Who Needs God?

[Antlerman]

This is just my personal opinion, but I don't think religion is necessarily a dangerous threat to society in and itself.

 

 

If you don't see anything dangerous about religion then you're not paying much attention to what's happening in our society and maybe you should watch the video I posted in my last post to Ms Alice?

Who in the hell thinks that being moderate means you don't care or don't see the dangers??? Not me. A moderate seeks a resolution to a problem - not ignore it. You're confusing the word apathy, with moderation. Those are two different things. Show me one single word, anywhere, I have ever said we should ignore the problem, or it's not a big deal? You can't. Yet you persist in nothing but empty political rhetoric that say's if you're not for your side, then you're complacent. That is totally unfounded. Back your accusations up, or conceded you have been making unfounded insults, by calling me a coward and apologize for acting like an overly-zealos militant who speaks from emotions rather than reason, manifest by them attacking reasonable, and respected members.

 

I've also noticed that since I started this thread it has gone way off the topic in my first post.

 

The questions I was asking didn't have anything to do with getting rid of religion whether it be by force or politically or whatever.

 

It was basically intended for the Christians who come in here challenging them to think about their beliefs in a God and what would they do if they learned there is no God:

 

Why do people think they need God to get through the day?

I offered reasons to this. Those points were dead on topic. You ignored the points I made.

 

People who believe in God seem to think that He gives them reason to live and without God they have no meaning and purpose. I think that is kind of a sad way to look at life.

Again, I addressed all these. You didn't offer one intelligent response to them, and instead called me insulting names. The responses have be dead on topic. But it appears you don't think so if it comes from an atheist that is not a True Atheist™ in your religious views.

 

I wonder what would happen to some of these people if they came to the realization and conclusion that God is just as fake as Santa Claus and there just is no God at all?

Go ahead, go back and try setting aside your doctrinal biases and actually read what I said. I addressed that. Not off topic.

 

 

Bottom line, if you don't want a serious discussion and will start attacking members who choose to look at your thoughts from a different angle, such as calling members directly "spineless, bleeding heart cowards who have their head up their asses," it would be better for you not to post your questions in a forum dedicated to serious discussion. I will respond with intelligent responses, which I surly did and you just chose to cast empty insults in repsonse. I'm holding you responsible for your words, and if you were in fact following a True Athest philosophy, you would not do the fundamentalist thing, and actually take responsiblity for your actions and apologize to us. At this point, you're pursuading me going forward to just move your topics to the Lion's Den, and for me and others not to engage you, since you're not interested in really hearing other's thoughts and engaging in discussion. That's a shame. That's a loss for you. There's a lot of very intelligent people here who have given a considerable amount of thought to these things.

[Euthyphro's Thorn]

Thank you for giving me so much to think about, Antlerman. It goes against most of my own perceptions, but I know of a few people who seem to fit your descriptions, and it makes me wonder how many more might be out there.

 

I still have to agree with some (and I stress some) of what Abbey is saying, as much as I hate to agree with someone who is being so obnoxious and rude. I have no doubt that the stories were meant for symbolism when they were first conceived, just like Atlantis was a fictional work that was written to illustrate Plato's idea of an ideal society. However, you said it yourself, Antlerman, that a lot of people have lost that symbolism and are taking things too literally, and this is where the problem comes in. People are ignorant of how the world really works, because they are listening to creationists spout their anti-evolution rhetoric. Blind support ("he's a good Christian man!") for GWB was still enough to help him stay in the White House for a 2nd term (rigging vote machines can only get you so far), and religion does have a large part to play in gaining support for the fighting from different sides in the current war. It is this blind sheep mentality, perpetuated by these dogmatic religions, helping to keep people ignorant because they're afraid to question their religious leaders and think for themselves.

 

But Abbey, get real. You're not going to win your fight by calling people stupid for having their beliefs, no matter how irrational those beliefs can be. The way to fight superstitious beliefs is with education, like others here have already said. We don't have to eradicate religion entirely; we just need to educate the masses and get them to think critically instead of blindly listening to those in the fold, and it won't hurt to let them know that the stories which some of them regard as literal truth were simply meant to be symbolism, just like the story of Atlantis was. You have to find a middle ground, because without it, nobody on the "opposing side" will ever listen to you.

 

Before I can answer your question, Abbey, please define God.

[Alice]

EdwardAbbey,

 

Your comments are not in the spirit of the colosseum ~ it would assist the dialogue if you stopped insulting people who contributing to the thread.

 

Can you provide any evidence for your assertion that moderate atheists are the root cause for superstition prevailing in your society?

 

There's plenty of evidence. Just watch this video:

 

 

These are some of the reasons why there are atheists like me who are motivated to expose and challenge the prevailing superstitions in our society. If they go unchallenged they will win by default.

 

Get the picture?

 

EdwardAbbey,

 

I watched the video you posted ~ it doesn't contain a single scrap of evidence to sugest that moderate atheists are the root cause for supersition prevailing in your society. It makes no reference to taking a moderate stance.

 

What makes you think a moderate position implies that extremeists will be left to hold sway and pass unchallenged? I guess you are seeing a link between changes that have happened in America in terms of adding in references to belief in god with the presence of moderate atheists?

 

In the UK, where we haven't started from a position of separation of church and state, there has been a gradual erosion of religious influence in public life as a result of an increasing number of moderates ~ theists and atheists together. Where difficulties erupt, that's generally because the extremes in both camps are egging each other on.

