Not that I would call myself an apatheist, but the response to it is heavily biased, based on an unsubstantiated premise that theism is the most important thing a human can consider, and I find that to be a spurious claim at best. Sure, if you `are` a theist, then of course it looks that way, but that doesn't make it an objective truth by any stretch.
I once distributed 200 tracts at Granville Island. Covered every table, bulletin board, over top of other religions. I was called later that night from security asking me not to do it again or I would be trespassed. PERSECUTED FOR THE FAITH!!!
I'm finding it hard not to respond here because 'apatheism' is what we call respectability politics. The advice here is to go ahead and hold sanctimonious views, but then be duplicitous about it by not bringing it up all the time so you don't make Christians look bad. And then for secularists/atheists to do the same. Except there's a problem, and that is that Christianity is a (if not the) dominant force in American politics. Christianity is very powerful. The example here is a gay atheist, and Christians are hand-wringing over whether to be a jerk to him for his own salvation. But if we zoom out, Christians demonstrably do not do any hand-wringing whatsoever when it comes time to pass legislation to try and undo women's rights, gay rights, or trans rights. We see them spending all day every day saying that it's OK for pre-teen girls to die of forced pregnancy rather than for the fetus to be aborted and other such dogmatic horrors. This kind of thing is why 'apatheism' is a non-starter for many on the secular side, particularly where seemingly genteel debates over religious dogma actually play out as existential threats of oppression.
This is largely true. Yet, it is not entirely true. There are now progressive Christians who support the rights of the LGBTQ+, and who are pro-choice. Likewise, there are right-wing atheists, who are actively pushing the anti-transgender agenda, and traditional gender roles. It's not respectability politics but tribal politics, except it is not a belief in God which separates us.
I'm not so sure that it's Christianity that's the problem any more. I don't know if you've noticed, but the anti-trans rhetoric is almost all non-religious these days. Unlike when the battle over gay marriage, there is very little language in the public sphere that talks about trans people being abominations in the eyes of God, or that God ordained there be just two sexes, male and female. Terrible as they are, the arguments are all about biology (the immutability of sex), protecting women from predators in bathrooms, and saving the children from overzealous parents and the liberal elites seeking to foist gender confusion in teenagers. Even the disgust anti-trans bigots expressed toward trans people is mostly absent religious rhetoric. One only has to look at the same nonsense being spouted in the UK even though there is no equivalent to MAGA Christianity worth speaking of. The far right have had little trouble demonizing trans people without any recourse to religious zealotry. The problem is the far right in general (and not-so-far right in some cases, unfortunately), not just far-right Christians. Remove their faith tomorrow, and most of them wouldn't change their bigoted views one iota.
Except i don't see any reason to think that Christian beliefs have anything to do with whether God exists. Surely putting Christian values into law suggests they don't believe that God takes care of believers or that God should be the judge of such behaviors. As christianity adapts to scientific facts, it moves further away from God having any practical effect on the world and thus removing all reasons for caring if that God exists (except maybe hell).
@goldenalt3166 You may be confusing your terminology. I've found a sociology concept of faith useful, which has 3 pillars: Belief, behavior, and belonging. Christians do believe in God. Whether their behaviour and community (belonging) is reflective of Christian values is another question.
Very interesting. I wonder whether Groothuis’ concern that apatheism puts “tranquility over truth” is exactly what makes apatheism so attractive to some. They see religious “truth” as being ultimately unobtainable, while religious “tranquility” seems both obtainable and desirable. It seems like a natural home for agnostics (whether they have religious beliefs or not), who want to spend the majority of their energy on what is knowable and important to real people in the real world. I only heard about “apatheism” for the first time a few weeks ago, so I’ll have to look into it more, probably starting with Rauch’s essay. Thanks!
I don’t know if god is eternal and not sure we can know, but I do think immortal, blissful life is possible even if all religions turn out to be false. What does that make me?
“At the cost of setting aside critical theological, metaphysical and ethical questions.” People tend to mean different things when they call themselves apatheists . For me, it’s not “I’m too lazy to pick a side,” or “I don’t want to upset anybody by picking a side.” It’s a rejection of the premise that these are “critical questions.” It’s an explicit statement that it makes no difference whether or not somebody believes. In short, the “god question” is a stupid question.
@billcook4768 And it's a stupid question because it is impossible to answer. How do you define God? It hides the real question, why does someone believe? That is personal and subjective.
