Shooting Fish in Barrels

[cnorman18]

For some years now, I have observed a very great many threads that attempt to debate, or disprove, cast doubt upon, or otherwise dispute the beliefs or claims or value or morality or truth of religion. They have been popping up thick and fast of late, in several subforums, taking various tacks that all seem to center around the same assumptions. That is, virtually all of those threads appear to address fundamentalist Christianity of the Biblical-literalist variety, and for the most part seem cognizant of no other religious traditions at all.

When this is pointed out, the members who post these threads seem to me, after some ten years of posting on this forum and others, to fall into two groups:

Those in the first group say that they are quite consciously addressing ONLY fundamentalist Christianity of the most dogmatic and repressive kind, and that disputing that variety of religion is where their interest lies, and that they do not intend to consider or debate other approaches. This is said to be for various reasons; to wit, that that variety of religion is (a) the most pervasive, (b) the most influential, (c) the most pernicious, et cetera, and no other faiths are worthy of attention for those reasons; sometimes it is admitted that there are other iterations of religious belief or practice that are not so toxic and objectionable.

I think that's a reasonable approach; but in that case, I would think it would be a matter of clarity, if not simple intellectual honesty, to specify that one is only addressing dogmatic, fundamentalist Biblical literalism, and not religion without qualification.

I have also rather frequently dealt with members of the second group, on this forum and others; those who insist (ironically against both objective fact and logic) that any and all varieties of religious belief ARE equivalent to fundamentalist Christianity, and that there is no essential difference between any of them. Strangely, I have also seen the complete inverse of that claim, to wit, that any variety of religious expression that is NOT dogmatic, literalist, repressive, anti-science, etc., is not really religion at all, and that those of us who do not believe in those ways are either lying, closet atheists, or are on our way to becoming atheists.

Both of those claims are objectively and verifiably false, and in my experience those who insist on maintaining either (or, not infrequently, both) are just as dogmatic and doctrinaire in their own way as any Bible-thumping fundamentalist. There is only one correct way to think, and that is MY way -- even when one is thinking about religion. Even though I do not believe in it, I will make pronouncements which may not be questioned about how and what religionists must think and believe.

I have found it about as futile to attempt to debate the matter with them as it is to debate Young Earth Creationism with a Young Earth Creationist. The dogmatic mind is a closed mind, and theres little point in attempting to debate a person who assumes a priori that he knows the Truth, and ignores or dismisses everything you say in the firm and certain knowledge that you are either an obstinate sinner who clings to his sin, or an irrational fool who clings to his superstitious foolishness and is either lying about it or attempting to confuse the issue. Peace to both kinds of dogmatists; I have better things to do. Dogmatists, religious or antireligious, are not really interested in debate, only preaching, and I am not addressing them here.

But; For the first group, I propose that there is very frequently -- though not always -- another reason for concerning oneself exclusively with repressive, literalist fundamentalism in debate: It is the easiest kind of religion to argue against. The arguments in favor of it are easy to counter, and the arguments against it are easy to mount. Besides, its safe and fun -- the intellectual equivalent of beating up ten-year-olds.

Okay. But the way I learned it, shooting fish in barrels does not make you a master fisherman.

There are a number of enlightened liberal religious traditions and approaches, including some Christian ones, which teach and practice virtually none of the problematic dogmas and behaviors which one associates with literalist, fundamentalist Christianity; virtually none of those practices or teachings are found in modern Judaism, either. And yet, few are willing to extend their disputes with religion to these liberal and nonrepressive iterations of religious faith, without applying the transparently fallacious arguments outlined above -- and yet continue to insist that their argument is with RELIGION ITSELF and not only with the toxic varieties of it which they address and refer to in every post.

I have said here, many times, that there is no such thing as "religion." There are only religions, and there is not a single belief, practice or attitude that is common to them all. That FACT ought to have some bearing on this matter, in my opinion.