 

I do find fundamentalist and literal religions worrying ~ I find any black and white thinking worrying, whether there is a god belief involved or not. I do not see Richard Dawkins and his ilk generally building bridges (although in another recent thread there were links to a more reasoned approach from Dawkins, so I am aware that I need to be careful about how the media paint him ... but he certainly should never be taken as an expert on religion)

 

Alice

 

Hey Sojourner, haven't seen you for a while ...

[Antlerman]

I still have to agree with some (and I stress some) of what Abbey is saying, as much as I hate to agree with someone who is being so obnoxious and rude. I have no doubt that the stories were meant for symbolism when they were first conceived, just like Atlantis was a fictional work that was written to illustrate Plato's idea of an ideal society. However, you said it yourself, Antlerman, that a lot of people have lost that symbolism and are taking things too literally, and this is where the problem comes in.

I don't have the time to respond as I wish I did at the moment, but here's an interesting look at the problem of literalism from a professor of comparative mythology in the area I live. I think it helps to put things into some perspective. I think the problem is not just religious, but secular as a result, as is very evident these days in the sorts of rhetoric we see being offered in these times of discussions. I'll get back to this later. http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1332

 

Here's an excerpt from the opening of it:

"The literalist mentality does not manifest itself only in conservative churches, private-school enclaves, television programs of the evangelical right, and a considerable amount of Christian bookstore material;

one often finds a literalist understanding of Bible and faith being assumed by those who have no religious inclinations, or who are avowedly antireligious in sentiment

. Even in educated circles the possibility of more sophisticated theologies of creation is easily obscured by burning straw effigies of biblical literalism."

[EdwardAbbey]

If you don't see anything dangerous about religion then you're not paying much attention to what's happening in our society and maybe you should watch the video I posted in my last post to Ms Alice?

Nice job at taking my posts out of context. Are you here to preach to us or are you going to actually read what we post? My point wasn't that religion couldn't be used as a danger to society. My point is that religion is a correlation of the problems of society, not the causation. If you're so naive as to think atheism is magically going to make everybody nicer and be the messiah to society, you're no different from the fundamentalists who think the answer to the Iraq war is to bring Jesus to the Muslims.

 

Actually religion would not be a threat at all if only it were treated as a harmless myth no different than any other myths such as the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus. Once religion has been reduced to the fictional sections of all libraries and book outlets, then will the world be a much better and peaceful place to live. Yes I firmly conclude that a world without religion is the way to go. We don't need it, period. That's not an extremeist view. It's a realistic view. Religion contaminates everything. It's like a disease that goes unchecked and untreated to the point where it's so contagious that people just can't free their ignorant little minds from it. The problem that I have with some atheists is their apathy towards the seriousness of superstition in our society. It's as if it is in no way harmful and dangerous. If it weren't for activist atheist like O'Hair back in the 60's, the bible would still be in our public schools and maybe by now they'd be having prayer meetings and church services in public schools. Michael Newdow is another great example of a couragous atheist who took a bold stand to remove God from the pledge.

 

 

It was basically intended for the Christians who come in here challenging them to think about their beliefs in a God and what would they do if they learned there is no God:

This is a contradiction. First, you claim that you didn't start this thread with the intent of getting rid of religion. Then you turn around and admit that you started this thread to challenge people's beliefs, which is the same thing. It's no different than the fundies who come by here and say "Oh, we're not here to convert you, we just want to get to know you" when their true intention was conversion all along. AND ANSWER MY QUESTION. How does belief in god enable a space for fundamentalism and why should we not work together with moderate believers? I will not respond to this thread any further until the anti-theists in this thread answer this question

 

 

I'm not really sure I understand the first part of your question but I'm not against working together with moderate Xtians as long as they are open to the fact that they could be wrong about their non-literalist views about God and the bible also. By them clinging to their liberal/moderate views they are just giving a pass to the fundamentalists. Without going into to much detail they view the scriptures as metaphors but cling to certain other aspects and doctrines in the bible because they know they won't be considered Xtians at all if they reject the others, i.e.. virgin birth, resurrection etc. I consider the moderates, wannabe athiests or free thinkers. Underneath their professions of faith there is extreme doubts about their superstitious beliefs. That's the reason why they've taken a more intellectual view of the scriptures but all it's doing is coming back and biting them on their asses. opps, did I use a bad word?

 

[EdwardAbbey]

Before I can answer your question, Abbey, please define God.

 

I don't define God. What is a God exactly? Do you believe one exists?

 

I really cannot define God since I don't believe there is such a thing but the people who tell me they do believe in God because it gives them purpose and meaning in life and need God to get through the day, seems to think that God is a great thing in their lives and can't live without Him. I think that's kind of sad you know. I mean for Chris sakes what's the deal eh? If that's the case then the God idea is kind of childish don't you think? A little ridiculous too. They actually think there is this invisible guy up there in the sky who is listening to their prayers and requests for a raise in pay on their jobs, a new car, a new house, a new girl friend or whatever. I mean, even if there were a God up there hiding out in the cosmos do you really think he would give a flying rip about such trivial crap as that? He's got an entire universe to take care of. He is constantly pulling those cosmic strings 24/7 tying to maintain a universe thats God only knows how big the damn thing is, get the picture? That's a lot of responsibility for one lil ole God don't you think? I bet God wished there might be another God somewhere in the universe to give him some assistance don't you think? He must be pretty tired up there doing all that. The sad thing about it all is, he doesn't see any other Gods up there that could help him with anything. That's why God is an atheist too.

