Too Many Extremes in Disbelief

[LuisDantas]

Believing that Jesus didn't exist and that no Christians were martyred are extreme positions. These are fringe positions (and I don't even think the second one exists) among scholars, and yet are widely represented among RF atheists and some others. They are not backed by any meaningful scholarship. This isn't mild scepticism, it's fringe belief.

Disbelief in the existence of a literal Jesus is hardly extreme. Therre is only so much concession to social expectations that can be made.

As you point out yourself, neither of us even believes that your second example exists.

And you are just wrong, as well as deeply biased, in claiming that "no meaningful scholarship" exists for the stances that you call "fringe".

Frankly, that is not something to take seriously, and I fully expect that you know that or come to soon accept it.

 

[Rival]

As you point out yourself, neither of us even believes that your second example exists.

It exists on RF, this is my point. There are some on here who don't believe any Christians were martyred at all.

And yes, Jesus Mythicism is fringe; it is not taken seriously in academic circles. It's only hardcore online atheists who say Jesus of Nazareth never existed at all. What is scholarly belief is not always or even usually popular belief. Saying Jesus didn't even exist is a fringe reaction to Christianity not held by the majority of Biblical scholars.

 

[Zwing]

Calling it a "franchise" and assuming that it's all psychologically need based only shows that you don't understand theism nearly as well as you think you do.

What exactly is theism about, then? Above, you have indicated “the progress of faith”. I don’t know what you mean by that. Will you please explain why so many believe and place their trust in something supernatural for which they have no objective evidence?

 

[PureX]

What exactly is theism about, then?

Theism is about using faith to achieve both individual and collective cognitive awareness and healing that cannot be achieved by other available means.

Above, you have indicated “the progress of faith”. I don’t know what you mean by that.

And yet that is the fundamental motivation behind the theistic proposition. How to deal with the unknown, the fear of the unknown, and how to transcend the innate limitations of the human condition.

Will you please explain why so many believe and place their trust in something for which they have no objective evidence?

It's precisely the fact that we so often do not have sufficient objective evidence upon which to choose a course of action in life that we choose to act on faith. We choose to trust in the hope that what we want to be so, will be so, even though we can't know it will be so, when we choose to 'act as if'.

"God" is the great mystery of being. It is the great unknown and unknowable source, sustenance, and purpose of all that it. And somehow we humans have to find a way to live with all this uncomfortable unknowing and vulnerability. We have to keep making choices and moving forward even though we have no idea why, or how, or what will result. Theism is the area of human thought that deals with this great mystery of being. Of our being and of all being. And under this umbrella there are a great many different questions, problems, and solutions. Which is why the huge majority of humans beings on Earth engage in it in one form or another.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What exactly is theism about, then? Above, you have indicated “the progress of faith”. I don’t know what you mean by that. Will you please explain why so many believe and place their trust in something supernatural for which they have no objective evidence?

Notice that for religion and coping you don't have to do it as pure supernatural, but you can't do it with only objective rationality and objective evidence. In effect you have to have some beliefs, which are not with objective rationality and objective evidence.

I understand @PureX position and get "God", but to me that is as a Westen person an existential absurdity of being a human and that we can't do it with only objective rationality and objective evidence.
And yet, I still have faith in "God", it is just not the same as a fundamentilistic dogmant version of monotheism as The One True God.

 

[Zwing]

Theism is about using faith to achieve both individual and collective cognitive awareness and healing that cannot be achieved by other available means.

Awareness of what? “Awareness implies an object; what is the object in this case?

that is the fundamental motivation behind the theistic proposition. How to deal with the unknown, the fear of the unknown, and how to transcend the innate limitations of the human condition.

It would seem to me that this can be said of all religion, and that there are both extant religions and possible religions which can achieve that without having to delve into (if you will excuse the expression) irrational belief.

It's precisely the fact that we so often do not have sufficient objective evidence upon which to choose a course of action in life that we choose to act on faith.

There are always rational criteria upon which decisions can be made. I personally tried “acting on faith”, and I will try never to make that mistake again, for having gotten badly burned.

 

[Zwing]

And yet, I still have faith in "God", it is just not the same as a fundamentilistic dogmant version of monotheism as The One True God.

You a bumping up against lexical insufficiency. We have a meaning of what is meant by the term “God”. If we all start to formulate our own definitions of what that word means, then we lose all ability to cooperatively evaluate propositions about what is and what is not pertaining thereto. For instance if @PureX defines God as being “the great mystery of being”, and I am defining God as “the ‘Omni’ being which is the creator of the universe, etc.”, then how can we rationally discuss “God” together? We should agree to agre upon definitions, and develop lexemes as necessary when new concepts arise.