Question for debate:

Is it intellectually honest to claim to argue against "religion" when one is only arguing against certain varieties of religion -- and simultaneously refusing to engage with, or perhaps even admit the existence of, other varieties of religion which are not subject to one's complaints?

Is this tendency caused, at least in part, by the fact that repressive fundamentalist Biblical literalism is the easiest variety of religion to argue against?

[cnorman18]

Isn't it true that in the open forums somebody posts a topic and ANYBODY can jump in. So how can one in forum only confine the debate to certain sections?

Im not talking about confining the debate. Im talking about the assumptions evident in many posts here, and the fact that some posts which are apparently intended or claimed to be addressing religion in general are, in fact, only addressing one kind of religion.

Would you consider the God of classical theism a liberal or fundamentalist idea. Much of theology is based on that concept.

First Id like to see a definition of classical theism. I dont know of one -- and my very point is that not all religions, or even definitions of religion, are the same.

Would you consider the Euthyphro dilemma a liberal or fundamentalist problem? Whether God can be a legimitate source of the ethics we possess of identify with seems to touch both.

In some religions, including my own, that dilemma is not a dilemma. In the Hebrew Bible, the God-character is rather clearly subject to a standard of ethical behavior higher than Himself. As Abraham said, Shall the Judge of all the earth act unjustly?

This dilemma is based on the assumption that God is necessarily good by human standards. I dont know that that is true, or that anyone can claim objective knowledge, evidence, or proof of that. Looking around at the world, I find much reason to doubt it.

And that question is irrelevant to my point and to this thread.

Liberals do not have a problem with evolution. That said many mainline churches in US do have reservations about evolution as well. Yet the idea whether or not evolution has teleology or not seems relevant.

That is, again, an assumption. I dont see that it has anything to do with actual scientific evolutionary theory; and that issue is irrelevant to my point as well.

The problem of the concept of a just loving God given the idea of sacrificial atonement, grace, heaven and hell has problems that touch liberal Christianity also.

I have seen many posts on each of these issues as well.

And in many versions of liberal Christianity, all those concepts are no longer considered objective claims of material fact, but are acknowledged to be mental constructs, metaphors, and/or symbols expressing values and priorities, as opposed to carved-in-stone dogmas; and obviously, in the Jewish religion, they have no import whatever.

My post is about those who address those problems without acknowledging that there are religious traditions and iterations of religious belief to which they do not apply.

[cnorman18]

Is it intellectually honest to claim to argue against "religion" when one is only arguing against certain varieties of religion -- and simultaneously refusing to engage with, or perhaps even admit the existence of, other varieties of religion which are not subject to one's complaints?

Hey there big C.

Hey, man. PM me your email address again -- I lost it when I changed computers. That wasn't the only thing I lost, either...

Clearly that's a rhetorical question... unless I'm mistaken... as I so often can be.

To me and to you, it's rhetorical; but it does seem to be an issue that some have trouble dealing with. I suppose those people are in Group 2, but then there seem to be some who might be in Group 1 who haven't thought about it much, if at all. Thus my post.

Is this tendency caused, at least in part, by the fact that repressive fundamentalist Biblical literalism is the easiest variety of religion to argue against?

Well, as I see it your problem with these questions is in your idea that people should "engage with other varieties of religion which are not subject to their complaints." Exactly how would that work?

Engagement is optional; but acknowledgment that they exist would be nice.

I haven't often seen actual engagement with the concept of liberal religion, except in efforts to show that there is really no such thing. "Religion = supernaturalism = irrationality," is a pretty common meme around here. The first equivalence is verifiably false, and the second, though not my concern, is pretty doubtful.

Anyhoo, thought I'd drop in. Feel free to ignore me. I'm sure my schedule won't allow me to keep pace with forumizing any more. If I don't make it back - have a good one!

I'm focusing more on finishing my novel than on forumizing, myself, so I understand. I may or may not pursue this thread. Doesn't look all that promising so far.

[cnorman18]

.
Question for debate:

Is it intellectually honest to claim to argue against "religion" when one is only arguing against certain varieties of religion -- and simultaneously refusing to engage with, or perhaps even admit the existence of, other varieties of religion which are not subject to one's complaints?

