The real problem: Christianity

[Brian63]

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 has explained to me her point of view. I have also already responded to her how I find her point of view to be flawed. If she disagrees, that is fine and we can discuss further if she wishes.

She doesn't seem happy with your pressure.

So? I am unhappy with her defending of bad views. If engaging in behavior which makes another person unhappy is wrong, will you please tell her to stop engaging in her behavior? Does it work both ways, or only when against me?

You should know when to back off.

I do. When she stops defending bad views, then I will stop criticizing those defenses of those bad views.

 

[Angry Floof]

I tend to agree with Floof here.

I agree with much of what she says.

But [removed]
Peace love, and tolerance for all.

[removed for consistency]

 

[Jarhyn]

Removed for consistency

 

[ideologyhunter]

Tollerance? But doesn't that pay for our highways?

 

[WAB]

[removed for consistency]

 

[ronburgundy]

There are two fundamentally different discussions happening within thread. One, which is most directly related to the OP and the one I've been trying to have, is whether the ideology/theology of Christianity is a causally contributing to the Trump culture, which really is just a more open and honest version of Christian conservatism that's been part of US politics since before there was a US.

The second discussion is more about how non-religious liberals should treat, talk to, deal with, etc., those Christians who do not overtly back or even strongly oppose the Trump cult or Christian conservative policies more generally. Even if one's answer to the first question is, as mine is, that Christian theology is an inherent problem and the Trump cult is a more honest and sincere manifestation of the core ideas and values of the Bible and Abrahamic Monotheism, that fact does not dictate what the answer to the latter question should be.

In my last post I discussed the evidence that many non-white devout Christians are prompted to temper the natural theocratic inclinations of Christian theology in order to form a political alliance with the non-religious (or less devout) white liberals who favor greater racial equality and oppose the white supremacy at the foundation of the modern GOP. The other side of that coin is that white non-religious liberals cannot win against right wing theocrats without an alliance with those Christians willing to defend secularism (and thus things like gay rights and reproductive rights), whether their reasons for defending secularism is weak commitment to Christian theology or pragmatic need to fight against the party of white supremacy which also (not coincidentally) is the party of theocrats.

 

[Brian63]

The other side of that coin is that white non-religious liberals cannot win against right wing theocrats without an alliance with those Christians willing to defend secularism (and thus things like gay rights and reproductive rights), whether their reasons for defending secularism is weak commitment to Christian theology or pragmatic need to fight against the party of white supremacy which also (not coincidentally) is the party of theocrats.

I think it works both ways though. The theologically-liberal Christians could view themselves as a buffer or reasonable compromise between those extremist secularists and also the extremist theocrats. So they will be resistant to any changes, including changes that favor our goals. It is to the advantage of us secularists to sometimes make criticisms of even liberal religious beliefs, since they remain as a barrier to even further progress.

If I want to help change the theocratic views of a fundamentalist, it is helpful to do so from multiple approaches and with multiple allies. Use my entirely secular arguments to challenge their views on even the issue of god-belief at the foundation. Simultaneously, liberal Christians can accept god-belief as a shared premise and challenge the fundamentalist on other issues. To produce the outcomes that most favor us, I agree that alliances are required with liberal Christians. However, I do think that explicitly atheist views are under-represented and misunderstood greatly in the public square, and so it is helpful to have them expressed more than they are at present. That has been improving greatly in recent years as the "nones" have been accelerating in population and the movement is organizing (with the internet giving boost), but even among those I think many are apathetic "nones" or ignorant "nones" and any further improvement we can make with them helps not only themselves, but others too.


ETA: Specific example---if a liberal Christian and a fundamentalist Christian are debating the proper role of raising children in religion, and they come to agreement that raising them "in the faith" is very fine, isn't that harming us in the long run at least? The liberal Christian would agree with the fundamentalist that those extremist whacko secularists who want to disassociate from religion are completely out of line. However, if that liberal Christian started to move away from being a mere middle-ground between secularists and theocrats, and now became more sympathetic to and understanding of secularists (because they became more informed of them through secularist advocacy and criticism of theologically-liberal views), then the goalposts have shifted. The "middle ground compromise" slides towards the secularist view a little more, which helps us. It would not be as likely to happen unless there are more people advocating for our own views.

