Why We Should Attack Moderate Religiosity

[Ouroboros]

I do not argue for the fantasy religions and indeed fight against them but I do recognize the value to community that churches are.

I do argue that they change the way they teach of God.

 

God should be the word and the word was and should return to what it is. A philosophy for a good life the way all philosophies are. They screwed it up when they gave God a name and personified the title of God and gave it impossible attributes.

It sounds cute and pretty, but I suspect it is unattainable. To make religious people to accept a "nicer" version of their own religion, just for the sake of us all being happier, they will argue it's against the "truth" that has been "revealed" to them. IMO.

 

You can't make people believe something they don't believe. And people believe stupid and crazy stuff.

 

Perhaps you have to start your own church, and take it from there?

[Greatest I am]

Hey, I'm not the one arguing an atheist society is incapable of morality.

 

Neither am I.

 

Show where or recant and at least show you have manners.

 

Regards

DL

Sometimes your writing can be misunderstood. There are a number of things you have said in this thread that seem to imply that atheists are immoral, or that religious morality is superior. Sometimes the dangling sentences complete themselves in ways you had not intended. Perhaps you might like to see some that struck me that way:

 

When I was a atheist I did not think myself evil at all.

 

Which seems to want to be completed with: "But I was - because I was an atheist."

 

My morality as a non believer did not change when I found the Godhead.

It was just confirmed.

 

 

Meaning there is no self-confirmation of morality without the Godhead.

 

 

"What proof do you have that prostitution is a product of atheism?"

 

 

I did not say it was. I may have hinted that secular systems are too easy in accepting it as same old same old without any moral implications.

 

 

I do not particularly push the Godhead that I know and prefer to show off my morals in discussions.

 

 

By this I mean that the secular small town will look like this.

A cat house on one corner. A drug den on the other. A bar/strip joint on another corner. An abortion clinic on the other. Prostitutes will abound. A gambling casino on the next.

 

If all moderate religionists disappear then all the above will come to pass and if a family person, you will realize that taking a walk downtown with the kids will become a whole new ball game. You will be walking through all kinds of things that at one time were considered filth.

 

No religion => bad morals. When religions disappear, filth will be normal. Isn't that what you are saying? That without religion, we would descend into moral depravity and filth?

Wow. You add much that is not there or implied from what I intend.

 

I do not know of any nation that was or is without some kind of religion so I do not know how low it would go but I will say that yes, from what I can see, if religions disappeared completely, as compared to a society aspiring to dignity, the example I gave above for a town, I would consider rather filthy and without dignity.

 

We give dignity lip service only today by chasing porn shops and head shops away from our school areas while allowing drug pushers of all kinds access to our young.

 

Regards

DL

[NotBlinded]

I do not know of any nation that was or is without some kind of religion so I do not know how low it would go but I will say that yes, from what I can see, if religions disappeared completely, as compared to a society aspiring to dignity, the example I gave above for a town, I would consider rather filthy and without dignity.

IMO, I think that if religions did disappear, something would replace it. It is in the human psyche to wonder and propagate symbols to represent that wonderment. Humans also have a tendancy to turn those symbols into concrete reality and therefore miss the intent. Humans shall be humans regardless if one calls what they turn to "religion" or not. The name doesn't matter. What comes from the inside of the persons will always be towards good or bad.

 

We give dignity lip service only today by chasing porn shops and head shops away from our school areas while allowing drug pushers of all kinds access to our young.

 

Regards

DL

And there it is. This would be the case if there were religion or not.

[Greatest I am]

 

Good point.

 

Basically, moderate religious make sure the extremists do not get too much power.

 

Unfortunately the moderates tend to keep quiet when the extremists act out.

But then it seems like whenever the moderates do speak out, you almost never see anti-theistic atheists thanking them for it. Like when virtually all of Christendom disowned Pat Robertson after his lies about Haiti, Dawkins didn't thank Christians for speaking out against him. Instead Dawkins picked apart all their responses and made the No True Scotsman fallacy that Pat Robertson was the only true Christian and any Christian who disowns him is not a real Christian. Which one is it? Does Dawkins want moderate Christians to call out extremists when they act out or should they shut up because they aren't "real" Christians? He can't have it both ways. It's the same thing with the Westboro Baptists. People complain that moderates aren't calling the extremists out on their actions enough but when they call out the Phelps on their actions, you never see anyone thank them for it. Instead people pick apart their response to the Phelps to argue that the Phelps are the only "real" Christians.