Is this tendency caused, at least in part, by the fact that repressive fundamentalist Biblical literalism is the easiest variety of religion to argue against?

Counter questions to the questions for debate:

Is it intellectually honest to claim to argue against anti-religionists when one is only arguing against certain varieties of non-theists -- and simultaneously refusing to engage with, or perhaps even admit the existence of, other varieties of non-theists which are not subject to one's complaints?

Since I acknowledged that my observations here do not apply to all non-theists -- ...sometimes it is admitted that there are other iterations of religious belief or practice that are not so toxic and objectionable -- I dont think that question applies to me.

Is this tendency caused, at least in part, by the fact that the less learned anti-religionists are the easiest variety of non-theists to argue against?

Perhaps I am not learned enough, but I have no idea what you mean.

If by less learned anti-religionists you mean those who are not aware of the fact that all religions are not the same, I dont think thats a matter of arguing, but of informing.

As for me, i have plenty of criticism for liberal believers but there simply aren't many here and they rarely, if ever, put their beliefs out there for discussion. IME, the times that they have, have been some of the most informative.

Yes, I agree, and some of those engagements have been with me. You are not among those whom I am criticizing here.

What I have in mind are threads like the following:

Does religion defy reality?

Would the world be a better place without religion?

God and mental illness

God is an imaginary friend for adults!

And so on. None of these distinguish between different religions or different kinds of "belief in God."

Lastly, we have briefly disagreed on this before, but i think you greatly overestimate the numbers of liberal believers and their influence/exposure as compared to (1) the fundamentalists and (2) the more modern believers who don't take the bible completely literally but still engage in magical thinking.

On (1), I have no argument; you are quite right. The influence of liberal believers is not as visible, at least, as that of the conservative bunch. But then I have often pointed out that assuming that the fact that liberal believers do not get as much ink as others and therefore must exist in smaller numbers is an example of the Spotlight Fallacy and ought to be recognized as such.

(2) is similar. Id like to see a definition of magical thinking, and then Id like to see some evidence that the majority of liberal, nonliteral believers engage in it. I dont think thats true of Jews, and speaking from experience, I dont think its true of very many liberal Christians either. To choose a convenient example, the belief in miracles; I dont think that acknowledging that miracles are possible -- I cant say that they are NOT possible, and neither can you -- is quite the same thing as assuming that they can be obtained at will or can be depended upon. When I pastored a small, rural church in north Texas -- hardly a bastion of liberalism -- many people had no objection to praying for the healing of an ill person, but they still expected that person to go to the doctor, and no one expected that person to be suddenly and magically cured of all illness. The consensus on prayer seemed to be, It cant hurt. I dont think that constitutes magical thinking, and I dont think it seriously impedes rational or critical thought.

I really think objection #2 is just another version of religion = supernaturalism = irrationality, and I just dont think that that is true. In any case, as with Catalyst, I was not addressing you with this thread.

[dianaiad]

<snip to here>


Question for debate:

Is it intellectually honest to claim to argue against "religion" when one is only arguing against certain varieties of religion -- and simultaneously refusing to engage with, or perhaps even admit the existence of, other varieties of religion which are not subject to one's complaints?

No.

Is this tendency caused, at least in part, by the fact that repressive fundamentalist Biblical literalism is the easiest variety of religion to argue against?

Absolutely.

There. Question settled.

The thing is, though I haven't been here all THAT long (in fact, my tenure here has been relatively short, though voluble) I have noticed the same thing. Atheists (those who claim the name and those who simply act the role) here seem to make certain assumptions about theists that sometimes take many posts to disabuse before the meat of the question can be addressed.

One of the assumptions is insidious..and it's an opinion you have expressed here in your OP. It's that most of the theists on this forum are of that 'low hanging fruit' sort: the dogmatic fundamentalist.

