Find and read Letter to a Christian Nation, by Sam Harris. Moderates provide cover for extremists by demanding special respect for religious faith, which deserves no special respect. The moderates are forced into this position because they have no solid basis for their belief, except their reliance on faith. Unfortunately, 'faith' is exactly the same whether you're moderate or extremist. You have no basis to criticize extremists because your reasons for believing what you believe are the same reasons the extremists use for believing what they believe.

For that matter, also read the more comprehensive The End of Faith, also by Sam Harris.

But that's just the thing, I'm not coming in demanding special respect nor am I or other average believers giving excuse for the actions of a fringe group of extremists. I'm not even coming in here to convince you of what I believe. I'm simply making the observation that because your criticisms -- which are legitimate -- are narrowly tailored to extremist groups you have failed in persuading the average believer to leave their faith. It would be like me coming to you and talking about all of the bad science (like referencing Cesare Lombroso's ativistic theory). Have I convinced you that science is a joke or that you should leave it entirely? This is exactly the point I'm making.

I thank you for directing me to Sam's book but I've already read Letter to a Christian Nation -- hence my reference to it in my original post. Apart from these fringe groups, most of us understand that the Bible isn't to be taken literally but rather serve as a compilation of stories aimed at teaching a lesson about life. Of course in between all of this there exists archaic stories written by men hundreds of years ago and obviously will contain not only error but crazy claims as well. Also, as a Catholic I should say that it is a teaching of the catholic church that the Bible is not historically accurate but religiously accurate; for example: Adam and Eve is fictional, yet the point of the story is that God made the world (the Catholic Church accepts evolution). Noah's ark is fictional, yet the point of the story is that God saved us. That is religious truth, as defined by the catechism of the Catholic Church.

Thanks for the input by the way you guys.

As far as I'm concerned, if you are not actively standing up against the extremists, and you are also telling us to basically shut up, then you are contributing to the problem. And, since you cannot effectively stand up against the extremists without contradicting your own faith, then you serve no purpose to this fight.

Here's a challenge for you: Can you, as a theist who believes based on faith, make a solid argument against theistic extremists, who also believe on exactly the same faith (belief without evidence), that the extremists are wrong?

If you can't meet this challenge, then don't bother complaining about our tactics, as you have nothing to offer.

Actually you are demanding special respect.  You want me to respect your religion beliefs based on faith or unverifiable personal experience, and on the second and say you are different than the extremist who use the exact same methods to defend their religious beliefs.  If anything I am treating your arguments as fairly as I treat all arguments of faith.

Why are you not coming here to convince?  If you have any true value in your belief system why wouldn't you share them?  I am not against spreading information, I am against spreading false information or passing unverified information as fact.

I would probably refer to it as bad scientist as science and scientific method cannot be good or bad.  Building a nuclear weapon uses science (not bad science) what I mean the math and theory behind the model work and no matter how bad we think the weapons are that does not give us the ability to call it bad science.

Why are you taking life lesson from people who lived 2000 years ago, do you think we have not advanced in our ability to understand life for the past 2000 years?

The point of the Matrix is that Neo saves us.  This is synonomous to your Bible since you consider both to be fiction.  Why then do you consider the characters in your book of fiction to be real? If Adam and Eve are ficticous then what brought about this thing called sin according to your religion?

You have evidence to support your beliefs? Please present it.  I admit is was an assumption that you don't have evidence, but an assumption based on the fact that no one with a belief in a deity has ever presented evidence for the claim.

I attack faith in general not extremists.  Faith is a worthless tool in obtaining knowlegde about the world around us.  If you don't use faith then present your evidence, if you do use faith then you are not discussing reality in a productive way.

Are you going to avoid my previous questions? I was hoping you could help me to understand your position better. 

Yes, my way or the highway, I am star dust , all is particles , material energy matter from all that can be known in this real place we all are .... even imagination is in the material nature of this dimension we are contained, as we are condemned.

