Atheists who don't hate religion

[Last of the Fraggles]

I think a psychologist would tell you that it's hard to find a human who doesn't believe some irrational things, but for it to be considered a disorder, it has to impair their ability to function in multiple major life areas and/or cause distress for the person experiencing the symptoms.

There wouldn't be many people not in counseling or on mood-affecting drugs or psychotropics if we treated every eccentricity as a disease.

I have trouble envisioning a society with zero tolerance for religion that wouldn't be terribly sick. We can easily see that zero tolerance policies for knives in school that leads to expelling a 7-year-old for brandishing a plastic butter knife to cut his PBJ with.

Well regardless of it being a disorder or not - is it a good thing and should it be encouraged? Yes, we all believe irrational things at times, but we don't generally promote that as being positive and surely try to avoid it where possible, especially if it is causing harm to others?

I'm not sure I like the knives analogy but to run with it, the OP seemed to be arguing that we shouldn't have a problem with knives in school because yeah some people get stabbed but think of all the PBJ's that get cut. You've got to take the good with the bad, and hey we are all human, some people are going to want to stab people and there's just nothing we can do about that.

What's the rationale behind expecting average people raised to believe something is true that pretty much all their loved ones assume is true to make a giant step to rejecting it entirely instead of a baby step to conforming it to modernity?

Meeting on a weekend morning to hear a talk about morality or charity or compassion and the like while your kids are occupied in another room, there's a sing-along with your neigbors, network with people you don't otherwise usually interact with, have marriages and funerals there, with a committee to help out members who have difficulties like job losses or illnesses and opportunities to team up for charity work...that's useful.

Why would someone who likes all that choose to give it up and replace it with nothing?

Until people who value that kind of community have a viable alternative, most of them will stick to what is working for them. None of that requires religion, but it does require some organization. Such a thing, and there's no reason it would have to be founded on dogmatism, in the long run...decades...do way more to move our demographics in the direction of less religion than whatever 'not tolerating people being religious' is.

If you're serious about changing things, UUs are congregationally governed: each congregation has it's own take on things. If your local UU is too wooish, it just means it doesn't have enough skeptics in the congregation. My minister is an atheist.

If Unitarian and Ethical Culture centers are scarce, it's because we don't support them. That would be a much more concrete way to affect change than talking vaguely about how we should not tolerate people being religious.

I don't particularly like or value that kind of thing so its not something that is of special interest to me. However, for those that do they can do it without the BS aspects of religion surely?

There are probably all kinds of communities based around at least some questionable tenets - whether its Neo-nazis, the KKK, NAMBLA or whatever - but they don't get a free pass simply because people enjoy being part of the group and get something out of it.

So yes, you have two options - get the BS out of religion (but then what are you left with?) or get rid of religion. I'm not convinced the former is any more achievable than the latter and I can't see a logical basis for adopting the view that moderate religion is a better interpretation of God's will than extremism.

Wouldn't it be more like: Heroin and crack are bad, so cannabis is bad, too? If you're describing the zero tolerance approach to religion being advocated by some here?

The argument seems to be 'some heroin users are functional while some are hopeless addicts who end up overdosing and killing themselves - the problem isn't with heroin then, it's with the people who end up as addicts - other people are OK with it. Therefore we shouldn't be opposed to heroin, we should just be opposed to overdosing. And people are always going to want to do drugs so we should support people using heroin as long as they don't overdose.'

 

[Donn]

That's the experience of consuming art. The experience of creating art is on an entirely different level. If you haven't, you should try it sometime.

I have, and have on rare occasions experienced the zone.

But I happen to like ponies.

Actually, I had a similar initial reaction to the show as you. But then I read up on Lauren Faust's political views and saw how subversive the show can be, and came to appreciate how clever it is. It's a well-written show, but stay away from the fandom, as it's one of the worst.

Heh. Ixnay on the Oniepay.

And keep an eye open for "Breaking the spell". It's nothing like the other horseman books. I never did understand why Dennet was lumped in with the other two.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

I'm not sure I like the knives analogy but to run with it, the OP seemed to be arguing that we shouldn't have a problem with knives in school because yeah some people get stabbed but think of all the PBJ's that get cut. You've got to take the good with the bad, and hey we are all human, some people are going to want to stab people and there's just nothing we can do about that.

Nowhere did I say that the people who use religion to harm and abuse others should not be punished. My argument was that we shouldn't prejudge all religious people based on what a few extremists do. Besides, the primary function of a plastic or kitchen knife isn't to stab people, it's to prepare and eat food. Is it potentially dangerous? Yes, just like matches, drugs, and swimming pools. But their primary function and intended purpose is not to burn, overdose, or drown people.