I don't think that's true. Yes, there are a couple...perhaps even a 'few' if you stretch the count, but it seems to me at least that the majority of theists here are of the more 'liberal' (whatever that means) sort. Or, if not 'liberal" (and for political reasons that word gives me the shivers.. ) then 'not young earth creationist, biblical literalist, sola fidean, born again fundamentalist. Protestant Christian who defines 'Christian' as 'he who agrees with me on all things.'

One thing that you mention that I do indeed agree with; most theists here are rather chary of exposing their opinions and beliefs too freely, and I don't blame 'em a bit. Given that the majority of the folks on the 'Debating Christianity and Religion Forum' are here to debate on the 'not...' side of the issue, it takes a very brave person to expose him/herself in so personal a way.

..............but never mind me. I'm simply rambling, and commenting on the obvious truth of your observations in this matter.

[cnorman18]

<snip to here>


Question for debate:

Is it intellectually honest to claim to argue against "religion" when one is only arguing against certain varieties of religion -- and simultaneously refusing to engage with, or perhaps even admit the existence of, other varieties of religion which are not subject to one's complaints?

No.

Is this tendency caused, at least in part, by the fact that repressive fundamentalist Biblical literalism is the easiest variety of religion to argue against?

Absolutely.

There. Question settled.

The thing is, though I haven't been here all THAT long (in fact, my tenure here has been relatively short, though voluble) I have noticed the same thing. Atheists (those who claim the name and those who simply act the role) here seem to make certain assumptions about theists that sometimes take many posts to disabuse before the meat of the question can be addressed.

One of the assumptions is insidious..and it's an opinion you have expressed here in your OP. It's that most of the theists on this forum are of that 'low hanging fruit' sort: the dogmatic fundamentalist.

I don't think that's true. Yes, there are a couple...perhaps even a 'few' if you stretch the count, but it seems to me at least that the majority of theists here are of the more 'liberal' (whatever that means) sort. Or, if not 'liberal" (and for political reasons that word gives me the shivers.. ) then 'not young earth creationist, biblical literalist, sola fidean, born again fundamentalist. Protestant Christian who defines 'Christian' as 'he who agrees with me on all things.'

One thing that you mention that I do indeed agree with; most theists here are rather chary of exposing their opinions and beliefs too freely, and I don't blame 'em a bit. Given that the majority of the folks on the 'Debating Christianity and Religion Forum' are here to debate on the 'not...' side of the issue, it takes a very brave person to expose him/herself in so personal a way.

..............but never mind me. I'm simply rambling, and commenting on the obvious truth of your observations in this matter.

Thanks very much. It's good to know that my observations can be confirmed by others, and that I'm not just hallucinating or making claims without evidence...!

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Liberal religion in general is not interesting, influential or relevant enough to "engage" with. It's mostly harmless. What are some examples of the pressing arguments of liberal religion that are not being addressed?

I can imagine it gets annoying if people are talking about religion without constantly mentioning how your religion is this special exception. But personally, I see this as a trivial complaint. If someone makes a thread about certain beliefs, I suppose it's peripherally relevant to point out that the beliefs aren't shared by everyone, but it doesn't do much to progress the topic. People make generalizations, it's what they do, and sometimes they have to be corrected. There is nothing special about religion in this regard.

I disagree that arguing with some religion is especially easier. It isn't like liberal religious beliefs have strong arguments or evidence supporting them that are difficult to address. They just make fewer claims and are less enthusiastic to force their beliefs on others. If I'm going to debate bigfoot, I want to debate with people who think bigfoot is or might be real. I don't have the interest to debate against people who just think bigfoot is a really special metaphorical cultural phenomenon that we can all learn a lot from.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

For some years now, I have observed a very great many threads that attempt to debate, or disprove, cast doubt upon, or otherwise dispute the beliefs or claims or value or morality or truth of religion. They have been popping up thick and fast of late, in several subforums, taking various tacks that all seem to center around the same assumptions. That is, virtually all of those threads appear to address fundamentalist Christianity of the Biblical-literalist variety, and for the most part seem cognizant of no other religious traditions at all.