Also, if a theologically liberal Christian is already more sympathetic to secularist views than a fundamentalist is, then it may be easier for them to deconvert than it is a fundamentalist. They have less to lose overall and the price of transitioning their beliefs will be lower. So it is more sensible to make criticisms of theologically liberal Christians than fundamentalists in that way. Though I think all approaches are appropriate, in different ways.

 

[ronburgundy]

The other side of that coin is that white non-religious liberals cannot win against right wing theocrats without an alliance with those Christians willing to defend secularism (and thus things like gay rights and reproductive rights), whether their reasons for defending secularism is weak commitment to Christian theology or pragmatic need to fight against the party of white supremacy which also (not coincidentally) is the party of theocrats.

I think it works both ways though. The theologically-liberal Christians could view themselves as a buffer or reasonable compromise between those extremist secularists and also the extremist theocrats. So they will be resistant to any changes, including changes that favor our goals. It is to the advantage of us secularists to sometimes make criticisms of even liberal religious beliefs, since they remain as a barrier to even further progress.

If I want to help change the theocratic views of a fundamentalist, it is helpful to do so from multiple approaches and with multiple allies. Use my entirely secular arguments to challenge their views on even the issue of god-belief at the foundation. Simultaneously, liberal Christians can accept god-belief as a shared premise and challenge the fundamentalist on other issues. To produce the outcomes that most favor us, I agree that alliances are required with liberal Christians. However, I do think that explicitly atheist views are under-represented and misunderstood greatly in the public square, and so it is helpful to have them expressed more than they are at present. That has been improving greatly in recent years as the "nones" have been accelerating in population and the movement is organizing (with the internet giving boost), but even among those I think many are apathetic "nones" or ignorant "nones" and any further improvement we can make with them helps not only themselves, but others too.


ETA: Specific example---if a liberal Christian and a fundamentalist Christian are debating the proper role of raising children in religion, and they come to agreement that raising them "in the faith" is very fine, isn't that harming us in the long run at least? The liberal Christian would agree with the fundamentalist that those extremist whacko secularists who want to disassociate from religion are completely out of line. However, if that liberal Christian started to move away from being a mere middle-ground between secularists and theocrats, and now became more sympathetic to and understanding of secularists (because they became more informed of them through secularist advocacy and criticism of theologically-liberal views), then the goalposts have shifted. The "middle ground compromise" slides towards the secularist view a little more, which helps us. It would not be as likely to happen unless there are more people advocating for our own views.

Also, if a theologically liberal Christian is already more sympathetic to secularist views than a fundamentalist is, then it may be easier for them to deconvert than it is a fundamentalist. They have less to lose overall and the price of transitioning their beliefs will be lower. So it is more sensible to make criticisms of theologically liberal Christians than fundamentalists in that way. Though I think all approaches are appropriate, in different ways.

I'm not saying that one cannot be critical of religion, or even of being a "moderate" Christian, since it gives continued weight to the idea that the Bible is a valid source of ethics, when in fact it is a vile tome of authoritarian violence bigotry, and misogyny. Let's put it this way, I think that 99.9% of what Dawkins has said about religion is accurate and appropriate public speech and he's done more to advance the cause of secularism than any of his critics.

I'm just saying that when dealing directly with secularism supporting Christians one should speak and act towards them with the pragmatic goal in mind that without an alliance with them, Trump would still be president and we'd never see a liberal president again in our lifetimes. Part of that means being sure to focus the criticism on the ideas and the harm of the ideology rather than making it personal as though if you identify as a Christian then you are an enemy.

Black women are the most devoutly religious race-gender subgroup in the US, yet 90% of them voted for Biden and they had pretty good turnout.

 

[Brian63]

I'm just saying that when dealing directly with secularism supporting Christians one should speak and act towards them with the pragmatic goal in mind that without an alliance with them, Trump would still be president and we'd never see a liberal president again in our lifetimes.