 

I think that the problem in this case is the media's penchant for drama. The bad neaws always gets top billing and the most air time.

 

I do not know if you all know David Suzuki. A Canadian scientist and environmentalist. He complains that when he is asked to speak by the media, there is always someone there with an opposing view put against him for drama and balanced journalism; he complains that the viewing public does not realize that he is speaking for 99 % of the scientific community while his opponent is given the same air time and only speaks for 1 %.

 

He has a point and this may be why we still have so many fools who do not recognize global warming.

 

Trust me, In Canada we are living it.

 

Regards

DL

[Greatest I am]

Ouroboros

We have had a slight communication problem and even with this as a draw back for me, would you offer your opinion please.

 

If you agree with Neon, I will apologize quickly.

Your English is very confusing. At times it sounds like your in disagreement, and somethings it sounds like you're in agreement, but when we're arguing the finer points of either-or, the response from you isn't what we expected. I'm not sure what advice I can give you, but currently this is--what I can see--the central problem.

 

I will admit that I sometimes feel like a cross between an absent minded proffesor and an idiot savant.

 

If I did think like most then I would not have had my apotheosis or rapprochement, a better word, to the Godhead.

 

Neon.

My apologies for the confusion. I will try harder.

 

 

Regards

DL

[Ouroboros]

I do not know if you all know David Suzuki. A Canadian scientist and environmentalist. He complains that when he is asked to speak by the media, there is always someone there with an opposing view put against him for drama and balanced journalism; he complains that the viewing public does not realize that he is speaking for 99 % of the scientific community while his opponent is given the same air time and only speaks for 1 %.

Hmm... so it would be better if the media decided which view should be accepted and only present that one and never the opposite side? Even in scientific writing ethos is very important, and part of it is to present both sides.

 

The idea of free speech is that all sides get their chance to say their thing, even if they're crazy, and then the public has to make up their mind which one makes more sense.

 

To complain that media is corrupt because it tries to be balanced, is just...

 

He has a point and this may be why we still have so many fools who do not recognize global warming.

Maybe.

 

Trust me, In Canada we are living it.

Global warming? You're having record heat there now?

 

You know what's funny. I told you I went to Sweden over Christmas, and it was a record cold and more snow than anyone had seen in a decade.

 

They were living the global cooling for a couple of months.

 

Oh, and a ferry between Sweden and Finland got frozen in the ocean during a night. I don't remember when it happened last.

 

Perhaps the Pleistocene era is coming back to Scandinavia, while the Pliocene era is coming back to Canada?

[Ouroboros]

If I did think like most then I would not have had my apotheosis or rapprochement, a better word, to the Godhead.

[Neon Genesis]

 

Hmm... so it would be better if the media decided which view should be accepted and only present that one and never the opposite side? Even in scientific writing ethos is very important, and part of it is to present both sides.

 

The idea of free speech is that all sides get their chance to say their thing, even if they're crazy, and then the public has to make up their mind which one makes more sense.

 

To complain that media is corrupt because it tries to be balanced, is just...

 

 

My problem is not with the media but when people like Dawkins and .co and their fans complain that moderates are not attacking extremists enough but when the moderates do attack extremists, they still complain that they're not doing it the right way and are still somehow guilty of contributing to the problem. To me, it makes it seem like the New Atheists are afraid of thanking moderates when they attack extremists because that would mean they would have to acknowledge that some religious people were making positive contributions to society and that would put a hole in their anti-theistic argument. I support criticizing religions, including the moderates, but I believe that there are good arguments and bad arguments and that just because something is arguing against religion doesn't make it logical and we should critique the New Atheists for their flaws as well.

[Ouroboros]

 

Hmm... so it would be better if the media decided which view should be accepted and only present that one and never the opposite side? Even in scientific writing ethos is very important, and part of it is to present both sides.

 

The idea of free speech is that all sides get their chance to say their thing, even if they're crazy, and then the public has to make up their mind which one makes more sense.

 

To complain that media is corrupt because it tries to be balanced, is just...

