Religious "moderates" and atheists

[Mudhammam]

You're an idiot.

Coming from your incredulous mind, I take that as a compliment.

[MindForgedManacle]

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

Religious extremists rarely exert real influence on society period. When they do (see several Middle Eastern countries), it's nearly always in a time of turmoil where people are more less rational, what with wanting an end to the ills that surround them. This is why extremist Muslim groups tend to go out of favor amongst predominantly Muslim populations when economic and social conditions aren't in the red.

---

Now that I think about it, isn't this just Sam Harris' silly argument? Moderates do not have an obligation to control their extremists. Any attempt to do so is just going to be the abdication of their right to free speech. Nor do moderates get to be lambasted because of all the silly shit extremists do. And if you play that game, you should realize they can play it too, i.e Stalin. And if your response is just that Stalin's actions had nothing to do with atheism itself, then you're doing the exact same thing as you criticize religious moderates for doing: exempting yourself of responsibility of actions done by those of the same ideology by saying that there actions had nothing to do with the ideology itself, but peripheral concerns.

[Bob Kelso]

You're an idiot.

Says the person whose argumentation has devolved from "These groups do it too", to incredulity, and finally into ad hominem.

[Mudhammam]

And if you play that game, you should realize they can play it too, i.e Stalin. And if your response is just that Stalin's actions had nothing to do with atheism itself, then you're doing the exact same thing as you criticize religious moderates for doing: exempting yourself of responsibility of actions done by those of the same ideology by saying that there actions had nothing to do with the ideology itself, but peripheral concerns.

Atheism =/= Stalinism

Atheists have no trouble condemning barbaric secular ideologies because atheism isn't commited to anything expect rational argument and evidence. If moderates can say the same about extremists in their faith, why don't we see ourselves in the same fight? Is this happening and the moderate is just too fringe to be noticed or have more of an impact?

[Angrboda]

You're an idiot.

Says the person whose argumentation has devolved from "These groups do it too", to incredulity, and finally into ad hominem.

It was an observation, not an argument, and so it wasn't an example of an ad hominem argument. But thanks for playing, douche bag.

[RobbyPants]

Atheists have no trouble condemning barbaric secular ideologies because atheism isn't commited to anything expect rational argument and evidence. If moderates can say the same about extremists in their faith, why don't we see ourselves in the same fight? Is this happening and the moderate is just too fringe to be noticed or have more of an impact?

It isn't even committed to that. All atheism is "committed to" is not believing in any gods. Anything more is over-defining the term.

[MindForgedManacle]

Atheism =/= Stalinism

Neither is Extreme Religion =/= Religion.

Atheists have no trouble condemning barbaric secular ideologies because atheism isn't commited to anything expect rational argument and evidence.

Neither do moderate religious types seem to have a problem condemning extremist religious ideologies and actions. Or have I missed the part where Westboro Baptist Church, the Ku Klux Klan and wholesale Biblical literalism, fundamentalism and/or Presuppositionalism has become predominantly celebrated in the Christian world?

And no. Since atheism is simply the disbelief in gods, it is not committed to rational argument and evidence. Individual atheists (or theists) may be, but let's not kid ourselves that such is part of atheism. Even though I take atheism to be the most rational position on the existence of the divine, it's practically self-evident that people can come to the right view irrationally.

If moderates can say the same about extremists in their faith, why don't we see ourselves in the same fight? Is this happening and the moderate is just too fringe to be noticed or have more of an impact?

For some reason, I just can't make out what you're saying here (long day...). Could you restate it more clearly please?

[Mudhammam]

Atheism =/= Stalinism

Neither is Extreme Religion =/= Religion.

Religion that isn't extreme, while I'm sure it exists, is basically just apathetic religion. If a person appreciates symbolism but feels no commitment to live out the symbols or to demand that others do...why even call it religion?

Neither do moderate religious types seem to have a problem condemning extremist religious ideologies and actions. Or have I missed the part where Westboro Baptist Church, the Ku Klux Klan and wholesale Biblical literalism, fundamentalism and/or Presuppositionalism has become predominantly celebrated in the Christian world?

Yes, you've missed that, as poll after poll demonstrates this fundamentalist wing makes up the majority of Christians in the US, to say nothing of Christianity or Islam in the rest of the world. And as I myself grew up in one such household, I'm quite aware that a great many of these people go on about their lives without an inkling of so-called moderation influencing their decisions, such as when it comes to indoctrinating children or voting like-minded fundamentalists into political office.

And no. Since atheism is simply the disbelief in gods, it is not committed to rational argument and evidence. Individual atheists (or theists) may be, but let's not kid ourselves that such is part of atheism. Even though I take atheism to be the most rational position on the existence of the divine, it's practically self-evident that people can come to the right view irrationally.

Of course, but let's also not kid ourselves that atheism is a disbelief just for the sake of disbelief.

[Ryantology]

Neither do moderate religious types seem to have a problem condemning extremist religious ideologies and actions. Or have I missed the part where Westboro Baptist Church, the Ku Klux Klan and wholesale Biblical literalism, fundamentalism and/or Presuppositionalism has become predominantly celebrated in the Christian world?

This is an interesting thing, because I don't think it's quite so simple as this.

Do the Westboro Baptists have mainstream acceptance among mainstream Christians? No. Do their actions? Not for the most part. But, what about the driving force behind the WBC, a hatred of gays and homosexuality? That sort of thing has a great deal of acceptance among mainstream Christians.

The KKK? Most Christians would not want crosses burned on black people's front yards, but the racism which underlies the Klan's philosophy is still common and popular in large parts of White Christian America.

Biblical literalism? Not the whole thing, but certainly mainstreamers get literal when they feel like doing so. They aren't fundamentalists, but they'll vote for, and send money to, people who are (and how many fundies could sustain themselves otherwise?).

Mainstream Christians will condemn groups of people who are hateful and extreme, but the problem for too many of these mainstream Christians is the frankness of the hateful behavior, rather than the hate itself. It's like when the GOP shied away from Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin a couple of years ago. It's not because they disagreed with the message of legitimate rape, but because you're supposed to be smart enough to keep it to yourself.

[Mudhammam]

Fundamentalist (read: mainstream) Christians will not teach their children to think critically about their own beliefs. To them the secular world poses an inherent threat.