 

[F1fan]

I had not realised that the Trade Centre attacks were the genesis of New Atheism, but you seem to be absolutely right, according to this rather withering assessment of it, (in the Guardian, amazingly!) : The Four Horsemen review - whatever happened to ‘New Atheism’?

There are some quite telling points in it. For instance:-
"New Atheism’s arguments were never very sophisticated or historically informed. You will find in this conversation no acknowledgment of the progress made by medieval Islamic civilisation in medicine and mathematics – which is why, among other things, we have the word “algebra”. The Horsemen assume that religion has always been an impediment to science, dismissing famous religious scientists – such as Georges Lemaître, the Catholic priest who first proposed the big bang hypothesis, not to mention Isaac Newton et al – as inexplicable outliers. At one point Harris complains about a leading geneticist who is also a Christian. This guy seems to think, Harris spits incredulously, “that on Sunday you can kneel down in the dewy grass and give yourself to Jesus because you’re in the presence of a frozen waterfall, and on Monday you can be a physical geneticist”. Harris offers no reason why he can’t, except that the combination is incompatible with his own narrow-mindedness."

It's interesting that Dennett, the only philosopher among them, apparently took a more nuanced view of religion than the other Horsemen.

I found this comment about Dawkins's subsequent trajectory rather amusing:-
"Dawkins became a leading social-media troll, with tweets such as this from last summer: “Listening to the lovely bells of Winchester, one of our great mediaeval cathedrals. So much nicer than the aggressive-sounding ‘Allahu Akhbar.’ Or is that just my cultural upbringing?” In his introduction, Dawkins quotes some scriptural interpretation and asks: “Are professors of theology really paid to do this kind of thing?”, which suggests he has a bright future ahead of him leaving pointless online comments below newspaper articles."

But I suppose in fairness these guys are getting seriously old now, so perhaps this kind of thing is only to be expected.

Obviously you are right, too, about the regressive anti-intellectualism of redneck Bible Belt Christianity in the USA, which has been cultivated assiduously by the Right. But I have the strong feeling that attacking people's foundational cultural beliefs, in the way the New Atheists encouraged, is partly what has given rise to this backlash. (By the way, talking up an adversarial relationship between religion and science, as Dawkins has done, strikes me as not only damaging and wrong, but historically and culturally ignorant.)

I don't agree, however that this thread illustrates any attempt to put religion beyond critical scrutiny. @Rival 's initial point was just that some people (not you, obviously) seem to feel a rather irrational need to deny that there may be anything at all behind the stories and scriptures that underpin religions, instead of treating them as a historian or an anthropologist would, i.e. sure, stories created by people with obvious motives, but very likely with some bits of historical foundation to them. For instance it seems quite likely there may have been a charismatic man in Palestine, perhaps one of the Essenes, who may have been called Jesus of Nazareth and whose preaching may have founded what has become Christianity. Yet some on this forum hotly deny that even this much could be possible - which is rather curious.

It is clear that there are not two monoliths facing off on the issues of religion. Back in the old Beleifnet days that forum divided mostly on the lines of atheists and liberal theists versus religious conservatives. To my mind much of the conflict that exists today, in the broad sense, is how well religion fits in with societies that are advancing faster and faster. You noted how the Islamic society of Arab Spain used to be in the 11-12 centuries were very advanced and open, but then wiped out by Christian mercenaries. Certainly the Church did fund and encourage science when it had political control, but after the Enlightenment and secularism there seems to have been a rift develop between faith and reason. It seems most European nations were able to reconcile this vastly better that the USA and the Middle East, probably because Europe suffered the wars and paid the price. The USA is a unique issue of religious influence and beliefs.

I remember going to public meetings over public school science standards in the 90's where Christian fundamentalists had won the majority in Kansas education board, and they wanted to buy new text books that were not acceptable by scientists and professors at KU and KSU, and other colleges. This religious group organized these public forums, and I expected them to be secular. No. These peopled open their public forum with a prayer, and during the various agenda items they featured a group who sang hymns. The non-believers in the audience just looked at each others in amazement. The speakers they featured were advocates of intelligent design. It was propaganda, not a forum that actually educated the public. When they had the Q&A portion the answers were misleading. The next questioner would point out the disinformation of the previous answers, and they ended the forum.