So yes, you have two options - get the BS out of religion (but then what are you left with?) or get rid of religion. I'm not convinced the former is any more achievable than the latter and I can't see a logical basis for adopting the view that moderate religion is a better interpretation of God's will than extremism.

Do what Jefferson did to the Bible. Cut out the superstition and keep the morals.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Do what Jefferson did to the Bible. Cut out the superstition and keep the morals.

I would never advise anyone to do that around here, they could end up accidental.

 

[JaysonR]

These are two different things.

Yes they are.

I mean by “fixed constant” an immutable function of the brain. (You have mentioned massive lobotomy, but massive lobotomy is actually unfeasible, ergo impossible in practice. So, it remains immutable). : “Humans will continue to fabricate, modify and adhere to religous constructs until the species' neurology grossly alters and refuses embuement an affect upon analysis”. ( #145 ; #160 for lobotomy).

The potentiality of the brain basis is another issue that would be the consequence of these fixed processing of the brain you claimed for. I don’t know what you mean by “potential”. I have asked you what do you mean with this concept ( #229), but I haven’t got any answer.

The only constant is that our brains will process the basic manner in which they do as long as our neurology is the same.

Part of that is that we bias information with emotion, and we also seek to solve problems by seeking correlations.

As long as our neurology does things like this, along with many other aspects, then it will be possible for a human, for example, to feel guilty about something they did and then have something happen to them that they did not enjoy and link the two and conclude that because they did that thing they felt guilty about that the thing they did not enjoy happening to them happened, and that therefore to avoid bad things happening to them, they need to not do things they feel guilty about doing.

As another example, as long as our neurology is as it is, there will remain the possibility for a human to see something happen to someone that they cannot explain which terrifies them and then leap to the conclusion that evil supernatural forces were the cause because the nature of what happened so radically escapes their reasoning.
For a more specific example, as long as our neurology is as it is, it will remain possible for someone to suffer a disconnect between the fusiform gyrus and the amygdala and suddenly conclude that they have lost their soul.

Why?
Because we can't lobotomize the population and because we can't force everyone to use only the scientific method or critical thinking.

We can't force education and critical thinking upon the population of Uganda and remove errant conclusions of causality biased heavily from emotion and pattern seeking behavior of the brain.

We can't stop someone from wanting someone they care about to not be dead, or to stop them from feeling like that person is right there with them because their memory still has that person's presence so well preserved right after their death, and therefore we cannot stop that same person from concluding - out of want, lack of education, and/or attempts to rectify contradicting information - that the person must still be "alive" somewhere somehow.

The potential for people to create explanations we understand as supernatural, spiritual or religious will continue to be present as long as our logistics and neurology are as they are.

I'm open for anyone to give it a shot. Try to remove religion; let me know how that goes.

Humanity didn't sit down and hold a council to determine, "Gee guys, you know what would rock? Religion!"
No.

Entirely separate groups of the same species produced the same errant range of like conclusions about reality because of the way our neurology functions, which permits the correlative errors which did occur...and still occurs today.

Hell, people take that bit of information today and arrive at the conclusion that because religion is diverse and yet persistent vaguely, that this must only mean that there is one spirit, god, force and that all different beliefs of the like are evidence of this.

Nonsense!
But it doesn't FEEL like nonsense to THEM.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Yes, this works wonderfully well on Vulcans, but we are working with Humans who have Human neurology, not Vulcan neurology.

Actually the idea is with humans in mind, the Vulcans seem to reject all notions of doing anything bearing the faintest resemblance to religion. Vulcans need not feel there's any expectation of them joining any of these institutions, which are almost completely composed of humans.

Make more institutions all you want, but don't fool yourself into believing religion will just be wiped out.

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that wiping out religion is either one of my goals or an expectation. I just want us to be better represented in areas of life where we're disproportionately under represented: community institutions.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Well regardless of it being a disorder or not - is it a good thing and should it be encouraged? Yes, we all believe irrational things at times, but we don't generally promote that as being positive and surely try to avoid it where possible, especially if it is causing harm to others?

If someone's private, subjective beliefs aren't hurting them or others, they should remain their own business. Barring access to the apparatus of government to promote those beliefs is sufficient restraint on them consistent with a free society. Rather than 'going after them', we offer saner alternatives. In my humble opinion.