Agreed. I think different people on this thread have different ideas on what constitutes "pragmatic" though. I am not sure how to do the math to figure out what the right combination is, allying with liberal Christian views versus criticizing them. However, I am confident that taking the position of "I don't care what they believe as long as they don't enforce it on others" is ridiculous. It is selfish in that it reveals a disregard of the harm the religion does to the believer themselves (even if the believer is in blissful ignorance of it). It also relies on the unrealistic premise that religions even can be not enforced on others. The religious beliefs of large populations of people affect other people outside of that religion, through various means and to different degrees. They influence the feelings, thoughts, values, and decisions of people throughout the world, and we live in a very interconnected world. So we do get impacted by them.

 

[Jarhyn]

Sorry, but, no. Peace love and tolerance for all those who accept peace love and tollerance and give it freely. For everyone else, those who deny peace, love, or tollerance you get the claws.

Sohy and I have denied tolerance???

And be very careful with those claws. I' ve got claws too, and I reckon mine are sharper.

I am not saying what you have or have not done. I'm merely pointing out the more correct philosophy that ought be held by the greatest and most diverse of people, a group that is bigger than any one selfish self-imposing egoistic ass.

I cannot for sure say what behavior you have engaged in, but I do think you ought consider whether your behavior or views have crossed that line.

Peace, love, and tolerance only go so far as their mutual accord. As long as an equitable accord is kept, they exist! Outside that, however, lies the right to mutual defense of the collective.

I will not buy a drop of that "everyone have peace and love" kool aid, as the paradox of tolerance has its answer.

 

[WAB]

Sorry, but, no. Peace love and tolerance for all those who accept peace love and tollerance and give it freely. For everyone else, those who deny peace, love, or tollerance you get the claws.

Sohy and I have denied tolerance???

And be very careful with those claws. I' ve got claws too, and I reckon mine are sharper.

I am not saying what you have or have not done. I'm merely pointing out the more correct philosophy that ought be held by the greatest and most diverse of people, a group that is bigger than any one selfish self-imposing egoistic ass.

I cannot for sure say what behavior you have engaged in, but I do think you ought consider whether your behavior or views have crossed that line.

Peace, love, and tolerance only go so far as their mutual accord. As long as an equitable accord is kept, they exist! Outside that, however, lies the right to mutual defense of the collective.

I will not buy a drop of that "everyone have peace and love" kool aid, as the paradox of tolerance has its answer.

I agree, and I don't drink the kool aid either. No matter how I detest violence, I am no pacifist.

I've been down this road before. I really do don't feel like explaining my position YET AGAIN.

My intention in this thread was to defend SOHY. She seems like a very decent and intelligent person, who has always defended her religious friends and family members. I have done the same! I have close family who are devout churchgoers. My late Uncle Herb was a deacon in his church, and one of the kindest, gentlest people I've ever known. He was also an engineer, and an inventor with several patents. I linked to a page which lists and describes his inventions in a past thread. His name was Herbert F. Baurle.

So, this "religious people are dangerous idiots" schtick is wearing awfully thin with me.

Brian -

I didn't intend to single you out. I was defending SOHY, and do not regret it. I would do it again. Chin up, mate.

Floof, I do regret naming you. But I stand by the essence of what I said, come hell or high water. Apo!ogies.

 

[bilby]

I am not saying what you have or have not done. I'm merely pointing out the more correct philosophy that ought be held by the greatest and most diverse of people, a group that is bigger than any one selfish self-imposing egoistic ass.

I cannot for sure say what behavior you have engaged in, but I do think you ought consider whether your behavior or views have crossed that line.

Peace, love, and tolerance only go so far as their mutual accord. As long as an equitable accord is kept, they exist! Outside that, however, lies the right to mutual defense of the collective.

I will not buy a drop of that "everyone have peace and love" kool aid, as the paradox of tolerance has its answer.

I agree, and I don't drink the kool aid either. No matter how I detest violence, I am no pacifist.

I've been down this road before. I really do don't feel like explaining my position YET AGAIN.

