I’m not sure how to respond to this, Monty. The example of the Blind Men and the Elephant fits well both sociologically and religiously methinks.
I do believe bacon is one of the true miracles of nature. Blessed be.
I agree. There is a difference between people’s inner beliefs and their social stance. If we condemn moderate attitudes, it means (in my opinion) that we recommend people to embrace extremism. I think the right position would be to denounce radicalism regardless of its source (religious, non-religious, quasi-religious, you name it).
What utter nonsense.
How on earth would that work?
If we tell people Homeopathy is nonsense they will start cutting of people’s heads?
Back at the beginning of this thread at least no one was attacking moderate attitudes, but rather moderate logic. Fundamentalist-type religious beliefs are counter-factual if internally logically consistent (so long as you ignore evidence). Moderate religious beliefs don’t ignore evidence, often follow the latest in morality, and thus ignore various parts of their holy books which contradict what they rightly see as ethically necessary.
For the most part, nothing at all to condemn about this attitude.
There’s plenty to condemn, IMO. They do ignore evidence, just not as much as fundamentalists. They do allow fairy tales to influence their societal attitudes and their votes, just not as much as fundamentalists. And what they “rightly see as ethically necessary” is often way, way behind what a person unburdened with religious claptrap would see, just not as far behind as fundamentalists.
Bizarre and incongrous. It has nothing to do with what I’ve said.
This is my point: contradictory as it may be, however, moderate logic is the formularized support of a positive social attitude.
I don’t know what moderate logic means.
To a certain extent moderates and fundamentalists start from similar premises - God exists and whatever holy book they believe in is inspired. Fundamentalists reject evidence against the validity of the book, and think what you call positive social attitudes are misplaced. Moderates instead of rejecting evidence against the validity of the book partition the book into parts they accept (no evidence against, morality matches what they believe in) and parts they reject.
Where to their positive social attitudes come from? I content the same place atheist positive social attitudes come from - ethical reasoning, compassion, etc. That is why these two sets of social attitudes match up so well.
I think they don’t reject evidence against a particular fairy tale, but they don’t see lack of expected evidence for them as a problem.
While there is a range of ethical principles that the moderately religious hold (atheists too) the overlap is pretty large. I don’t think we atheists hold the moral high ground. However as I just said I think the moderately religious come to their moral principles in large part through secular reasoning, and then retrofit the Bible verses that support them into their dogma. (Incorrect use of that term, I’m sure, I’ve never been Catholic.)
wrong
if you throw out the story of the garden of Eden but you keep the idea of original sin you are acting in a very illogical manner
I’ve never claimed that rejecting religion had anything to do with moral values. Nothing stops atheists from being absolute bastards. In general, they pick and choose the moral precepts that feel most comfortable, just like most Christians.
But as somebody once said (more or less), “Without religion, good people will do good, and bad people will do evil. But religion can make good people do evil.”
Catholicism sees a lot of the Bible as allegory, not literal.
How wrong. I agree with you about the Garden of Eden - in fact if you don’t have some sort of ancestor of all people making an incorrect moral choice - no matter where - original sin makes no sense. If God made us sinful God can’t blame us for it.
However the moral standards of the moderately religious probably don’t depend much on the concept of original sin.
Never said you did. I was just being humble. 
I agree with your quote, but I think religion can also scare some naturally bad people into being mostly good. Not sure if that is a good long term strategy - we never tried to make our kids behave by scaring them with monsters under the bed. In Christianity, the monsters are way under the bed.
Like the resurrection?
It works on a sliding scale-as more and more of it is shown not to have actually happened, more and more of it becomes “allegorical”.
I’ve been trying to figure out how they make these “happened versus just a story” decisions for years and have never gotten very far.
Creationists, in defense of their silliness, sometimes say “Jesus believed in Adam and Eve.” To which I say “Exactly.”
I’m pretty sure that claiming that the resurrection is allegorical would disqualify you from claiming to be a Christian. It’s pretty much the primary tenant of the faith.
He would have to, now wouldn’t he? If Adam and Eve were allegorical but did not actually exist, then original sin would not exist either, and therefore, no necessity to save the world from original sin. That would make Jesus’ raison d’être rather meaningless, if his sole purpose was to be crucified and ressurected to save the world from original sin.