Essentially I'm advocating threat prioritization: Fundamentalism is our enemy. Liberal Christianity (for instance) is not. We can accomplish many of our goals by working with the latter, who are pretty much indistinguishable from humanists on matters of action. Separation of government and religion? Check. LGBT equality? Check. Pro-choice? Check. We don't gain much by fighting them just because they have some vague beliefs we don't agree with.

I'm not sure I like the knives analogy but to run with it, the OP seemed to be arguing that we shouldn't have a problem with knives in school because yeah some people get stabbed but think of all the PBJ's that get cut. You've got to take the good with the bad, and hey we are all human, some people are going to want to stab people and there's just nothing we can do about that.

I'm not sure I like it either, but I see you got the point (sorry). I'm saying try to get rid of the switchblades and shivs (in an ethical way), let people who just haven't figured out they don't need to cut their PBJs in half have their preference, as long as they're not hurting anyone.

I don't particularly like or value that kind of thing so its not something that is of special interest to me. However, for those that do they can do it without the BS aspects of religion surely?

I think that's what they're already doing, for the most part. Those institutions don't require any religious belief. The UU works out be a sort of inter-faith and no faith platform, but it nearly schismed over the number of humanists involved before, a few hundred thousand more and there will likely be an entirely Humanist denomination splitting off, or it will be at least a primarily humanist group with a minority of religious people who are comfortable there because treating the minority well is what humanists should be doing.

There are probably all kinds of communities based around at least some questionable tenets - whether its Neo-nazis, the KKK, NAMBLA or whatever - but they don't get a free pass simply because people enjoy being part of the group and get something out of it.

To me, that just seems like a random dig. NAMBLA is organized so we shouldn't be?

So yes, you have two options - get the BS out of religion (but then what are you left with?) or get rid of religion. I'm not convinced the former is any more achievable than the latter and I can't see a logical basis for adopting the view that moderate religion is a better interpretation of God's will than extremism.

Yet, there are religions with no inherent BS and tens of thousands of followers in the USA. Of course, they're not going to progress without support, and although I don't expect you personally to support your local mostly humanist organization that meets on Sundays, we won't have anyone to blame but ourselves if institutions that support our values lack our support.

I don't think that moderate religion is a better interpretation of God's will than extremism. I think it's a better interpretation of the modern world than extremism.

The argument seems to be 'some heroin users are functional while some are hopeless addicts who end up overdosing and killing themselves - the problem isn't with heroin then, it's with the people who end up as addicts - other people are OK with it.

It seems to me that heroin vs. marijuana would be the more obvious analogy, but okay.

Therefore we shouldn't be opposed to heroin, we should just be opposed to overdosing.

Maybe we should just be opposed to treating heroin users like criminals if they are functioning well.

And people are always going to want to do drugs so we should support people using heroin as long as they don't overdose.'

I think pretty much everywhere you use the word 'support', the word 'tolerate' would be the better choice, if you've an interest in modeling my position.

Maybe that's the difference between our positions, though: I don't think people who self-medicate should be treated like criminals, or subjected to force, unless they commit some other crime. I regard our prohibition of drugs as an example of obsession with control over people's lives. I think it's a virtue to tolerate the tolerable, and save my intolerance for the intolerable.

And no one thus far has explained exactly what they mean when they say they're not going to tolerate moderate or liberal religion. That concerns me.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

If someone's private, subjective beliefs aren't hurting them or others, they should remain their own business. Barring access to the apparatus of government to promote those beliefs is sufficient restraint on them consistent with a free society. Rather than 'going after them', we offer saner alternatives. In my humble opinion.

Essentially I'm advocating threat prioritization: Fundamentalism is our enemy. Liberal Christianity (for instance) is not. We can accomplish many of our goals by working with the latter, who are pretty much indistinguishable from humanists on matters of action. Separation of government and religion? Check. LGBT equality? Check. Pro-choice? Check. We don't gain much by fighting them just because they have some vague beliefs we don't agree with.



I'm not sure I like it either, but I see you got the point (sorry). I'm saying try to get rid of the switchblades and shivs (in an ethical way), let people who just haven't figured out they don't need to cut their PBJs in half have their preference, as long as they're not hurting anyone.



I think that's what they're already doing, for the most part. Those institutions don't require any religious belief. The UU works out be a sort of inter-faith and no faith platform, but it nearly schismed over the number of humanists involved before, a few hundred thousand more and there will likely be an entirely Humanist denomination splitting off, or it will be at least a primarily humanist group with a minority of religious people who are comfortable there because treating the minority well is what humanists should be doing.



