 'moderate', what would you prefer?

Normal? But then what is normal? How about "not a fundamentalist"?

(October 19, 2013 at 5:21 pm)Tonus Wrote: Yes, that seems logical. But it shows that they're just really bullies. I think it's a bad idea to back down from a bully, because the only source of their courage is your fear. In that sense, the OP has a point-- those who don't directly challenge the radical elements within their faith are unwittingly strengthening them.

It would be better than atheists challenging them. Perhaps you would like to convert so you can challenge them as a non-atheist? A cunning plan there.

(October 19, 2013 at 5:40 pm)Sword of Christ Wrote: It would be better than atheists challenging them. Perhaps you would like to convert so you can challenge them as a non-atheist? A cunning plan there.

So that's the solution from self-styled moderates? To have someone else solve the problem?

(October 19, 2013 at 5:52 pm)Tonus Wrote:

(October 19, 2013 at 5:40 pm)Sword of Christ Wrote: It would be better than atheists challenging them. Perhaps you would like to convert so you can challenge them as a non-atheist? A cunning plan there.

So that's the solution from self-styled moderates? To have someone else solve the problem?

Isn't that the whole point of their god in the first place?

I am catching shit at another website from fellow atheists for making this same point. Christopher Hitchens called religion poison, and I agree. Sam Harris made the same point that liberals and moderates give cover to fundies by ignoring the dark side of religion. Dakwins has also called teaching kids religion as an absolute a form of child abuse.

But I get accused of seeking attention, yet they are the ones who are famous authors saying the same thing I am agreeing with. And the other stupid thing they are accusing me of is being dogmatic, even after I tell them this is NOT about human rights in a legal sense. If someone wants to go around claiming they are Napoleon, I will defend their right to claim it, but that does not mean the claim itself deserves taboo status.

I guess you have to be a certain class to have a voice.

(October 19, 2013 at 5:52 pm)Tonus Wrote: So that's the solution from self-styled moderates? To have someone else solve the problem?

I do my bit, on the Internet at least I don't know any fundamentalists personally. Though from their point of view we're probably in the same bag on the side of Satan.

(October 20, 2013 at 7:05 am)Brian37 Wrote: I am catching shit at another website from fellow atheists for making this same point. Christopher Hitchens called religion poison, and I agree. Sam Harris made the same point that liberals and moderates give cover to fundies by ignoring the dark side of religion. Dakwins has also called teaching kids religion as an absolute a form of child abuse.

But I get accused of seeking attention, yet they are the ones who are famous authors saying the same thing I am agreeing with. And the other stupid thing they are accusing me of is being dogmatic, even after I tell them this is NOT about human rights in a legal sense. If someone wants to go around claiming they are Napoleon, I will defend their right to claim it, but that does not mean the claim itself deserves taboo status.

I guess you have to be a certain class to have a voice.

Which site?
We can come over there and sort them out.

The problem with the Sam Harris stance is that, although correct in the basis that the existence of 'passive believers' makes it seem ok to continue the myth (and by extension, the child abuse and the invisibility of how the poison impacts others), it is not practical or even ethical for moderates to be accountable or responsible for the actions of the extremists.

Example: I hold it self evident that women and men should have equal rights. I think this is the moderate view.
Therefore, I do not agree with the extreme stance of muslims and indeed all the holy texts seem to support this, that women are the property of men.
On the other extreme, I do not agree with the Feminista view that all men are rapists and should be castrated at birth (or some such).

I do not in any way feel accountable or responsible for the actions of these extremists.

I will voice my opinion as indeed we hear the moderate muslims etc. voicing their sincere distress over e.g. 9/11.

Interestingly enough, the extremists are the movers and shakers in this world.

Without them, societies would stagnate. E.g. That damned Elvis Presley and his extreme music!!!
Disgusting!

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the conditions that surround him... The unreasonable man adapts surrounding conditions to himself... All progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw.

Are you sure atheism isn't just a reaction against religious fundamentalism on the equal and opposite side? You shouldn't like these kinds of people decide for you what the truth of the situation is.