 

 

My problem is not with the media but when people like Dawkins and .co and their fans complain that moderates are not attacking extremists enough but when the moderates do attack extremists, they still complain that they're not doing it the right way and are still somehow guilty of contributing to the problem. To me, it makes it seem like the New Atheists are afraid of thanking moderates when they attack extremists because that would mean they would have to acknowledge that some religious people were making positive contributions to society and that would put a hole in their anti-theistic argument. I support criticizing religions, including the moderates, but I believe that there are good arguments and bad arguments and that just because something is arguing against religion doesn't make it logical and we should critique the New Atheists for their flaws as well.

You know that my response up there was to GreatesIAm about a Canadian scientist who was complaining that media paired him up with people, with opposite views, during interviews, and not about atheists?

[Neon Genesis]

Yeah, but I was trying to explain that I wasn't talking about any problem with the media to GIA. Maybe my post would have made more sense if I had included GIA in the quote as well?

[florduh]

To me, it makes it seem like the New Atheists are afraid of thanking moderates when they attack extremists because that would mean they would have to acknowledge that some religious people were making positive contributions to society and that would put a hole in their anti-theistic argument.

Perhaps it will clarify if I tell you my own position as an atheist.

 

The extremes of religion do not exist without the so-called moderates. Extremists grow out of the moderate pool. Often as not the "moderates" simply lack the balls to expose themselves to ridicule, or danger, for their beliefs. After all, they read the same holy books and pretty much believe it or they wouldn't call themselves Christians, Muslims or whatever. They still will vote by secret ballot to inflict their religion through secular legislation and leadership that is sympathetic to the cause.

 

To the modern atheist the enemy is imaginary gods and their religions that perpetuate the delusion. Yes, I said the "D" word. It is now an enemy to be actively challenged because so many people who don't march under the "right" banner are under attack, be it gays, competing religions or atheists. It is moderates that keep the religious movements alive, because the extremists are quickly seen for what they are and discounted by most people as reasonable examples of a useful world view.

 

I don't differentiate between the Ted Haggards, Fred Phelps's and the Billy Grahams. The Muslim extremist kills on behalf of the moderates who silently, for the most part, watch and pray to Allah to further His cause. Without those we label "moderates" the religions would fade to insignificance, and that would be the best thing that could happen to humanity.

 

Moderate or extreme, it's still a cancer.

[Neon Genesis]

When you have the fundamentalist Christians damning the moderates to hell on the one end, and the New Atheists accusing the moderates of enabling fundamentalism on the other end, is it any surprise we don't hear them speak up more? Why should we expect them to speak up more when neither the New Atheists or the fundamentalists apparently want to listen to whatever they say even if they did? And how are Ted Haggard and Billy Graham "moderate" in any definition of the word? By moderate, I'm referring to religious liberals like John Shelby Spong, Karen Armstrong, and Gene Robinson etc. Do you distinguish between them and the Phelps of the world? And did the atheist communism regimes grow out of the moderate anti-theist pool?

[florduh]

When you have the fundamentalist Christians damning the moderates to hell on the one end, and the New Atheists accusing the moderates of enabling fundamentalism on the other end, is it any surprise we don't hear them speak up more? Why should we expect them to speak up more when neither the New Atheists or the fundamentalists apparently want to listen to whatever they say even if they did? And how are Ted Haggard and Billy Graham "moderate" in any definition of the word? By moderate, I'm referring to religious liberals like John Shelby Spong, Karen Armstrong, and Gene Robinson etc. Do you distinguish between them and the Phelps of the world? And did the atheist communism regimes grow out of the moderate anti-theist pool?

You don't have to agree with the position, but I thought I could help you understand.

 

You see "moderate good" and "extremist bad" while I see two sides of the same counterfeit coin. Extremists can't exist without moderates. I don't know what a New Atheist is, but that's my take on it. Oh, and sorry I didn't choose the right examples, though it's irrelevant.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

You see "moderate good" and "extremist bad" while I see two sides of the same counterfeit coin. Extremists can't exist without moderates. I don't know what a New Atheist is, but that's my take on it. Oh, and sorry I didn't choose the right examples, though it's irrelevant.

But I think it's fundamentalist Christianity and the New Atheists who are two sides of the same coin of literalism and moderate religion is an entirely different coin all-together. Granted, the New Atheists are nowhere close to the extreme level fundamentalist Christianity takes the us vs them mentality, but they still have that same us vs them "you're either with us or against us, liberals should never be trusted" mentality.