I sheepishly raise my hand.

When this is pointed out, the members who post these threads seem to me, after some ten years of posting on this forum and others, to fall into two groups:

Those in the first group say that they are quite consciously addressing ONLY fundamentalist Christianity of the most dogmatic and repressive kind, and that disputing that variety of religion is where their interest lies, and that they do not intend to consider or debate other approaches. This is said to be for various reasons; to wit, that that variety of religion is (a) the most pervasive, (b) the most influential, (c) the most pernicious, et cetera, and no other faiths are worthy of attention for those reasons; sometimes it is admitted that there are other iterations of religious belief or practice that are not so toxic and objectionable.

I s'pose my reasons for debate are tied directly to my experiences of religion / religious folks. I too tend towards the fundamentalist / literalist, as that's pretty much what passes for religion in the circles I run in.

I have little reason to debate the less literal biblical notions, as I don't much find the Bible interesting when all one need do is present their philosophical take, and there we go. I'm not much for philosophy, but for ensuring that fundamenatalist / literalists are held to a burden of proof. With philosophy there's hardly any "proof" beyond being happy with one's notions.

I can surely see why my reasons for debate might frustrate some, but I can't help it.

I think that's a reasonable approach; but in that case, I would think it would be a matter of clarity, if not simple intellectual honesty, to specify that one is only addressing dogmatic, fundamentalist Biblical literalism, and not religion without qualification.

Such is the nature of speech that not all qualifiers, notions, and such come readily to hand when presenting a topic for debate.

I have also rather frequently dealt with members of the second group, on this forum and others; those who insist (ironically against both objective fact and logic) that any and all varieties of religious belief ARE equivalent to fundamentalist Christianity, and that there is no essential difference between any of them.

Though I may not say it often enough, I've come to understand religion is as varied as the human race.

Strangely, I have also seen the complete inverse of that claim, to wit, that any variety of religious expression that is NOT dogmatic, literalist, repressive, anti-science, etc., is not really religion at all, and that those of us who do not believe in those ways are either lying, closet atheists, or are on our way to becoming atheists.

I propose such is to be expected when we thoroughly examine the god concept. Where our fears and doubts are stored, not many are willing to open that box.

Both of those claims are objectively and verifiably false, and in my experience those who insist on maintaining either (or, not infrequently, both) are just as dogmatic and doctrinaire in their own way as any Bible-thumping fundamentalist. There is only one correct way to think, and that is MY way -- even when one is thinking about religion. Even though I do not believe in it, I will make pronouncements which may not be questioned about how and what religionists must think and believe.

Without specifics, I can't much object. That said, on some unmentioned notions it ain't such a bad thing to think there's only one option.

I have found it about as futile to attempt to debate the matter with them as it is to debate Young Earth Creationism with a Young Earth Creationist. The dogmatic mind is a closed mind, and theres little point in attempting to debate a person who assumes a priori that he knows the Truth, and ignores or dismisses everything you say in the firm and certain knowledge that you are either an obstinate sinner who clings to his sin, or an irrational fool who clings to his superstitious foolishness and is either lying about it or attempting to confuse the issue. Peace to both kinds of dogmatists; I have better things to do. Dogmatists, religious or antireligious, are not really interested in debate, only preaching, and I am not addressing them here.

Agreed.

But; For the first group, I propose that there is very frequently -- though not always -- another reason for concerning oneself exclusively with repressive, literalist fundamentalism in debate: It is the easiest kind of religion to argue against.

I don't doubt one may conclude such. Again I refer folks back to the notion of what religion are you most familiar with. Whether unfortunately or not, funda-literalism is "what I know".

I object to any implication that folks simply go after the easy arguments.

Where a religious position is "easy to argue against", but folks keep presenting it, well there we go.

The arguments in favor of it are easy to counter, and the arguments against it are easy to mount. Besides, its safe and fun -- the intellectual equivalent of beating up ten-year-olds.

