http://news.yahoo.com/atheist-attacks-community-landmarks-disgraceful-22070 0845.html Hey look i found the Atheist counterparts to the Westboro freaks. Interesting.
Hey look! You totally didn't do what you said you did. Interesting.
I had written more, but it might be operating on a bad premise so I'm going to skip it and ask a question instead. Could you tell me what exactly you mean by "Metaphors are the primary language of religion"? I'm especially interested in the sense of the word primary being employed.Religion is itself a metaphor, or a collection of metaphors, that help it's adherents understand the world, or help them both understand and express their experiences within the world.Ok. I've read both posts and to be completely honest I'm seeing almost zero metaphorical content here. This makes it very hard to credit the notion that religion is all about metaphors. I will certainly grant that the chief purpose of religion down through history has been explaining the universe, but that just makes religions collections of failed scientific theories. That would make it secondary, not primary.
It seems extremely selective to say that Jesus walking on water is just a story about the power of faith when it's pretty obvious that the authors (and their followers today) actually believed the dude did it. Rather then the metaphor is at best second fiddle to the science.
I mean we can say the story about the boy who cried wolf is a metaphor, but only because no one actually believes it represents real events except maybe children too young to tell the difference. But religion's tales are the exact opposite. So the map of religion as all metaphor isn't matching the territory very well.
Right now, science is playing second fiddle (which is a metaphor) to metaphors in the popular arena (a metaphor). I'm sorry you disagree with me, but there is significant academic backing for what I'm saying. Joseph Campbell basically created the field of study in the late 40's, looking at how humans develop myths and explain the world around them. He compared the similarities between religions to help show their universality in the human experience. This isn't to say that they're true, but rather the ways we use them to explain our world is true. The methodology used to create stories that explain the human existence is pretty consistent throughout the world.
You want to ignore it, instead of learning about it and using it to improve the ways that science is taught. I think that humans over the past 10,000 years have something to teach us, you evidently disagree.
Just because someone mistakenly believes a metaphor is true, doesn't make it not a metaphor anymore. The same way that because someone believes evolution is wrong doesn't change anything about evolution.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right now, science is playing second fiddle (which is a metaphor) to metaphors in the popular arena (a metaphor). I'm sorry you disagree with me, but there is significant academic backing for what I'm saying. Joseph Campbell basically created the field of study in the late 40's, looking at how humans develop myths and explain the world around them. He compared the similarities between religions to help show their universality in the human experience. This isn't to say that they're true, but rather the ways we use them to explain our world is true. The methodology used to create stories that explain the human existence is pretty consistent throughout the world.
In case it's not clear, I don't think you're implying that religions are actually true.
I disagree with you about the primacy of metaphor in religion because it's incredibly obvious that the religious don't believe their religions to be metaphors. We both appear to agree on that so I'm not sure what you're on about. I also don't know why you're crediting transparent apologetic the religious trot out only when it becomes obvious their stories didn't actually happen as revealing the True Nature of Religion (TM).
To me if you're saying metaphor is the primary thing about religion and religion is all metaphor, you must be describing religion as it exists in the wild as believed by the believers. Not as one would prefer it or as one would regard it as a good secularist. I would say instead that metaphor is the excuse of apologetics and the vehicle by which religion is transmitted, not the religion itself.
Which brings us back to using effective rhetorical and teaching techniques, a field in which religion has no particular insights not available elsewhere.
I understand that you are somewhat awestruck at the cultural dominance of religion. It is tragic, I agree. But it's not mysterious. Religions spread by force and ignorance, then inculcate anti-epistemology to preserve themselves. If you're willing to cheat outrageously, of course you're going to come out ahead of people who insist on playing fair.
One more thing I almost missed:
Just because someone mistakenly believes a metaphor is true, doesn't make it not a metaphor anymore. The same way that because someone believes evolution is wrong doesn't change anything about evolution.
Actually yes it does. If you literally jumped with joy, your jump was not a metaphor. The fact that you did not is the only thing making it a metaphor instead of a literal account of events.
http://news.yahoo.com/atheist-attacks-community-landmarks-disgraceful-22070 0845.html Hey look i found the Atheist counterparts to the Westboro freaks. Interesting.Hey look! You totally didn't do what you said you did. Interesting.It's called "false equivalence". People on my side of the debate are doing something horrible so I'll point at something the other side is doing that isn't very nice and claim it's the same. Everybody's bad, so no one is really bad.