@goldenalt3166 Because there is no evidence that God exists. People don’t believe in God for rational reasons. I am not suggesting that believing is irrational. I am saying that you cannot review the evidence and reach a conclusion. For atheists, that is the end of the discussion. As an apatheist, I can acknowledge that there is something else to faith, which is personal and subjective. The God question can never be answered. Why does one believe? That is more relevant. I've described faith in God as a placebo. It doesn't matter if it's true, if you are getting something out of it. Likewise, is it doing harm?
@goldenalt3166 True. Yet, it is not the belief causing the harm, but the behavior. Belief is not always bad. Take Jimmy Carter for example. I think his faith was very positive.
Apathy is the enemy of organized religion. One only needs to look at the plight of the Christian church in the UK since the 1970s as church attendance has plummeted to the mid to low single digits and with every generation that passes, fewer and fewer people are identifying with the faith. There was no 9/11 moment, most of the decline happened before the Internet and social media ruled our lives, and there has been no toxic mix of religion and politics in the UK (excluding Northern Ireland, of course) during that time. The abortion debate was vigorous, but both left and right parties agreed to allow MPs to vote their conscience (no party whip) during multiple votes in the 1970s and 1980s until the current state of the law was reached. So while I abhor the toxicity of the right-wing comingling of religion and politics in the USA, it's pretty easy to see how the weaponizing of religious fanaticism and fears has helped stave off the same slide into irrelevance happening over here. The US is at least one generation behind where the UK and many other European nations are in terms of the decline in Christian faith. It's much easier to energize people to fight against real (or imaginary) enemies than it is to fight against apathy. Thus when an atheist files suit to remove "In God We Trust" from US currency, it can be used as a call for action to defend religious rights, even though most people probably didn't even notice the phrase was on every coin. I had lived in the US for years before I noticed it! Of course, apathy about religion in the UK didn't stop the populist far right from demonizing immigrants from other EU countries and leading to the bitterly divisive Brexit vote that split families and friends just as effectively as any religious divide. So apathiesm is not going to solve the deep political divisions in the USA either.
The apathy is justified by religion retreating from any claims that might be tested. It no longer portrays itself as being beneficial to the individual or society.
If a good and loving God exists, then, as Julian of Norwich grasped, all shall be well, all manner of things shall be well, including all of the suffering of every creature that ever lived. If such a God does not exist, then all shall not be well, leaving all of that unimaginable suffering unhealed and unredeemed. Who but a mindless person or one insanely callous could be apathetic about a question this momentous, the existence or nonexistence of a good and loving God, who alone could transform our painfully perplexing world into paradise?
In a strange way though, tasting this - this experience Jullian describes, of knowing that all shall be well - has a paradoxical effect. It made me realise that none of it matters at all ….. yet paradoxically at the very same time I realise that it all matters. The thing is - the arena of life is soooooooo big. Our idea of our ability to orchestrate it is way overblown. Yet every little thing we do changes the shape a little like each leaf on a tree is part of the overall shape of the tree. So now I feel free - free to participate in life, knowing it all doesn’t depend on me and yet knowing whatever I do does matter.
It seems to me that if you view the world as "painfully perplexing", you would not want to place your faith in the God who created said world. If all you are doing is holding out for a promised paradise that you have no way of knowing even exists, then you are not acting in a rational manner. If you don't know if God exists, but you act according to his teachings, than you are more likely to be build a world in which "all manner of things shall be well." Belief is not the important element in faith. It is your actions / behaviour, and supporting community, i.e. belonging.
Apatheism actually means apathetic _atheism._ The atheist already doesn't believe that a good and loving God exists, so for them the question isn't "momentous" at all. The question is only important to people that believe such a God is plausible. Besides, the atheist has no means of determining the existence (or not) of such a God, so dwelling on the question is futile.
@@dwaneanderson8039 "a good and loving God... the atheist has no means of determining the existence (or not) of such a God" Some atheists have come to believe in the existence of a loving God. Are you an atheist?
If only one could be apatheist. But we have to share this world, and irrational theistic beliefs have terrible consequences in the real world, as 9-11 showed. Rauser’s beliefs are relatively benign, but one can never tell where the rejection of reason will lead.
The cause is fanaticism or ideology when taken to its extremes not theism itself. What about atheistic communist regimes? You can conclude that atheism is irrational by this example. Please be charitable. Something that is rational or irrational depends if the views they held are informed and are aware of the refutations and how to reasonably/charitably respond to them.
