Why We Should Attack Moderate Religiosity

[classicchinadoll]

The way I see it believing in the bible is the result of indoctrination if you are more logical than emotional this belief will lead to fundamentalism and if you make decisions emotionally you will be more inclined to be moderate.

,

Fundamentalism is a logical conclusion to a faulty premise. There is a god he is all powerful all knowing, he is our moral law giver, he inspired the bible, now the logical conclusion to this is because i am not all powerful, all knowing then obviously what he says is right and any of my personal feelings that contradict is wrong.

 

Cherry picking the bible for the nice bits, obviously makes you more pleasant to be around this is because you are choosing your morals exactly the way atheists do which is choosing morals based on what is palatable to you in this modern society. basically you are choosing your own moral code so it is really not a logical religious position if you hold the prior premise.

 

Ppl who are not biblical literalists concede that all matters stated in the bible that have been proven false must be metaphorical, yet the things that we haven't yet proven as false are true, it is a rather strange position as prior to evolutionary proof and evidence for the age of the earth christians just accepted the creation story was true and literal, as more scientific and archaeological evidence is being discovered more of the bible is becoming to some, metaphorical, but as i pointed out these things only become metaphorical when we have convincing evidence to the contrary.

 

Ppl who maintain biblical literalism realise that honestly if you are going to hold that position it means you have to question whether half or even all the bible is metaphorical which would put it in the context of mythology after all if god inspired so much metaphorical texts which we weren't to know were metaphorical except with the onset of scientific advancement then we can't know which parts are literal and which parts aren't.

 

They also draw the logical conclusion that if god wanted to express something he would express it in a comprehensible manner. so they maintain the position that if in our limited understanding we believe we have discovered something contrary to god's word then it is only because we don't have full understanding of every variable.

 

Basically literalism and fundamentalism is a logical position if you believe in a god that inspired the bible, not that the belief in god is logical, but as dawkins points out in god delusion it is most likely an evolutionary by product which gives humans a propensity to believe in the supernatural.

 

Biblical literalists and fundamentalists are more akin to atheists than moderate bible believing christians in that the reason they choose to believe all of it and not just pick out the nice bits is because they want to believe what's true rather than make an emotional decision and base their beliefs on what they want to be true.

 

It may seem to atheists that fundamentalists refuse to acknowlege truth but i don't believe it has anything to do with denying truth, sometimes its ignorance and also a fierce belief that any understanding that contradicts the bible is a fallible understanding, as men are fallible and god isn't. it has to do with indoctrination..

 

I am sick of moderate christians blaming fundamentalists for their prejudices yet promoting the archaic source (the bible) that leads logical ppl to fundamentalism, if they have a propensity to be illogical it is their flaw that stops them being fundamentalists and not some perceived superiority.

[laurie]

Wow! Ouch, this is pretty much me right now. I'm stuck between my logical and emotional halves. I need to step back and see if/how I can reconcile the two. Thankyou very much for this.

[classicchinadoll]

Wow! Ouch, this is pretty much me right now. I'm stuck between my logical and emotional halves. I need to step back and see if/how I can reconcile the two. Thankyou very much for this.

 

I'm glad you found it helpful Laurie and not offensive, i hope you can reconcile your beliefs, my intention wasn't to degrade moderate christians because even though they might be basing their beliefs on feelings for the most part those feelings are loving ones. ppl who are moderate christians are drawn to the love and compassion demonstrated in the stories of Jesus. What i could highly recommend is historical research into other ancient teachers such as greek philosophers etc. there were definitely people around before Jesus that had fantastic ideas about justice and love.

[Kuroikaze]

 

Biblical literalists and fundamentalists are more akin to atheists than moderate bible believing christians in that the reason they choose to believe all of it and not just pick out the nice bits is because they want to believe what's true rather than make an emotional decision and base their beliefs on what they want to be true.

 

 

I agree with much of what you say, but take a bit of an issue with this statement.