All is god, meaning existence, so now what? Well, let's focus on happiness for all, as we are one earth, one race.

  Think about god, love, emotion, etc, scientifically .... thermodynamics.

Listening to a believer about de-conversion is a bit like, pardon the expression, asking a priest about sex. Well, consenting, heterosexual sex, anyway.

I don't think our criticisms "are narrowly tailored to extremist groups". We criticize the fundamentals of religion itself. Of course "extremist groups" attract extra criticism, for obvius reasons.

'Faith' and "Revelation" are purely subjective and add no actual knowledge - any real knowledge 'inspired' by thoughts stemming from such beliefs and experiences is only gained by testing them against reality, IOW something close to science, just like any other hypothetical speculation. The moderate and liberal believers still seem to share a confidence in the value of faith and revelation with the extremists, which ironically demonstrates the fallacy of treating then as a sources of some actual knowledge, since they can lead to such different attitudes and moral interpretation. For both ends of the spectrum they reinforce the attitudes of the particular individual or group, so helping the extremists to further convince themselves of the 'righteousness' of their position.

The harm even in the case of the moderates is demonstrated in their still holding to Bible as still deserving of respect as a good source of moral guidance, rather than the outdated encapsulation of many primitive ideas. There are many despicable ideas to be found there, such as the attitude to homosexuals and even the inferior status of women, the justification of disproportionate punishment for 'sins' which cause little or no real harm to anyone, the punishment of the descendants for the 'sins' of some individuals, the 'virtue' of blind obedience to authority, that 'might makes right', pushing the extremely primitive and atavistic idea of blood sacrifice to jealous deities to buy some sort of favour (the core idea, at least the original idea, behind the crucifiction). Not to mention the implicit endorsement of slavery, and the failure to condemn rape and torture, indeed the presentation of such things as perfectly okay when applied to your enemies, whoever the 'enemy' is perceived to be.

There have been many superior guides to morals, ethics, and the nature of the Universe published since. This is one of the things we wish to point out, that encouraging people to base their moral outlook on the Bible is inhibiting us from moving past many bad or simplistic ideas such as those I listed above, and fully incorporating all the advancements in knowledge and ethical ideas that have taken place since biblical times, whether it be the rights of women or the turn-around in attitudes to slavery.

I submit that these problems apply to all who identify themselves as Christian.

BobSpence1: A fine blend of Paine, Jefferson, Einstein, Sagan, Neitzchie, Russell, Sartre, and heck, add a heaping measure of 'buddha consciousness'.

 Yeah Bob, I know, I said I wouldn't, but it was not a promise. Man, those are dancing words, let's party, break out the booze ....

You say the flood story is a reminder that your god saved "you". How do you divorce yourself from the implications of the rest of the story where your god drowned all but one family and all but a few examples of every animal? In other words, in order to have effected this "saving" your god killed essentially everything alive. That does not give you pause?

BTW, I was Catholic too, and the Pope expects Catholics to accept Adam and Eve as literal first persons. Cafeteria Catholic? You do know that the Catholic church is actively obstructing access to and use of condoms and education about the cause of HIV in Africa? Could this happen without approval or complicity by the Pope? Isn't he, then, one of the nutter extremists? This is but one example where "moderates" enable extremism.

Xlint essay Hamby, as I mentioned in post 4, and in other threads. If it was adapted to podcast I bet it would get heard on the pubic sponsered and internet radio stations.

I think DG had such a "radio friendly" essay hot rant against "new age" woo woo, which I've tried to find to no avail yet. I think you also had a bit simulair one regarding "awe inspiring science", which you directed me to recently.

Thanks again Hamby, signed , I AM, AS YOU, GOD     

Twinkle, twinkle, little star,
How I wonder what you are.
Up above the world so high,
Like a diamond in the sky.
Twinkle, twinkle, little star,
How I wonder what you are! *