 

Thanks for your input.

[Neon Genesis]

Actually religion would not be a threat at all if only it were treated as a harmless myth no different than any other myths such as the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus. Once religion has been reduced to the fictional sections of all libraries and book outlets, then will the world be a much better and peaceful place to live. Yes I firmly conclude that a world without religion is the way to go. We don't need it, period. That's not an extremeist view. It's a realistic view.

This is hypocritical. You insist that religion shouldn't be treated any differently than fiction yet at the same time you turn around and treat religion with more prejudice than most people would treat fiction. I don't see you going around telling everybody who likes fictional works that they're delusional idiots and the only way to save humanity is if they agree with you the fiction they like sucks.

 

It's as if it is in no way harmful and dangerous. If it weren't for activist atheist like O'Hair back in the 60's, the bible would still be in our public schools and maybe by now they'd be having prayer meetings and church services in public schools. Michael Newdow is another great example of a couragous atheist who took a bold stand to remove God from the pledge. [/b]

And if it wasn't for religious believers like Martin Luther King Jr, slavery would still be legal and the Unitarian Univeralist church also helped found the ACLU and fight for equal rights for women and gays, and blacks. If you think only atheists have fought for equal rights, you need to pick up a history book.

 

 

 

I'm not really sure I understand the first part of your question but I'm not against working together with moderate Xtians as long as they are open to the fact that they could be wrong about their non-literalist views about God and the bible also. By them clinging to their liberal/moderate views they are just giving a pass to the fundamentalists. Without going into to much detail they view the scriptures as metaphors but cling to certain other aspects and doctrines in the bible because they know they won't be considered Xtians at all if they reject the others, i.e.. virgin birth, resurrection etc. I consider the moderates, wannabe athiests or free thinkers. Underneath their professions of faith there is extreme doubts about their superstitious beliefs. That's the reason why they've taken a more intellectual view of the scriptures but all it's doing is coming back and biting them on their asses. opps, did I use a bad word?[/b] [/i][/color]

Your first sentence makes no sense. Your claims about what moderate Christians believe also shows your ignorance of moderate Christianity as not all moderate Christians believe those things. The aforementioned John Shelby Spong rejects the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus though he's a liberal Christian. Your claims that moderate Christians are "clinging" to the beliefs of fundamentalists is ignorance as well. Moderate believers do not simply "cling" to the same beliefs as fundamentalists, rather they have completely different interpretations of the bible. Most moderate believers do not see the bible as the literal word of god but as a historical document that records humanity's search for the spiritual. They focus on the all-loving aspect of god as the center of their religion and reject scriptures which contradict this view as not being from god. As stated before, fundies cherry pick the bible more than anyone as they will claim any verses inconvenient for them is metaphorical while still claiming to accept a literal interpretation whereas liberal Christians fully admit that they do not see the bible as literal and thus are more consistent than fundies.

 

Furthermore, as I've stated before, the bible never once says that the bible is supposed to be read literally. Even if we accepted your poor argument, it doesn't explain why other religions should be done away with. What about Wicca, Buddhism, paganism, deism, pantheism, and all the other billions of religions out there? You realize that this site is called ex-christian.net, not atheism.net right? And that there are other ex-Christians here who believe in god and belong to other religions here who hate fundamentalism, too? Are you going to be so insulting as to claim that they're a danger to society, too? I thought the purpose of this site was for supporting former Christians, not stroking the egos of militant atheists?

[Antlerman]

I'm not against working together with moderate Xtians as long as they are open to the fact that they could be wrong about their non-literalist views about God and the bible also.

Please explain what you mean by this. How can you be “wrong” about non-literalist views? Are you saying the should be literal? Please explain.

 

By them clinging to their liberal/moderate views they are just giving a pass to the fundamentalists.

First of all, how? How are they “just giving a pass” to fundamentalists? Please explain what their views do that give fanatics a free pass?

 

Secondly, What views do you think they should have? You call it “clinging”. Does this mean you see a moderate as “inflexible”, a sort of “dogma of moderation”?

 

Without going into to much detail they view the scriptures as metaphors but cling to certain other aspects and doctrines in the bible because they know they won't be considered Xtians at all if they reject the others, i.e.. virgin birth, resurrection etc.

You’re basing your judgment of their motivations, how? That sounds like just a bald assertion. Can you support that?

 

Again you use the word “cling”. From my exposure to them, from listening to them, from reading them, I said a better word is they continue to embrace certain views because of the symbolic meaning to them. If they’re intellectually aware of its nature and are unafraid to go against the hard-core literalists, I doubt seriously they’d feel any reason to do anything to gain their acceptance --- in exactly the same way as Iwould do zero to gain your acceptance as an atheist by giving lip service to your radical views.

 

I think the problem lays with your understanding. Do you think that could be possible?

 

I consider the moderates, wannabe athiests or free thinkers.

“Wannabe atheists”? What might that be? Are you suggesting that you’re part of the right religion and other’s who don’t think like you are “fake atheists”, like the “fake Christians”?

 

I’m appalled at how religious you sound. You are hardly a “free” thinker. Don’t fool yourself.

 

Underneath their professions of faith there is extreme doubts about their superstitious beliefs. That's the reason why they've taken a more intellectual view of the scriptures but all it's doing is coming back and biting them on their asses. opps, did I use a bad word?

Bald assertion. Support that. Again, I think the problem is in your lack of knowledge, and perhaps a load of religious bias too that doesn’t allow you to listen to others – based on everything you’ve displayed so far in this thread EdwardAbby.

