How The Left Has Changed | Jonathan Haidt & Jordan B Peterson 

I'm glad you got this far in your thinking. Are you at point of approaching Christianity with some even handedness? Abolish Christianity and you don't get more civilized..you get pagans and communists.

Yeah, this is one of the things that Jesus pointed out. In the book of Matthew, Jesus talked about "religious spirits" the same way he did about deceitful people, greedy spirits, etc. Religious spirits are evil in the eyes of God according to Jesus. So it's funny how there is actually a religion that preaches warnings against religion. The Old Testament talks about not trusting priests or kings. Only trust God. It's almost like Christianity isn't a religion, so much as just a personal relationship with God.

I find the problem is more that people decide there is no morality when they abandon religion whereas my beliefs, as a born catholic now atheist, is that I refused to make myself accountable to god and instead I put all the responsibility on myself. If I need someone else to ensure I am a good person I have already failed but if I hold all the responsibility and accountability myself then there are more severe consequences and nowhere to shift the blame. Failing my own beliefs and morals is far worse than failing responsibility to someone else. It seems like a lot of people that reject religion also go on to reject morality and personal responsibility when you technically have more responsibility if you abandon religion, in my reasoning and opinion at least.

Democrats

I have to disagree slightly here. The power of the individual seems to be keeping up with the power of government in many ways. Especially with the advent of the internet. Conservatives want to maintain the power of the individual. Progressives want to empower the state. But either one having too much power ends up bad. But for the most part, you are correct. We are seeing a repeat of the early 1900s, where Progress was being touted as a way to bring about world peace and utopia. It brought about two world wars. We don't need to go through that again.

well... that's a definition argument.

I couldn't agree more. I'd like someone to explain why simply being a fundamentalist (without further context) is so bad.

He didn't say that fundamentalist "young earth creation" is a GENERALLY bad thing ; he said that it was bad in the case of a geologist student because his religious belief clash against the observations made by the field of geology. One claims that the earth is a couple thousand years old and the other that it is billions of years old. The assumption made here is that dogmatic religious beliefs would win over empirical scientific observations if the two are opposed to each other. In the case of Newton, in your example, this was not an issue because the age of the earth has no impact on the physical observation that he made and the laws of physics that he devised from them.

LukeBlueFive The first question becomes then: how do you define a fundamentalist?

@@befirmbefair6674 Context is with the vid

Sven Eriksen I agree with the sentiment, but I actually do not like the language of "fundamentalist" and "moderate." I would prefer to call what people refer to as fundamentalist, "utopian" religiousity. Utopian religious people have a vision of this world or some other world and will do whatever it takes to make that vision become a reality. I'm not sure what to call moderates, but I do not like that world either. A moderate position between true and false, isn't something to aim for. Another problem is that not all fundamentalism is the same. Jainism and Islam have different fundamentals and that explains the difference in behaviour between their most extreme practitioners. Utopian Jains wear masks so that they do not accidentally swallow insects, utopian Muslims stone women "proven" to be adulterous. Being against fundamentalism may also give the impression that one is against fundamentals or principles. Any sort of reasonable religious person (or irreligious person for that matter) should have principles. Moderation in religiois, it seems to me, is the product of secular, liberal democratic values and a desire for a kind of feel good religion that allows one to sleep at night and doesn't make one have to take a moral position against anybody else. If religion (fundamentalist or moderate; closeminded or openminded; utopian or otherwise) is childlike, we should reject it. If is mature, we should support it over some generic irreligiousity (agnostic or atheistic).

Your mean cultural marxism has become their religion. Science is practiced now in the context of Cultural Marxism instead of how it used to be which was in the context of Christianity. As for atheism, well, that shit is just irrational.

​@@FringeWizard2how is not believing in any of the vast panoplies of religions irrational? Every culture has its own creation myths, which is what religions are.

So you believe the sea actually parted? the actual story of noahs ark? and adam and eve as the first actual humans ever? and Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale? and that dinosaurs aren't real? Or is that not a fundamental christian?

I do believe that dinosaurs existed, but otherwise yes I believe those things you mentioned.

There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support any of those claims in the actual sense that they happened. There is at least some scientific evidence to support that they did not happen though. And to question evolution is not anti-science but to deny it completely is anti-science. I don't want to knock what you believe because I find great knowledge from the bible but in a metaphorical sense not in a literal sense. But hey, more power to you if it helps you. I think the problem your presenting is that you want people to think more about things that wouldn't be beneficial to science or people. You can see or hear many debates of scientific based people debating religious fundamentalists on RU-vid. So I wouldn't say people haven't been open to the challenge or tried to hide the different perspectives but no one has been able to win that debate from the religious fundamental side. I am not knocking you or what you believe or claiming to know anything either, just sharing my thoughts.

andrhof01 - I'm definitely not a fundamentalist, and at best you could call me spiritual. I find something distasteful & totalitarian in Haidts suggestion to ban folks like you (providing you wouldn't be disruptive) for the very simple reason you should have equal opportunity to learn different viewpoints.

@@luckyvet Yep. Banning just simply doesn't equate to disseminate. They just pop right up. We're now in touch with the universe in a rational stand point. Great times really. But, once we go against Mother Nature oh boiiiii Say Bye Bye now.