The FFRF isn't even doing 'something bad'.
Most prominently, they are working to protect your constitution. Keeping church and state separate.
As for the fictional Jesus thing, are you seriously claiming that Jesus of Nazareth, as depicted in the bible isn't almost certainly a fictional character? Such a claim would require some pretty heafty evidence to support.
http://news.yahoo.com/atheist-attacks-community-landmarks-disgraceful-22070 0845.html Hey look i found the Atheist counterparts to the Westboro freaks. Interesting.Hey look! You totally didn't do what you said you did. Interesting.It's called "false equivalence". People on my side of the debate are doing something horrible so I'll point at something the other side is doing that isn't very nice and claim it's the same. Everybody's bad, so no one is really bad.
The FFRF isn't even doing 'something bad'.
Most prominently, they are working to protect your constitution. Keeping church and state separate.
As for the fictional Jesus thing, are you seriously claiming that Jesus of Nazareth, as depicted in the bible isn't almost certainly a fictional character? Such a claim would require some pretty heafty evidence to support.
Well yeah. Can't really argue any of that. I just wanted to speak to the tactic, not the validity of the accusation.
Nor get into a debate on the historical Jesus.
Looking a little closer at that article: It's not even news. It's commentary and highly biased.
Sorry, that wasn't a critism of you, sorry I wasn't very clear.
My point was that it is a doubly dishonest position because, on top of a "false equivalence" fallacy, there is also the fact that the 'these bad things' ain't actually very bad at all, some are arguably down right laudable.
Regarding the historical Jesus bit. I think every one here will happily agree that it is entirely possible, even relatively likely that there is a historical figure upon whom the stories of Jesus are based, AND that it would be functionally impossible (i.e. possible in principle but so unlikely that we may for practical purposes discard it as a possibility) for the figure of jesus to exist, as described in the bible.
And your right, it is pure op ed, and not very good op ed at that.
I've also talked about how successful religion is at spreading it's message. I still think that is valid. Science is full of awful communicators. Religion is full of awesome communicators. That is something science needs to learn to do.
Some of the greatest tools used in the spreading of religion are, however, childhood indoctrination along with fear and bullying*. Not exactly something I think science should aspire to.
(I don't know if this has been addressed above, I still need to read the last page, but wanted to comment on it before I forgot)*
I give up.
I agree with you guys, we have nothing to learn from the communication ability of our ancestors.
Well, they taught me what NOT to do. :)
Amen.
I give up.
I agree with you guys, we have nothing to learn from the communication ability of our ancestors.
Sure we do, but we may just not agree on it being the same things that you think. :-)
Sure we do, but we may just not agree on it being the same things that you think. :-)I give up.
I agree with you guys, we have nothing to learn from the communication ability of our ancestors.
That isn't what I've been told so far. I've been told that anything of value contained within religion is merely coincidence.
That isn't what I've been told so far. I've been told that anything of value contained within religion is merely coincidence.Sure we do, but we may just not agree on it being the same things that you think. :-)I give up.
I agree with you guys, we have nothing to learn from the communication ability of our ancestors.
I think it's more that anything of value contained within religion can be extracted from it, and that associated parts are unnecessary.
That isn't what I've been told so far. I've been told that anything of value contained within religion is merely coincidence.Sure we do, but we may just not agree on it being the same things that you think. :-)I give up.
I agree with you guys, we have nothing to learn from the communication ability of our ancestors.
I interpret it differently, namely that said things aren't only found in religion, so why use the specific methodologies which also carries a heavy burden of non-applicable stuff with it?
Any methodology used by religion is also used outside it. The difference is probably that when used in religion it pertains to very different things than in science, i.e. things that are more sellable because they speak of something which reaches beyond most people's ordinary day-to-day tasks. Some areas of science could be said to do so too, but most don't (to paraphrase Neil deGrasse Tyson, we need something akin to the moonlanding to inspire people about science again) - unless it directly influences our personal life (like some kind of treatment to something tha ails you or someone you care about).In other words, it's easier to "sell" fantastic stuff (pick any "miracle" out of any religion, salvation, how to feel superior to "the others" etc.) than most scientific breakthroughs or, even worse, "ordinary" science by using the same methodology.
