(& five-position believer/non-believer typology)
This type of non-believer include atheists, "brights", freethinkers, some secular humanists, and "technical" agnostics. Technical agnostics are people who primarily call themselves agnostics because of very specific technical reasons, such as the idea that 'god' isn't a legitimate cogent concept to say that one believes or disbelieves, and if they thought 'god' was a legitimate "know-able" concept, then they would have no problem calling themselves atheists. (Bertrand Russel and Dr. Michael Shermer are great examples of a technical agnostics). Non-believers that respect true/false and reality hold the discerning of these positions as ideals. They *hate* malicious lies and evasions of the truth simply for the lazy sake of convenience. The natural enemy of this type of non-believer are those that take the chicken-shit position, (TCSP). (Explained below). This type of non-believer sometimes (but not always) adopts a "take no prisoners" approach towards those that openly display a disdain towards the truth. (Popular examples of type 1 non-believers are Dr. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens).
2. Type-2 Non-believers are non-believers (agnostics & atheists) that (all) call themselves "agnostic" not primarily for technical reasons as much as the fact that they wish to distinguish and distance themselves from the "militant" non-believer described above, (ubiquitously called "atheists" and said with a disapproving snarl. People sometimes tend to ignore the technical agnostic in this true/false battle of perspectives), This type of non-believer sympathizes with religious moderates and their "right" to evade true/false and reality. They are religious enablers who often take the position that if men knew they weren't sheep and can't handle philosophy like "we" do, then they would be out of control and lost. (This is somewhat an elitist position of a cynical sort).
3. The religious "literalist", "fundy" or "extremist".
These people take their religious tomes seriously and literally, touting that they are the literal word of 'god'/Allah, etc. Religious literalists respect true/false and reality as do type 1 non-believers, (ironically enough), but they have a crippled and inept understanding of how to go about discerning true/false and reality, and often appeal to circular logic, such as, if we assume that the bible is true ("faith"), then 2 timothy says that all scripture is "god breathed", therefore it is the word of 'god' and therefore *is* true (faithful conviction). They attempt to pick themselves up by their own bootstraps.
4. The religious moderate, version 1.0:
The religious moderate 1.0 are "good people" who, when faced with nonbeliever type 1's arguments will often reply that they respect the effort and study the non-believer has put into their examinations and that they don't have any counterarguments themselves. They wish that they knew more about the subject, but are regretfully remiss in their studies and simply love Christ (or something like this). They have a "personal relationship with 'god'", feel the love of 'god', etc. The last thing these spiritual people wish to do is to argue technical points. They *SEEM* to respect true/false and reality, but lead a largely unexamined life as they are religious, yet maintain a superficial understanding of what *they say* makes up the central pillar of their lives. Actually, religious moderates 1.0 have little respect for true/false and reality just like the religious moderate 2.0's. We can see this by their reaction to The Chicken Shit Position Test, (see below). Religious moderates 1.0 are not lying when they say they care about true/false and reality, they simply are not aware that they don't. However, telling them this will more likely result in hurt feelings than any sort of changed behavior or functional epiphany.
5. The religious moderate version 2.0:
The religious moderate 2.0 openly asserts that the religious tomes of the major religions *should not* be taken literally, and that the term "literalist" is a bad word used to describe "fundys" and "extremists". (Fundamentalist has a technical meaning, but its been largely glossed over and now most people identify "fundy" and "bible or koran literalist" or "extremist" as virtually the same despised sort of characters). Religious Moderates 2.0 reserve the "right" to invoke the blanket terms "metaphor/allegory/parable" and apply it like a magic incantation insensibly and without justification to any literal examination of any religious tome. The 'claim' of non-literalism doesn't even need to be applied specifically, but rather serves as a general "insult" of those that are attempting any sort of literal examination of said religious tome, and the implication is one where the religious moderate adopts a condescending tone and chastises the poor bloke that hasn't the exalted mind to consider things on their non-literal level and share their TCSP perspective. Unlike their 1.0 counterparts, religious moderates 2.0's openly despise those that are "literalists" and those who respect true/false and reality, i.e. "fundies" noted in number 3, and non-believers type 1. These two latter mentioned groups are often grouped together by religious moderates 2.0's and often leads to insensible claims, like that "militant atheists are fundamentalists", and "militant atheism is a religion", etc. The key, (and only) argument they have, (and that proves to be an exceedingly poor argument), is that the bible contains metaphor, allegory and parable. DUH. Of course, when told that this does not mean that its all metaphor, allegory and/or parable, they simply snarl with elitist condescending disdain...and that's about it. Anytime anyone examines these religious tomes they are met with this "ha...you're so lowbrow" attitude and yet another claim that the bible contains metaphor, allegory and parables. (They may even give you a specific and unrelated straw-man example and ask you if you believe something literal and absurd about it. "Do you think that Jesus was saying that he was a literal doorway?").
The Chicken-Shit Position Test:
Try this following test on a religious moderate, either a type 1 or a type 2, and observe the results.
When they assert something absolutely contrary to what a religious tome says, like for instance, "I'm a moderate Christian and not a "fundy", so I *feel* that 'god' wouldn't punish homosexuals", ask them what parts of the bible should be thrown out and which parts should be kept. You'll no doubt be met with confusion, so continue to explain that Deuteronomy explains how 'god' finds homosexuality between men to be an "abomination", and that Paul said much the same in the book of Romans (and he arbitrarily included lesbianism). So, does this moderate believe that these books, or parts of the bible should be thrown out and destroyed, since these are not "translation errors" or "taken out of context" (Two chicken-shit unjustified claims often invoked by moderates 2.0). "Of course not", the moderate will respond. Why will the moderate respond in such a manner? Because removing a bible passage or book of the bible is an act involving true/false, whereas the moderates concern is that *any* given passage (and who can predict which passage it might be) may motivate and inspire a good spiritualist to be a good spiritualist regarding the Big Payoff in the sky. Removing a bible passage would require justification for doing so, and not merely the feelings in anyones bones.
The religious moderate (both types) don't care if the religious stories themselves are bullshit (not known to be true or known to be false, but give it a free pass instead, simply for the purpose of relaying some appealing point or conclusion). The end-all and be-all for religious moderates is that the bullshit has an appealing result. The satisfying story at the end of the yellow brick road is what is "important" to the religious moderate, and religious moderates type 2.0 often openly despise those that bring aggressive tactics to the table in order to examine the bullshit stories for truth value or falsity. They often argue something like "what does it MATTER if someone is believing something that isn't true, if they find it satisfying in the end? Who is it hurting?"
Religious moderates are sometimes religious "dabblers", not only cherry-picking what they like from any particular religion, but cherry-picking what they like from at least several different religions, yet maintaining only a superficial understanding of each religion picked from.
The Chicken-Shit Position, (TCSP):
The Chicken Shit Position is the position where the moderate invokes the unjustified use of the magic phrase "metaphor/allegory/parable", tossing it in the general direction of anyone attempting to examine literal scripture. Why? Simply because they wish the implicit permission to *IGNORE* unpleasant scripture, yet they don't want the responsibility of having to justify labeling it false, and don't want burden of considering it true, and they make a villain of anyone who questions this dynamic. Ultimately, its a form of evasion and denial regarding the very nature of the thing that is being considered, hence the term "Chicken-Shit Position".
Extremism:
If "literalism" is extreme and bad, then the religious books themselves are "literally" extremely bad. If the books were moderate, then one could be as literal regarding these tomes as one wanted and still be a religious moderate.
This SHOULD say something to the religious, but it doesn't seem to.
The Dhampire
LOGOS