The moderate religion is ok argument

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Being moderately arrogant, moderately arsonistic, moderately racist or moderately paedophiliac are still not good things. Ditto religion. Moderately believing bollocks is real is still fucking stupid.

I'm moderately impressed by that.

Stinkin' mods.

I admin it, I'm a mod.

Not a moderate mod though.

Hey, I'mmoderate!

[JimC]

To my mind, a lot of this thread has missed the important point - how we, as atheists, interact with friends and relatives who are moderate, liberal christians. I can agree with the philosophic point that liberal religion is:
a) still an incorrect picture of how the Universe works
b) potentially a way of maintaining the existence of their fundamentalist brethren (although I think many have exaggerated this effect...)

However, I have always been perfectly happy to accept and be friends with a wide range of moderate theists on a personal level. Sometimes the discussion gets interesting, and sometimes religion is tacitly "put to one side", and I don't mind anyway.

I prefer to reserve my anger for the bigoted, intolerant morons who truly deserve it, and in defence of secularism in general...

[charlou]

I prefer to reserve my anger for the bigoted, intolerant morons who truly deserve it, and in defence of secularism in general...

Same. I'm not angry at moderates ... and neither, for that matter, is Richard Dawkins, from what I can tell. It's just a fact that

liberal religion is:
a) still an incorrect picture of how the Universe works
b) potentially a way of maintaining the existence of their fundamentalist brethren

and people should be aware of that fact.

[Hermit]

Many people agree that religious extremism is anathema, but they think that "ordinary" religious beliefs are harmless.

There can be no doubt that religious varieties that encourage altruism, empathy and tolerance are preferable to those that lead people to kill other people, but, moderate or extreme, religions are all essentially irrational because they are based on faith - belief in absence of evidence. As such, conduct based on religions is random and haphazard. The same texts can lead to building orphanages or going on crusades, financing refuges for battered women or murdering abortionists, becoming leading societies of scientific knowledge or forbidding women to get an education.

More than one sentence, I know, but you were not really looking for a one sentence knockout argument were you?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

To my mind, a lot of this thread has missed the important point - how we, as atheists, interact with friends and relatives who are moderate, liberal christians. I can agree with the philosophic point that liberal religion is:
a) still an incorrect picture of how the Universe works
b) potentially a way of maintaining the existence of their fundamentalist brethren (although I think many have exaggerated this effect...)

However, I have always been perfectly happy to accept and be friends with a wide range of moderate theists on a personal level. Sometimes the discussion gets interesting, and sometimes religion is tacitly "put to one side", and I don't mind anyway.

I prefer to reserve my anger for the bigoted, intolerant morons who truly deserve it, and in defence of secularism in general...

All good points BUT, I find it reasonable to let such moderates know what my feelings are and to leave the opportunity for discussion open to them. I also find it impossible not to respond somewhat more forcibly if they blithely and matter-of-factly introduce religion into our interactions, for instance: by saying grace at meals when I am present, signing letters/emails/etc. with "god bless", mentioning praying for someone/thing. I am willing to ignore their religious beliefs but NOT to accept them.

[Rum]

I think being 'moderately' religious isn't all that far in terms of a position from agnosticism. I suspect people in that 'category' are often lazy about thinking it through or perhaps frightened of examining the issues too closely. Or simply have never approached the issue with any seriousness.

The 'logic' (if you will excuse the contradiction) of blind faith in something that is unprovable, is that there are by definition no limits to what you should do in the name of your god. The truly virtuous believer, if convinced that they should set off a nuclear device in the middle of London would be acting against his or her faith if they did not perform what their belief required of them. This is the ultimate madness of belief without evidence - it can justify any action in its name.

Perhaps therefore we should encourage wishy washy 'moderate' people of faith and engage with them intelligently and sceptically in the hope that slowly they will come to their senses.

[JimC]

I think being 'moderately' religious isn't all that far in terms of a position from agnosticism. I suspect people in that 'category' are often lazy about thinking it through or perhaps frightened of examining the issues too closely. Or simply have never approached the issue with an seriousness.

The 'logic' (if you will excuse the contradiction) of blind faith in something that is unprovable, is that there are by definition no limits to what you should do in the name of your god. The truly virtuous believer, if convinced that they should set off a nuclear device in the middle of London would be acting against his or her faith if they did not perform what their belief required of them. This is the ultimate madness of belief without evidence - it can justify any action in its name.

Perhaps therefore we should encourage wishy washy 'moderate' people of faith and engage with them intelligently and sceptically in the hope that slowly they will come to their senses.

Over the years, much (but not all) of the christian religion has moved steadily away from a variety of absolutist positions they once held. With a few clear and dangerous exceptions, most christian faiths now accept that they have no right to exert overt political power, or command governments. This position would have been unthinkable to "princes of the church" in earlier eras. The changes that have occurred have not usually been voluntary, of course, and I'm sure there are many current churchmen who regret their tiger is now pretty well toothless. Many brave and principled secularists through history have contributed, but in many ways, it is also an example of an institution being dragged willy-nilly by a changing zeitgeist...

I take hope from this historical process, and suspect that it will one day extend to all the world's fundamentalists, though the process may be long and messy. If we are left with a world with a slowly declining degree of religious fervour, even if there are a substantial number of people who label themselves religious, the world will be safer and less fraught with violence via faith. That is why I think it is wise for atheists not to get too militant in their dealings with others, and hop into bed with the religious liberals as needed to make common cause against the fundamentalists. This does not mean being silent about one's personal atheism, but a degree of "live and let live"is necessary if the process in Rum's last sentence is to occur...