[Shyone]

Wow. You add much that is not there or implied from what I intend.

 

Yes I did. That's because some of the statements just resonate with me that way, perhaps because I've been reading the writings of people whose writings carry a subtext of accusation or insult.

 

I do not know of any nation that was or is without some kind of religion so I do not know how low it would go but I will say that yes, from what I can see, if religions disappeared completely, as compared to a society aspiring to dignity, the example I gave above for a town, I would consider rather filthy and without dignity.

 

The mostly secular countries of Europe still have religion, but it is not so dominant that the culture is affected by it in a major way. Different cultures may have different views of morality, and when European countries are not offended by ankles, but Muslim countries are, I don't think that speaks to superior morality of Muslim countries.

 

The US, for all of its secular laws, has a not insignificant number of laws that are based on religious morality. That much is true. Blue laws, laws against private sexual behavior, and laws against the sale of dildoes (for example) are not laws that should be held in high esteem (IMO). The laws that are secular but happen to correspond to religious laws (murder and perjury for example) would still be valid (and good) laws in a secular society.

 

We give dignity lip service only today by chasing porn shops and head shops away from our school areas while allowing drug pushers of all kinds access to our young.

 

Regards

DL

 

Do we allow drug pushers access to our young? Laws exist against that, parents should play a role, and there are certainly no exclusions to the laws in order to allow pushers to have access to our young.

 

Many schools have such strict Zero Tolerance policies in place that a child with an over the counter nonsteroidal analgesic (like Motrin) will be expelled. That alone says that our schools do not "allow" access of pushers to our young.

 

I'm not sure I know what to say about pornography and gambling. Like private sexual behavior between consenting adults, I tend to think of things like these as "victimless crimes." When we can identify the victims, we should protect them, but who are they? Should people be protected against themselves? I've seen it argued that the women in pornography are effectively victims who have been lured into the business by unscrupulous means. I've seen it argued that viewing pornography causes some men to become sexually aggressive (or something along those lines). If true, I could see ridding society of pornography, but such generalizations have not been established, and the men that do become sexually aggressive who view pornography likely would have been so anyway - I think.

 

I'm not even sure what to say about drugs - another "victimless crime" in a sense. I'm a doctor, so I understand quite a bit about addiction (oh, and that would include sex addiction and gambling addiction). I worry that some people will indeed find themselves in situations with no way out, and their lives will be destroyed. Should they be protected against themselves, or should we just offer "help-lines."

 

I think I'm getting a little long-winded here, but lets just sum it up by saying that there are sociological and medical considerations that need to be considered before issuing (or even maintaining) blanket prohibitions against self-induced problems. I think alcohol is addictive (in some sense) and harmful, but society goes on despite the Great Experiment with Prohibition.

 

Regardless, we try to protect our children by keeping them away from drugs, alcohol, cigarettes and gambling. Unfortunately, children don't become adults until they are about 50. If ever.

[Franko47]

 

 

Regardless, we try to protect our children by keeping them away from drugs, alcohol, cigarettes and gambling. Unfortunately, children don't become adults until they are about 50. If ever.

 

 

 

Truer words were never said, Doctor.

[Antlerman]

The extremes of religion do not exist without the so-called moderates. Extremists grow out of the moderate pool. Often as not the "moderates" simply lack the balls to expose themselves to ridicule, or danger, for their beliefs.

You will note I have not engaged in this conversation since the latest firestorm of controversy.

 

We began engaging in some substantive discourse. I'm hoping to return to that, along with my discussion with Vigle. I was enjoying that. It was meaningful conversation. As far as the above, this sounds reactionary to the latest round of discussions. It's full of assumptions, and laced with rhetorical language. I'll jump back in here when it gets serious again. I miss that.

[florduh]

The extremes of religion do not exist without the so-called moderates. Extremists grow out of the moderate pool. Often as not the "moderates" simply lack the balls to expose themselves to ridicule, or danger, for their beliefs.

You will note I have not engaged in this conversation since the latest firestorm of controversy.

 

We began engaging in some substantive discourse. I'm hoping to return to that, along with my discussion with Vigle. I was enjoying that. It was meaningful conversation. As far as the above, this sounds reactionary to the latest round of discussions. It's full of assumptions, and laced with rhetorical language. I'll jump back in here when it gets serious again. I miss that.