I've yet to meet a ten-year old that wasn't deserving a whooping for something

I consider how this site works, where the observer may see a single post or thread, and I consider that just because something got sorted out back in 2008 is no reason to conclude the observer of today is aware of such.

Okay. But the way I learned it, shooting fish in barrels does not make you a master fisherman.

When the barrel is the size of a planet, it might.

There are a number of enlightened liberal religious traditions and approaches, including some Christian ones, which teach and practice virtually none of the problematic dogmas and behaviors which one associates with literalist, fundamentalist Christianity; virtually none of those practices or teachings are found in modern Judaism, either. And yet, few are willing to extend their disputes with religion to these liberal and nonrepressive iterations of religious faith, without applying the transparently fallacious arguments outlined above -- and yet continue to insist that their argument is with RELIGION ITSELF and not only with the toxic varieties of it which they address and refer to in every post.

Most of that just smacks of theology or philosophy to me, and that's cool, it's just I have little use for using gods to tell tales.

There are a number of enlightened liberal religious traditions and approaches, including some Christian ones, which teach and practice virtually none of the problematic dogmas and behaviors which one associates with literalist, fundamentalist Christianity; virtually none of those practices or teachings are found in modern Judaism, either. And yet, few are willing to extend their disputes with religion to these liberal and nonrepressive iterations of religious faith, without applying the transparently fallacious arguments outlined above -- and yet continue to insist that their argument is with RELIGION ITSELF and not only with the toxic varieties of it which they address and refer to in every post.

I can dig it.

Though I would not dig the notion that just 'cause one seeks to argue against funda-literalism that they're somehow less deserving of our respect.

Question for debate:

Is it intellectually honest to claim to argue against "religion" when one is only arguing against certain varieties of religion -- and simultaneously refusing to engage with, or perhaps even admit the existence of, other varieties of religion which are not subject to one's complaints?

Meh, just ask for clarifiers and qualificaters, and offer 'em when asked.

Is this tendency caused, at least in part, by the fact that repressive fundamentalist Biblical literalism is the easiest variety of religion to argue against?

Not for me it ain't, and I contend that its pernicious hold on society is to be countered. I seek to dispel the myth of literal gods and I can't help if it upsets the governor.

Those who couch their religious beliefs in the purely philosophical have my respect, but alas, little of my attention.

[kayky]

I find that this happens in real word debates as well. I checked a book out of the library called God Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens, thinking it would be interesting to read a unified atheistic position. It was so worthless I couldn't even finish it. The whole time I just kept thinking, "I don't believe in this God you are arguing against either!"

[kayky]

I sheepishly raise my hand.

Joey, you are always so unabashedly honest.

[99percentatheism]

For some years now, I have observed a very great many threads that attempt to debate, or disprove, cast doubt upon, or otherwise dispute the beliefs or claims or value or morality or truth of religion. They have been popping up thick and fast of late, in several subforums, taking various tacks that all seem to center around the same assumptions. That is, virtually all of those threads appear to address fundamentalist Christianity of the Biblical-literalist variety, and for the most part seem cognizant of no other religious traditions at all.

When this is pointed out, the members who post these threads seem to me, after some ten years of posting on this forum and others, to fall into two groups:

Those in the first group say that they are quite consciously addressing ONLY fundamentalist Christianity of the most dogmatic and repressive kind, and that disputing that variety of religion is where their interest lies, and that they do not intend to consider or debate other approaches. This is said to be for various reasons; to wit, that that variety of religion is (a) the most pervasive, (b) the most influential, (c) the most pernicious, et cetera, and no other faiths are worthy of attention for those reasons; sometimes it is admitted that there are other iterations of religious belief or practice that are not so toxic and objectionable.

I think that's a reasonable approach; but in that case, I would think it would be a matter of clarity, if not simple intellectual honesty, to specify that one is only addressing dogmatic, fundamentalist Biblical literalism, and not religion without qualification.