 

I am convinced that fundamentalists cherry pick the bible just as much as moderates, they just pick different cherries, metaphorically speaking. The main difference is that moderates admit to cherry picking, while fundamentalists deny this.

 

And no, I am not saying that fundamentalists take all the fire and brimstone passages while ignoring the "god is love" passages. fundamentalists also ignore a lot of harsh things which happen not to set well with them. The manner in which they ignore passages is by simply saying that passage "X" can only be properly understood by using passage "y" as a reference, even though passage "y" is often in a different book written by a different person, and even hundreds of years apart. Careful examination will show that usually passage "y" happens to be a proof text in that Christian's denomination.

[classicchinadoll]

Laurie sorry i worded myself wrong when i said i hope you can reconcile your beliefs what i meant is i hope you can come to a sense of inner peace. I believe being an atheist allows me to hold logical and emotional integrity. I don't believe christianity can establish this.

[Shyone]

 

Biblical literalists and fundamentalists are more akin to atheists than moderate bible believing christians in that the reason they choose to believe all of it and not just pick out the nice bits is because they want to believe what's true rather than make an emotional decision and base their beliefs on what they want to be true.

 

 

I agree with much of what you say, but take a bit of an issue with this statement.

 

I am convinced that fundamentalists cherry pick the bible just as much as moderates, they just pick different cherries, metaphorically speaking. The main difference is that moderates admit to cherry picking, while fundamentalists deny this.

 

And no, I am not saying that fundamentalists take all the fire and brimstone passages while ignoring the "god is love" passages. fundamentalists also ignore a lot of harsh things which happen not to set well with them. The manner in which they ignore passages is by simply saying that passage "X" can only be properly understood by using passage "y" as a reference, even though passage "y" is often in a different book written by a different person, and even hundreds of years apart. Careful examination will show that usually passage "y" happens to be a proof text in that Christian's denomination.

I also agree with Kuroikaze here. I wonder what you mean by "believe all of it." I'm an atheist, and I take things skeptically. Until there is sufficient evidence, I withhold my opinion. I also try to fit each piece of data into the whole. That's what ultimately lead to atheism - the pieces in Christianity did not fit with the real world.

 

Prayer is useless, supernatural miracles are absent, and inconsistencies in religions belie their mutual errors.

 

I don't accept any writer or book as authoritative, and I don't blindly accept everything in a book that generally agrees with what I think is true. I am willing to investigate my beliefs and discard those that are not supported by some kind of evidence. I don't start with a conclusion and find evidence to support it, I consider the evidence provided and then do my own investigation, collect the facts, and examine alternative explanations.

 

That makes my quite different from a fundamentalist.

[classicchinadoll]

 

Biblical literalists and fundamentalists are more akin to atheists than moderate bible believing christians in that the reason they choose to believe all of it and not just pick out the nice bits is because they want to believe what's true rather than make an emotional decision and base their beliefs on what they want to be true.

 

 

I agree with much of what you say, but take a bit of an issue with this statement.

 

I am convinced that fundamentalists cherry pick the bible just as much as moderates, they just pick different cherries, metaphorically speaking. The main difference is that moderates admit to cherry picking, while fundamentalists deny this.

 

And no, I am not saying that fundamentalists take all the fire and brimstone passages while ignoring the "god is love" passages. fundamentalists also ignore a lot of harsh things which happen not to set well with them. The manner in which they ignore passages is by simply saying that passage "X" can only be properly understood by using passage "y" as a reference, even though passage "y" is often in a different book written by a different person, and even hundreds of years apart. Careful examination will show that usually passage "y" happens to be a proof text in that Christian's denomination.

 

When i was a fundamentalist i don't feel i did cherry pick but i did find confusion in contradictory passages, the firm belief that god couldn't be wrong meant i had to scale the bible for further information concerning these matters to try to determine exactly what god meant. i believe most fundamentalists do this. it isn't so much about choosing what you like as trying to determine between two contradictory passages a reconciliation. the fact that they can't shake the whole idea of the bible being god's word means that something written by paul is still relevant to something written by isaiah as ultimately god is the author of the whole thing.