My intention in this thread was to defend SOHY. She seems like a very decent and intelligent person, who has always defended her religious friends and family members. I have done the same! I have close family who are devout churchgoers. My late Uncle Herb was a deacon in his church, and one of the kindest, gentlest people I've ever known. He was also an engineer, and an inventor with several patents. I linked to a page which lists and describes his inventions in a past thread. His name was Herbert F. Baurle.

So, this "religious people are dangerous idiots" schtick is wearing awfully thin with me.

Brian -

I didn't intend to single you out. I was defending SOHY, and do not regret it. I would do it again. Chin up, mate.

Floof, I do regret naming you. But I stand by the essence of what I said, come hell or high water. Apo!ogies.

Many dangerous idiots are also kind and gentle people. There's nothing about being a dangerous idiot that precludes kindness, gentleness, skill, or inventiveness.

Supporting dangerously idiotic ideas is perfectly compatible with all of those laudable traits.

This is where the myth of fascism and Naziism as ugly and disgusting becomes so dangerous. We are completely subsumed by that meme of the cruel Nazi bully, that we forget that the average member of the NSDAP was a kindly avuncular chap who gladly donated to the Winter Relief, helped out his neighbours in times of need, worked diligently and intelligently at his job, and was beloved of his family and friends.

Bad ideas don't just infect bad people. Indeed, the very idea that you can divide people into 'bad' and 'good' as categories, is a bad idea. And the corollary that you can spot a person who supports bad ideas because of their universally (or near universally) bad behaviour, is an even worse idea.

And that you can improve society by simply giving more authority to the good people, while oppressing the bad ones, is the worst idea in history - and one that has been considered self-evidently true by any number of kind and gentle people, who gave a pass to their less gentle comrades on the basis that they were acting in the best interests of their political party, nation, or race.

For evil to triumph, it is necessary only that good people do nothing. And bad ideas are how good people are persuaded that doing nothing is the appropriate thing to do.

 

[WAB]

I am not saying what you have or have not done. I'm merely pointing out the more correct philosophy that ought be held by the greatest and most diverse of people, a group that is bigger than any one selfish self-imposing egoistic ass.

I cannot for sure say what behavior you have engaged in, but I do think you ought consider whether your behavior or views have crossed that line.

Peace, love, and tolerance only go so far as their mutual accord. As long as an equitable accord is kept, they exist! Outside that, however, lies the right to mutual defense of the collective.

I will not buy a drop of that "everyone have peace and love" kool aid, as the paradox of tolerance has its answer.

I agree, and I don't drink the kool aid either. No matter how I detest violence, I am no pacifist.

I've been down this road before. I really do don't feel like explaining my position YET AGAIN.

My intention in this thread was to defend SOHY. She seems like a very decent and intelligent person, who has always defended her religious friends and family members. I have done the same! I have close family who are devout churchgoers. My late Uncle Herb was a deacon in his church, and one of the kindest, gentlest people I've ever known. He was also an engineer, and an inventor with several patents. I linked to a page which lists and describes his inventions in a past thread. His name was Herbert F. Baurle.

So, this "religious people are dangerous idiots" schtick is wearing awfully thin with me.

Brian -

I didn't intend to single you out. I was defending SOHY, and do not regret it. I would do it again. Chin up, mate.

Floof, I do regret naming you. But I stand by the essence of what I said, come hell or high water. Apo!ogies.

Many dangerous idiots are also kind and gentle people. There's nothing about being a dangerous idiot that precludes kindness, gentleness, skill, or inventiveness.

Supporting dangerously idiotic ideas is perfectly compatible with all of those laudable traits.

This is where the myth of fascism and Naziism as ugly and disgusting becomes so dangerous. We are completely subsumed by that meme of the cruel Nazi bully, that we forget that the average member of the NSDAP was a kindly avuncular chap who gladly donated to the Winter Relief, helped out his neighbours in times of need, worked diligently and intelligently at his job, and was beloved of his family and friends.

Bad ideas don't just infect bad people. Indeed, the very idea that you can divide people into 'bad' and 'good' as categories, is a bad idea. And the corollary that you can spot a person who supports bad ideas because of their universally (or near universally) bad behaviour, is an even worse idea.