To me, that just seems like a random dig. NAMBLA is organized so we shouldn't be?



Yet, there are religions with no inherent BS and tens of thousands of followers in the USA. Of course, they're not going to progress without support, and although I don't expect you personally to support your local mostly humanist organization that meets on Sundays, we won't have anyone to blame but ourselves if institutions that support our values lack our support.

I don't think that moderate religion is a better interpretation of God's will than extremism. I think it's a better interpretation of the modern world than extremism.



It seems to me that heroin vs. marijuana would be the more obvious analogy, but okay.



Maybe we should just be opposed to treating heroin users like criminals if they are functioning well.



I think pretty much everywhere you use the word 'support', the word 'tolerate' would be the better choice, if you've an interest in modeling my position.

Maybe that's the difference between our positions, though: I don't think people who self-medicate should be treated like criminals, or subjected to force, unless they commit some other crime. I regard our prohibition of drugs as an example of obsession with control over people's lives. I think it's a virtue to tolerate the tolerable, and save my intolerance for the intolerable.

And no one thus far has explained exactly what they mean when they say they're not going to tolerate moderate or liberal religion. That concerns me.

I don't know if I used the word tolerate...I think the problem in the discussion might be that we are conflating two things - the position adopted and the reasoning used to support it.

Let's take an example - say equal rights for LGBT

Some religious people will be OK with it
Some religious people will oppose it (and not just the extremists in my experience)
Some non-religious people will be OK with it
Some non-religious people will oppose it.

Now if religious people arrive at the idea that they are OK with it because they had a vision of Jesus (or whatever other religious reasoning) and he told him he was OK with it then I can be glad they arrived at the outcome but equally critical of the spurious reasoning they used to arrive at it and oppose its use as a way to arrive at decisions.

I don't want to align myself with people who support gay rights because Jesus told them to because I'm not validating that reasoning even if its convenient for me to do so in this particular instance.

 

[JaysonR]

Actually the idea is with humans in mind, the Vulcans seem to reject all notions of doing anything bearing the faintest resemblance to religion. Vulcans need not feel there's any expectation of them joining any of these institutions, which are almost completely composed of humans.



I'm sorry if I gave the impression that wiping out religion is either one of my goals or an expectation. I just want us to be better represented in areas of life where we're disproportionately under represented: community institutions.

Oh I agree. Sorry if I came off a bit strong; I didn't mean to.


I also agree to the concept of social institutions; I've designed one myself that one day I hope to build.
In short description; it's just a building. It's only purpose is communal silence - that's it. No gadgets, no talking, nothing. Just being quiet among other people.
The idea is to get a break and feel the presence of other humans without the buzz of the daily grind, and without some theological or dogmatic overtone.

I had the idea after going to Korea and visiting some of the local shrines; the way folks used them there - even if they didn't believe in that stuff, and also the University studies in Japan regarding meditation halls for the public there to possibly reduce public stress.

So I thought; why not? Why aren't there just public facilities for just being quiet among other humans without any preconception looming over the event and no other category to screw things up (yoga, meditation...etc...concepts that cause people to shut out acceptance than they aid in opening up).

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Now if religious people arrive at the idea that they are OK with it because they had a vision of Jesus (or whatever other religious reasoning) and he told him he was OK with it then I can be glad they arrived at the outcome but equally critical of the spurious reasoning they used to arrive at it and oppose its use as a way to arrive at decisions.

I don't want to align myself with people who support gay rights because Jesus told them to because I'm not validating that reasoning even if its convenient for me to do so in this particular instance.

I highly doubt that's the real reason a religious person would give for falling on that side of the issue. Religion isn't really the foundation of morality as it is a reinforcing factor for existing morals, political views, traditions, etc.

Earlier in this thread, I was asked if I'd spoken with anti-theists to find out exactly why they despise religion as they do, because of the perception that I was attacking a strawman. As I said, I've interacted with and debated alongside atheists like this for years and years now, and used to be one of them myself. I have a similar question I'd like to ask of atheists now. How many theists have you spoken with to find out why they believe what they believe? How many religious weekend or holiday services have you sat in on? How many community outreach programs have you attended? How many of your religious friends have you discussed these issues with?

I agree that it's fallacious to assume or prejudge, but this works both ways. It's easy to sit back and conclude that all religious people are deluded. It's harder to engage them face to face, to learn about the tenets of their belief systems, to listen to why and how they were brought up within a certain faith. Because then you might come to realize, you're not talking to Christians, or Muslims, or Jews. You're talking to human beings. And you likely have more in common with them than you think. You have the same wants, and needs, and fears, and worries, and questions about the universe.

