The real problem: Christianity

[WAB]

It's White Evangelicals who are the problem, not all Christians. I started a thread about this a couple of days ago in the religion forum, based on an article in the NYTImes.

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?23171-The-danger-of-White-Evangelical-Christians-in-the-US

The source of the problem is inherent to Christian theology. The reasons that it doesn't manifest similarly with "all Christians" is that 1) most white non-evangelicals that don't ally with the right have weak religious beliefs and their religion is largely just superficial routine and Xmas service attendance, 2) the non-whites who DO take their Christianity seriously don't ally with the right wing who takes Christianity seriously b/c they right is ruled by white supremacist Christians. But the opposition of religious non-whites to basic human rights like reproductive and LGBT rights is actually similar to that of white evangelicals. Those non-whites that do choose to prioritize their own bigotries over racial issues and thus do ally with the right, GOP, and Trump, are almost all deeply religious.

Don't you think that those people know what they think more than you do?

I imagine you do, just sayin'.

 

[ronburgundy]

It's White Evangelicals who are the problem, not all Christians. I started a thread about this a couple of days ago in the religion forum, based on an article in the NYTImes.

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?23171-The-danger-of-White-Evangelical-Christians-in-the-US

The source of the problem is inherent to Christian theology. The reasons that it doesn't manifest similarly with "all Christians" is that 1) most white non-evangelicals that don't ally with the right have weak religious beliefs and their religion is largely just superficial routine and Xmas service attendance, 2) the non-whites who DO take their Christianity seriously don't ally with the right wing who takes Christianity seriously b/c they right is ruled by white supremacist Christians. But the opposition of religious non-whites to basic human rights like reproductive and LGBT rights is actually similar to that of white evangelicals. Those non-whites that do choose to prioritize their own bigotries over racial issues and thus do ally with the right, GOP, and Trump, are almost all deeply religious.

Don't you think that those people know what they think more than you do?

I imagine you do, just sayin'.

People use words and vague abstract labels differently, so a person saying "I'm Christian" doesn't actually mean anything other than that they've learned to utter those words. It's as meaningful as whether a person says they are good looking, funny, or intelligent. There is research supporting what I said which asks people more detailed questions about what they actually believe, the importance of their religious identity to their lives, actions, etc.. White Dems are not only more likely to be "non-religious", but many of the ones the still do check the "Christian" box say that they are less certain in the existence of God, Heaven and Hell, don't consider their faith highly important in their daily lives, don't read the Bible, pray, go to Church or other religion-centered social activities, don't rely on their faith to make decisions or as the basis of their morality, don't think the Bible is the word of God, etc. IOW, their religion is more an inherited label than anything that accurately describes how much Christian theology shapes any of the morals, beliefs, or any aspect of their psychology or behavior. These actual psychological and behavioral dimensions that go beyond self-labeling are variables that go into the construct of "religiosity".

Evangelicals and "fundamentalists" rate higher on all of these dimensions, meaning that Christian theology plays a stronger causal role in determining their values, beliefs, politics, and choices. Which means that if "Evangelicals" or "Fundamentalists" are the problem, then Christian theology is the problem.

This link to a PEW survey provides some of the data showing that Dems have weaker religiosity on the dimensions I listed above, and since it also shows that Dems are less likely to be Evangelical and Mormon, it also means that people who belong to other sects of Christianity generally have weaker religiosity and influence from Christian Theology.

Unfortunately, this particular data is not divided by race, but I've done a deep dive before and seen data that is. Basically, this data compares Republicans (who when this survery was done were 87% white) to Dems who are about 50/50 white and non-white. Non-whites score higher on average than whites do on all these dimensions of religiosity even when "whites" includes right wing Christian Republicans. Thus, logically that means if you were to exclude non-whites from the Dem data here, the religiosity differences between white Republicans and white Dems would be about twice as large as they are in this data.

For example, as seen in the top chart below, 61% of Republicans say "Religion is very important to my life." while only 47% of Dems say that. However, as seen in the bottom chart, only 49% of Whites overall say religion is very important, compared to 83% for blacks, 59% Latinos, and 66% mixed. Since we know that almost all Republicans are white, that means that non-whites overall put more importance on religion than white Republicans. And since those non-whites are mostly Dems, they greater pull the Dem score up in religiosity, meaning that white Dems are much lower than that Dem bar indicates. We can estimate how low by looking at the known numbers combined with knowledge that Dems are about 50/50 non white with black, latinos, and mixed being the vast majority (Asians are a smaller group and more evenly divided among Repub and Dem, especially pre-Trump when this study was done).