[FBM]

Sorry, but I think there's a bit of tilting at windmills among some of the most aggressive atheists/agnostics/anti-theists. Often, we discuss these matters in abstract terms, ignoring the real world, which is largely populated by gullible dimwits who want to be lead/blindly follow in exchange for the illusions of certainty and immortality.

There seems to be an insistence that everyone agree on a certain idea, a certain model of the world. I don't want my thoughts policed by anyone, even those with whom I agree. It's too close to what the religious extremists are doing. Minus the bombs, of course.

I support freedom of religion or lack thereof. I chose the latter, but as long as the other person keeps his beliefs out of my way, I would fight to the death to defend his/her freedom (hyperbole. I ain't doin' that shit ), even if it means the freedom to be a dumbass. I would no more limit one's freedom to believe in nonsense than I would force someone to believe in any particular version of nonsense, or even what I perceive to be 'sense'. They're just two...three...sides of the same coin.

Solution? Continue to blow the shit out of the militant extremists whenever they poke their deranged heads up and otherwise promote freedom wherever freedom in desired. Which, I might add, isn't everywhere. If a country or region's people want to keep their religion, fine. As long as they do it peacefully. Otherwise, blow the shit out of them. A large part of 'our' error in this 'war on terrorism' is the effort to shove democracy (along with McDonald's, Nike, iPods, etc.) down the throats of people who don't want it. If they want to live in the Bronze Age, fuck 'em. That's their business. I have to wonder how much of this 'war on terrorism' is funded by corporate hawks who look at foreign countries simply as potential markets for their useless crap. No, I'm not making that claim, just wondering. The military industrial complex is pretty satisfied with the whole thing, I imagine.


Another large part of 'our' error is ignoring Lao Tzu's advice in The Art of War, but that's another story.

[Rum]

I always think of Abraham in the context of religious 'extremism' and doing the 'will of god' no matter how counter it may be to social 'norms'. Most of you probably know the story, but here is the extract (From Genesis 22):-

"Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!"
"Here I am," he replied.

2 Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."

3 Early the next morning Abraham got up and saddled his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about. 4 On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. 5 He said to his servants, "Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you."

6 Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, 7 Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, "Father?"
"Yes, my son?" Abraham replied.
"The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"

8 Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together.

9 When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. 10 Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. 11 But the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, "Abraham! Abraham!"
"Here I am," he replied.

12 "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."

13 Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram [a] caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. 14 So Abraham called that place The LORD Will Provide. And to this day it is said, "On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided."

15 The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time 16 and said, "I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, 18 and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me." "

[floppit]

From Rum:

This is the ultimate madness of belief without evidence - it can justify any action in its name.

I agree 100%, no reservation. A classic example of such would be the parents who's belief in homoeopathy allowed them to watch their child die while treated only with water. The solution however is for people to understand the need for evidence. It is not JUST moderate religion that supports the extremes, it is all those who abandon the need for evidence in preference for keeping a favoured belief.

[JimC]

Most christian moderates have moved a long way from accepting the bible's particular words as the literal voice of god, particularly the old testament. Instead, they view it a a story, written in the context of the day, of an ancient peoples attempts to grasp what they would term a divine mystery. As such, they are perfectly happy to disavow the brutality of much of the bible, saying it is a misinterpretation by fallible humans of their much more loving god.

Of course this can be criticised as "cherry-picking", but that is not necessarily a crushing argument.

Deep down, what it means is that the "evil angry jehova" arguments of atheists do not have much effect as an argument against liberal christians. They will have some unease themselves as to exactly where they draw the line, and start accepting particular chunks or not of the bible, but the cracks can be papered over with a combination of faith and emotional attachment to an idealised version of jesus (two things which are actually quite separate).

[Rum]

On the other hand, if you want to see scary fundamentalism at work of the Islamic type (and a bit of a laugh to be honest) go to the Islam4UK (Geddit?) site at:

http://www.islam4uk.com/

Which includes such gems as:

"It has authentically been reported by Uthman bin Affan (ra) that the Final Messenger Muhammad (saw) said, "He who builds a masjid for the sake of Allah, seeking the pleasure of Allah, will be rewarded by Allah with a dwelling in Paradise."

One very real possibility that we envisage could occur in Britain when it succumbs to Islamic rule is for Buckingham Palace to be converted into a beautiful mosque (click picture to enlarge).

However, with that said, the mosque in question would possess a very different role to that of contemporary mosques found dotted all over the United Kingdom, which unfortunately do very little to reflect the real responsibility of this central building in Islam.

During the lifetime of the Final Messenger Muhammad (saw) and the dawn of the first Islamic State in Madinah, the mosque or masjid, was the starting point to the expansion of Islamic conquests which engulfed large parts of the world.

Buckingham Masjid, would indeed incorporate this as well as other important features including departments and divisions such as:

1. Headquarters of the Islamic States supreme leadership........."

....etcetera

Edit:- Out of curiosity looked in more detail at this site. It is pretty funny as well as terrifying. One suggestion on the site is that when Britain is subject to Sherriah law the crown jewels will be melted down and used as dowries to encourage men to marry single women and widows.

[floppit]

This is a genuine question. How do you know these sites are set up by who they say they are set up by? I imagine there are plenty of people who would set a fake one up to spread fear. The BNP could create a place looking identical and then use it as evidence.

Is there a way a person can check?

[floppit]

Sorry - I answered my own question and googled the name. Judging by the news stories surrounding it I think it is a genuine site.

[Rum]

Sorry - I answered my own question and googled the name. Judging by the news stories surrounding it I think it is a genuine site.

Hope you are convinced! You do make a good point about someone like the BNP putting somethign like this together though.

Happily the BNP don't have either the intelligence or the subtlety to put somethign like this site together....yet.