I think it's more that anything of value contained within religion can be extracted from it, and that associated parts are unnecessary.That isn't what I've been told so far. I've been told that anything of value contained within religion is merely coincidence.Sure we do, but we may just not agree on it being the same things that you think. :-)I give up.
I agree with you guys, we have nothing to learn from the communication ability of our ancestors.
I never argued against what you just said. I agree with that concept years ago.
That isn't what I've been told so far. I've been told that anything of value contained within religion is merely coincidence.Sure we do, but we may just not agree on it being the same things that you think. :-)I give up.
I agree with you guys, we have nothing to learn from the communication ability of our ancestors.
I interpret it differently, namely that said things aren't only found in religion, so why use the specific methodologies which also carries a heavy burden of non-applicable stuff with it?
Any methodology used by religion is also used outside it. The difference is probably that when used in religion it pertains to very different things than in science, i.e. things that are more sellable because they speak of something which reaches beyond most people's ordinary day-to-day tasks. Some areas of science could be said to do so too, but most don't (to paraphrase Neil deGrasse Tyson, we need something akin to the moonlanding to inspire people about science again) - unless it directly influences our personal life (like some kind of treatment to something tha ails you or someone you care about).
In other words, it's easier to "sell" fantastic stuff (pick any "miracle" out of any religion, salvation, how to feel superior to "the others" etc.) than most scientific breakthroughs or, even worse, "ordinary" science by using the same methodology.
Go back and read some of my posts over the past few pages please.
Go back and read some of my posts over the past few pages please.
I have. Again, the difference seems to be you saying "look to religion for what they do" and "we" say "they aren't doing anything different than others do, they just have an easier time selling it because they have more 'interesting'* things to sell, so looking to religion isn't going to help science."
Edit: And by "interesting" I mean non-verifiable, made-up-stuff, anything goes, "fun" stuff (like supposed morality).
You're telling me that religion and science talk about things the same way, but the reason religion is more persuasive is that it's more interesting*?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're telling me that religion and science talk about things the same way, but the reason religion is more persuasive is that it's more interesting*?
It is easy to be more interesting when you can just make stuff up to fit the narrative you are trying to present.
It's the difference between good fiction and non-fiction.
You're telling me that religion and science talk about things the same way, but the reason religion is more persuasive is that it's more interesting*?
No, I'm saying that it's easier being a purveyor of religion than it is of science. It takes less of a salesman/woman to sell religion because it tells of fantastic things without the need for great knowledge, whereas understanding science is harder for most people.
Another comparison would be that it's easier to read a fantasy novel than it is to read a math book.Therefore it requires less of a salesman to sell religion than it takes to sell science.
I'm sure there are many bad or mediocre priests (saleswise) out there, but because their subject is "fluffier" than science, they can sell it easier. Plus, among other things, the indoctrination I mentioned above, thus their subjects already know most of the overarching themes.
Edit: Or basically what ciretose said. ;-)
Voyager, in case it's ever encountered by extra-terrestrials, s carrying photos of life on Earth, greetings in 55 languages and a collection of music from Gregorian chants to Chuck Berry. Including "Dark Was The Night, Cold Was The Ground" by '20s bluesman Blind Willie Johnson, whose stepmother blinded him when he was seven by throwing lye in is his eyes after his father had beat her for being with another man. He died, penniless, of pneumonia after sleeping bundled in wet newspapers in the ruins of his house that burned down. But his music just left the solar system.
The truth can be compelling, you just have to find the links that make it so.
The quote is taken from the West Wing.
The truth can be compelling, you just have to find the links that make it so.
I don't think you need to convince most of us here that science can be awesome, epic and inspiring. :-)
It's much harder to come up with something internally consistent using the same rhetoric as the religious and then use it to knock through the wall of superstition most kids are instilled with through their parents' religion. Especially those who are instilled with an aversion towards science.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Religion is popular because its EASY. Anyone can get it.