There won't be any progress made towards ending religious abuses and atrocities as long as both atheists and believers keep talking past each other. Don't judge all believers by the charlatans who show up here trying to prove their superstitions to skeptics, or who go door-to-door trying to impose their beliefs on others. Judge them as they come, as individuals, as the people they are once you get to know them and the reasons they believe a little better.

 

[Leumas]

I posted this in another thread that also relates to this thread.

I was reading some history today and came across a bit of information that is a perfect testimonial to the Petri Dish Effect.


And as the aphorism goes.... he who does not know history is doomed to repeat it.

 

[JaysonR]

Is that supposed to say religion is scary?

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

I highly doubt that's the real reason a religious person would give for falling on that side of the issue. Religion isn't really the foundation of morality as it is a reinforcing factor for existing morals, political views, traditions, etc.

But that's (partly) my point.

They obscure their real reasons behind religion and as such their views gain credibility.

If someone said 'I oppose gay rights because I find it disgusting' or 'I just don't think 2 men should be allowed to get married - it's not normal!' then how many people would respect their position?

But once you couch it in 'Our faith doesn't allow this' for some reason it gains a veneer of respectability and is listened to.

At the root of it there is no real difference between the reasonings but if you allow the religious to get away with claiming religious privileges then you simply allow them to conceal their spurious thinking and force people to respect crappy reasons.

 

[David Mo]

As another example, as long as our neurology is as it is, there will remain the possibility for a human to see something happen to someone that they cannot explain which terrifies them and then leap to the conclusion that evil supernatural forces were the cause because the nature of what happened so radically escapes their reasoning.
For a more specific example, as long as our neurology is as it is, it will remain possible for someone to suffer a disconnect between the fusiform gyrus and the amygdala and suddenly conclude that they have lost their soul.

As long as our neurology is as it is, there will remain the possibility for a human to see something happen to someone that they cannot explain which terrifies them and then doesn’t leap to the conclusion that evil supernatural forces were the cause . Many people arrive to this conclusion everyday.

… we cannot stop that same person from concluding - out of want, lack of education, and/or attempts to rectify contradicting information - that the person must still be "alive" somewhere somehow

We can. Many people have stopped believing in gods and immortality. These atheistic conversions are often the outcome of many confluent circumstances. In many cases the process is also the result of an open discuss with unbelievers. These changes are not dramatic or sudden, in the style of Christian hagiographies, but they happen.

It is not impossible to believe in a future where religious beliefs are a relic from the past. It will be very difficult to arrive to this point, but not impossible.

To say that the same brain conditions cause the same results is a misunderstanding of how the brain functions. Our behaviour is a result of brain and environment. Even the brain can be altered by the environment influence. The same brain produces different outcomes in conjunction with different social environments. So, the difficulty to eliminate a belief is due to the obstacles to control the social-cultural circumstances, not as a result of some kind of neurological fatalism.

 

[JaysonR]

You seem to think me to be saying that humans cannot have secular experience.
Not at all.
I am saying, however, that you cannot remove the potential for people to have religious experiences either.

And yes, as long as humans can be tricked in any manner, even by nature, our neurology will provide the potential for someone to perceive the supernatural.

I think this is where it is helpful to remember the emotional drive.
Want is a very strong and yet covert bias.

 

[Leumas]

But that's (partly) my point.

They obscure their real reasons behind religion and as such their views gain credibility.

If someone said 'I oppose gay rights because I find it disgusting' or 'I just don't think 2 men should be allowed to get married - it's not normal!' then how many people would respect their position?

But once you couch it in 'Our faith doesn't allow this' for some reason it gains a veneer of respectability and is listened to.

At the root of it there is no real difference between the reasonings but if you allow the religious to get away with claiming religious privileges then you simply allow them to conceal their spurious thinking and force people to respect crappy reasons.

How about almost the WHOLE WORLD believing without question or any second thought that nearly 17M people today who have phenotypes varying from blond-blue-eyed to black to Chinese, living on three continent (5 now) for the last 3500 years have maintained genetic homogeneity and racial autochthony as descendents of 12 brothers who are sons of 4 mothers two of whom are sisters who in turn are first cousins of the father who himself is the son of a mother who is the first cousin of his father who in turn is the son of a mother who is the half sister of his father.