And that you can improve society by simply giving more authority to the good people, while oppressing the bad ones, is the worst idea in history - and one that has been considered self-evidently true by any number of kind and gentle people, who gave a pass to their less gentle comrades on the basis that they were acting in the best interests of their political party, nation, or race.

For evil to triumph, it is necessary only that good people do nothing. And bad ideas are how good people are persuaded that doing nothing is the appropriate thing to do.

Yeah, bilby, pull up a chair, have a beer...

We can talk about dangerous idiocy all you want later on. Right now I need to sleep.

Just sit still and try not to damage anything while I'm gone.

 

[Brian63]

My intention in this thread was to defend SOHY. She seems like a very decent and intelligent person, who has always defended her religious friends and family members.

Well, we have some very different perspectives on sohy. She does usually seem decent, I agree. Also I agree that she has always defended her religious friends and family (I just do not see the relevance of pointing out that. Nor the appropriateness of it. Should religious friends/family always be defended, and never be open to criticism? That is where we may have some different views.).

One other notable characteristic that I have come across with sohy is one I have seen termed as “conversational narcissism.” It is a trait where people have a tendency to talk about themselves incessantly. In real life I have seen many people display this trait, and it will result in people dominating conversations when others are around, and using everybody else’s time to talk about themselves in long-winded detail, much past the point that others care to hear. They also rarely are given a chance to talk themselves.

Online on this forum at least, I would consider sohy unfortunately the most egregious example of it. Very many of her posts include her giving a mini-autobiography and lengthy personal anecdotes, which could have been eliminated or abbreviated so that the most relevant point could be emphasized better. Yes, anyone (including me) has the option of simply not reading her posts. The problem though, as I have stated earlier, is that she also repeatedly holds some bad positions (about how people should not care about the beliefs of other people unless it is getting enforced on them). That is a reckless and deeply flawed position to hold, but one that is also very common among apathetic and ignorant atheists even. I strive to expose those flaws and correct them. So I do choose to skim (usually) sohy’s posts, and especially skim or ignore the lengthy autobiographical portions of them, because I want to address the most relevant parts.

So, this "religious people are dangerous idiots" schtick is wearing awfully thin with me.

That is not even my position to begin with, it is entirely a severe strawman misunderstanding of it. Here is my real position: I do not at all think religious people are always dangerous or idiots. Many of the most intelligent people I have come across in my life are very religious. Many are also very kind. Many are a blend of those traits. People do not get squeezed entirely into one or the other categories either, it is not a binary choice. It is moreso a spectrum of a wide variety of characteristics.

I do hold that in general (there are some exceptions, but there are still more the rules) religion hampers progress, and does harm overall both to the people who hold them (even if they are oblivious to the harm) and to non-followers of those religions.

What makes a person religious has less to do with their intelligence---and more to do with their cognitive biases (all humans, self included, have all sorts of biases). Religions shield their followers’ biases instead of encouraging them to be identified and challenged.

Brian -

I didn't intend to single you out. I was defending SOHY, and do not regret it. I would do it again. Chin up, mate.

You have not offended me, and you have not hurt my feelings WAB. You can keep up the macho-man routine if that makes you feel better, but it will not deter me either. If you want to play nicer instead, I am fine with that too.

 

[WAB]

Yikes.

Macho? Jaysus Murphy, Brian, if you believe sticking your neck out for someone else is a "macho" thing to do, then we're in big trouble.

No. I am certainly not trying to be macho. Just out of curiosity, have you seen many of my posts over the past few years? I would think that if you have you might have noticed that I'm not exactly dripping with testosterone. Ah well.

At any rate, I have also not suggested that certain people or certain views should be above criticism. Egads, man, how did you come by the idea that that was the nub of my gist? If it were, why would I ever have taken the trouble to register here?? Regardless, I have been officially warned to watch my step, so there's that.

Mdnnfnffjfjddkdkks ejdjdjf dndndd. <<<< [that was the sound of my lips being sea!ed]

 

[Brian63]

Okay.