Science isn't popular because its HARD. You have to think, and you have to face the big scary red teachers pen that says you're WRONG: not thats how you see things, not its your opinion, not "its true for me but wrong
People don't like that.
You're telling me that religion and science talk about things the same way, but the reason religion is more persuasive is that it's more interesting*?
No -- I'm telling you that science and religion do not talk about the same things but religion gets confused and defensive because it feels science is a threat since it has results you can see.
You're telling me that religion and science talk about things the same way, but the reason religion is more persuasive is that it's more interesting*?No -- I'm telling you that science and religion do not talk about the same things but religion gets confused and defensive because it feels science is a threat since it has results you can see.
You do realize that you and I are talking about completely different things right?
I'm saying that a timeline of the Civil War can be useful and factual. Watching Ken Burn's documentary is more interesting and more likely to get people interested in the subject.
|
|
...I'm saying that a timeline of the Civil War can be useful and factual. Watching Ken Burn's documentary is more interesting and more likely to get people interested in the subject.
You're absolutely right, and programs like Sagan's Cosmos and even Morgan Freeman's slightly more sensationalized Through the Wormhole are excellent examples of how science can be made both palatable to the historically disinterested, and inspirational to the young people who are tomorrow's Nobel laureates.
Our only hurdle are the religious right who 'warn' against such ungodliness.
|
|
Regarding the burden of proof.
As Sagan once wrote:
Suppose ... [I told you there is a fire-breathing dragon in my garage].
There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?
|
I also use the definition of Catholic that Catholics use. If you are involved in the Occult, you aren't a genuine Catholic.
Ah, the miracle of selective inclusion. Yeah, Hitler killed a bunch of people, but he wasn't a TRUE Christian.
Just for arguments sake, lets assume that ridiculous argument has merit. Given that the overall discussion is atheism vs theism, it doesn't really matter if Hitler worshiped Jesus, Buddha, or Xenu...he definitely falls on the side of theism.
I also use the definition of Catholic that Catholics use. If you are involved in the Occult, you aren't a genuine Catholic.Ah, the miracle of selective inclusion. Yeah, Hitler killed a bunch of people, but he wasn't a TRUE Christian.
Just for arguments sake, lets assume that ridiculous argument has merit. Given that the overall discussion is atheism vs theism, it doesn't really matter if Hitler worshiped Jesus, Buddha, or Xenu...he definitely falls on the side of theism.
Not to mention that so many rituals in Catholicism/Christianity seems occult to those outside it and probably would to them (Christians) too if they were part of another religion. I mean, cannibalistic rituals? Drinking blood? You don't get much more Occult than that.
|
|
I'm saying that a timeline of the Civil War can be useful and factual. Watching Ken Burn's documentary is more interesting and more likely to get people interested in the subject.
It's also less popular than a Michael Bay film.
Ability to get people to watch is not the same as quality and truth of message.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An athiest will fight for you to worship as you want. A christian will only fight to worship HIS way or not at all.
That's patently untrue and not really adding to discussion. Plenty of self-identified christians have fought for religious freedoms not their own.
I'm saying that a timeline of the Civil War can be useful and factual. Watching Ken Burn's documentary is more interesting and more likely to get people interested in the subject.It's also less popular than a Michael Bay film.
Ability to get people to watch is not the same as quality and truth of message.
Are you implying that they are mutually exclusive?
|
|
Are you implying that they are mutually exclusive?
I'm saying that a timeline of the Civil War can be useful and factual. Watching Ken Burn's documentary is more interesting and more likely to get people interested in the subject.It's also less popular than a Michael Bay film.
Ability to get people to watch is not the same as quality and truth of message.
I'm implying if you base your decisions on how the world operates on the excitement of the narrative, you'll start thinking soap operas are real life.
I'm implying if you base your decisions on how the world operates on the excitement of the narrative, you'll start thinking soap operas are real life.Are you implying that they are mutually exclusive?
I'm saying that a timeline of the Civil War can be useful and factual. Watching Ken Burn's documentary is more interesting and more likely to get people interested in the subject.It's also less popular than a Michael Bay film.
Ability to get people to watch is not the same as quality and truth of message.
I never said I wanted to base my decisions on that.
I said, I think science can do a better job at communicating.