@ Hey there. Sorry our previous exchange ended, for some reason my posts were being removed. I don’t find ‘charity’ to be a useful methodology in assessing ideas and their consequences. As for the communists, they were much closer to religious systems than to secular humanist societies. It was their lack of reason, their attachment to illogical economic and social ideals, that lead to the terrible atrocities. Equally, religious beliefs have frequently led to horrific barbarity throughout history.
@@davethebrahman9870 no problem. Let's call that a stalemate or impasse then. I enjoyed the discussion; I hope you did as well. It is not supposed to be useful, but rather a necessary principle to apply to your opponents. It allows you to dignify them and not demonize them. If you don't it is likely that they would demonize you yourself and I think we should mitigate unnecessary hatred. We should steel man their positions to the best or their abilities. We should consider that they are genuinely seeking the truth regardless if they have viewpoints that are different than yours and that you disagree with. "Love your neighbours as yourself". I disagree with that assumption as really any ideologies leads to extremes. It doesn't matter if their systems were religious in nature. The fact that it was an atheistic system that leads to terrible atrocities is good reason to think that these aren't religions fault. Also, religion is not all bad. They helped the development of science, moral reform, anti-slavery campaign, and peace-making.
@@eliseopaulsantos3725 I agree with and applaud your statements on how to treat others. But I couldn’t disagree more with your view that ‘atheism’ was the motivating factor for communist atrocities. It was in fact an illogical world view based on Hegelian philosophy, in particular ‘historicism’, the view that there are ‘laws of history’. The Communists, like the Nazis, rejected mainstream Enlightenment liberality, just as the religions did. Fortunately for us in the West the churches were forced to adapt to Enlightenment ideas, and so are much less dangerous than previously. But while they continue to follow the path of unreason, there is always the possibility that the horrors of the past will return.
@@davethebrahman9870 thank you very much. I am glad that resonated with you. let's call this a stalemate again. It seems we can't compromise the assumption on the cause of violence throughout the West. Thanks again and God bless you (even though I think that you don't believe in it).
Maybe Rauch's friends were universalists, so they were not at all concerned about his eternal fate. But let's face it, the vast majority of Christians never actively proselytize friends or family. I have been an atheist for 30 years, and only once in all that time has anyone in my family asked me about it -- my dad brought it up once and we had a good discussion about meaning in life and other similar issues, but that was a one off deal, and my sister, a life-long churchgoer, has never raised the issue once. I'm sure it does happen in families relatively frequently, but there's no evidence I have seen that would suggest Christians, even of the fanatical variety, put much effort into evangelizing non-believers or people of other faiths. I was once cornered by a very enthusiastic Christian while visiting the church of my childhood (with my parents) and a Christian colleague once made a very oblique effort (raising Noah's Flood with me after a discussion on catastrophism had broken up) but that's all. There are lots of people who leave Bible verses in comments on random videos here on TH-cam, but I'd wager almost none of them ever approaches anyone in real life in an attempt to evangelize. We also know that most apologists who target atheists are playing to their own audience more than being sincerely interested in the souls of the atheists they interact with -- even people like Ray Comfort, who claims he loves them all.
I remember a pastor asking, “How would people behave if they honestly believed the unsaved were going to hell?” His point was that people needed to get off their butts and start saving people. But it can also make you think that no matter what people say, they don’t actually believe in eternal punishment.
"the vast majority of Christians never actively proselytize friends or family. I have been an atheist for 30 years, and only once in all that time has anyone in my family asked me about it" What led you to become an atheist? "most apologists who target atheists are playing to their own audience more than being sincerely interested in the souls of the atheists they interact with -- even people like Ray Comfort, who claims he loves them all" Knowing one's own motives, let alone the motives of others, can be difficult.
Not that I would call myself an apatheist, but the response to it is heavily biased, based on an unsubstantiated premise that theism is the most important thing a human can consider, and I find that to be a spurious claim at best. Sure, if you `are` a theist, then of course it looks that way, but that doesn't make it an objective truth by any stretch.
I once distributed 200 tracts at Granville Island. Covered every table, bulletin board, over top of other religions. I was called later that night from security asking me not to do it again or I would be trespassed. PERSECUTED FOR THE FAITH!!!
I'm finding it hard not to respond here because 'apatheism' is what we call respectability politics. The advice here is to go ahead and hold sanctimonious views, but then be duplicitous about it by not bringing it up all the time so you don't make Christians look bad. And then for secularists/atheists to do the same.