To my mind it is this is part of what has driven so much pushback, not just Islamic terrorism in the 2000's. It all started in the 80's with Reagan and the Moral Majority, and their massive influence on society with anti-science rhertoric. To my mind this anti-science crusade is a form of terrorism, but intellectual terrorism. The average citizen doesn't understand much about science, and they don't seem able to discriminate a religious claim from a science conclusion. Knowledge is hard and complicated, religion is easyand simple. We live more and more in a world that operates with so much technology and science that goes way beyond the average person's knowledge base to understand that simple answers are apvreciated. And where it comes to creationists and IDers it is tribal.

This anti-science wave has had more and more consequences, from contempt for claimate change, to anti-vaxxers, to death threats against public health officials, like Fauci, and then to anti-abortion activism that has led to strict laws that have been causing limits to reproductive care to a degree that deaths have occurred. Frankly I'm shocked the New Atheism wave has fizzled out with so much Christian fundamentalism causing problems. And then atheists are still suffering from prejudice. Religion still gets a huge benefit of the doubt when it has shown itself to be not just objectively untrue, but actually poses numerous threats to citizens and the planet. The moderate theists seem more interested in their belief than acknowledging the threat more conservatives pose. Some are critical of far right republicans and their policies, but they still seem tolerant of the religious basis of the policies. I think this could be explained as liberal and moderate believers have become more vague and abstract in what they believe, so perhaps can't distinguish themselves from fundamentists like they used to.

 

[F1fan]

You a bumping up against lexical insufficiency. We have a meaning of what is meant by the term “God”. If we all start to formulate our own definitions of what that word means, then we lose all ability to cooperatively evaluate propositions about what is and what is not pertaining thereto. We should agree to agre upon definitions, and develop lexemes as necessary when new concepts arise.

This is part of the dilemma for believers, but used as an advantage. The "anything goes" approach allows a believer to claim anything they damn well please, and critics have to chase down the reasons for why this believer claims what they do. Of course, as usual, the critical thinker "just doesn't get it". What don't we get? Exactly.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You a bumping up against lexical insufficiency. We have a meaning of what is meant by the term “God”. If we all start to formulate our own definitions of what that word means, then we lose all ability to cooperatively evaluate propositions about what is and what is not pertaining thereto. We should agree to agre upon definitions, and develop lexemes as necessary when new concepts arise.

Well, okay. A functional neutral ontology that allows for subjectivity and the limit of objective rationality and objective evidence without any claim of what reality really is, but rather it is about how to live as humans.
The problem is that to allow for subjectiivity ends in a form of ontological idealism, so I just call it "God", because to me the assumptions that universe is real, orderly and knowable are in effect ontological idealism and to cliam that we can't aviod subjectivity is also of a form of ontological idealism.

 

[F1fan]

How is this apologism? Is Ehrman an apologist because he believes Jesus existed and that Christians were martyred? Is doing history apologism now?

Well a person who was the basis of the Jesus myth actually existing doesn't directly support Christian beliefs. Nor does that fact that Christians, among those of other religions, have been martyred over time for their beliefs.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is part of the dilemma for believers, but used as an advantage. The "anything goes" approach allows a believer to claim anything they damn well please, and critics have to chase down the reasons for why this believer claims what they do. Of course, as usual, the critical thinker "just doesn't get it". What don't we get? Exactly.

That all of the everyday world is not just with objective rationality and objective evidence. So in effect I have beliefs without rationality and evidence.

 

[Stevicus]

Indeed. Those atheists who pride themselves on their powers of reason, logic, critical thinking etc., seem especially quick to abandon these principles completely when it comes to the subject of Christianity; to which they will afford no credit, no benefit of any doubt, and no pretence at impartiality. In many cases this may be due to bad experiences those individuals have had with various Christian denominations, most especially perhaps, those of the evangelical variety.

Justifying prejudice on the basis of personal experience, is of course neither reasonable nor logical, which makes a mockery of the appeal to those qualities which the anti-theists frequently proclaim. Be that as it may, I try to make allowances for those people who are clearly, as @Kenny once pointed out, often coming from a position of personal pain. I have no wish to make their pain any worse, and in any case getting drawn into a clash of egos is no good to anyone. So I try to avoid engaging with the worst offenders, except occasionally to argue philosophical points in instances where it looks like discourse and disagreement might actually be conducted in a civil manner.