 

[ronburgundy]

I have close family who are devout churchgoers. My late Uncle Herb was a deacon in his church, and one of the kindest, gentlest people I've ever known. He was also an engineer, and an inventor with several patents.

So, this "religious people are dangerous idiots" schtick is wearing awfully thin with me.

Many dangerous idiots are also kind and gentle people. There's nothing about being a dangerous idiot that precludes kindness, gentleness, skill, or inventiveness.

Supporting dangerously idiotic ideas is perfectly compatible with all of those laudable traits.

I think one problem is "idiot". Most religious belief is not a result of lack of intellect, but of emotional bias which precludes applying intellect to religious issues. Now, such bias is not an honest mistake but a type of willful irrationality, and thus people are still morally responsible for the harm they cause by promoting a religion that is inherently authoritarian. It's a kind of selfish desire to preserve one's worldview leading to delusions that obscure the harm one is causing. So, they are in fact "dangerous", no matter how "kind".

A illustrative example are people who sincerely believe that homosexuality will get you on God's naughty list, which despite apologists is part of Biblical theology. A "kind" person who sincerely believes what the Bible says would and actually should (if what they believe was true) try to turn a person including a teen away from homosexuality. Their efforts are only abusive b/c their belief is false. I would argue that causing such harm as a result of willful ignorance is an act of reckless negligence showing a selfish act of putting one's delusions above actually caring about other's real well being. Thus, those who harm by trying to "save souls" are not in fact kind and moral people. They are more analogous to a polite well mannered southern racist.

 

[Politesse]

I have close family who are devout churchgoers. My late Uncle Herb was a deacon in his church, and one of the kindest, gentlest people I've ever known. He was also an engineer, and an inventor with several patents.

So, this "religious people are dangerous idiots" schtick is wearing awfully thin with me.

Many dangerous idiots are also kind and gentle people. There's nothing about being a dangerous idiot that precludes kindness, gentleness, skill, or inventiveness.

Supporting dangerously idiotic ideas is perfectly compatible with all of those laudable traits.

I think one problem is "idiot". Most religious belief is not a result of lack of intellect, but of emotional bias which precludes applying intellect to religious issues. Now, such bias is not an honest mistake but a type of willful irrationality, and thus people are still morally responsible for the harm they cause by promoting a religion that is inherently authoritarian. It's a kind of selfish desire to preserve one's worldview leading to delusions that obscure the harm one is causing. So, they are in fact "dangerous", no matter how "kind".

A illustrative example are people who sincerely believe that homosexuality will get you on God's naughty list, which despite apologists is part of Biblical theology. A "kind" person who sincerely believes what the Bible says would and actually should (if what they believe was true) try to turn a person including a teen away from homosexuality. Their efforts are only abusive b/c their belief is false. I would argue that causing such harm as a result of willful ignorance is an act of reckless negligence showing a selfish act of putting one's delusions above actually caring about other's real well being. Thus, those who harm by trying to "save souls" are not in fact kind and moral people. They are more analogous to a polite well mannered southern racist.

Yet another atheist stumping for conservative theology. Ho-hum.

 

[Brian63]

I think one problem is "idiot". Most religious belief is not a result of lack of intellect, but of emotional bias which precludes applying intellect to religious issues. Now, such bias is not an honest mistake but a type of willful irrationality, and thus people are still morally responsible for the harm they cause by promoting a religion that is inherently authoritarian. It's a kind of selfish desire to preserve one's worldview leading to delusions that obscure the harm one is causing. So, they are in fact "dangerous", no matter how "kind".

A illustrative example are people who sincerely believe that homosexuality will get you on God's naughty list, which despite apologists is part of Biblical theology. A "kind" person who sincerely believes what the Bible says would and actually should (if what they believe was true) try to turn a person including a teen away from homosexuality. Their efforts are only abusive b/c their belief is false. I would argue that causing such harm as a result of willful ignorance is an act of reckless negligence showing a selfish act of putting one's delusions above actually caring about other's real well being. Thus, those who harm by trying to "save souls" are not in fact kind and moral people. They are more analogous to a polite well mannered southern racist.