[classicchinadoll]

 

Biblical literalists and fundamentalists are more akin to atheists than moderate bible believing christians in that the reason they choose to believe all of it and not just pick out the nice bits is because they want to believe what's true rather than make an emotional decision and base their beliefs on what they want to be true.

 

 

I agree with much of what you say, but take a bit of an issue with this statement.

 

I am convinced that fundamentalists cherry pick the bible just as much as moderates, they just pick different cherries, metaphorically speaking. The main difference is that moderates admit to cherry picking, while fundamentalists deny this.

 

And no, I am not saying that fundamentalists take all the fire and brimstone passages while ignoring the "god is love" passages. fundamentalists also ignore a lot of harsh things which happen not to set well with them. The manner in which they ignore passages is by simply saying that passage "X" can only be properly understood by using passage "y" as a reference, even though passage "y" is often in a different book written by a different person, and even hundreds of years apart. Careful examination will show that usually passage "y" happens to be a proof text in that Christian's denomination.

I also agree with Kuroikaze here. I wonder what you mean by "believe all of it." I'm an atheist, and I take things skeptically. Until there is sufficient evidence, I withhold my opinion. I also try to fit each piece of data into the whole. That's what ultimately lead to atheism - the pieces in Christianity did not fit with the real world.

 

Prayer is useless, supernatural miracles are absent, and inconsistencies in religions belie their mutual errors.

 

I don't accept any writer or book as authoritative, and I don't blindly accept everything in a book that generally agrees with what I think is true. I am willing to investigate my beliefs and discard those that are not supported by some kind of evidence. I don't start with a conclusion and find evidence to support it, I consider the evidence provided and then do my own investigation, collect the facts, and examine alternative explanations.

 

That makes my quite different from a fundamentalist

[/quote

 

I never said fundamentalists were akin to atheists in that they require evidence or base their beliefs on facts or take a scientific approach to the bible what i did say is they are more akin to atheists than moderate christians because they don't base their beliefs on what they want to be true let me give you an example, a moderate christian will choose to believe in things based on whether they want it to be true. how many moderate christians believe in heaven, i would dare to say nearly all of them. the logical conclusion to believing gods word about heaven is to also believe his word about hell yet i know many moderates who just think that's too nasty to believe.

[classicchinadoll]

sorry i will add a bit more the logical conclusion to establishing hell isn't true is to accept well heaven probably isn't either, with fundamentalists once they shake their belief about the inerrancy of the bible (if they ever do) they don't resort to believing some of it they usually draw the logical conclusion that the whole thing is a farce

[Shyone]

When i was a fundamentalist i don't feel i did cherry pick but i did find confusion in contradictory passages, the firm belief that god couldn't be wrong meant i had to scale the bible for further information concerning these matters to try to determine exactly what god meant. i believe most fundamentalists do this. it isn't so much about choosing what you like as trying to determine between two contradictory passages a reconciliation. the fact that they can't shake the whole idea of the bible being god's word means that something written by paul is still relevant to something written by isaiah as ultimately god is the author of the whole thing.

The upshot is that some passages that clearly outline God's "commandments" (not just the 10, but all of them) are deliberately disregarded. This could be because Paul, in Romans, explains that "circumcision of the heart" is a reasonable substitute and the Law itself can be generally disregarded and replaced with the new convenant (Romans 7:6).

 

Being released from the obligation to follow the law is tantamount to Paul's "cherry picking" and he specifies which laws HE thinks are important and, by implication, which ones can be disregarded.

 

So while the fundamentalist is not necessarily personally picking and choosing, there is enough wiggle room to pick and choose from the OT. Like keeping homosexuality an abomination while making not eating seafood or not wearing two kinds of fabric together optional.