I'm not so sure that atheists actually "abandon" the principles of reason, logic, or critical thinking when it comes to Christianity, as such, although I suppose it's possible for some. And it's also true that there are huge gaps in history, so there may be many things we'll never know or be entirely certain of.

Looking at this from a historical viewpoint, one might read some historical text which might appear authentic and describes ordinary events which would be in line with the culture and technology of the time period. If one comes across a text which would depict events which seem "magical" and defy known physics and would be impossible even with today's technology, then that's when the old critical thinking cap has to come on.

When it comes to histories of ancient battles, wars, empires, etc., there's generally quite a bit more evidence, as well as the depiction of humans doing human things using the tools available at whatever stage of development they were in. That may leave a lot of room for speculation and debate, although no one is actually forced to believe any particular telling of history. And of course, even Christians can't force people to believe in the Bible as being actual, historical fact which really happened - at least not anymore. But that may also be another reason why Christian history may be called into question. After all, if someone has to be forced to believe in it, can it really be that sound?

 

[Rival]

Well a person who was the basis of the Jesus myth actually existing doesn't directly support Christian beliefs. Nor does that fact that Christians, among those of other religions, have been martyred over time for their beliefs.

I wasn't suggesting they do. I'm not a Christian.

 

[Whateverist]

I think I would respect theists more if they would just say "I choose to believe, and am unconcerned whether the object of my belief is empirically evidenced"

As do I and I know of several who own that what they choose to believe on faith is not something they can show to be true, though I doubt any will say "I am unconcerned whether the object of my belief is empirically evidenced". In other words, it isn't something they belief based on empirical facts. What was challenging to me was that anyone would ever choose to believe anything not supported by the best evidence and reasoning. But that ignores the fact that we all must have a disposition to the world, what generally we expect from it and our experience of it as we go through everyday. Life isn't lived on the basis of research; we make judgements on the run as life unfolds. For that reason we all have some disposition to the world which precedes reason and evidence, but we don't all know what is our disposition to the world. For Christians it is the belief that the world is a place where God always belongs. But what God is exactly is not possible to say, it is something felt or intuited but Christians by and large assume that God is as described in the Bible. Some Christians will admit they could be reading the Bible incorrectly about who exactly God is but they choose to believe the traditional account anyway but all the thoughtful ones I've met definitely have doubts. (Belief need not be fervent or irrational.) I can respect that but am still glad to be unencumbered by any Bible.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I've noticed that, among a large cohort of non-Christians and especially atheists on here, many of them take disbelief to what I would consider an extreme. There are many issues so this will likely be a wide-ranging thread.

Out of curiosity, have you ever noticed a theist take their beliefs to what one might consider an extreme? For example, that Adam and Eve were real people, and the actual first humans? Or that the entire surface of the earth was once completely flooded, and the ancestors of every living animal today were saved on a big boat? I only ask because you don't mention that.

I. 'Christian martyr stories are made up.' Why? Yes, there are many apocryphal tales but it is absolutely true that Christians were at times persecuted and put to all kinds of terrible deaths by the Roman state. These figures are exaggerated but why should this mean that the whole idea behind Christian martyrs be questioned?

Many stories, both religious and non-religious are made up. This happens for a variety of reasons -- sometimes to make a point (Jesus, after all, invented parables for that purpose). Others are exaggerated (there's much truth in Homer's Odyssey and Iliad, and there's likewise truth in Virgil's Aeneid. Troy existed, but who really believed that before Schliemann? So did Carthage, whether or not it was founded by a queen called Dido.

As @Father Heathen pointed out, many people have died for their beliefs -- beliefs of all kinds. Many Americans died for a belief in democracy, which doesn't mean that democracy will hold out forever in the U.S. Many Christians died for Catholicism, and many died for Protestantism. How does their dying make either any more "the True Religion?"

II. 'Paul was xyz.' (A Roman spy, a false Christian, didn't really see Jesus etc.) Please prove it. Paul probably had more enemies than friends, but the same might be said of Jesus.

Paul did not meet Jesus, as the Book of Acts makes clear in the Bible. Paul only converted some years (maybe 4-7) after the crucifixion, but he certainly met some of the Disciples.

We hear two accounts of Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus: one in Acts 9, and the second Acts 22:

The men who were traveling with him stood speechless because they heard the voice but saw no one. (Acts 9:7)​

Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me. (Acts 22:9)​

But throughout the authentic Epistles (yes, Paul was real, and wrote letters that virtually all scholars agree were by him), Paul downplays every aspect of Jesus's life on earth, isn't interested in Mary and Joseph, nor Pontius Pilate, and even treats the Crucifixion itself as if it happened in some mystical realm.