Then post something you consider "serious" rather than simply passing judgment on the subjects others are discussing and their opinions.

[Greatest I am]

I do not know if you all know David Suzuki. A Canadian scientist and environmentalist. He complains that when he is asked to speak by the media, there is always someone there with an opposing view put against him for drama and balanced journalism; he complains that the viewing public does not realize that he is speaking for 99 % of the scientific community while his opponent is given the same air time and only speaks for 1 %.

Hmm... so it would be better if the media decided which view should be accepted and only present that one and never the opposite side? Even in scientific writing ethos is very important, and part of it is to present both sides.

 

The idea of free speech is that all sides get their chance to say their thing, even if they're crazy, and then the public has to make up their mind which one makes more sense.

 

To complain that media is corrupt because it tries to be balanced, is just...

 

You are again taking my words too far.

 

I said nothing about a corrupt media.

I just pointed out that they do not tell the viewer that one is a minority position while the other is an overwhelming majority view.

 

I have no problem with hearing both sides of any issue. I just like to have all the facts.

 

He has a point and this may be why we still have so many fools who do not recognize global warming.

Maybe.

 

Trust me, In Canada we are living it.

Global warming? You're having record heat there now?

 

You know what's funny. I told you I went to Sweden over Christmas, and it was a record cold and more snow than anyone had seen in a decade.

 

They were living the global cooling for a couple of months.

 

Oh, and a ferry between Sweden and Finland got frozen in the ocean during a night. I don't remember when it happened last.

 

Perhaps the Pleistocene era is coming back to Scandinavia, while the Pliocene era is coming back to Canada?

 

Weather patterns are shifting for sure up here. Our northern natives must be wrong when they say that they see lands and seas where ice has always been.

 

Regards

DL

[Greatest I am]

Yeah, but I was trying to explain that I wasn't talking about any problem with the media to GIA. Maybe my post would have made more sense if I had included GIA in the quote as well?

 

I am not sure if I see much value in moderates criticizing their fundamentals.

They would gain by distancing themselves from them but I think that the fundamentals are so far gone that even if religions were not around to be joined and polluted by them, they would find some other way to express their fanaticism and insane agendas.

 

I see literalists and fundamentals as more insane than religionists.

Unfortunately, the world will always have it's share of insane individuals.

 

IE. To say that the Taliban are fundamentals to religion may be wrong. The are more fundamental to their drug trade than to religion. IMO.

 

Regards

DL

[Greatest I am]

Wow. You add much that is not there or implied from what I intend.

 

Yes I did. That's because some of the statements just resonate with me that way, perhaps because I've been reading the writings of people whose writings carry a subtext of accusation or insult.

 

I do not know of any nation that was or is without some kind of religion so I do not know how low it would go but I will say that yes, from what I can see, if religions disappeared completely, as compared to a society aspiring to dignity, the example I gave above for a town, I would consider rather filthy and without dignity.

 

The mostly secular countries of Europe still have religion, but it is not so dominant that the culture is affected by it in a major way. Different cultures may have different views of morality, and when European countries are not offended by ankles, but Muslim countries are, I don't think that speaks to superior morality of Muslim countries.

 

The US, for all of its secular laws, has a not insignificant number of laws that are based on religious morality. That much is true. Blue laws, laws against private sexual behavior, and laws against the sale of dildoes (for example) are not laws that should be held in high esteem (IMO). The laws that are secular but happen to correspond to religious laws (murder and perjury for example) would still be valid (and good) laws in a secular society.

 

We give dignity lip service only today by chasing porn shops and head shops away from our school areas while allowing drug pushers of all kinds access to our young.

 

Regards

DL

 

Do we allow drug pushers access to our young? Laws exist against that, parents should play a role, and there are certainly no exclusions to the laws in order to allow pushers to have access to our young.

 

Many schools have such strict Zero Tolerance policies in place that a child with an over the counter nonsteroidal analgesic (like Motrin) will be expelled. That alone says that our schools do not "allow" access of pushers to our young.