Ron,

You use the terms "willful irrationality" and "willful ignorance" and those terms I have been discussing elsewhere recently. I have long avoided using them, as I think they are ambiguous and even misleading. It seems to suggest that people are consciously and knowingly exerting willpower to be irrational and ignorant, which is not how I thought the human mind functions. As you note, brains are built with biases, and we try (subconsciously) to protect them. Having irrational and ignorant views is an unintended consequence of protecting our biases. It was not our original goal though, and not what we were exerting willpower to do. People who actually have very irrational and very ignorant beliefs will still even view themselves as being rational and knowledgeable, yes? Dunning-Kruger, for instance.

 

[WAB]

I have close family who are devout churchgoers. My late Uncle Herb was a deacon in his church, and one of the kindest, gentlest people I've ever known. He was also an engineer, and an inventor with several patents.

So, this "religious people are dangerous idiots" schtick is wearing awfully thin with me.

Many dangerous idiots are also kind and gentle people. There's nothing about being a dangerous idiot that precludes kindness, gentleness, skill, or inventiveness.

Supporting dangerously idiotic ideas is perfectly compatible with all of those laudable traits.

I think one problem is "idiot". Most religious belief is not a result of lack of intellect, but of emotional bias which precludes applying intellect to religious issues. Now, such bias is not an honest mistake but a type of willful irrationality, and thus people are still morally responsible for the harm they cause by promoting a religion that is inherently authoritarian. It's a kind of selfish desire to preserve one's worldview leading to delusions that obscure the harm one is causing. So, they are in fact "dangerous", no matter how "kind".

A illustrative example are people who sincerely believe that homosexuality will get you on God's naughty list, which despite apologists is part of Biblical theology. A "kind" person who sincerely believes what the Bible says would and actually should (if what they believe was true) try to turn a person including a teen away from homosexuality. Their efforts are only abusive b/c their belief is false. I would argue that causing such harm as a result of willful ignorance is an act of reckless negligence showing a selfish act of putting one's delusions above actually caring about other's real well being. Thus, those who harm by trying to "save souls" are not in fact kind and moral people. They are more analogous to a polite well mannered southern racist.

I will tackle your response if and when I can, ronburgundy. My difficulty is having access to a decent keyboard. The one on my Kindle 7 is hopelessly difficult for me because of my vision problems and these fat fingers. The keyboard on the laptop I get to use during the morning and afternoon is old and has sticky keys, and the cursor jumps all over the place, causing me to have to back-up, fix typos, and try to stay sane.

I am responding to bilby via your post because bilby's post was in response to mine. I have already received a warning from on high, telling me to watch my step, so I will be as polite as I can while still being as honest as possible.

***

bilby,

What, no snappy rebuttal to my last post? Perhaps you haven't seen it yet.

You appeared to imply that my Uncle Herb was a "dangerous idiot". If I were a betting man I'd wager my Uncle was a far sight more intelligent than you are. In fact, I'd wager that there are a lot of religious people who are more intelligent than you are. And that's saying something because I think you're probably very bright. Of course I don't know because I don't know you, and I don't know how you go about making your posts. For all I know they are google-enabled to a considerable degree. I don't believe that, but I do not know for certain.

You and I agree that supporting idiotic ideas can be dangerous, but where we no doubt disagree is what exactly constitutes an idiotic idea. I certainly agree that god-belief can be dangerous, and we both know that it has wreaked havoc, and probably always will. Sure, some of the beliefs my Uncle had were potentially dangerous. I agree. Some of my own religious mania (it still happens, it comes and goes) is and certainly was dangerous. I heartily confess. In fact I have said as much in many posts throughout the years; but there are also ideas that have nothing to do with religion that are equally as dangerous, and I suspect that you espouse some of those ideas. You are almost certainly sharp enough to know what kind of ideas I am referring to. I will not get into that in this thread, since it would be off-topic, and I do not wish to risk another warning.

You can PM me if you like, start another thread, or ignore me. Whatever you like, but I will not pursue any further conversation with you on the ideas I referred to above, in this thread.

I hope you enjoyed the beer. And I hope you didn't break anything!