III. 'Jesus didn't exist.'

I have always said that it is most likely that Jesus did exist. What I haven't agreed with, on the balance of the evidence and of my own particular reason, that he was divine, born of a virgin, nor the "Son of God." Those things do not bear real scrutiny.

IV. Sources that never seem to be good enough. Yet other histories are not questioned (ex. our best information for Alexander the great comes about 200 years after the fact and almost nothing contemporary survives). Ancient written histories and biographies are full of what modern folks would now consider nonsense and are yet still cited as acceptable histories and especially biographies, yet when one goes to the Gospels all of a sudden it's different, despite the fact that the Gospels are now squarely classed as Greco-Roman biography written in the style of every other such biography (ex. miraculous birth narratives, missing out childhoods, not in chronological order etc.)

Lots of "histories" and "sources" are questioned -- all the time, as you've been shown by others in this thread. We don't accept Homer or Virgil as historians, but as storytellers, doing what most storytellers do: taking such real historical themes as they may know, and embellishing them for their audiences. And we invariably discount the stories of mythical beings like Gorgons and Circe and the Cyclops. We discount tales of men being turned into pigs, or of Gilgamesh and Enkidu killing "the Bull of Heaven." There was no "Bull of Heaven," though there was indeed an Uruk. And it is in the Epic of Gilgamesh that we first find the story of the flood, and of Noah (named Utnapushtim in the Gilgamesh).

The minute something is classed as 'religious' it seems far too many people are willing to write it off as a complete waste of space.

I think that you will find most of the time, it is when something classed as "religious" is used to hurt other people that a lot of atheists get up in arms. For example, the present "culture war" in the United States, primarily aimed at LGBTQ+ people, is just about entirely fuelled by religion -- and although I'll bet you haven't considered this, it is right now making a lot of LGBTQ+ people very afraid. That, for some of us who can't justify it with religion, is a BAD THING. And we say so out loud.

 

[lukethethird]

How is this apologism? Is Ehrman an apologist because he believes Jesus existed and that Christians were martyred? Is doing history apologism now?

1) Paul met Jesus in a vision. According to Paul, this is good enough because he believes that Jesus is still alive. Whether you believe Jesus is alive or not isn't germane; we can accept that Paul had some kind of mystical experience in which he believed he saw Jesus. I don't think this should be too difficult for anyone to accept, especially given that it is recorded in two places (Acts by Luke and in Galatians by Paul). If you are going to deny that Paul even had a mystical experience then you are going to have to explain why. When Paul goes to the Apostles after this experience they find no fault with him and allow him to preach to the non-Jews (Galatians 2:6-10). He had later disagreements, but Paul and Peter were not the only ones having disagreements.

2) I wasn't specifically referring to the Jesus of Christianity. I was referring to the Jesus of history. That Jesus, by scholarly majority consensus, existed. I'm talking about people who deny the historical existence of Jesus.

3) We have records of Jesus' brother, 4 biographies of him, letters detailing a movement inspired by him, early anti-Christian graffiti showing a crucified man, and no evidence anywhere of anyone in this period denying the founder of the Christian religion even existed. That's a pretty good amount for a Galilean woodworker. The fact that you will take Suetonius but not the Gospels even though they're the same genre is baffling and that's on you to explain. Obviously we have more material evidence for Roman emperors than we have for Judean peasants, but the fact that 4+ people wrote incredibly cultured biographies about him is extraordinary. If he hadn't existed I think at least 1 of them ought to have known about it.

4) These religious claims are 2000 years old, they're hardly new. You are the one with the onus to disprove the claims.

The onus is not on anyone to disprove your claims, the onus is on you to support them. Your 3) paragraph, Suetonius and the gospels are the same genre??? Did Suetonius write narratives with storied plot lines? Did Suetonius copy most of gMark as did the other gospel writers when writing his storied plot lines? I thought Suetonius was an historian, you say he's a gospel writer, he wrote scripture? Did he rewrite lines from the Septuagint when writing his gospels? We have records of Jesus's brother??? 4 biographies??? Letters??? As for 2), these so called scholars got their degrees in seminary schools, they're worthless echo chambers declaring their faith Jesus really and truly walked the earth. You have a lot of explaining to do.