Speaking from personal experience. Only time I've seen a christian fight for someone else's religious rights is when they realize that they are a minority. If they are in the majority, they fight tooth and nail to ban any other way of worship.
It is true that the best way to predict any religion's general behavior towards religious freedom is to see whether or not said religion is in the minority at the time. There are a few outlier situations, but that's a very strong historical trend. Just about the second the religion becomes part of the majority-accepted religiosity (It need not actually be the majority religion, only allowed a seat at the table.) the position flips with remarkable agility.
But it doesn't follow that it is innate to religiosity that one must be a jackbooted thug with no interest at all in the rights of others being equal to one's own. While this is generally a minority position*, said minorities deserve their recognition for the work done on behalf of others. The famous Jewish commitment to social justice movements deserves mention, as does Quaker abolitionism.
*If it were up to Christians a whole, we would not have segregation because we would still have slavery. Abolitions were the then-contemporary equivalent of churches that would marry gays, a small minority in a sea of active opposition and passive acceptance of social injustice. So also integrationist groups. Wait fifty years and rightwing Christians will be taking credit for same-sex marriage too.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking from personal experience. Only time I've seen a christian fight for someone else's religious rights is when they realize that they are a minority. If they are in the majority, they fight tooth and nail to ban any other way of worship.
Maybe you don't know a lot of Christians? I personally know plenty of Christians in the Army who risk their lives for our freedoms, including 1st Amendment religious freedoms. You probably see what you want to see.
|
|
I'm implying if you base your decisions on how the world operates on the excitement of the narrative, you'll start thinking soap operas are real life.Are you implying that they are mutually exclusive?
I'm saying that a timeline of the Civil War can be useful and factual. Watching Ken Burn's documentary is more interesting and more likely to get people interested in the subject.It's also less popular than a Michael Bay film.
Ability to get people to watch is not the same as quality and truth of message.
I never said I wanted to base my decisions on that.
I said, I think science can do a better job at communicating.
And I'm saying that quality of communication is secondary to the desire of the audience to be educated or comforted.
When one side promises eternal life and the other promises, well, nothing...well that is less to do with the quality of salesman.
Man created myth to avoid dealing with harsh realities. What is sad is that realities wouldn't be so harsh if they were dealt with in a reasonable and rational way.
I only have one chance to live in my world, and if not for all the wasted time, efforts and resources devoted to appeasing what I believe to be imaginary things, maybe we would have the cure for cancer by now.
I never said I wanted to base my decisions on that.I said, I think science can do a better job at communicating.
And I'm saying that quality of communication is secondary to the desire of the audience to be educated or comforted.
When one side promises eternal life and the other promises, well, nothing...well that is less to do with the quality of salesman.
Man created myth to avoid dealing with harsh realities. What is sad is that realities wouldn't be so harsh if they were dealt with in a reasonable and rational way.
I only have one chance to live in my world, and if not for all the wasted time, efforts and resources devoted to appeasing what I believe to be imaginary things, maybe we would have the cure for cancer by now.
Do you think the quality of the salesman has nothing to do with things like:
public monetary support
acceptance of educational efforts
encouragement of students to pursue certain fields
Do you think an increase in those three areas could also improve the odds of having a cure for cancer?
I also don't want to spend time appeasing imaginary things. So I'm not sure why you mentioned it. I am an atheist.
What I want, is increased public understanding of science and its benefits. Because then people might be more willing to help fund and support science.
Are you opposed to that?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you think the quality of the salesman has nothing to do with things like:
public monetary support
acceptance of educational efforts
encouragement of students to pursue certain fieldsDo you think an increase in those three areas could also improve the odds of having a cure for cancer?
Only because of the other salesmen advocating the funding go elsewhere, and people are distracted by shiny objects and easy promises that don't require any effort or thought from them, but promise magical outcomes.
Paris Hilton and Kim Kardasian garner attention, but don't produce anything particularly useful.
I have a dream that one day more people will stop hoping for the next life and instead start working toward making the one they actually have great for themselves and the ones they love.
In the meantime, too many people covet celebrity and eternity, rather than doing the work that leads to personal success and societal prosperity.
And I don't think it's because Kim and Paris are great salesmen, it's just snake oil stirs the imagination more than elbow grease.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also don't want to spend time appeasing imaginary things. So I'm not sure why you mentioned it. I am an atheist.
