it seems to me that sometimes you argue that "religion, per se, is a fundamentally flawed (at best; at worst, corrupt and corrupting) system" and at other times you argue that "well, actually, people who aren't TOO religious, i.e. fundamentalist, are actually okay, because they are remarkably similar to me/atheists".
Pretty much, yes. Religion IS an inherently corrupt thing- actually, I would extend that to all forms of theism, and throw in some other supernatural kookery to boot. At the same time, though, some folk are more actively harmful than others. You and our hostess are not as bad as the Discovery Institute is or Falwell was, for instance.
again i think you are basing your argument on a caricature of christianity/religion, or perhaps a minority view
Maybe/maybe not. Nonetheless, I am not and never have been attempting to apply the argument to everyone, only to those who hold that perspective. If it doesn't apply to you, that's fine. If it doesn't apply to your churches, that's fine. But it certainly applies to large, well-financed evangelical churches in the 'States, it certainly applies to large swathes of EU, it applies to parts of Catholicism. Most Christians I've encountered, the argument applies.
Which may be a problem with my sampling, sure. I tend to encounter the loud Christians, the ones who rail against secularism or hold talks on campus or harass people or whatever. I am sure there are many quiet Christians or liberal Christians who differ. That's nice. I acknowledged that point in both my original response to Our Hostess and every one to you thus far.
my morality may have the same results as that of an atheist [...] however there will be differences in how i approach certain issues because my morality is based in a different world view from yours.
Sure. For a parallel, a medieval blogger thought the best response to the recent violence in Kenya was to help out the white American evangelists in the area rather than sending money to the Red Cross. That is one example of a different response to an issue (presumably also different from yours). It is also a good example of how religious morality is wrong-headed, prioritising a potential afterlife over the real problems of this one.
Nonetheless, this is not the issue under discussion here. highlyeccentric and Christina were talking about the morality based on the carrot-or-stick. Christina claims that not all religious espouse it and the ones that do don't mean it anyway. I disagree; enough do that it is a problem, and they really do believe it. That it is factually untrue (they could stop believing in God and would still be moral; some do) is not the point: the point is that their belief is reprehensible.
Your morality would differ from mine on certain points. Super. Mine differs from Dawkins and Hitchens (certainly Hitchens!) on several points. Difference is good. Different moralities are good. Having morality based on fear or greed is not good.
even if there are a lot of these whackos in the world, it doesn't justify your (occasional) argument that there is something wrong with religion per se.
Yes it does. But that is, once again, a different argument. I am not, here, trying to argue that religion/theism is bad. Just that this particular facet of it is.
Part One
Pretty much, yes. Religion IS an inherently corrupt thing- actually, I would extend that to all forms of theism, and throw in some other supernatural kookery to boot. At the same time, though, some folk are more actively harmful than others. You and our hostess are not as bad as the Discovery Institute is or Falwell was, for instance.
Maybe/maybe not. Nonetheless, I am not and never have been attempting to apply the argument to everyone, only to those who hold that perspective. If it doesn't apply to you, that's fine. If it doesn't apply to your churches, that's fine. But it certainly applies to large, well-financed evangelical churches in the 'States, it certainly applies to large swathes of EU, it applies to parts of Catholicism. Most Christians I've encountered, the argument applies.
Which may be a problem with my sampling, sure. I tend to encounter the loud Christians, the ones who rail against secularism or hold talks on campus or harass people or whatever. I am sure there are many quiet Christians or liberal Christians who differ. That's nice. I acknowledged that point in both my original response to Our Hostess and every one to you thus far.
Sure. For a parallel, a medieval blogger thought the best response to the recent violence in Kenya was to help out the white American evangelists in the area rather than sending money to the Red Cross. That is one example of a different response to an issue (presumably also different from yours). It is also a good example of how religious morality is wrong-headed, prioritising a potential afterlife over the real problems of this one.
Nonetheless, this is not the issue under discussion here.
Your morality would differ from mine on certain points. Super. Mine differs from Dawkins and Hitchens (certainly Hitchens!) on several points. Difference is good. Different moralities are good. Having morality based on fear or greed is not good.
Yes it does. But that is, once again, a different argument. I am not, here, trying to argue that religion/theism is bad. Just that this particular facet of it is.