Somewhere around 35% of White Dems view Religion as Very Important in their lives. Yet around 80% of white Dems check some religious affiliation box. That means, that even a majority of Dems that are "Christian" by label do not view their religion as very important, and they are similarly low in the other dimensions of religiosity tied to the impact of actual Christian theology on people's psychology and behavior.

https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/party-affiliation/#importance-of-religion-in-ones-life-trend

https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/racial-and-ethnic-composition/#belief-in-god-trend

 

[bilby]

Seriously? The proper technique is to not riot even when one is at a riot. You do understand the difference between a noun and a verb, don't you?

Nope. Some built a gallows. Some chanted, "Hang Mike Pence". Some looted. Some attacked cops. All of them stormed Capitol Building.

Um, no, plenty of them didn't enter the Capitol Building at all and stayed out on the street; and lots of them just strolled unopposed through the open doors, which does not qualify as "storming".

One tasered himself to death. All were in the wrong and all showed violent intent the instant they believed themselves exempt from the barricades erected.

Uh huh. So you figure when a bunch of hippies hold a sit-in in the dean's office and don't leave when asked, that's "showing violent intent", do you? Ignoring barricades and trespassing where you aren't allowed has been a huge part of this country's long tradition of peaceful protest.

Threatening death, looting, attacking cops, and breaking property do not count as peaceful protest. But being in the vicinity of a person who does those things does not count as doing those things. Some of the participants were peaceful protesters and some were rioters. Duh! So don't treat people as interchangeable parts. Why is this hard for you?

Perhaps his ancestors were cousins?

 

[Tigers!]

..., just to circumcise any claims that "the words church/state separation don't appear in..."

That is going to hurt.

 

[Angry Floof]

Some things would be better if christians followed certain portions of their damned bible

It would be even better if they learned a few critical thinking tools and gained some skill in how to discern what's worthwhile in Bible verses and what's infantile, ignorant, hateful, bigoted, or depraved, and then figure out that they already have what religion supposedly offers, plus a lot more.

 

[bilby]

The cousin marriage ban seems to have had a great impact.

The Origins of WEIRD Psychology

Recent research not only confirms the existence of substantial psychological variation around the globe but also highlights the peculiarity of populations that are Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic (WEIRD). We propose that much of this variation arose as people psychologically adapted to differing kin-based institutions—the set of social norms governing descent, marriage, residence and related domains. We further propose that part of the variation in these institutions arose historically from the Catholic Church’s marriage and family policies, which contributed to the dissolution of Europe’s traditional kin-based institutions, leading eventually to the predominance of nuclear families and impersonal institutions. By combining data on 20 psychological outcomes with historical measures of both kinship and Church exposure, we find support for these ideas in a comprehensive array of analyses across countries, among European regions and between individuals with different cultural backgrounds.

Do think the West would have led the race to modernity if it hadn't developed individualism and impersonal institutions?

In 1931, Iraqi King Feisal said this of his people "devoid of any patriotic idea, connected by no common tie, giving ear to evil; prone to anarchy, and perpetually ready to rise against any government whatever." Iraq has very high rates of cousin marriage and tribalism.

If we accept, ad argumentum, that a ban on cousin marriage was the (or at least a major) cause of western modernity, then that's just reinforcing my argument.

There's nothing specifically Christian about that ban; I am no New Testament scholar, but I am fairly sure that Jesus didn't say "Don't marry your cousins".

This is an example of a good (secular) idea, that gets implemented because the person who thinks it's a good idea is able to leverage the authoritarian nature of religion to get his way.

It's not an idea that could only have arisen in a Christian society. Any powerful person could have imposed this rule in their fiefdom; It just happened to be the pope, and not some emperor or king, or some other religious leader, who decided to use his power to establish this as a rule.

 

[Angry Floof]

The cousin marriage ban seems to have had a great impact.