I have also rather frequently dealt with members of the second group, on this forum and others; those who insist (ironically against both objective fact and logic) that any and all varieties of religious belief ARE equivalent to fundamentalist Christianity, and that there is no essential difference between any of them. Strangely, I have also seen the complete inverse of that claim, to wit, that any variety of religious expression that is NOT dogmatic, literalist, repressive, anti-science, etc., is not really religion at all, and that those of us who do not believe in those ways are either lying, closet atheists, or are on our way to becoming atheists.

Both of those claims are objectively and verifiably false, and in my experience those who insist on maintaining either (or, not infrequently, both) are just as dogmatic and doctrinaire in their own way as any Bible-thumping fundamentalist. There is only one correct way to think, and that is MY way -- even when one is thinking about religion. Even though I do not believe in it, I will make pronouncements which may not be questioned about how and what religionists must think and believe.

I have found it about as futile to attempt to debate the matter with them as it is to debate Young Earth Creationism with a Young Earth Creationist. The dogmatic mind is a closed mind, and theres little point in attempting to debate a person who assumes a priori that he knows the Truth, and ignores or dismisses everything you say in the firm and certain knowledge that you are either an obstinate sinner who clings to his sin, or an irrational fool who clings to his superstitious foolishness and is either lying about it or attempting to confuse the issue. Peace to both kinds of dogmatists; I have better things to do. Dogmatists, religious or antireligious, are not really interested in debate, only preaching, and I am not addressing them here.

But; For the first group, I propose that there is very frequently -- though not always -- another reason for concerning oneself exclusively with repressive, literalist fundamentalism in debate: It is the easiest kind of religion to argue against. The arguments in favor of it are easy to counter, and the arguments against it are easy to mount. Besides, its safe and fun -- the intellectual equivalent of beating up ten-year-olds.

Okay. But the way I learned it, shooting fish in barrels does not make you a master fisherman.

There are a number of enlightened liberal religious traditions and approaches, including some Christian ones, which teach and practice virtually none of the problematic dogmas and behaviors which one associates with literalist, fundamentalist Christianity; virtually none of those practices or teachings are found in modern Judaism, either. And yet, few are willing to extend their disputes with religion to these liberal and nonrepressive iterations of religious faith, without applying the transparently fallacious arguments outlined above -- and yet continue to insist that their argument is with RELIGION ITSELF and not only with the toxic varieties of it which they address and refer to in every post.

I have said here, many times, that there is no such thing as "religion." There are only religions, and there is not a single belief, practice or attitude that is common to them all. That FACT ought to have some bearing on this matter, in my opinion.

Question for debate:

Is it intellectually honest to claim to argue against "religion" when one is only arguing against certain varieties of religion -- and simultaneously refusing to engage with, or perhaps even admit the existence of, other varieties of religion which are not subject to one's complaints?

Is this tendency caused, at least in part, by the fact that repressive fundamentalist Biblical literalism is the easiest variety of religion to argue against?

What a great OP.

I've always found it fascinating that a lot of what atheist and the garden-variety secularist positions attack if the Jewish side of Biblical writ.

I have also rather frequently dealt with members of the second group, on this forum and others; those who insist (ironically against both objective fact and logic) that any and all varieties of religious belief ARE equivalent to fundamentalist Christianity, and that there is no essential difference between any of them. Strangely, I have also seen the complete inverse of that claim, to wit, that any variety of religious expression that is NOT dogmatic, literalist, repressive, anti-science, etc., is not really religion at all, and that those of us who do not believe in those ways are either lying, closet atheists, or are on our way to becoming atheists.

When you look at how many people cone from the traditionl religions, the atheist pronouncement may have a good point. If there really is no difference - really - between what the militant secularist wants, to what the liberal and prgressive religionists produce, and the "fruit" looks and sounds like what a secularist worldview is demanding, why fight against someone from the same side? That being the end of religious expression as it has historically been represented. Grreat Catherdrals, Synagouges and Mosques do not repreent a so-so, or wantered down religious declaration. They speak to absolutes. But it is odd, that ONLY Christians are put on the chopping block of denate attack over and over and over again. Maybe that says something?