I find it strange that when atheists criticize religion for the devastating effects that it has on the human psyche (particularly as it relates to fear that is unfairly placed on children and gullible adults), individual freedom (the ability to doubt and question belief free of authority and judgment), and civil liberties (when people actually get physically hurt by religious dogma), the reaction by most religious "moderates" is: "Well, that's not our religion! Those people don't represent us!" This is a peculiar defense considering that oftentimes both the "moderate" and "extremist" take the same texts to be God's word, the only difference being that one interpretation is preferred over the other based on justifications that have little to do with pure reason. Hence, it comes down to both sides essentially claiming, "I'm just right and they're just wrong!"

What strikes me about this is that most atheists seem to only exist as vocal opponents to religion because the moderates aren't doing the job of discrediting the extremists themselves. And moderates, that is your job, not ours. Take the US, for instance, where biblical fundamentalism is hardly the fringe, yet moderates pretend that it is when an atheist comes along and brands those Christian ideas for what they are--insane, childish, silly, etc. If the majority of Christians believe that God literally made the world in six days, became a human sacrifice to atone for moral error as a blood offering, and anyone who doesn't believe in this Gospel is going to hell, maybe, just maybe it's time for the moderates to disassociate themselves with this group by coining a term other than "Christian" to identify themselves? Though it's not quite drastic enough in my opinion, how about Neo-Christian? Muslims and countless other religious "moderates" would be wise to do the same, if they wish to be taken seriously, and I would hope most moderates agree with me that fundamentalists don't offer many serious ideas. Who wouldn't want to run as far away as possible from a label that history has soaked and tarnished in so much blood? Can the KKK really reform themselves as a non-racist group while maintaining the organization's name, long associated with bigotry and other backward ideas. Can Christians?

Why can't atheists and moderates agree that these religious extremists should be stigmatized and discredited when clearly no one has anything to gain by supporting or giving cover to fundamentalists, except fundamentalists. And what do THEY have to gain? Well, only open a history book and see the world that it is they wish to return to--theocracy, suppression of free thought, persecution of non-believers,"deviants," and whatnot. This is apparent when you look at the number of children who are deprived of a proper science education, trading in the joy that comes with learning about the Universe and a human history of brilliant thinkers who held dissenting views, for a worldview that is small enough to fit inside a book usually just under 2,000 pages. Do moderates really support children spending hours upon hours of the week studying this book at the cost of other, more enlightening literature? Do moderates really not want children to learn opposing views, to question their beliefs, to have the freedom to doubt?

If the answer is no, then why not support the cause of the Dawkins' or the Harris' or the Hitchens'? Because as far as I can tell, they're not trying to rid the world of religious symbols, they're trying to rid the world of religion--which means taking those symbols so literally (or seriously, depending on your views of literalism) that it effects the growth of beings IN THIS LIFE, irregardless of the next.

The issue is that the line between 'moderates' and 'extremists' tends to blur when you really start to examine the beliefs that many moderates have.

I've had conversations with many friends who are religious, and most if not all will profess to believe in something that just takes me out of the conversation. Like my friend (a happy clappy Methodist) who believes folk who don't believe in the same version of god he does will end up in hell. Just like that, no second guessing, no thinking its odd.

He's a nice guy, and a good friend. But his beliefs, when you drill down, aren't that different to extremists who walk around with signs telling people they'll go to hell.

(May 22, 2014 at 4:32 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: The issue is that the line between 'moderates' and 'extremists' tends to blur when you really start to examine the beliefs that many moderates have.

I've had conversations with many friends who are religious, and most if not all will profess to believe in something that just takes me out of the conversation. Like my friend (a happy clappy Methodist) who believes folk who don't believe in the same version of god he does will end up in hell. Just like that, no second guessing, no thinking its odd.

He's a nice guy, and a good friend. But his beliefs, when you drill down, aren't that different to extremists who walk around with signs telling people they'll go to hell.

Yeah, I tend to think the moderate is the only truly fringe religious group. Most "moderates" are just apathetic believers who hold onto faith to quell existential anxieties. When it comes to practice you can't distinguish them from anyone else, which is unfortunate considering what most religions have to say about the "lukewarm" believer.

I think the moderates just provide the rich soil where the fundies thrive. Also yes, they believe in bullshit just the same.

(May 22, 2014 at 4:32 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: The issue is that the line between 'moderates' and 'extremists' tends to blur when you really start to examine the beliefs that many moderates have.

I've had conversations with many friends who are religious, and most if not all will profess to believe in something that just takes me out of the conversation. Like my friend (a happy clappy Methodist) who believes folk who don't believe in the same version of god he does will end up in hell. Just like that, no second guessing, no thinking its odd.

He's a nice guy, and a good friend. But his beliefs, when you drill down, aren't that different to extremists who walk around with signs telling people they'll go to hell.

Yeah, you have to talk to more "liberal" Christians before you start to lose most of that overlap with fundamentalism. Once you get here, you start to get into stuff like "there is no hell" and "everyone goes to heaven". Until you get that far, you still are talking to someone who condones consigning a person to eternal torture for not believing the right things.

Honestly, that's more reprehensible than one's public views on gay marriage.

Christian Conservative [in public]: 'Jesus is the Way The Truth and the Light and will smite you for doubting Him.' [in private]: 'Jesus is the Way The Truth and the Light and will smite you for doubting Him.'

Christian Moderate: [in public]: 'Jesus is a great comfort to me. I will pray that He forgives your sinful ways.' [in private]: 'Jesus is the Way The Truth and the Light and will smite you for doubting Him.'

Christian Liberal: [in public]: 'Dude, Jesus SO rocks!' [in private]: *burble cough wheeze*

Boru

I don't get why you think I'm responsible for what someone else does. Are you responsible for what other atheists do and say?

Extremists rarely exert any real influence in society without benefiting from a large number of enabling moderates.

(May 22, 2014 at 7:37 pm)rasetsu Wrote: I don't get why you think I'm responsible for what someone else does. Are you responsible for what other atheists do and say?

Am I missing something? Since when did you belong to a religion rasetsu?

(May 22, 2014 at 7:37 pm)rasetsu Wrote: I don't get why you think I'm responsible for what someone else does. Are you responsible for what other atheists do and say?

Atheism is not united by any creed except the idea that insufficient evidence for any gods exists. There is nothing that associates atheists with one another that is even remotely comparable to a group that follows the same words of the same books that they all agree was divinely inspired by the same godhead called Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

If you claimed to belong any other group, and that group was widely known for believing in the repugnant or absurd as I mentioned--take condemning non-believers, including children, to hell, for example, or drumming fear into the developing mind so that one thinks their actions are always being monitored and judged--would you really want to be part of that group? I have to think that moderates who pretend to agree with the critiques of a particular brand of faith, such as the "fundamentalists," (as when they say, "Yeah, that is a good argument but it only applies to them... that's not my brand of faith though"), do they actually mean that? Then why keep the same name association? Imagine if I said, "Yeah, I'm a Nazi, but not the Nazism as preached and practiced in Hitler's Germany. My Nazism represents peace and love. Why am I responsible for what other Nazi's say and do?" You'd rightly look at me like an idiot and ask, "Why call yourself a Nazi then? That's not how it is widely viewed or practiced." Likewise, why do moderates even bother calling themselves Christian? Just look at the history of Christianity, or the large population of nutcases who are bred in the name of that faith. Moreover, why aren't moderates at the forefront of combating these fundamentalists, instead of the atheists I mentioned? Do they just not have the moral conviction or backbone that someone like a Dawkins has?