[classicchinadoll]

yes shyone the reason fundamentalists don't keep ot laws is because the new testament told them they didn't have to. the reason they still condemn homosexuality is because romans 1 specifically describes it as unnatural and also in error and also because paul teaches that the sexually immoral will not enter the kingdom of heaven therefore they condemn all acts defined as sexually immoral in the ot including sex before marriage. Paul also included drunks in his list of who will not enter and for this reason most fundamentalists condemn drunks.

[Kommissar]

 

Being released from the obligation to follow the law is tantamount to Paul's "cherry picking" and he specifies which laws HE thinks are important and, by implication, which ones can be disregarded.

 

So while the fundamentalist is not necessarily personally picking and choosing, there is enough wiggle room to pick and choose from the OT. Like keeping homosexuality an abomination while making not eating seafood or not wearing two kinds of fabric together optional.

 

I present to you a new T-Shirt/Bumper Sticker

 

"Fundamentalists Christians don't cherry pick the Bible, Paul of Tarsus does it for them!"

 

Back to the topic

Personally while the various exceptions up the thread are important to note, and I too was initially skeptical of the concept; Fundies+Atheists both like truth, once it sunk in, I recall many Fundies and Atheists say the same things in response to Cherry Picking:

 

Why use the Bible at all?

 

And that for many Fundies, Moderation is just a brief transition to Atheism.

[classicchinadoll]

 

"Fundamentalists Christians don't cherry pick the Bible, Paul of Tarsus does it for them!"

 

 

lol that is so funny Kommissar, i want that t-shirt

[nightflight]

Paul wasn't much of an innovator as far as saying Gentiles needn't obey Torah law. The Seven Laws of Noah (Noachide Laws) allowed for Gentiles to worship and be acceptable to Yahweh.

[OrdinaryClay]

Fundamentalism is a logical conclusion to a faulty premise.

Fundamentalism could just as easily be the logical conclusion to a set of true premises.

 

... but as dawkins points out in god delusion it is most likely an evolutionary by product which gives humans a propensity to believe in the supernatural.

There is no empirical evidence for this claim.

[oddbird1963]

Fundamentalism is a logical conclusion to a faulty premise.

Fundamentalism could just as easily be the logical conclusion to a set of true premises.

 

... but as dawkins points out in god delusion it is most likely an evolutionary by product which gives humans a propensity to believe in the supernatural.

There is no empirical evidence for this claim.

 

there is no empirical evidence for these claims.

[OrdinaryClay]

Fundamentalism is a logical conclusion to a faulty premise.

Fundamentalism could just as easily be the logical conclusion to a set of true premises.

 

... but as dawkins points out in god delusion it is most likely an evolutionary by product which gives humans a propensity to believe in the supernatural.

There is no empirical evidence for this claim.

 

there is no empirical evidence for these claims.

Dawkins is a scientist making a scientific claim. Science is based on empirical evidence.

[Kuroikaze]

Dawkins is a scientist making a scientific claim. Science is based on empirical evidence.

 

Evolution is a well documented theory, something you would know if you bothered to read some science journals.

 

As to Dawkins' specific claim about religion, if you know the context then you would know it was more of a conjecture than a proper scientific theory, there is SOME evidence to support this idea, but it is by no means as well researched as say, the common ancestry of humans and apes.

 

Just because Dawkins is a scientist does not mean EVERY thing he ever says at ANY time must be a properly supported and peer reviewed scientific claim, now you are just being silly.

 

Besides this is a red herring to avoid the fact that you have no evidence to back up ANY claims in the most basic tenets of your religion.

[OrdinaryClay]

Dawkins is a scientist making a scientific claim. Science is based on empirical evidence.

As to Dawkins' specific claim about religion, if you know the context then you would know it was more of a conjecture than a proper scientific theory, there is SOME evidence to support this idea, but it is by no means as well researched as say, the common ancestry of humans and apes.

There is no evidence to support the "conjecture". It is just empty talk.