The Origins of WEIRD Psychology

Recent research not only confirms the existence of substantial psychological variation around the globe but also highlights the peculiarity of populations that are Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic (WEIRD). We propose that much of this variation arose as people psychologically adapted to differing kin-based institutions—the set of social norms governing descent, marriage, residence and related domains. We further propose that part of the variation in these institutions arose historically from the Catholic Church’s marriage and family policies, which contributed to the dissolution of Europe’s traditional kin-based institutions, leading eventually to the predominance of nuclear families and impersonal institutions. By combining data on 20 psychological outcomes with historical measures of both kinship and Church exposure, we find support for these ideas in a comprehensive array of analyses across countries, among European regions and between individuals with different cultural backgrounds.

Do think the West would have led the race to modernity if it hadn't developed individualism and impersonal institutions?

In 1931, Iraqi King Feisal said this of his people "devoid of any patriotic idea, connected by no common tie, giving ear to evil; prone to anarchy, and perpetually ready to rise against any government whatever." Iraq has very high rates of cousin marriage and tribalism.

If we accept, ad argumentum, that a ban on cousin marriage was the (or at least a major) cause of western modernity, then that's just reinforcing my argument.

There's nothing specifically Christian about that ban; I am no New Testament scholar, but I am fairly sure that Jesus didn't say "Don't marry your cousins".

This is an example of a good (secular) idea, that gets implemented because the person who thinks it's a good idea is able to leverage the authoritarian nature of religion to get his way.

It's not an idea that could only have arisen in a Christian society. Any powerful person could have imposed this rule in their fiefdom; It just happened to be the pope, and not some emperor or king, or some other religious leader, who decided to use his power to establish this as a rule.

That's a fundamental element in most morality religions, that our religion is the source of all the good in the world and it's just not possible that heathens could have come up with science because science has its beginnings in times and places of widespread Christianity and you know, monks and stuff. Muslims say the same, and they would have the right to considering how much knowledge and innovation came from Muslim lands before anywhere else. Until, of course, the same religious culture decided that knowledge is dumb and evil and women must be stoned for showing ankle.

But then again, if religions like Islam and Christianity were based in concepts and values like curiosity, respect for autonomy, openness to change and the unfamiliar, questioning authority, non-violence instead of one absolutely powerful god, reward/punishment, conformity, punishment of blasphemy, patriarchal authority figures who can't be questioned, etc., then there would be no Islam or Christianity to speak of as meaningful religions. They only thrive on ignorance, closed mindedness, conformity, authority worship, us vs them world view, judgment, punishment... y'all know the rest, or you damn well should at this point.

 

[SLD]

The only word in your sentence that I have to disagree with is "uneducated". Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz both have advanced degrees from uppity universities. Some of the people who broke into the capital had advanced degrees. Of course, just because one has a lot of formal education doesn't necessarily mean that they are really educated. There are plenty of nutjob evangelicals who have degrees from secular schools in a variety of subjects.

And, sadly Lion doesn't seem to understand that most atheists couldn't care less what religion one believes in, as long as they aren't trying to force the rest of us to follow their beliefs, and as long as they aren't using their religion to harm others. I don't think most Christians are trying to force their views on the rest of us, but there is a component, which may be growing in the US, that seems to be supportive of a Christian theocracy. I don't remember this being a problem when I was growing up. In fact, historically it was the Baptists who were strong supporters of the SCS. Things have changed a lot over the past 50 or 60 years, most likely beginning around the early 1980s.

And, as I mentioned in the other thread, it's not all White evangelicals who are the problem. In fact, some of them were appalled at what their fellow evangelicals did last week and what they are trying to do. Hopefully, their numbers will grow, but it's not going to happen over night.

Also Cruz and Hawley are both, I believe, Catholic, not evangelical.

No. They are both rabid evangelicals.

 

[southernhybrid]

And, sadly Lion doesn't seem to understand that most atheists couldn't care less what religion one believes in, as long as they aren't trying to force the rest of us to follow their beliefs, and as long as they aren't using their religion to harm others.

Whether or not most atheists do actually hold that position is a separate issue from whether or not they should hold that position. If "most atheists" do not see the threat that religion poses, that is indeed a problem with those "most atheists".

Religions commonly do damage to the believers themselves, even if they are unaware of it. Instills feelings of anxiety, guilt, shame, fear for simply having particular thoughts or feelings, which are beyond their control. Then it also offers to give them the magical cure for those same thoughts and feelings, at different prices to pay.

