# 1 in 3 Americans Bible literalists **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 30, 2007, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-in-3-americans-bible-literalists/406096 "2007-05-30T17:55:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2007, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-in-3-americans-bible-literalists/406096/121 "2007-06-05T20:45:57Z")
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] Sure you do; you need a code of morals in order to define what you would never do. Without a code of morals, there’s nothing someone wouldn’t do [/QUOTE] I think it is more like don’t destroy something you wish to keep in the case of Issac, not a internal moral code of don’t kill your children, which was at play here. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2007, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-in-3-americans-bible-literalists/406096/122 "2007-06-05T20:50:16Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] Genesis 22 says that Abraham loved Isaac. Are you claiming that my great\*\*n grandfather was such a shmuck that his moral code included killing his beloved son? That’s without God asking - his moral code, which we are supposed to respect, clearly included doing anything God said. Though he argued more about saving the inhabitants of Sodom than he did about saving Isaac for some strange reason. [/QUOTE] That Abraham was willing to accept an assignment that included sacrificing his son doesn’t mean that in another context he was a schmuck willing to kill his child. We have no indication as to Abraham’s thoughts about any “moral code” he had, nor does the author give us any indication as to how grieved he was at such an assignment. _What we do know_, is that he accepted the assignment—apparently without complaint— and did what he was told. It is also crystal clear from the whole of Abraham’s life that he enjoyed a close personal relationship with God. Nonetheless, we can certainly infer that Abraham loved his son; and that he didn’t wish him dead. But there is no compelling eveidence that Abraham had any “moral code” that was so independent of his relationship with God that this assignment was a violation of his moral code. In other words, it’s one thing for you to ask me to sacrifice my son. (assuming it’s a noble purpose, and one that I subscribe to) It’s another thing entirely another for God to ask. In both cases I may see the purpose as noble. For all we know, Abraham had faith in God sufficient enough that he was certain that the request had purpose, meaning and was ultimately righteous. (even if he may not have understood the full meaning or purpose) But just because he may have agonized over the decision, and suffered in it’s application, doesn’t mean that it violated any moral code. There are many practical examples. There a few thousand American (and Brits etc) who have given their children for their concept of “freedom”, “democracy” or the like, and have ‘sacrificed’ their lives. For many, not only was this “sacrifice” not immoral, but noble and righteous. (Cindy Sheehan and others like her duly noted) You may not simply not infer that a moral code was violated because suffering occurred, nor loss of life. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2007, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-in-3-americans-bible-literalists/406096/123 "2007-06-05T20:51:12Z")
[QUOTE=kanicbird] I think it is more like don’t destroy something you wish to keep in the case of Issac, not a internal moral code of don’t kill your children, which was at play here. [/QUOTE] Then you probably shouldn’t have generalised as you did. Or snipped the part of my post that actually addressed that. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2007, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-in-3-americans-bible-literalists/406096/124 "2007-06-05T21:49:48Z")
[QUOTE=the raindog] We have no indication as to Abraham’s thoughts about any “moral code” he had, nor does the author give us any indication as to how grieved he was at such an assignment. [/QUOTE] Actually we do have a brief look at it in Abraham asking God about Sodom, or at least exploring the concept. Yes we have no indication of a ‘internal moral code’ in the Issac passage. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2007, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-in-3-americans-bible-literalists/406096/125 "2007-06-05T23:29:42Z")
[QUOTE=kanicbird] The forth is to use the gifts of the Holy Spirit to lead you to truth. [/quote] I have. They told me there is no Holy Spirit. 🙂 > [@](#): > > And though he is not mentioned by name in Genesis, the serpent in Genesis is defined as Satan in other places (2x in Revelation IIRC) Just another example of the absurdity of your goyisher myths. My myths are much more reasonable. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2007, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-in-3-americans-bible-literalists/406096/126 "2007-06-06T00:41:55Z")