 

Prove to all of us you even understand what the liberal view is by explaining it to me. If you can’t, then how can you criticize it? I’ve heard your bald assertions and consider them baseless, now I demand you support them.

 

You called me a coward. Now come to face my challenge, or offer an apology and concede your ignorance.

[Vigile]

Ed, you can argue till you're blue in the face. You can point out the silliness of superstitious beliefs until you are the most hated man in America. None of it is going to make a dent in the belief systems that people hold dear.

 

Like the link in Chef Randon's sig points out, you will merely be threatening the core beliefs of adherents and putting them on the defensive.

 

So, what's the point of fighting back?

 

If you wish to see society eradicate the most dangerous of beliefs, lobby for better education. In one or two generations Western Europe disposed of the most harmful aspects of their superstitions and they arguably did so via better education.

 

A broad based liberal arts education that does not directly confront and threaten core beliefs, but rather provides better tools of reason and a better grasp of history and science will eliminate the need for people to fill in the gaps of their knowledge with boogey men that keep notes on all their actions.

 

I know lots of catholics in Italy and I can't name one that wouldn't laugh at the fundy positions held by many Americans. I don't know any that believe in hell. I don't know any that don't accept TOE. I don't know any who don't make cracks about the pope. All of them were raised studying the bible in school and all of them consider themselves religious. The difference between them, their grandparents, and the average American xian is that they have a firm foundational education that disallows for the most opressive beliefs of their faith.

 

They didn't get to the place they are at because someone ridiculed them or argued with them. If someone had it likely would have had the opposite effect in that it would have strengthened their resolve and caused them to withdraw as their core values were threatened.

[Vigile]

This is hypocritical. You insist that religion shouldn't be treated any differently than fiction yet at the same time you turn around and treat religion with more prejudice than most people would treat fiction. I don't see you going around telling everybody who likes fictional works that they're delusional idiots and the only way to save humanity is if they agree with you the fiction they like sucks.

 

I'm not sure your point is correct. People who read fiction merely take on a suspended state of disbelief. If they really believed they were reading truth then they would indeed fall into the same category as the fundies who take the bible seriously.

 

And if it wasn't for religious believers like Martin Luther King Jr, slavery would still be legal and the Unitarian Univeralist church also helped found the ACLU and fight for equal rights for women and gays, and blacks. If you think only atheists have fought for equal rights, you need to pick up a history book.

 

Personally I think relgion gets too much credit for people's actions and more than one camp makes this mistake. Those who look at Muslim terrorists blame their religion on the terror. My thinking is that religion makes for a very nice unifier, but that it is not necessarily the catalyst. The catalyst is the ME people who feel threatened by the foreign policy initiatives of those in the west toward themselves. What better way to rally the troops to fight back than to do so through their common beliefs and giving them "holy" commands?

 

The West uses propaganda, the ME uses religion. Both have virtually the same effect.

 

Likewise, MLK wasn't motivated because of a sense of morality he derived from the bible. How could he be? However, because the majority of African Americans were/are religious, his stature as a religious leader gave him a platform to rally the troops, so to say, that would have been otherwise difficult to acheive. It gave him credibility. Religion doesn't deserve any credit here, it was merely a tool that happened to be available. Without it, I'm sure it wouldn't have been difficult to find common ground in some other way.

 

the bible never once says that the bible is supposed to be read literally

 

It comes pretty close:

 

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16)

[Antlerman]

Thank you Vigile. I can't disagree with a word you said.

 

The threat of radicalism goes away with a broad-based education. Religion becomes something other than a political weapon. And in my opinion, the exact same thing holds true with gaining a better understanding of role of religion in humanity through education. Science, or rationality quits becoming a weapon also in some war of ideologies. Education replaces rhetoric with understanding.

 

Am I an atheist? That's irrelevant really. I'm a humanist which embraces humanity.

[Neon Genesis]

I'm not sure your point is correct. People who read fiction merely take on a suspended state of disbelief. If they really believed they were reading truth then they would indeed fall into the same category as the fundies who take the bible seriously.

Well, there are Star Wars fans who take their hobby a little too seriously...But I was trying to bring up a point that one of the flaws of the New Atheists is that they want differences of opinion over religion to not be treated any differently than other things in life, like how Dawkins uses a comparison towards politics in The God Delusion, which I actually agree with. Yet at the same time they judge it much more harshly than they would differences in opinions on other things which seems like a double standard to me.

 

Personally I think relgion gets too much credit for people's actions and more than one camp makes this mistake. Those who look at Muslim terrorists blame their religion on the terror. My thinking is that religion makes for a very nice unifier, but that it is not necessarily the catalyst. The catalyst is the ME people who feel threatened by the foreign policy initiatives of those in the west toward themselves. What better way to rally the troops to fight back than to do so through their common beliefs and giving them "holy" commands?

 

The West uses propaganda, the ME uses religion. Both have virtually the same effect.

 

Likewise, MLK wasn't motivated because of a sense of morality he derived from the bible. How could he be? However, because the majority of African Americans were/are religious, his stature as a religious leader gave him a platform to rally the troops, so to say, that would have been otherwise difficult to acheive. It gave him credibility. Religion doesn't deserve any credit here, it was merely a tool that happened to be available. Without it, I'm sure it wouldn't have been difficult to find common ground in some other way.