Nearly 5.5 Billion people believe that these progeny that somehow miraculously defied all logic of biology, genetics, sociology and anthropology to maintain their autochthony by what could have only been perpetual Incestual Inbreeding are chosen above all people in the universe by the almighty creator of the universe to be a special treasure for him and have a perpetual divinely granted title deed to a piece of dirt where the creator of the universe JUSTIFIABLY asked them to genocide the previous inhabitants so as to take it over and build him a house designed by pagans and built by slaves and where they had to massacre thousands of animals almost daily because the smell of burning flesh was a sweet savory smell in his nostrils which then allowed him to forgive sins.

And what is even more mind boggling is that almost 5.5 billion people believe that this Incestually Inbred lot will have to be all gathered into Israel and either turn Muslim or Christian or stay Jewish before the End Of The World can be ushered in and preceded by wars and mayhem fought by them against the other illegitimate usurpers of their god.

Even atheists and scientists believe in at least some of the above just because it was written in a book which by any common sense is no less a work of fiction than the Iliad or Jason and The Argonauts or Sinbad the Sailor or 1001 Arabian Nights.

Almost 2.5 Billion people believe that the above almighty creator of the universe has changed his mind and no longer requires the slaughter of animals by the thousands almost daily because women had their menstrual cycles as one example out of hundreds of other equally imbecilic reasons. And what made him reprieve all these poor animals? The fact that he committed adultery with and impregnated a 13 years old married girl from among the above progeny of Incestual Inbreeding and had a son with her who was in fact none other than himself pretending to be a human so as to pretend to sacrifice himself to himself as a final human blood sacrifice so as to appease himself and forgive the mistake of a couple from 3761 years earlier who were tricked by a talking snake to eat from a forbidden tree and for which he has been holding a grudge until he accomplished all the bloodshed because this almighty creator of the universe and all creation had no other choice.

Another great testimonial to the Petri Dish Effect.

 

[Leumas]

Is that supposed to say religion is scary?

The Devil is in the details of that story.

 

[JaysonR]

I must be less capable at discerning the subtle lesson.

 

[Mister Agenda]

I don't know if I used the word tolerate...I think the problem in the discussion might be that we are conflating two things - the position adopted and the reasoning used to support it.

Let's take an example - say equal rights for LGBT

Some religious people will be OK with it
Some religious people will oppose it (and not just the extremists in my experience)
Some non-religious people will be OK with it
Some non-religious people will oppose it.

Now if religious people arrive at the idea that they are OK with it because they had a vision of Jesus (or whatever other religious reasoning) and he told him he was OK with it then I can be glad they arrived at the outcome but equally critical of the spurious reasoning they used to arrive at it and oppose its use as a way to arrive at decisions.

I don't want to align myself with people who support gay rights because Jesus told them to because I'm not validating that reasoning even if its convenient for me to do so in this particular instance.

Others have indicated they will not tolerate moderate religion, I was speaking generally at that time, if I recall correctly.

Typically, religious people arrive at the idea that they are OK with it because humanist ethical behavior makes sense to them, and they interpret their religion to conform with that. I don't need them to deny Jesus to align with them, any more than I need to be a socialist to rally with them on reducing developing world debt obligations.

Maybe you're taking 'align' to mean 'support the organization' rather than 'work together in support of a cause'? I'm not asking anyone to adopt UUCC theology (such as it is) or become Friends (although liberal Friends are basically UUs that don't suffer from a compulsion to fill silence). I'm saying don't let them being religious stop you from making common cause, and if you can't bring yourself to pat them on the head when they do something right, at least refrain from kicking them. If you kick them no matter what they do, they won't learn anything.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

Others have indicated they will not tolerate moderate religion, I was speaking generally at that time, if I recall correctly.

Typically, religious people arrive at the idea that they are OK with it because humanist ethical behavior makes sense to them, and they interpret their religion to conform with that. I don't need them to deny Jesus to align with them, any more than I need to be a socialist to rally with them on reducing developing world debt obligations.

Maybe you're taking 'align' to mean 'support the organization' rather than 'work together in support of a cause'? I'm not asking anyone to adopt UUCC theology (such as it is) or become Friends (although liberal Friends are basically UUs that don't suffer from a compulsion to fill silence). I'm saying don't let them being religious stop you from making common cause, and if you can't bring yourself to pat them on the head when they do something right, at least refrain from kicking them. If you kick them no matter what they do, they won't learn anything.

If people are supporting a cause for non-religious reasons with non-religious reasoning then how am I even going to know they are religious?

I'm not talking about opposing people just because they happen to be theist - but opposing Theism and Religion.