Aside from that, and even if religion did not affect me personally (which is impossible since we in society do not live in a vacuum), I would absolutely care about the damage that religions do to other people *besides* me. Such as young children who become indoctrinated into them. They are given ideological labels and identities right at the age of birth, before they even had the chance to consider the issues themselves, learn how to think about the world logically, and study various alternatives. They are emotionally manipulated into being afraid or guilty to question what their religious parents pressure onto them.

So please stop invoking this bad argument about how most atheists do and should not care about the beliefs of religious people except to the point that they personally are impacted or others besides the religious believer. I care long ahead of that, and will defend doing so. I care about the damage being done to the religious believers themselves, even if they are very oblivious to it. If various atheists generally do not care before that point, that is a testament to the ignorance and the selfishness of those atheists. That is a problem we should aim to correct amongst our movement, not to promote.

You have a right to your opinion and I have a right to mine. I have many Christian friends. They are loving, gentle people. I also have many atheist friends and most of them don't care what other people believe when it comes to religion, as long as they aren't trying to make their beliefs laws that the rest of us. have to follow.

I am offended by the idea that we atheists should be prejudiced toward people who hold religious beliefs. Religious extremism, just like any other extreme ideology is potentially dangerous. There are many secular ideologies that have also been taken to extremes. I'm sure you are aware of that. Neither atheists or Christians are morally superior, based on what they believe. I would side with a Christian or Muslim who was being persecuted by a secular government just as quickly as I would side with an atheist who was being persecuted by a theocratic form of government. Character is far more important than what one believes, imo.

People are emotionally damaged by all kinds of things, but imo, religious beliefs, as long as they aren't the extreme self righteous variety that feel the need to judge others are not doing damage to anyone. In fact, there are many positive things that religious communities do. It saddens me when atheists only look at the negatives without considering all the positives that religious communities do for people. Just about everything that humans invent or do have both negative and positive impact on society.

While I strongly disagree with you, we all have the right to disagree, while still being respectful of each other. So, you can disagree with me, but please stop telling me what I should do.

 

[southernhybrid]

It's White Evangelicals who are the problem, not all Christians. I started a thread about this a couple of days ago in the religion forum, based on an article in the NYTImes.

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?23171-The-danger-of-White-Evangelical-Christians-in-the-US

The source of the problem is inherent to Christian theology. The reasons that it doesn't manifest similarly with "all Christians" is that 1) most white non-evangelicals that don't ally with the right have weak religious beliefs and their religion is largely just superficial routine and Xmas service attendance, 2) the non-whites who DO take their Christianity seriously don't ally with the right wing who takes Christianity seriously b/c they right is ruled by white supremacist Christians. But the opposition of religious non-whites to basic human rights like reproductive and LGBT rights is actually similar to that of white evangelicals. Those non-whites that do choose to prioritize their own bigotries over racial issues and thus do ally with the right, GOP, and Trump, are almost all deeply religious.

Some do, but my closest Black Christian friends aren't like that at all. There is one who I have discussed these issues with in-depth. She is fine with women having reproductive freedom and she has no criticism of LGBTQ rights. She knows I'm an atheist but she doesn't judge me for that or try to convince me that my beliefs are wrong, or sinful. That's the way it should be.

There are lots of Christian who hold personal beliefs but don't think they should be forced on the rest of us. My sister is still somewhat of a conservative Christian. She seems to personally find gay marriage as wrong for some stupid reason, from what I gather during our conversations. But, at the same time, she respects the SCS and would never criticize the government's decision to legalize gay marriage.

My own mother, who was born in 1925 and who became an evangelical in her 20s, told me before she became the victim of dementia that she had no problem with gay folks having civil unions. She just didn't understand why gay folks wanted to be married, but she would never base her vote on such an issue. Imo, her beliefs were more due to the generation that she grew up in, rather than her religion. My point is that you can't put all believers in the same basket. It's best to engage them in a respectful conservation if they are interested. That works much better than criticism. We won't change everyone's minds, but when we act respectful, we often learn that we have more in common than we thought.