I agree religion gets too much credit either positively or negatively. And I'm aware that MLK's actions weren't motivated by the bible, but that was the point I was making, that people can be moral and just with or without religion, hence what I said earlier that religion is a correlation to society's problems, but not necessarily the causation of everything that's wrong with society. Again, as I stated earlier in the thread, the fact that most Christians don't even know the first five books in the bible are called let alone what the bible actually says shows to me that there's something more to the problems beyond just superstitious beliefs. I mean, you don't exactly see people who believe that crossing a black cat brings bad luck blowing up buildings because of their belief in the unluckyness of black cats, do you?

 

It comes pretty close:

 

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16)

I've heard biblical literalists quote this verse many times in my life, and while it does come close, it doesn't say that the inspiration from god is a literal inspiration. Also, consider the fact that during the time 2 Timothy was written, the bible wasn't even compiled together yet, so it can't possibly be referring to our current biblical canon seeing as how our current biblical canon wasn't even in existence then. Another thing to consider is that there are over 33,000+ denominations in existence all with varying interpretations of the scriptures. To pick one interpretation out of all those denominations and say "this is the one true way and everyone else are phony cherry pickers" from either side of the theist vs atheist debate sounds highly unbelievable to me, especially given that nobody even knows what the intentions of the original authors were or even who they are, or even have access to the original manuscripts at all. Even if we presume that the bible is supposed to be interpreted literally, who's literal interpretation is the correct one? Are the Churches Of Christ correct? Or are the Baptists correct? Are the Protestants correct? All these denominations claim to believe in the literal interpretation of the bible and that they alone are the one true church yet they all have widely different beliefs and doctrines, so who's the one true church since they all claim to have the one true interpretation and they all claim to be interpreting literally? Then there's the fact that our culture today is completely different than the culture in the first century. To presume that modern fundamentalist Christians are the true Christians and are seeing the bible through the same way that Christians from a different culture 1000 years ago did also seems unbelievable to me.

[Vigile]

Sorry Neon, the holy spirit told me that he meant for the bible to be interpreted literally and so that settles it. You're gonna burn in hell! (You have to sing that last sentence to the tune of Twisted Sister to get it right).

 

[Ouroboros]

What about me? I refuse to take the word "literally" literally. I think the word itself is just a figure of speech.

[Vigile]

Then that vid I posted is for you to Hans you heathen. :wink:

[Antlerman]

Sorry Neon, the holy spirit told me that he meant for the bible to be interpreted literally and so that settles it. You're gonna burn in hell! (You have to sing that last sentence to the tune of Twisted Sister to get it right).

 

As I watched that video, the only thing I kept seeing coming into mind was this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CukuwxkMk5A...feature=related

[Alice]

They didn't get to the place they are at because someone ridiculed them or argued with them. If someone had it likely would have had the opposite effect in that it would have strengthened their resolve and caused them to withdraw as their core values were threatened.

 

That is so key for so many people. I know I retreated in the face of ridicule and adversarial debate before my deconversion. For those caught up in literalism - that kind of response often confirms the belief pattern and is interpreted as an 'attack of the devil' or persecution. Because religious belief is always intertwined with culture and tradition - other values feel threatened as well and it is no wonder people retreat.

 

 

To presume that modern fundamentalist Christians are the true Christians and are seeing the bible through the same way that Christians from a different culture 1000 years ago did also seems unbelievable to me.

 

A very valid point in a list of many.

[EdwardAbbey]

I'm not against working together with moderate Xtians as long as they are open to the fact that they could be wrong about their non-literalist views about God and the bible also.

Please explain what you mean by this. How can you be “wrong” about non-literalist views? Are you saying the should be literal? Please explain.

 

By them clinging to their liberal/moderate views they are just giving a pass to the fundamentalists.

First of all, how? How are they “just giving a pass” to fundamentalists? Please explain what their views do that give fanatics a free pass?

 

Secondly, What views do you think they should have? You call it “clinging”. Does this mean you see a moderate as “inflexible”, a sort of “dogma of moderation”?

 

Without going into to much detail they view the scriptures as metaphors but cling to certain other aspects and doctrines in the bible because they know they won't be considered Xtians at all if they reject the others, i.e.. virgin birth, resurrection etc.

You’re basing your judgment of their motivations, how? That sounds like just a bald assertion. Can you support that?

 

Again you use the word “cling”. From my exposure to them, from listening to them, from reading them, I said a better word is they continue to embrace certain views because of the symbolic meaning to them. If they’re intellectually aware of its nature and are unafraid to go against the hard-core literalists, I doubt seriously they’d feel any reason to do anything to gain their acceptance --- in exactly the same way as Iwould do zero to gain your acceptance as an atheist by giving lip service to your radical views.

 

I think the problem lays with your understanding. Do you think that could be possible?

 

I consider the moderates, wannabe athiests or free thinkers.

“Wannabe atheists”? What might that be? Are you suggesting that you’re part of the right religion and other’s who don’t think like you are “fake atheists”, like the “fake Christians”?

 

I’m appalled at how religious you sound. You are hardly a “free” thinker. Don’t fool yourself.

 

Underneath their professions of faith there is extreme doubts about their superstitious beliefs. That's the reason why they've taken a more intellectual view of the scriptures but all it's doing is coming back and biting them on their asses. opps, did I use a bad word?

Bald assertion. Support that. Again, I think the problem is in your lack of knowledge, and perhaps a load of religious bias too that doesn’t allow you to listen to others – based on everything you’ve displayed so far in this thread EdwardAbby.

