Atheists, who do you respect more, fundies or...?

Question

If 'respect' is the right word.

Fundies who are just batsh*t crazy, or 'moderates'; those hypocrites who cherry-pick the bible for passages they like to justify their belief in a fairy tale and bigotry, and disregard the passages that restrict their lifestyles?

At least the fundies are honest.

Yes, honest isn't the right word. Let's say 'consistent'.

What I don't understand about moderates is that if they can see that some of the bible is ridiculous, what is stopping them from seeing the ridiculousness of the whole thing?

Answer 1

Respect is not the right word. Fear is closer.
The Fundies are dangerously delusional. There doctrine call for them to do everything possible to precipitate what they view as the end of the world.

The "Moderates" provide the society that allows Fundies to function. If it was not for mainstream religion being an actual apocalyptic death cult the Fundies would stand out in clear relief as the homicidal maniacs that they are.

Answer 2

I would have to say that I respect the fundies more. Although I don't personally believe in god, I do have respect for other people's views. The fundamentalists at least show a set dedication, whereas the moderates, just like you said, pick and choose what they want to follow and when they should follow it. I guess it comes down to consistency.
I met this guy one time who was a "hard core" born-again Christian who didn't believe in pre-marital sex. However, he ONLY counted intercourse as actual sex, so everything else was fair game (and I have found this to be a FAIRLY common belief).

I have a lot of respect for anyone who truly believes whatever they believe in. I don't have respect for people who modify what they are supposed to believe in whenever it suits their needs.

Also, I definitely have to disagree with latoya...most atheists I've come across are very respectful people and still have high moral codes. Not believing in a god is not disrespectful; trying to force other people to share your views is. I believe that believers and non-believers alike can be guilty of this.

Answer 3

Moderates don't have to "cherry pick." I am sure there are people that "cherry pick," but it's not just a choice between fundamental literalism (which really makes no sense to me in terms of Biblical interpretation), and "cherry picking."

The Bible is a complex set of separately written books by many different authors, written for many different purposes, and in many different contexts, over the course of possibly 1,000 years, and finally compiled as a single volume around 400 A.D. Just like any complex work (the Tao Te Ching, I Ching, Bhagavad Gita, Plato's Socratic Dialogues.... whatever), they can be difficult to understand. They can also be subject to a variety of interpretations by people who are looking for an understanding of the works. Such difficulties and differing opinions or interpretations do not constitute "cherry picking."

So, it could be that people, as I do, have a different understanding than the fundamentalists have, and yet our opinions on things count just as much.

When you have not attempted to understand and interpret the Bible, then it's easy to pick out verses and stories and say "that couldn't happen that way! It can't literally be true!" - like the story of Noah's Ark. Was it literally a flood over the whole world (covering the highest mountain - even Mt. Everest... which would require water 5 miles deep to rain down in 40 days.....)? Or, could the story be a morality play, whose truth lives in its symbolic interpretation in light of its times, rather than in whether Noah ACTUALLY built a boat that held all the animals or ACTUALLY landed on Ararat?

It's up to you how you interpret it. But interpretation is not "cherry picking." Interpretation is simply finding meaning to the written word, and is done when reading any text. The Bible is no different. It is not just a magical book on which all should have the same understanding and with respect to which there can be no reasonable disagreement.

Answer 4

I don't know if honest is the right word. They're consistent, sure, but they're just as dishonest with themselves as any moderate. And while I do respect some theists, it's only for qualities they have independent of their theism. I don't consider either moderate theism or fundamentalism to be inherently worthy of any respect whatsoever. And since moderates tend to allow more of their character to be unaffected by their religion, I suppose in general I respect moderates more.

Answer 5

I respect neither. But at least the moderates can think on their toes, always looking for biblical loop holes and comebacks. But the fundamentalists are entertaining. Like a monkey always trying to open a coconut, but they just can't seem to. So they try to open your head with that thick a-s-s bible.

Wow, they both use the bible to justify. Just one is violent and the other is annoying.

Answer 6

I guess I respect the moderates if they live a good and kind life, and respect the fundies to an extent, in that their ravings illustrate everything wrong with their religion so clearly. They are like human public service announcements against their own faith!

Answer 7

Even though the fundies are honest about the Bible, the moderates show far more compassion for their fellow humans and are far more liberal, even though they have a distorted view of their God.

So I have far more respect for the moderates.

Answer 8

Fundies, because they are devoted to taking the whole thing literally, not just bits and pieces of it....however many of them piss me off too.
However, I agree with the above...I respect good people who aren't trying to change my beliefs...
If that means their a fundie or a moderate or whatever, it doesn't really matter. But when you have to categorize....fundies.

Answer 9

I respect honest, good people.

Fundamentalists aren't intellectually honest, they are indoctrinated and absolutist, whether politically or religiously it is the same effect.

I cannot respect Phelps or Abu Usama, they are both fundies, and both demonstrably dishonest. I suppose anyone's definition of fundie will vary.

The first answerer typifies to me what fundamentalism is:

People who make dishonest statements and/or abandon their reason in order to support their world-view.

That is not intellectually honest, or any other kind of honest.

Answer 10

I try to respect everyones beliefs, especially if I disagree with it. They said Galileo was crazy, they said Columbus was crazy, they said Newton was crazy, they said Einstien was crazy, just cause your crazy doesn't mean you can't be right. And when it comes to religion and faith, who can say who is right or wrong. Obviously, I'm right and you're wrong. The facts may stay the same, but the truth is different for everyone.