Ofcourse it’s true in christianity at least that there’s hardly anyone to be found who would take the whole of the bible literally - not even the really hardcore fundamentalists do that.
What matters is what parts of the bible you do use - as literal history or metaphore or motivation. For instance, there are plenty of really moderate christians who nonetheless are quite homophobic and defend their position ultimately on biblical grounds.
There’s a reason for that: religious reasons and scripture in particular are viewed as somehow unassailable or at least much more worthy of consideration and respect than “I just don’t like that/them/it makes me feel funny”.
In that light, it’s a perfectly good tactic to point out all the crap that can be justified by scripture and fortunately there are even walking talking examples of people who do take much of that crap seriousy; those are the fundies. But the reaction of the “moderates” who object to the fundie comparison should not be “oh, but I’m not like them”; it should be “maybe next time I defend something on religous grounds, I should think if it’s really something I want to defend instead of relying on my bible or priest to do the thinking for me”.
And then there’s the fact that many people - some not even christians - are being bamboozled by the likes of the Discovery Institute who have no problem with outright lying and character assassination if it helps destroy scientific knowledge in favor of their particular biblical POV. Now that is disgusting.
In both cases, it’s not really a case of Atheists vs “The Religious” - believe what you want (though I like a debate now and then, I don’t go out of my way to find christians to annoy). As long as you keep your beliefs out of my life and especially out of the education system it’s fine by me.
Atheism is not an ideology; it’s a view about the existence of deities. Sometimes people use the word “atheism” to refer to a strongly anti-religion social stance. While most atheists are at least moderately against religion in the social sense, to be an atheist is just to believe that there aren’t any gods. There’s nothing logically inconsistent with being an atheist and believing that there’s nothing wrong with being religious, although few atheists are actually going to have the latter view.
Well, yes, except those things (“don’t kill people or take their shit”) didn’t really enter the human consciousness until Christianity came along and told us that there was such a thing as a universal morality, and that prohibitions against killing people or taking their shit didn’t extend only to members of one’s own tribe or nation, and that people outside the clan or tribe or nation were actually human (Samaritans, for example) and shouldn’t be killed or have their shit taken. Naturally, it took a while for this to catch on, even among Christians, because, as all Christians know, people are imperfect and sinful, and do not always follow the tenents of their own faith, but still, pretty good ideas, right?
In all honesty, it seems pretty reasonable to want to rail against the kind of extreme Christianity as opposed to moderate views - it’s the more (from both an atheist and a moderate religious position) arguable position, often the most offensive or the most harsh in response. It seems kind of odd to accuse people of railing against them because they’re an easier target - it’s because they’re an easier target that they are more worthy of railing against. Should we be railing against moderate Christian or other religious views preferentially over more extreme ones? Why?
That said, i’m not in agreement with Dawkins in the extremity of his views, either, so I suppose i’m not included in the “new” atheism. I’d complain about the name - I mean, I don’t really think Dawkins et al bring anything particularly new to the debate - but, on the plus side, it does recognise a difference in extremity of views, which is probably a good thing. It may mean that every atheist with a soapbox gets put in that category, but hey, it could be worse, really.
I don’t think Dawkins came up with the “new atheism” term. Pretty much every time I see that term it’s in some article that wants to position Dawkins, Hitchens etc as being some kind of fundamentalists.
Yeah - I feel the same when I read a post from Der Trihs, or the latest insult from a Dawkins or a Hitchens. There is also my neighbor who taught his son that because I am a Deacon, Christian and Scout leader that makes me a pedophile.
Now, I am smart enough to realize that these loud voices of the Atheist minority do not represent the whole. I would hope that Dopers would provide the same credit.
And I DO argue against the extremist group. However, except when we are trying to get our churches to move past their anti-gay bigotry the media pays zero attention to the progressive Christian movement. Pat Robertson gets a lot more airplay than Jim Wallis.
I wasn’t disincluding myself based upon Dawkins having come up with the term and my disagreement with him, but rather on the article’s use of the term and my not seemingly being the same category as it denotes Dawkins to be.
This is really the germ of my point in the OP. Pat Robertson plays into Dawkin’s hands a lot better than Wallis does, so Dawkins (quoted by the linked article) claims that Robertson is the “true” Christian - because he is so much more objectionable.
Shrug. I can read the Bible for myself, and don’t need a Robertson or a Falwell telling me what it says. As for the Pope, he does his pope thing and it doesn’t seem to have a whole lot of impact on my day to day life. To borrow from another post, I don’t kill anyone or take their shit, and the pope doesn’t yell at me or send me angry memos
A lot of people need an enemy, though. Many people define their values not only by what they stand for, but by finding somebody who represents the opposite and being against that. So for some atheists, a fundamentalist jerk like Pat Robertson will fill that role.
Fundamentalists are the atheist’s best friend when it comes to butting heads in an argument. If you want to talk about getting something accomplished on issues that most atheists care about, like human rights, social justice or support for science, a moderate believer is the atheist’s best friend. You know, the person who doesn’t think atheists are evil.
Whether it’s a Catholic official or an individual Protestant doing the interpreting, they’re still just making it up as they go along. That’s less rational that a fundamentalist who thinks every word is true.
No it isn’t, and this is a position that frustrates me a great deal because it is usually the result of atheists trying to push believers into an extreme position so they can caricature that position. Fundamentalists say every word is true, but the words are known to contradict each other at times, so that can’t be the case. And people who admit they are interpreting are being more intellectually honest.
Fundies are an atheist’s best pal if only because they give atheists a perfect strawman position to argue against and have the added benefit of not being made of straw. To contrary, there are millions and millions of actual, breathing flesh-and-blood fundies who gladly espouse positions that atheists would need to conjure up if the fundies did not actually exist. They are not merely a theoretical danger to our lives and liberties, but a real actual practical danger. The problem with more moderate Christians is that they devote energy towards defending them or at least towards the fundies’ rights to behave as they do, instead of treating the fundies as their natural enemies, as unreasonable people who made moderate Christians look bad.
Well, many aren’t just “making it up as they go along.” They’re reading the Bible in light of quite a few centuries of study, scholarship, criticism and analysis, and making a genuine good-faith effort to understand the actual meaning and intent of what was written.
Makes perfect sense to me. Who am I to interpret it as I see fit? I’m someone every bit as smart as Robertson or Benedict. If parts of it make sense to me, and they work for me, why not use them? Why do I have to use the crap I don’t like? So that you can more conveniently pigeonhole me?
I once knew someone who had a beef with the Catholic Church (and all of religion, but especially Catholics). I was telling her about someone I knew who was a very devout Catholic, and who also enjoyed sex. She was also unmarried. My friend blew up at this. “Then she’s not really a Catholic! Real Catholics don’t have premarital sex! She’s just a hypocrite!” No, she’s just someone who figured out what works for her.
In contrast, I recently had the pleasure of meeting a priest. She’ll be the first to admit that she cherry picks to her heart’s content. I was pretty amazed at how much common ground she and I, a hardcore atheist, have in common. We’re more alike than unlike. And I respect her views far more than those of someone who feels the need to follow the recipe of a religion to the letter.
Some dudes sat down once-upon-a-time and spelled out the details of the game and who the arbiters of the rules of the game are. They invited other people to join and play the game.
Now you come along and decide while you like most of it the whole running to fist base thing just doesn’t work for you and you are going straight to 2nd base. Despite all the other similarities I don’t think anyone would say you are playing baseball anymore.
I’m all for people making up their own minds as I think faith is personal and a thing for individuals to sort out and not have handed to them in one, cover-all book.