[laurie]

Laurie sorry i worded myself wrong when i said i hope you can reconcile your beliefs what i meant is i hope you can come to a sense of inner peace. I believe being an atheist allows me to hold logical and emotional integrity. I don't believe christianity can establish this.

I understand. Thankyou, and don't worry too much about offending me(which you really didn't)that's sorta what i'm looking for.

[oddbird1963]

Fundamentalism is a logical conclusion to a faulty premise.

Fundamentalism could just as easily be the logical conclusion to a set of true premises.

 

... but as dawkins points out in god delusion it is most likely an evolutionary by product which gives humans a propensity to believe in the supernatural.

There is no empirical evidence for this claim.

 

there is no empirical evidence for these claims.

Dawkins is a scientist making a scientific claim. Science is based on empirical evidence.

 

NOPE! You brought in the subject of science and empirical evidence. Now, you obligate yourself to back up what you say with empirical evidence. Do put up or shut up.

[bdp]

I'm done attacking anyone, for any reason, especially over something as insignificant as moderate religiosity, as long as they keep it to themselves. Life's too short to go around with chips on my shoulder.

[classicchinadoll]

Fundamentalism is a logical conclusion to a faulty premise.

Fundamentalism could just as easily be the logical conclusion to a set of true premises.

 

... but as dawkins points out in god delusion it is most likely an evolutionary by product which gives humans a propensity to believe in the supernatural.

There is no empirical evidence for this claim.

 

if you really want to be completely logical you need to ask yourself why is the moral code of mankind superior today and more human rights focused than any moral code god set forth in the ot, permission to own slaves, permission to beat slaves, denial of any rights to women etc basically the only laws in the ot that have any resemblance to todays moral code is a few of the ten commandments, ignoring the commandments that were god focused which are pointless, there was do not kill do not steal, do not bear false witness. these laws had nothing to do with god as it is evident primitive tribes had similar laws with out hearing from god at all. as a result of natural selection we are tribal beings, evolution favours strong connections to your family and tribe as this is beneficial to promoting the continuation of your genes. that is why all over the world thousands and thousands of years ago ppl from all parts of the earth had laws to protect their own tribe, basically they would have died out if they didn't. It is evident in the ot that israelites shared this tribal mindset the laws established to protect their own kind did not extend to those outside their tribe or race.

[OrdinaryClay]

Fundamentalism is a logical conclusion to a faulty premise.

Fundamentalism could just as easily be the logical conclusion to a set of true premises.

 

... but as dawkins points out in god delusion it is most likely an evolutionary by product which gives humans a propensity to believe in the supernatural.

There is no empirical evidence for this claim.

 

if you really want to be completely logical you need to ask yourself why is the moral code of mankind superior today and more human rights focused than any moral code god set forth in the ot, permission to own slaves, permission to beat slaves, denial of any rights to women etc basically the only laws in the ot that have any resemblance to todays moral code is a few of the ten commandments, ignoring the commandments that were god focused which are pointless, there was do not kill do not steal, do not bear false witness. these laws had nothing to do with god as it is evident primitive tribes had similar laws with out hearing from god at all. as a result of natural selection we are tribal beings, evolution favours strong connections to your family and tribe as this is beneficial to promoting the continuation of your genes. that is why all over the world thousands and thousands of years ago ppl from all parts of the earth had laws to protect their own tribe, basically they would have died out if they didn't. It is evident in the ot that israelites shared this tribal mindset the laws established to protect their own kind did not extend to those outside their tribe or race.

None of your words had anything to do with Dawkins' claim that religion is an evolutionary byproduct of some other evolutionary advantageous trait. The whole idea behind a byproduct is that trait X has no direct advantage it just results from trait Y which does have advantage. This is all just empty talk on Dawkins' part.

[Guest Valkyrie0010]

Wow! Ouch, this is pretty much me right now. I'm stuck between my logical and emotional halves. I need to step back and see if/how I can reconcile the two. Thankyou very much for this.

Not sure you can, I tried and failed. But maybe you will be more successful then I.