 

[Zwing]

This is part of the dilemma for believers, but used as an advantage. The "anything goes" approach allows a believer to claim anything they damn well please, and critics have to chase down the reasons for why this believer claims what they do. Of course, as usual, the critical thinker "just doesn't get it". What don't we get? Exactly.

Yes, exactly. The God of which I argue that belief is unwarranted is the Christian God, the God of the Bible…that in which I spent so much of my own life in worshiping. In our Christianized, Western culture, that is what the unqualified term “God” means: YHVH…the “big man in the sky”. If someone starts to argue that I am wrong for not believing in “God”, and then pulls, as if ‘out of his hat’, a definition of “God” which is acultural and different from that, then what am I to do? It is an example of “moving the goalposts”. We have to agree on certain definitions before initiating debate, otherwise we debate senselessly. It is incumbent upon someone who does not define the word “God” as the God of the Bible to state as much before beginning debate, so that we can speak one to another like people with sense.

 

[exchemist]

It is clear that there are not two monoliths facing off on the issues of religion. Back in the old Beleifnet days that forum divided mostly on the lines of atheists and liberal theists versus religious conservatives. To my mind much of the conflict that exists today, in the broad sense, is how well religion fits in with societies that are advancing faster and faster. You noted how the Islamic society of Arab Spain used to be in the 11-12 centuries were very advanced and open, but then wiped out by Christian mercenaries. Certainly the Church did fund and encourage science when it had political control, but after the Enlightenment and secularism there seems to have been a rift develop between faith and reason. It seems most European nations were able to reconcile this vastly better that the USA and the Middle East, probably because Europe suffered the wars and paid the price. The USA is a unique issue of religious influence and beliefs.

I remember going to public meetings over public school science standards in the 90's where Christian fundamentalists had won the majority in Kansas education board, and they wanted to buy new text books that were not acceptable by scientists and professors at KU and KSU, and other colleges. This religious group organized these public forums, and I expected them to be secular. No. These peopled open their public forum with a prayer, and during the various agenda items they featured a group who sang hymns. The non-believers in the audience just looked at each others in amazement. The speakers they featured were advocates of intelligent design. It was propaganda, not a forum that actually educated the public. When they had the Q&A portion the answers were misleading. The next questioner would point out the disinformation of the previous answers, and they ended the forum.

To my mind it is this is part of what has driven so much pushback, not just Islamic terrorism in the 2000's. It all started in the 80's with Reagan and the Moral Majority, and their massive influence on society with anti-science rhertoric. To my mind this anti-science crusade is a form of terrorism, but intellectual terrorism. The average citizen doesn't understand much about science, and they don't seem able to discriminate a religious claim from a science conclusion. Knowledge is hard and complicated, religion is easyand simple. We live more and more in a world that operates with so much technology and science that goes way beyond the average person's knowledge base to understand that simple answers are apvreciated. And where it comes to creationists and IDers it is tribal.

This anti-science wave has had more and more consequences, from contempt for claimate change, to anti-vaxxers, to death threats against public health officials, like Fauci, and then to anti-abortion activism that has led to strict laws that have been causing limits to reproductive care to a degree that deaths have occurred. Frankly I'm shocked the New Atheism wave has fizzled out with so much Christian fundamentalism causing problems. And then atheists are still suffering from prejudice. Religion still gets a huge benefit of the doubt when it has shown itself to be not just objectively untrue, but actually poses numerous threats to citizens and the planet. The moderate theists seem more interested in their belief than acknowledging the threat more conservatives pose. Some are critical of far right republicans and their policies, but they still seem tolerant of the religious basis of the policies. I think this could be explained as liberal and moderate believers have become more vague and abstract in what they believe, so perhaps can't distinguish themselves from fundamentists like they used to.

I like "fundamentists". Was that a typo or is it what you call them?

I can't really comment much on what you have written as it seems highly specific to the USA. There seems to be nothing analogous in Europe, or not that I am aware of.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I like "fundamentists". Was that a typo or is it what you call them?

I can't really comment much on what you have written as it seems highly specific to the USA. There seems to be nothing analogous in Europe, or not that I am aware of.

You are lucky. One of the reasons that some people became Pastafarian was so that they too could lead prayers before city council meetings. Satanists have done the same:

A Pastafarian hilariously trolled a town council meeting. The stakes are profoundly serious.

The Satanic Temple and the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster’s hilarious tactics have profoundly serious stakes.

www.vox.com

Satanic Temple rep gives San Marcos City Council invocation

Satanic Temple representative gives invocation at San Marcos City Council meeting

www.expressnews.com