There is a group of Black non believers in Atlanta. The leader spoke at Atlanta Freethought about a year or so ago. She and her friends, along with me, all agreed that Black Christian women tended to be good people, regardless of their religious beliefs. Sure, there are some who are just like the White evangelicals, but I don't see them trying to over turn the election results, or judging people who have different beliefs from themselves. I have the advantage of living in a small city that is Black majority. This has enabled me to know, interact with and make friends with some Black Christians. They don't seem to want to interfere with government like some White evangelicals do.

 

[Brian63]

You have a right to your opinion and I have a right to mine.

Yes, which was never, ever in dispute. What is in dispute is the actual merit and validity of our opinions. So you throwing in this completely irrelevant comment is a red herring fallacy right in the first sentence of your reply.

I have many Christian friends. They are loving, gentle people.

So do I. You also have a tendency to make a lot of irrelevant and trivially true points.

I also have many atheist friends and most of them don't care what other people believe when it comes to religion, as long as they aren't trying to make their beliefs laws that the rest of us. have to follow.”

Here is a relevant point that I want to ask you to address:

Do you think that a person’s religious beliefs can affect other people, even via means *other than* being enacted into law? Or do you think being enacted into law is the *only* possible way that a person’s religious beliefs can affect others?

For instance, can a person’s religious beliefs affect others through means such as:

-Influencing how they engage with others socially, whether they preach in public in an annoying manner, for example.
-Influencing their scientific views.
-Influencing their ethical views.
-Influencing how they raise their own children.
-Influencing how they make life/death decisions for others that they are responsible for in emergencies.


Can a person’s religious views affect them in any of the above-listed manners? If so, then it is not only through enacting laws that one person’s religious views impact the wellbeing of others. So that nonsensical argument should be scrapped. That is not how reality works.

I am offended by the idea that we atheists should be prejudiced toward people who hold religious beliefs.

What a loaded word you chose to use, to say that we should be “prejudiced”. It is not pre-judging, it is forming a judgment *after* evaluating the available evidence and arguments, “postjudiced” you might say. Is it simply wrong to form opinions after weighing evidence, in your opinion? We should abstain from holding opinions on anything, even after evaluating them on their merits?

Also, whether or not you get offended by certain arguments has absolutely zero relevance to whether those arguments have merit. If someone is offended that the sky is blue, that does not mean the sky is not blue. It just means that certain facts about the way the world works offends them.

Neither atheists or Christians are morally superior, based on what they believe.

Not by those conditions alone. But consider the following:

An atheist donates money to charity because of their interest in improving the human condition, and do not feel an authoritarian obligation to do so but simply has an internal compulsion to see other humans prosper.

A Christian donates money to charity because they believe they are commanded to by authority. It is less so that they personally wanted to help others, moreso that they were obeying orders only.

Based on just that scenario alone and all else being equal, do you think one person was behaving more morally than the other? I do, and would say it is the first.

I should not need to add this qualifying statement, but maybe I do---No, I am not saying all atheists are more moral than all Christians. No, I am not saying that being atheist necessarily makes you moral. No, I am not saying that being Christian necessarily makes you immoral. If you think I am making any of those points, you are making a strawman. My real point is that religious dogmas offer no enhancement or justification to any moral position that secular views cannot. Secular views are *capable* of better morality than religious views are, however (even if those secular views do not get executed successfully). They offer more potential.

Character is far more important than what one believes, imo.

Character is in part *formed by* what a person believes. It is influenced by what a person believes. It makes no sense to think they are separate and unrelated traits.

So, you can disagree with me, but please stop telling me what I should do.

Did you see the irony of your own statement there? You just made a request that I not do something, while criticizing me for doing the exact same.

And you are completely free to invoke all the bad arguments you want. Likewise, I am completely free to point out flaws in them every single time you do. So no, I do not need your permission first to demonstrate any problems in your views. This is an open message board, and you should know in advance that it comes with the territory.

You repeatedly make bad arguments that I see all-too-common in the atheist community, and I want to improve our community by shedding those misguided views and replace them with more valid ones.

 

[ronburgundy]

It's White Evangelicals who are the problem, not all Christians. I started a thread about this a couple of days ago in the religion forum, based on an article in the NYTImes.