[QUOTE=the raindog] That Abraham was willing to accept an assignment that included sacrificing his son doesn’t mean that in another context he was a schmuck willing to kill his child. [/quote] Exactly what I said. > [@](#): > > We have no indication as to Abraham’s thoughts about any “moral code” he had, nor does the author give us any indication as to how grieved he was at such an assignment. _What we do know_, is that he accepted the assignment—apparently without complaint— and did what he was told. It is also crystal clear from the whole of Abraham’s life that he enjoyed a close personal relationship with God. > > Nonetheless, we can certainly infer that Abraham loved his son; and that he didn’t wish him dead. You don’t have to infer the love - it says it explicitly. You might have to infer that he didn’t wish Isaac dead, but that’s not too hard a thing to infer. But if the assignment wasn’t difficult for Abraham, the story is pointless. If God had instructed Abraham to toss a rock at some scrub, Abraham would do it and ask what’s next. It only makes sense if God is asking Abraham to do something he would never do otherwise. > [@](#): > > But there is no compelling eveidence that Abraham had any “moral code” that was so independent of his relationship with God that this assignment was a violation of his moral code. > > In other words, it’s one thing for you to ask me to sacrifice my son. (assuming it’s a noble purpose, and one that I subscribe to) It’s another thing entirely another for God to ask. In both cases I may see the purpose as noble. For all we know, Abraham had faith in God sufficient enough that he was certain that the request had purpose, meaning and was ultimately righteous. (even if he may not have understood the full meaning or purpose) You’re going to have to stop repeating what I said. Activity without God’s command - immoral. Activity with God’s command: moral. (In Biblical terms.) The whole story is about obeying God’s will, even in to perform actions that would be immoral without it. I have to think that at some point around the time the Bible was written people rebelled against God’s commandments as spoken by the priests. This story says to just obey. > [@](#): > > There are many practical examples. There a few thousand American (and Brits etc) who have given their children for their concept of “freedom”, “democracy” or the like, and have ‘sacrificed’ their lives. For many, not only was this “sacrifice” not immoral, but noble and righteous. (Cindy Sheehan and others like her duly noted) You may not simply not infer that a moral code was violated because suffering occurred, nor loss of life. A parent does not give a child, the child being an adult at the time of induction. Nonetheless, this is a bad example. First, society sees fit to pressure those who don’t go in times of real emergencies, like in a draft. Second, the government creates other incentives, in terms of patrotic duty, protecting others, etc. When these are seen to be hollow - like in Britain after WW I, pacifism flourishes and it gets a lot harder to convince people to sacrifice. The conclusion we are supposed to draw from the Isaac story is that obedience is good. The conclusion we might draw is that the sacrifice would have been utterly useless, since a ram was just as good, and that only an evil deity would even ask it. BTW, at an AT&T conference a speaker, an AT&T person who was also a minister, called his speech “The Ram in the Thicket.” What it had to do with the subject I forget. The next speaker, an Israeli Bell Labber, started his talk with a cartoon of Isaac punching his father out. Now that would have been an interesting ending! ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2007, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-in-3-americans-bible-literalists/406096/127 "2007-06-06T00:59:48Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] Activity without God’s command - immoral. [/QUOTE] No this is not so, it would be Activity against God’s command - immoral > [@](#): > > The conclusion we might draw is that the sacrifice would have been utterly useless, since a ram was just as good, and that only an evil deity would even ask it. Issac was never meant to be sacrificed, not that the ram was just as good. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2007, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-in-3-americans-bible-literalists/406096/128 "2007-06-06T01:26:36Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] Exactly what I said. You don’t have to infer the love - it says it explicitly. You might have to infer that he didn’t wish Isaac dead, but that’s not too hard a thing to infer. But if the assignment wasn’t difficult for Abraham, the story is pointless. If God had instructed Abraham to toss a rock at some scrub, Abraham would do it and ask what’s next. It only makes sense if God is asking Abraham to do something he would never do otherwise. [/quote] The reason I posted to you originally was due to your comment, _“That’s what the story of Abraham and Isaac and the lamb is about, after all. **God told Abraham to do something that went against his internal moral code** , and Abraham did it anyway, and it turned out okay”_, and my point then and now is that we can’t make an inference that Abraham faced a moral dichotomy simply because it was _“something he would never do otherwise.”_ For all we know, Abraham had no _moral_ qualms about this assignment at all, while shouldering severe _emotional_ qualms. Sure, it was difficult. (and therefore not pointless) \*But that doesn’t mean that it was against his moral code. \* > [@](#): > > A parent does not give a child, the child being an adult at the time of induction. Nonetheless, this is a bad example. First, society sees fit to pressure those who don’t go in times of real emergencies, like in a draft. Second, the government creates other incentives, in terms of patrotic duty, protecting others, etc. When these are seen to be hollow - like in Britain after WW I, pacifism flourishes and it gets a lot harder to convince people to sacrifice. This is mostly irrelevent. Surely parents can be said to offer up their son for their country; both emotionally, figuritively and symbolically. In any event, many families take pride and honor in such sacrifices. I presume you live in the US, but I can’t remember a time in my lifetime where society imposed any pressure on young people for military service. In any event, that is irrelevent. Many parents _support_ their children’s decision to serve, and to risk their lives, and honor them accordingly. Few of them suffer moral issues. > [@](#): > > The conclusion we are supposed to draw from the Isaac story is that obedience is good. True. > [@](#): > > The conclusion we might draw is that the sacrifice would have been utterly useless, since a ram was just as good, and that only an evil deity would even ask it. This is confusing. If the whole point was to establish whether Abraham was willing to manifest his love, faith through obedience than a ram could not have been an adequate surrogate. In the end, Abraham’s _willingness_ to carry out this assignment (for God intervened at the last moment) was sufficient----Isaac did not need to die. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2007, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-in-3-americans-bible-literalists/406096/129 "2007-06-06T01:32:16Z")