 

Prove to all of us you even understand what the liberal view is by explaining it to me. If you can’t, then how can you criticize it? I’ve heard your bald assertions and consider them baseless, now I demand you support them.

 

You called me a coward. Now come to face my challenge, or offer an apology and concede your ignorance.

 

 

I think you might want to read the book that Sam Harris wrote a while back, The End of Faith. Have you read it yet? In the beginning of the book he covers religious moderates and religious moderation and how bogus it is. Start reading on page 16 to page 23 and you'll see how well he lays out the case against it and how it gives fundamentalists a pass.

 

But here is what I think about religious moderates basically. They really aren't Christians. At least not biblical Christians. They are pseudo Christians. I consider them "wannabe agnostics" or the so called fundamentalist who has failed to live up to the written word of the God of the bible. If the bible is supposed to be their guide to what it is to be a true Christian but pick and chose what's reasonable and what is not, then why do they even bother calling themselves Christians at all. IF the bible is not literal, then, maybe the God they follow in that book is a figure of speech as well.

 

Let me ask you this. Do the moderates treat Christianity as if it's not true at all? Of course they don't. They might as well say that Christianity is not true according to what's written in the bible. You don’t hear them rejecting Christianity do you? Of course not. That’s why they’ve come up with a slick little package deal with their intellectual, non-literal, non-fundamentalist view of the scriptures, the Christian God and even Jesus. It’s basically a desperate attempt of the "failed" fundamentalist Christian to make the bible more acceptable to themselves. Sam Harris refers to the moderates as: Failed fundamentalists (page 20), and rightly so. Because that is exactly what they are and they know it.

[Neon Genesis]

I think you might want to read the book that Sam Harris wrote a while back, The End of Faith. Have you read it yet? In the beginning of the book he covers religious moderates and religious moderation and how bogus it is. Start reading on page 16 to page 23 and you'll see how well he lays out the case against it and how it gives fundamentalists a pass.

 

But here is what I think about religious moderates basically. They really aren't Christians. At least not biblical Christians. They are pseudo Christians. I consider them "wannabe agnostics" or the so called fundamentalist who has failed to live up to the written word of the God of the bible. If the bible is supposed to be their guide to what it is to be a true Christian but pick and chose what's reasonable and what is not, then why do they even bother calling themselves Christians at all. IF the bible is not literal, then, maybe the God they follow in that book is a figure of speech as well.

 

Let me ask you this. Do the moderates treat Christianity as if it's not true at all? Of course they don't. They might as well say that Christianity is not true according to what's written in the bible. You don’t hear them rejecting Christianity do you? Of course not. That’s why they’ve come up with a slick little package deal with their intellectual, non-literal, non-fundamentalist view of the scriptures, the Christian God and even Jesus. It’s basically a desperate attempt of the "failed" fundamentalist Christian to make the bible more acceptable to themselves. Sam Harris refers to the moderates as: Failed fundamentalists (page 20), and rightly so. Because that is exactly what they are and they know it.

I've already said several times before in this thread that I haven't read Harris yet but I've read Dawkins and Hitchens. I'll consider reading Harris' book if you actually read a single thing I've posted in this thread and learn something about what liberal Christians actually believe instead of preaching and plugging your fingers in your ears when anyone says anything that disproves your falsified claims about liberal Christianity, seeing as how I've already addressed these claims in my previous posts. Did you even watch the John Shelby Spong video I posted earlier in the thread? Go read the book American Fascists: The Christian Right And The War On America by the liberal Christian Chris Hedges and then I might read The End Of Faith since you apparently know nothing about liberal Christianity.

[Kuroikaze]

I've already said several times before in this thread that I haven't read Harris yet but I've read Dawkins and Hitchens. I'll consider reading Harris' book if you actually read a single thing I've posted in this thread and learn something about what liberal Christians actually believe instead of preaching and plugging your fingers in your ears when anyone says anything that disproves your falsified claims about liberal Christianity, seeing as how I've already addressed these claims in my previous posts. Did you even watch the John Shelby Spong video I posted earlier in the thread? Go read the book American Fascists: The Christian Right And The War On America by the liberal Christian Chris Hedges and then I might read The End Of Faith since you apparently know nothing about liberal Christianity.

 

Ok, I know quite a bit about liberal Christians, and I'll say that Harris does have a point. I don't think the point is as strong as he thinks it is, but it is a point non the less.

 

When I was fundamentalist, I went through a liberal religious program at school. My liberal professors did not try to point out the flaws in my thinking, but instead often seemed to placate me. The view of religions they took prevented them from being able to say I was "wrong" in my views and still be consistent with their world view. They generally viewed all religions as different paths to god, so no matter how bat shit crazy my beliefs were they did not call me on it.

 

I think this CAN be a problem in that if you have a distributed middle in society made up of these kinds of thinkers then fundamentalists can often run amok. Though it really isn't because they are religious, it is because they take open mindedness to an extreme and want to please everyone.

They are afraid of telling fundamentalists where to shove their self righteous attitudes. Of course its not like I really have to deal with either group right now, so what do I know?

[Neon Genesis]

I think this CAN be a problem in that if you have a distributed middle in society made up of these kinds of thinkers then fundamentalists can often run amok. Though it really isn't because they are religious, it is because they take open mindedness to an extreme and want to please everyone.

They are afraid of telling fundamentalists where to shove their self righteous attitudes. Of course its not like I really have to deal with either group right now, so what do I know?