What I want, is increased public understanding of science and its benefits. Because then people might be more willing to help fund and support science.
Are you opposed to that?
I am saying the problem isn't the advertising campaign, but that the counter-narrative makes promises it can't keep while our culture and society condemn anyone who points out that the emperor wears no clothes.
We don't need to preach the gospel of science, it isn't a religion. We need to question those who do preach and teach others to question as well.
We shouldn't be trying to sell science. We should be trying to make better consumers. Tell a man a thing and may learn that one thing, teach a man to think, and he can learn everything.
I also don't want to spend time appeasing imaginary things. So I'm not sure why you mentioned it. I am an atheist.
What I want, is increased public understanding of science and its benefits. Because then people might be more willing to help fund and support science.
Are you opposed to that?
I am saying the problem isn't the advertising campaign, but that the counter-narrative makes promises it can't keep while our culture and society condemn anyone who points out that the emperor wears no clothes.
We don't need to preach the gospel of science, it isn't a religion. We need to question those who do preach and teach others to question as well.
We shouldn't be trying to sell science. We should be trying to make better consumers. Tell a man a thing and may learn that one thing, teach a man to think, and he can learn everything.
I don't think that is why science fails at all.
Look at what the moon landing did for science. Not only was it good, hard science that caused a lot of advances, it also was easy to show off the glitz and glam of what was going on. It gave us heroes to look up to and to inspire us. It launched a whole generation of scientific careers.
Neil deGrasse Tyson does in fact 'preach' science. He gets out there and tries to teach people the benefits and wonderment of science. People get excited and starting thinking about science and pursuing it. He doesn't stand in front of a camera and start listing facts, he makes a story out of what he's teaching.
Either human beings are smart enough to be taught to think scientifically, or they aren't. Since we have plenty of evidence that they can, we need to look at what is happening to prevent people from learning those skills.
I'm talking about improving the way we teach. Right now I can only think of several reasons why someone might be opposed to my point of view:
1) they have evidence that we can't teach better
2) they don't want us to teach better
3) they think they have a better way to teach
What I'm hearing in your posts, is a lot of throwing up your hands and admitting defeat. If that isn't what you're doing, please educate me on how you think we can do better.
|
|
What I'm hearing in your posts, is a lot of throwing up your hands and admitting defeat. If that isn't what you're doing, please educate me on how you think we can do better.
If that is what you hear, I don't think you are listening correctly.
Science can't compete if we are discussing marketability. Science can't beat 72 virgins (yes I know that isn't in there...but do they...)
Selling Science as "cool" is the wrong approach in the same way as selling Brussel Sprouts as "tasty" is the wrong approach. It is a lie that is easily seen through, which undermines the salesman on purchase.
Science is correct. Science is unafraid of scrutiny, and in fact welcomes it. Because it is scrutiny. You confront people with science by taking their skepticism and showing that it works.
And when you do that, you then teach them to hold everything to the same scrutiny.
You don't sell shovels by talking about how shiny they are. You sell shovels because people need to dig holes and it works.
You tell people that they are alive past 30 because of science. Not because it's cool, but because it's true. Not because of prayer or miracles, but because of experiment and study.
Everything else follows.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like brussel sprouts...
Introducing kids to science fiction can't hurt either.
I think the problem is less science not being "cool" and more education in the US being in a terrible, terrible state. Seriously, when people think the religious fundamentalists have gained ground by calling evolution a theory, rather than understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, that's bad. That means people aren't educated in the basics of the scientific process. Next thing you know you've got arguments on the magical interwebz about how atheism is a religion because it feels like one to me, and about how science is dogma because scientists believe in gravity.
Maybe you don't know a lot of Christians? I personally know plenty of Christians in the Army who risk their lives for our freedoms, including 1st Amendment religious freedoms. You probably see what you want to see.
It almost seems like you're implying that every Christian in the military is there to champion religious freedom. Even those guys who urinated on the corpses of their (Muslim) enemies (which I assure you, I did not "want to see.") Or maybe the folks who burned those Qurans? I bet that was a tolerance BBQ.
But I must be misunderstanding you.