I have a question. The task was made so that Abraham could show his love for God, and do so by placing his faith in God over his own concerns (if i’m reading the interepretations correctly). Would it be fair to say that one of these concerns was Abraham’s love for his son? ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2007, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-in-3-americans-bible-literalists/406096/130 "2007-06-06T01:42:11Z")
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] I have a question. The task was made so that Abraham could show his love for God, and do so by placing his faith in God over his own concerns (if i’m reading the interepretations correctly). Would it be fair to say that one of these concerns was Abraham’s love for his son? [/QUOTE] Absolutely. > [@](#): > > **Genesis 22:15-18** **(NIV)** _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.”_ ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2007, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-in-3-americans-bible-literalists/406096/131 "2007-06-06T01:53:58Z")
Huh. I wasn’t actually expecting a yes to that. In my book that seems somewhat callous, I guess; plus, asking someone to prove their love by forsaking another seems to miss the point. If Abraham could give up his love for his son, who’s to say he couldn’t also with regards to God? Plus I wasn’t aware that God expected people to love him more than their own family. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2007, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-in-3-americans-bible-literalists/406096/132 "2007-06-06T02:27:24Z")
[QUOTE=tagos] ‘Atheist’ is hardly fundamental to identity in the way that a religion is so I don’t recognise the concept of ‘another’ atheist. [/QUOTE] You don’t? I’m speaking of another person who also doesn’t believe there is a god or gods. Does that clear it up? 😕 > [@](#): > > But until people who believe in whatever nonsense they want to quit proselytising or trying to make laws or enforce social mores based on their superstitious nonsense then the offence of your hypothetical atheist is so lost in the background noise generated by the religious that it hardly registers. > > When the superstitious STFU then maybe loud-mouthed atheists will tone it down. I think you missed the point of the discussion. There’s no doubt in my mind that evangelicals are many times louder and more obnoxious than any atheist I’m aware of to date. I’ve even considered that some loud and extremely blunt atheists only serve to balance the dialog. That’s just not the point of this discussion at all. but FTR several jackass judgmental self righteous believers doesn’t make some arrogant jackass atheist not be a jackass just because of the numbers comparison. Just like elephant crap doesn’t make mouse crap not be crap anymore. It’s just easier to avoid and overlook. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2007, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-in-3-americans-bible-literalists/406096/133 "2007-06-06T02:35:53Z")
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold] Huh. I wasn’t actually expecting a yes to that. In my book that seems somewhat callous, I guess; plus, asking someone to prove their love by forsaking another seems to miss the point. If Abraham could give up his love for his son, who’s to say he couldn’t also with regards to God? Plus I wasn’t aware that God expected people to love him more than their own family. [/QUOTE] The bible states in several places that god is a God “exacting exclusive devotion.” Jesus was equally demanding. Read **Matthew 10:34-39:** > [@](#): > > - 34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw—36a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.'[e] > 37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.\* ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2007, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-in-3-americans-bible-literalists/406096/134 "2007-06-06T04:51:51Z")
[QUOTE=kanicbird] No this is not so, it would be Activity against God’s command - immoral [/quote] This was before the Torah, so it is not clear what was and wasn’t against God’s command. In any case, I see you believe that if God told you to go out and gun down your neighbors, you refusing to do so would be immoral. Exactly my point. > [@](#): > > Issac was never meant to be sacrificed, not that the ram was just as good. No, God was hungry. I know this story is also commonly seen as forbidding human sacrifice to gods in place of animal sacrifice, so we don’t know what God was hungry for long before the Bible was written down. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2007, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-in-3-americans-bible-literalists/406096/135 "2007-06-06T04:58:59Z")