This is a good point, although not all liberal Christians are necessarily that extreme. In his book, American Fascists, the aforementioned Chris Hedges criticizes fundamentalist Christianity by comparing it to fascism. He also discusses the flaws of biblical inerrancy and the immorality of the doctrine of hell and really bashes the Book Of Revelation. He also criticizes other moderate Christians for not speaking up more about these problems with Christianity. But then shouldn't we be encouraging liberal Christians to stand up more against fundamentalism rather than trying to deconvert them? I just feel like I don't like it when Christians try to convert me, so I would feel hypocritical if I went around actively deconverting every Christian in sight when I just got through criticizing Christians for their conversion attempts. It's that whole do unto others thing.

[Antlerman]

I think you might want to read the book that Sam Harris wrote a while back, The End of Faith. Have you read it yet? In the beginning of the book he covers religious moderates and religious moderation and how bogus it is. Start reading on page 16 to page 23 and you'll see how well he lays out the case against it and how it gives fundamentalists a pass.

Thank you. I just read that section of his book as you suggested. It’s online here: http://books.google.com/books?id=Lr8ytqlY9...result#PPA23,M1 for anyone who wishes to read this as well.

 

What I have to say about that is that it’s hard to know where to begin. Lots of thoughts come to mind, such as why haven’t I written my book? If someone with this lack of knowledge and insight can publish something like that which get’s people all excited, imagine if someone actually did some research, thought it out in well considered form, and backed it up with scholarship, rather than this ill-informed, inaccurate, spouting of rhetoric as having any sort of sociological merit. It’s Rush Limbaugh level commentary; entertaining, but with as much substance and quality as a Budweiser beer (piss-water).

 

I disagree with it. Moderates are not what he says. It’s completely a strawman argument – one where he creates an enemy out of straw, does battle with it, then claims the superior position. Everything I’ve said in all my posts in this thread stands. Moderates are not “anything goes, you can’t say anything… blah, blah, blah…” Not at all.

 

I am a moderate. I am not anything like he says. I rigorously oppose bad judgment, and bad actions. I rigorously oppose anti-intellectualism – either from the religious or secular side, etc, etc. I am not apathetic. I am not passive. I do, and will resist ignorance taking control of freedom – whether it’s from the religious or hard core atheist camps. His “case” falls utter flat and lifeless. It is substanceless.

 

Moderation to me strives to see the value in each position, and see the good in it, as opposed to just simply “accepting it” out of so called “tolerance”. Just simply accepting it to be nice is not serving anyone. But a moderate tries to see the value in both position, find an understanding that allows for toleration to exist, despite difference. Not so with your position. Elimination is the MO.

 

It is that position of radicalism that is itself – anti-intellectual. It prefers no understanding, and pushing a political solution on the matter. Yours is the inferior position. Yours is the weaker position. Moderation is not rationalization, it is in fact utilizing rationality to the highest levels, one where it is tempered with respect of others, and an open ended mindset of possibilities and understand as the utmost value. In a word, your maligning, your following this drivel I just read, is the weaker, more restricting position offering the least in the way of understanding. Understanding is power. But I do appreciate you offering this as a point of discussion with me.

 

But here is what I think about religious moderates basically. They really aren't Christians. At least not biblical Christians. They are pseudo Christians. I consider them "wannabe agnostics" or the so called fundamentalist who has failed to live up to the written word of the God of the bible. If the bible is supposed to be their guide to what it is to be a true Christian but pick and chose what's reasonable and what is not, then why do they even bother calling themselves Christians at all. IF the bible is not literal, then, maybe the God they follow in that book is a figure of speech as well.

This is what Harris is saying. I completely disagree with him. Here’s why. What they aren’t is fundamentalist Christians. But what defines someone as a Christian???? Isn’t Harris’s (and yours following suit) position accepting the definition of Christian provided by the fundamentalist? It’s basically saying they have the right interpretation, and those who don’t agree with it aren’t “real” Christians. It’s what the fundi says. It’s what Harris says. He gives all the power to them!

 

That is simply bad reasoning. Bear with me a minute here and please try to track with this: Cosmopolitanism . In the beginning you have Tribal religions. These are gods with borders. These gods define the people. They are people of that god, and all live within his borders. Their social rules and customs all are associated with this god. That god defines them. Other tribes have a strange god, and strange ways, and they do there best to avoid dealing with them, and if they do, they learn to work around these gods.

 

NOW… along comes an empire! It conquers all this lands and the people, the various tribes with their various gods all now have to deal with each other. They are part of that empire now. As they are compelled to live peaceably with one another, they start to see that these non-humans, these non-tribe peoples actually are people. In fact, there’s a lot of commonalities, and some of their gods have something to offer that fits better the current situation they find themselves in, than their old war god, or agricultural god, or what-have-you. Suddenly, their own god begins to change and evolve, because the world changed. People create god in their own image.

 

You see this happening with Jehovah in the OT, as he moves from one of the pantheon of Canaanite gods, the god of the desert, to the cheifest of gods, to the only god, to the universal god, to the god of love, etc, all following changes in the cultural settings. That’s evolution.

 

Now to Harris. Yes.. of course Modernity drives changes in religion! Duh! Whoopie. So does being conquered by Babylon, Persia, Greek, and Rome. The changes in religion happen because society changes. God is a god that people create to fit the society they’re in. It’s always been that way. Yet Harris somehow fails to understand this – fundamental aspect of religion. Fundamentalism was born as a reactionary response to this natural evolution of religion. Fundamentalism, loosely, is religion’s equivalent to political conservatism. Moderates aren’t compromisers of truth, they are the evolvers of God!