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?23171-The-danger-of-White-Evangelical-Christians-in-the-US

The source of the problem is inherent to Christian theology. The reasons that it doesn't manifest similarly with "all Christians" is that 1) most white non-evangelicals that don't ally with the right have weak religious beliefs and their religion is largely just superficial routine and Xmas service attendance, 2) the non-whites who DO take their Christianity seriously don't ally with the right wing who takes Christianity seriously b/c they right is ruled by white supremacist Christians. But the opposition of religious non-whites to basic human rights like reproductive and LGBT rights is actually similar to that of white evangelicals. Those non-whites that do choose to prioritize their own bigotries over racial issues and thus do ally with the right, GOP, and Trump, are almost all deeply religious.

Some do, but my closest Black Christian friends aren't like that at all. There is one who I have discussed these issues with in-depth. She is fine with women having reproductive freedom and she has no criticism of LGBTQ rights. She knows I'm an atheist but she doesn't judge me for that or try to convince me that my beliefs are wrong, or sinful. That's the way it should be.

There are lots of Christian who hold personal beliefs but don't think they should be forced on the rest of us. My sister is still somewhat of a conservative Christian. She seems to personally find gay marriage as wrong for some stupid reason, from what I gather during our conversations. But, at the same time, she respects the SCS and would never criticize the government's decision to legalize gay marriage.

My own mother, who was born in 1925 and who became an evangelical in her 20s, told me before she became the victim of dementia that she had no problem with gay folks having civil unions. She just didn't understand why gay folks wanted to be married, but she would never base her vote on such an issue. Imo, her beliefs were more due to the generation that she grew up in, rather than her religion. My point is that you can't put all believers in the same basket. It's best to engage them in a respectful conservation if they are interested. That works much better than criticism. We won't change everyone's minds, but when we act respectful, we often learn that we have more in common than we thought.

There is a group of Black non believers in Atlanta. The leader spoke at Atlanta Freethought about a year or so ago. She and her friends, along with me, all agreed that Black Christian women tended to be good people, regardless of their religious beliefs. Sure, there are some who are just like the White evangelicals, but I don't see them trying to over turn the election results, or judging people who have different beliefs from themselves. I have the advantage of living in a small city that is Black majority. This has enabled me to know, interact with and make friends with some Black Christians. They don't seem to want to interfere with government like some White evangelicals do.

So, there are two parts to this reply. The first is the simple one, that exceptions don't disprove the rule. Acceptance of legal gay marriage among Black Protestants (the vast majority of Black people in the US) is at 44%, which is the same as Republicans, and closer to white Evangelicals (35%) than it is to white mainline Protestants (68%) and unaffiliated (85%) who comprise most of the white Dems. So, most black Americans are following their Christian theology by denying gays equal civil rights. And, if you click on the "Religious Attendance" tab on the chart, it shows there is a highly similar pattern for majority rejection of legal gay marriage among those who attended Religious service at least once a week, whereas those who attend only yearly are closer to those who never attend in mostly accepting gay marriage. That's b/c the mechanism that gives rise to the racial and sectarian differences is the degree to commitment to Christian theology, which the other research I linked before shows is highly correlated to religious service attendance.
https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

The second part is how to explain those minority of sincere Christian believers that are also secularists politically. That many labeled "Christians" are secular is mostly explained by the fact that most Dem and liberal "Christians" are rather weak in their religiosity and thus not influenced by Christian theology. But there are some sincere and highly religious Christians who at least publicly support secular political stances. This needs explaining for the same reason that it is relatively rare, which is because Biblically grounded Christian theology is inherently political with a central idea that all of society is to submit to God's will and government and ruled be Godly and act act God servants instituted by him. God repeatedly wipes out societies that don't follow his will. IOW, theocracy is essentially the way of Christian theology and secularism goes against it.

In addition, it is rather psychologically abnormal for a person to be a sincere Christian and a secularist. If you actually think that God and his will and his punishment for going against it are as real as anything in science or as the nose on your face, then you would want government take account of those objective facts in the same way an atheist wants government to account for the facts of climate change, COVID, gun availability, etc.. A secular stance suggest one of two things: 1) Either the person's doesn't actually believe in Christian theology as objectively true but more like a preference for chocolate over vanilla and something to make themselves feel better (which is true of most liberal/leftist low religiosity "Christians"), or 2) the person has some other pragmatic reasons outside of their theology to ignore the political implications of their theology. The latter is likely the case for many sincerely believing non-white Christians.