 

I'm not sure I know what to say about pornography and gambling. Like private sexual behavior between consenting adults, I tend to think of things like these as "victimless crimes." When we can identify the victims, we should protect them, but who are they? Should people be protected against themselves? I've seen it argued that the women in pornography are effectively victims who have been lured into the business by unscrupulous means. I've seen it argued that viewing pornography causes some men to become sexually aggressive (or something along those lines). If true, I could see ridding society of pornography, but such generalizations have not been established, and the men that do become sexually aggressive who view pornography likely would have been so anyway - I think.

 

I'm not even sure what to say about drugs - another "victimless crime" in a sense. I'm a doctor, so I understand quite a bit about addiction (oh, and that would include sex addiction and gambling addiction). I worry that some people will indeed find themselves in situations with no way out, and their lives will be destroyed. Should they be protected against themselves, or should we just offer "help-lines."

 

I think I'm getting a little long-winded here, but lets just sum it up by saying that there are sociological and medical considerations that need to be considered before issuing (or even maintaining) blanket prohibitions against self-induced problems. I think alcohol is addictive (in some sense) and harmful, but society goes on despite the Great Experiment with Prohibition.

 

Regardless, we try to protect our children by keeping them away from drugs, alcohol, cigarettes and gambling. Unfortunately, children don't become adults until they are about 50. If ever.

 

LOL.

Thank God I'm over 50.

 

As a doctor you might be interested in knowing that, what is considered to be the Bible of drug policy, The Ledain Royal Commission report on psychotropic drugs came down on the legalization side. It indicated that the more products were on the drug menu, the less addiction there would be because the habitual users could vary their drug of choice with others and that way reduce the physical part of addiction. This does not speak to the mental part of addiction but would reduce physical dependency. I tend to agree.

 

As to the lip service we give in the protection of our young.

If you ever want the best of any drug in town, just ask the young.

Trust me I know. I have 4 boys.

 

You speak of prohibition, LOL. What prohibition?

Pot has been California's biggest cash crop for 30 years with B C close behind.

When was the last time you heard of a drug king pin being arrested? Prohibition, ya.

 

Regards

DL

[Vigile]

My problem is not with the media but when people like Dawkins and .co and their fans complain that moderates are not attacking extremists enough but when the moderates do attack extremists, they still complain that they're not doing it the right way and are still somehow guilty of contributing to the problem.

 

Do you suppose that the moderates have more influence over the radicals than secular people do? Who cares if they complain or not? Dawkins may be hypocritical here but from my point of view it's a dead issue. Radicals love to be called out and 'persecuted' for their radical behavior. It just reinforces their sense that they are right. I don't get the complaints some people have about moderate Muslims not calling out the terrorists either for the same reason.

[Vigile]

and moderate religion is an entirely different coin all-together

 

You'll need to offer up your definition of moderate then because I don't see the characterization as being true if you are referring to Billy Graham types.

[Ouroboros]

Weather patterns are shifting for sure up here. Our northern natives must be wrong when they say that they see lands and seas where ice has always been.

And now YOU are taking my words too far since I never said Canada was not experiencing a record heatwave.

 

I know they do. And I didn't say they didn't.

 

But did you know that Scandinavia has had an extremely cold winter?

 

I guess, if I should exaggerate like you do, that the northern natives in Scandinavia must be wrong when they're freezing their butts of.

[Neon Genesis]

 

Do you suppose that the moderates have more influence over the radicals than secular people do?

I wouldn't say they have more influence than saecular people and I think the influence they have is about as equal since to fundamentalists, moderates and secular people are equally condemned heretics, but I think it depends on the situation. I don't think either secular people or religious moderates are going to have any influence over the Phelps, but I think it was pretty effective when virtually all of Christendom abandoned Pat Robertson after his bigoted comment about Haiti and now his name has been pretty much discredited in Christianity.

 

You'll need to offer up your definition of moderate then because I don't see the characterization as being true if you are referring to Billy Graham types.

I gave my definition of moderates earlier in the thread, that when I refer to moderates, I'm referring to liberals that don't believe in the inerrancy of the bible and that support liberal social justice issues. Christians like Bishop Spong, Gene Robinson, Karen Armstrong etc. Billy Graham is still a fundamentalist Christian to me since as far as I'm aware, he believes in the inerrancy of the bible and has your typical conservative religious beliefs. He's simply more "mainstream" than the Phelps or the Christian militia that was arrested recently, but he's still a fundamentalist believer.