 

Does Harris ever address any of this? Anywhere? It’s pretty important. Make sense?

 

Let me ask you this. Do the moderates treat Christianity as if it's not true at all? Of course they don't.

They treat it as I said before. It’s true in the sense of it resonates with them as having value, meaning, and significance. Not true in a literal sense. I know it’s a hard concept, but not everyone thinks linearly – in straight connecting lines.

 

Try at least to trust there’s some substance to what I’m saying here.

 

They might as well say that Christianity is not true according to what's written in the bible. You don’t hear them rejecting Christianity do you? Of course not. That’s why they’ve come up with a slick little package deal with their intellectual, non-literal, non-fundamentalist view of the scriptures, the Christian God and even Jesus.

You certainly appear to dismiss it as a bunch of pseudo-intellectual rationalizing. They accept it on a different level. Their criteria are different. Different, does not mean “wrong”.

 

It’s basically a desperate attempt of the "failed" fundamentalist Christian to make the bible more acceptable to themselves. Sam Harris refers to the moderates as: Failed fundamentalists (page 20), and rightly so. Because that is exactly what they are and they know it.

I read that, and the context is that of the Fundamentalists viewing them as failed Christians. But in either case, back to what I said, you are giving all the power to the fundamentalist to define Christianity. You are acknowledging their approach to religion is correct, but you just disagree with it. You are not allowing for more than one understanding to exist. You are, in essence, in agreement with the Christian fundamentalist.

 

I appreciate your discussing this.

[Jeff H]

Perhaps on a more practical note, I don't see how one can try and get rid of religion by trying to lump it all together and throw it all out. Fundamentalist Christians, pretty much by definition, reject anything that does not agree with a literal interpretation of the Bible. If an atheist comes at a fundamentalist with reason and argument, they will meet a brick wall, because the fundamentalist will automatically reject it, choosing instead to base their beliefs on faith. I know I'm stating the obvious here, but bear with me. The way that I see it, the only way to "de-convert" a fundamentalist is to somehow convince them to use their reason. Most of the people here who came from the fundamentalist camps, I think would agree with me. This can occur in a variety of ways, but I think that once they start to accept reason as a legitimate way to discover truth, then they lose their "fundamentalist-ness". They, in a sense, take a more moderate stance. Now, some stop there and hold onto their faith in a more moderate fashion, accepting things like evolution and textual criticism, while some go "all the way" and reject God altogether. However, I think that the moderate stance is a necessary starting point, and to present the choice to the fundamentalist that "it's either you are a Christian or you are an atheist" is, not only a false dichotomy, but also a powerful motivation for them to cling to their faith. Moderate Christianity, if nothing else, offers a chance to take a step down from their radical, faith-only stance and be willing to accept truth found by other means.

 

I don't mean to say that moderates are one step away from being atheists, or anything of that sort. I really don't know as much about liberal theology as I would like to. But the way I see it, lumping moderate and fundamentalist camps together does not solve the problem in any way. It offers legitimacy to the fundamentalists by presenting them with a false dichotomy, and only encourages them to cling to their faith more tightly at the risk of losing it all.

[Neon Genesis]

I am a moderate. I am not anything like he says. I rigorously oppose bad judgment, and bad actions. I rigorously oppose anti-intellectualism – either from the religious or secular side, etc, etc. I am not apathetic. I am not passive. I do, and will resist ignorance taking control of freedom – whether it’s from the religious or hard core atheist camps. His “case” falls utter flat and lifeless. It is substanceless.

 

Moderation to me strives to see the value in each position, and see the good in it, as opposed to just simply “accepting it” out of so called “tolerance”. Just simply accepting it to be nice is not serving anyone. But a moderate tries to see the value in both position, find an understanding that allows for toleration to exist, despite difference. Not so with your position. Elimination is the MO.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it Terence who said to have moderation in all things? Or as Obi-wan Kenobi says, "Only an agent of evil deals in absolutes."

 

The way that I see it, the only way to "de-convert" a fundamentalist is to somehow convince them to use their reason. Most of the people here who came from the fundamentalist camps, I think would agree with me.

Speaking as a former YEC fundamenalist, I can verify this as true. I have several friends who are atheists and agnostics and back when I was a Christian, we used to debate religion occasionally. But no matter how logical their arguments were, I refused to see things the way they did. I had to already be willing to realize that fundamentalism wasn't giving me any real answers to my questions and then I started to look at thing from a different perspective to see how fundamentalism could hold up to it and I found that it didn't hold up at all. I had to already be willing to think outside the box before I realized how wrong fundamentalism was.

[PocketAces]

Why do people think they need God to get through the day?

 

People who believe in God seem to think that He gives them reason to live and without God they have no meaning and purpose. I think that is kind of a sad way to look at life.

 

I wonder what would happen to some of these people if they came to the realization and conclusion that God is just as fake as Santa Claus and there just is no God at all?

 

How would you live your life with the knowledge there is no God?

my only prediction is the way my life has lived since i have left the faith.

 

i eat. i drink. i work. i have friends. i have my family. i live by myself. i play golf, i like playing poker. my moral and ethics don't change just because i've deducted God out of the equation as i have done now. life doesn't change. your perspectives and your paradigm changes, but those things aren't deep enough to change life in my opinion.

 

so for me, nothing has changed, and nothing will change. you just live and you live good regardless what you believe.