The GOP is not a viable option b/c of it's base is so filled with sympathizers to white supremacy. The Dems embrace concepts of racial equality, so they are a more viable ally, but the Dems also embrace secularism and religious pluralism which disallow government based in any particular theology. So, non-white Christians can't push for theocratic policy within the Dems or any party allied with non-Christian liberals, and cognitive dissonance means they must convince themselves that secularism is acceptable to make their beliefs cohere with their actions. The result is that you can have a person who is otherwise sincerely Christian reject the theocratic qualities of core Christian theology, in other to embrace the secularism of their only viable political allies.

 

[WAB]

And, sadly Lion doesn't seem to understand that most atheists couldn't care less what religion one believes in, as long as they aren't trying to force the rest of us to follow their beliefs, and as long as they aren't using their religion to harm others.

Whether or not most atheists do actually hold that position is a separate issue from whether or not they should hold that position. If "most atheists" do not see the threat that religion poses, that is indeed a problem with those "most atheists".

Religions commonly do damage to the believers themselves, even if they are unaware of it. Instills feelings of anxiety, guilt, shame, fear for simply having particular thoughts or feelings, which are beyond their control. Then it also offers to give them the magical cure for those same thoughts and feelings, at different prices to pay.

Aside from that, and even if religion did not affect me personally (which is impossible since we in society do not live in a vacuum), I would absolutely care about the damage that religions do to other people *besides* me. Such as young children who become indoctrinated into them. They are given ideological labels and identities right at the age of birth, before they even had the chance to consider the issues themselves, learn how to think about the world logically, and study various alternatives. They are emotionally manipulated into being afraid or guilty to question what their religious parents pressure onto them.

So please stop invoking this bad argument about how most atheists do and should not care about the beliefs of religious people except to the point that they personally are impacted or others besides the religious believer. I care long ahead of that, and will defend doing so. I care about the damage being done to the religious believers themselves, even if they are very oblivious to it. If various atheists generally do not care before that point, that is a testament to the ignorance and the selfishness of those atheists. That is a problem we should aim to correct amongst our movement, not to promote.

You have a right to your opinion and I have a right to mine. I have many Christian friends. They are loving, gentle people. I also have many atheist friends and most of them don't care what other people believe when it comes to religion, as long as they aren't trying to make their beliefs laws that the rest of us. have to follow.

I am offended by the idea that we atheists should be prejudiced toward people who hold religious beliefs. Religious extremism, just like any other extreme ideology is potentially dangerous. There are many secular ideologies that have also been taken to extremes. I'm sure you are aware of that. Neither atheists or Christians are morally superior, based on what they believe. I would side with a Christian or Muslim who was being persecuted by a secular government just as quickly as I would side with an atheist who was being persecuted by a theocratic form of government. Character is far more important than what one believes, imo.

People are emotionally damaged by all kinds of things, but imo, religious beliefs, as long as they aren't the extreme self righteous variety that feel the need to judge others are not doing damage to anyone. In fact, there are many positive things that religious communities do. It saddens me when atheists only look at the negatives without considering all the positives that religious communities do for people. Just about everything that humans invent or do have both negative and positive impact on society.

While I strongly disagree with you, we all have the right to disagree, while still being respectful of each other. So, you can disagree with me, but please stop telling me what I should do.

Yes, please do, Brian63. I know you don't mean it, but you are preaching intolerance, kind of the way Angry Floof preaches intolerance; but with Floof, her intolerance extends to just about anyone she feels has been "triggered" simply because they voice an opinion she does not agree with.

"Triggered" is just a convenient word used to essentially say: "You are X, so I am not obliged to maintain a civil discussion with you, and you deserve any demeaning thing I say to you.

 

[Brian63]

Yes, please do, Brian63. I know you don't mean it, but you are preaching intolerance,

I am tolerant of good ideas, and wish to promote them. I am intolerant of bad ones, and strive to improve the world by exposing them as such. No, I will not apologize for doing so. Would you be tolerant of me espousing my views? It sounds like you are being intolerant of it, evident by you criticizing me for doing so.

Tolerance is not necessarily a good thing. Intolerance is not necessarily a bad thing. It depends on what you are being tolerant or intolerant of.