[QUOTE=the raindog] The reason I posted to you originally was due to your comment, _“That’s what the story of Abraham and Isaac and the lamb is about, after all. **God told Abraham to do something that went against his internal moral code** , and Abraham did it anyway, and it turned out okay”_, and my point then and now is that we can’t make an inference that Abraham faced a moral dichotomy simply because it was _“something he would never do otherwise.”_ For all we know, Abraham had no _moral_ qualms about this assignment at all, while shouldering severe _emotional_ qualms. Sure, it was difficult. (and therefore not pointless) \*But that doesn’t mean that it was against his moral code. \* [/quote] For the umpteenth time, it was against his moral code in the absence of a command by God to do it or not to do it. After God told him to do it, it was clearly a moral thing to do, since God creates morality and Abraham was rewarded for obeying. Action X is immoral if I do it upon my own motivation, but becomes moral when God tells me to do it. X can be kill your son, slaughter an opposing tribe, kill the witches, etc., etc. > [@](#): > > I presume you live in the US, but I can’t remember a time in my lifetime where society imposed any pressure on young people for military service. In any event, that is irrelevent. Many parents _support_ their children’s decision to serve, and to risk their lives, and honor them accordingly. Few of them suffer moral issues. My understanding is that young men in England in 1914 who did not go to war were considered cowards or worse. I heard from my father that this was true in WWII also. He waited to be drafted, but there was a meme about coward puncturing their eardrums to escape service. In Vietnam - not so much. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2007, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-in-3-americans-bible-literalists/406096/136 "2007-06-06T12:42:35Z")
[QUOTE=the raindog] The bible states in several places that god is a God “exacting exclusive devotion.” Jesus was equally demanding. Read **Matthew 10:34-39:** [/QUOTE] I still think that wouldn’t really work; I do see the point of it, but asking someone to give up love in order to prove love seems to undermine the entire idea. If you’re prepared to give up one love, what’s stopping you from giving up another? It seems a bit like a jealous lover getting their partner to stop seeing their friends so they don’t have to share. On a personal level, I would find anyone who loved a being such as God is supposed to be more than their family extremely worrying. But then, I don’t believe in any; if they do exist, it’s still kinda creepy but not as bad. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2007, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-in-3-americans-bible-literalists/406096/137 "2007-06-06T14:02:50Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] The critical issue here is what the liberal uses to decide what to believe and what not to believe. If he believes certain passages are true or not true based on evidence and logic, then he has very solid support for refuting the fundamentalists view. If, on the other hand, he disputes the inspiration of a passage because it doesn’t feel right, or goes against an internal moral code, the fundamentalist can justifiably say that the liberal is putting his own morality above God’s. That’s what the story of Abraham and Isaac and the lamb is about, after all. God told Abraham to do something that went against his internal moral code, and Abraham did it anyway, and it turned out okay. [/QUOTE] I’m not sure that is the critical issue. All people must interpret whatever they call scripture on a personal basis. Even the stubborn ones who insist they aren’t doing that. Even the ones who like to use terms like “god opened my mind and let me see the truth” A liberal might feel just as sincerely guided by the Holy Spirit to a completely different conclusion than a fundamentalist who also feels guided by the Holy Spirit. Is the liberal somehow supporting the fundamentalist view he doesn’t agree with simply by agreeing that the Holy Spirit does exist and can guide us? I don’t think so. I think support might be inferred if the liberal isn’t willing to denounce specific beliefs and practices of the fundamentalist because of an “at least he’s Christian” attitude. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2007, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-in-3-americans-bible-literalists/406096/138 "2007-06-06T14:29:03Z")
[QUOTE=Voyager] I’m not disputing that there are shared beliefs - I was trying to minimize them, so that Zoe wouldn’t jump on me. 🙂 But shared beliefs and views can come from similar thought processes, or very different ones. A religious person might be green because she thinks God commands her to preserve the earth, while I might be green for purely scientific reasons. [/QUOTE] Right. And even arriving on different paths this would hopefully be a point of unity. That’s what I keep trying to get at. Is it productive to try and look within the person to judge what we think is a right or wrong thought process, or can we admit that we all have a human mix of fact and emotional fiction. Of objective facts and our subjective view of them , and look at actions and consequences. Even though I know the journey is ultimately an inner one, we can look at results and the consequences of our actions to try and figure out if we’re on the right path. > [@](#): > > You are right in that emotional attachment is a driver also. I was thinking about rational reasons for beliefs, but that is a bit limiting. Still, I think neither liberals or fundamentalists would want the last word on justification for their world view to be “I feel like it” - though if they were honest in seeing this, they might be less dogmatic. > > Totally agree, and I think this is also an “atheistic” justification. Beliefs not involved with god can be emotional also. People on both sides can be reluctant to recognize that certain beliefs that seem “right” to them might be influenced by their emotions. Some people seem to have a greater need to be “right” or to feel they “know”. It’s unfortunate that so much of religion is built on this. It makes people more reluctant to question belief. I appreciate your concept of provisional beliefs. We go forward with the understanding that I, and we, are still a work in progress and there is much left to learn. It’s correct to act on what we believe is right now, knowing that that probably will change as we grow. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure that’s to the point. We would want to disconnect a person’s beliefs from their way of expressing them. A better example might be your supposed amoral atheist, amoral since he sees no reason for morality without god. The contention that an atheist teaching that there is no god lends authenticity to this view does have some merit. If such cases did exist, I think atheists would have an ethical obligation to spread non-religious ethical training, in order to show such people that lack of god belief is no excuse for unethical behavior. What would not be proper is to say that since I don’t steal things, this unethical atheist has nothing to do with me. I see your point, but isn’t the evangelical behavior of the fundamentalists what is objected to so often? Of course there is a crucial difference between holding your own beliefs and insisting others believe as you do. However, isn’t human progress built on challenging beliefs and norms? > [@](#): > > Of course the real bottom line is whether atheism is justified. That some people misunderstand evolution, and use their misunderstanding to support eugenics, doesn’t make evolution false. Ah yes. and there is another side to that coin isn’t there? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2007, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-in-3-americans-bible-literalists/406096/139 "2007-06-06T15:04:40Z")
[QUOTE=Kalhoun] When you say that your personal, unproven, moderate version of blind faith is real, you open the door for others to say that their personal, extremist version is just as real. Since neither way is proven to be correct, the only way to _not_ give at least a _little_ credence to their claims is to say that there is no god and that all rewards for behavior, good or bad, are earthly in nature. [/QUOTE] I just can’t agree. Is your unproven personal \*opinion \* giving credence to someone who holds a vastly different unproven personal opinion? We don’t have to claim there is no god to focus on the earthly consequences of our actions. > [@](#): > > With regard to labels, those who don’t like them shouldn’t use them. You can’t expect people to choose what the _accurate_ description of a christian or muslim or jew is when those groups can’t agree on it themselves. If you choose to call yourself one of these things, you can’t expect that the people who hear that label are going to automatically assume you’re the least offensive of the lot. Nor can we assume that you won’t ever become so wrapped up in your religion that you won’t become a threat at a later date. There are plenty of people who were born to “moderates” and who got caught up in the fever of faith and harmed others. To assume that the rest of us should respect something as precarious and powerful and potentially dangerous as blind faith is asking a lot. I don’t think I assumed or suggested that. We will continue to use labels for the purpose of communication but I hope, in the interest of fighting ignorance, we will know not to assume the worst or the best based on a label. > [@](#): > > I also find the coercion of children into blind faith to be particularly distasteful. No wonder people go off the beam. So do I. I’ve met adults recovering from that sort of thing. Some abandon the spiritual path completely and some discover one that works for them. I don’t want to hijack the discussion by why do you use the term “blind faith” ? ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2007, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-in-3-americans-bible-literalists/406096/140 "2007-06-06T15:54:18Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] I just can’t agree. Is your unproven personal \*opinion \* giving credence to someone who holds a vastly different unproven personal opinion? [/quote] My opinion doesn’t have to be proven or unproven (which is what makes atheism so nice). \*I don’t know \* and I haven’t seen any evidence that proves anything either way. I’m not aligning with either side of the question; believers are. > [@](#): > > We don’t have to claim there is no god to focus on the earthly consequences of our actions. But there are more than just earthly consequences for believers. Christian ones, anyway. > [@](#): > > I don’t think I assumed or suggested that. We will continue to use labels for the purpose of communication but I hope, in the interest of fighting ignorance, we will know not to assume the worst or the best based on a label. You will _sometimes._ It’s part of self-preservation to make assumptions based on labels and past experiences. I don’t think that’s something that can be turned off. > [@](#): > > So do I. I’ve met adults recovering from that sort of thing. Some abandon the spiritual path completely and some discover one that works for them. > > I don’t want to hijack the discussion by why do you use the term “blind faith” ? I use the term blind faith with regard to those who are indoctrinated at a tender age; led into the fallacy by those they trust. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-in-3-americans-bible-literalists/406096.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1-in-3-americans-bible-literalists/406096.md?page=8)