 

[Angry Floof]

Yes, please do, Brian63. I know you don't mean it, but you are preaching intolerance,

I am tolerant of good ideas, and wish to promote them. I am intolerant of bad ones, and strive to improve the world by exposing them as such. No, I will not apologize for doing so. Would you be tolerant of me espousing my views? It sounds like you are being intolerant of it, evident by you criticizing me for doing so.

Tolerance is not necessarily a good thing. Intolerance is not necessarily a bad thing. It depends on what you are being tolerant or intolerant of.

How dare you expect people to be grown up enough to question their own beliefs! Beliefs, no matter how backward or intolerant or unfounded, are SACRED and you are a bad person for suggesting that more people questioning their ingrained assumptions could possibly lead to a slightly better world for everyone.

This is centuries of religion being placed on a pedestal and those who question it being punished in some way. At least we're not being hanged or burned or drowned for it these days, although there are places in the world where that does happen as we speak. And of course, given how the last four years have gone in the U.S., it's clear that we are not immune to that kind of intolerance rising up again in the near future. We infidels will probably always need to be aware and vigilant. Goodness knows, religious believers and their apologists won't help us out if we're persecuted by their religious identity brethren. They'll be too busy claiming they are being persecuted because someone questioned their religion!

 

[WAB]

Yes, please do, Brian63. I know you don't mean it, but you are preaching intolerance,

I am tolerant of good ideas, and wish to promote them. I am intolerant of bad ones, and strive to improve the world by exposing them as such. No, I will not apologize for doing so. Would you be tolerant of me espousing my views? It sounds like you are being intolerant of it, evident by you criticizing me for doing so.

Tolerance is not necessarily a good thing. Intolerance is not necessarily a bad thing. It depends on what you are being tolerant or intolerant of.

How dare you expect people to be grown up enough to question their own beliefs! Beliefs, no matter how backward or intolerant or unfounded, are SACRED and you are a bad person for suggesting that more people questioning their ingrained assumptions could possibly lead to a slightly better world for everyone.

This is centuries of religion being placed on a pedestal and those who question it being punished in some way. At least we're not being hanged or burned or drowned for it these days, although there are places in the world where that does happen as we speak. And of course, given how the last four years have gone in the U.S., it's clear that we are not immune to that kind of intolerance rising up again in the near future. We infidels will probably always need to be aware and vigilant. Goodness knows, religious believers and their apologists won't help us out if we're persecuted by their religious identity brethren. They'll be too busy claiming they are being persecuted because someone questioned their religion!

Blah, blah, blah....okay Floof!

 

[Brian63]

Religions have encased themselves in a protective layer of "religious correctness" and so they do not get criticized. Apparently it is okay for us to criticize fundamentalist religious beliefs. We should never, ever criticize more liberal religious beliefs though? Why not? What if they have various problems embedded in them? Why should any belief system ever be off-limits from critical analysis? Just because some members of those ideologies have various good qualities does not mean that the ideologies themselves are good. They can be good people *despite* their ideologies, not *because of* them.

Any and all beliefs are open to criticism. If that is considered being "intolerant", then fine. Being intolerant of a bad idea can be an appropriate reaction.

 

[jab]

belchin' n huggin'

I tend to agree with Floof here.

 

[WAB]

I tend to agree with Floof here.

I agree with much of what she says.

[removed]

Peace love, and tolerance for all.

 

[WAB]

Religions have encased themselves in a protective layer of "religious correctness" and so they do not get criticized. Apparently it is okay for us to criticize fundamentalist religious beliefs. We should never, ever criticize more liberal religious beliefs though? Why not? What if they have various problems embedded in them? Why should any belief system ever be off-limits from critical analysis? Just because some members of those ideologies have various good qualities does not mean that the ideologies themselves are good. They can be good people *despite* their ideologies, not *because of* them.

Any and all beliefs are open to criticism. If that is considered being "intolerant", then fine. Being intolerant of a bad idea can be an appropriate reaction.

No, criticism is fine! No one has argued otherwise.

But think about it. Sohy is obviously defending re!igious people who are decent peop!e who are not being obnoxious and intrusive. She has tried to exp!ain this to you. She doesn't seem happy with your pressure.

You should know when to back off.