Except there's a problem, and that is that Christianity is a (if not the) dominant force in American politics. Christianity is very powerful. The example here is a gay atheist, and Christians are hand-wringing over whether to be a jerk to him for his own salvation. But if we zoom out, Christians demonstrably do not do any hand-wringing whatsoever when it comes time to pass legislation to try and undo women's rights, gay rights, or trans rights. We see them spending all day every day saying that it's OK for pre-teen girls to die of forced pregnancy rather than for the fetus to be aborted and other such dogmatic horrors. This kind of thing is why 'apatheism' is a non-starter for many on the secular side, particularly where seemingly genteel debates over religious dogma actually play out as existential threats of oppression.
This is largely true. Yet, it is not entirely true. There are now progressive Christians who support the rights of the LGBTQ+, and who are pro-choice. Likewise, there are right-wing atheists, who are actively pushing the anti-transgender agenda, and traditional gender roles. It's not respectability politics but tribal politics, except it is not a belief in God which separates us.
I'm not so sure that it's Christianity that's the problem any more. I don't know if you've noticed, but the anti-trans rhetoric is almost all non-religious these days. Unlike when the battle over gay marriage, there is very little language in the public sphere that talks about trans people being abominations in the eyes of God, or that God ordained there be just two sexes, male and female.
Terrible as they are, the arguments are all about biology (the immutability of sex), protecting women from predators in bathrooms, and saving the children from overzealous parents and the liberal elites seeking to foist gender confusion in teenagers. Even the disgust anti-trans bigots expressed toward trans people is mostly absent religious rhetoric.
One only has to look at the same nonsense being spouted in the UK even though there is no equivalent to MAGA Christianity worth speaking of. The far right have had little trouble demonizing trans people without any recourse to religious zealotry.
The problem is the far right in general (and not-so-far right in some cases, unfortunately), not just far-right Christians. Remove their faith tomorrow, and most of them wouldn't change their bigoted views one iota.
Except i don't see any reason to think that Christian beliefs have anything to do with whether God exists. Surely putting Christian values into law suggests they don't believe that God takes care of believers or that God should be the judge of such behaviors.
As christianity adapts to scientific facts, it moves further away from God having any practical effect on the world and thus removing all reasons for caring if that God exists (except maybe hell).
@goldenalt3166 You may be confusing your terminology. I've found a sociology concept of faith useful, which has 3 pillars: Belief, behavior, and belonging.
Christians do believe in God. Whether their behaviour and community (belonging) is reflective of Christian values is another question.
@@pcoleman1971 Yes they also believe in God, but what Christian belief requires God to exist?
Very interesting. I wonder whether Groothuis’ concern that apatheism puts “tranquility over truth” is exactly what makes apatheism so attractive to some. They see religious “truth” as being ultimately unobtainable, while religious “tranquility” seems both obtainable and desirable. It seems like a natural home for agnostics (whether they have religious beliefs or not), who want to spend the majority of their energy on what is knowable and important to real people in the real world.
I only heard about “apatheism” for the first time a few weeks ago, so I’ll have to look into it more, probably starting with Rauch’s essay. Thanks!
I wouldn't call myself one, but the term apatheist is one of my favorite in the space.
I don’t know if god is eternal and not sure we can know, but I do think immortal, blissful life is possible even if all religions turn out to be false. What does that make me?
“At the cost of setting aside critical theological, metaphysical and ethical questions.” People tend to mean different things when they call themselves apatheists . For me, it’s not “I’m too lazy to pick a side,” or “I don’t want to upset anybody by picking a side.” It’s a rejection of the premise that these are “critical questions.” It’s an explicit statement that it makes no difference whether or not somebody believes. In short, the “god question” is a stupid question.
@billcook4768 And it's a stupid question because it is impossible to answer. How do you define God?
It hides the real question, why does someone believe? That is personal and subjective.
@@pcoleman1971Why would that be personal and subjective unless you presuppose that God is irrelevant?
@goldenalt3166 Because there is no evidence that God exists. People don’t believe in God for rational reasons.
I am not suggesting that believing is irrational. I am saying that you cannot review the evidence and reach a conclusion. For atheists, that is the end of the discussion.
As an apatheist, I can acknowledge that there is something else to faith, which is personal and subjective. The God question can never be answered. Why does one believe? That is more relevant. I've described faith in God as a placebo. It doesn't matter if it's true, if you are getting something out of it. Likewise, is it doing harm?
@pcoleman1971 Clearly there are many cases of faith doing harm.
@goldenalt3166 True. Yet, it is not the belief causing the harm, but the behavior. Belief is not always bad. Take Jimmy Carter for example. I think his faith was very positive.
Apathy is the enemy of organized religion. One only needs to look at the plight of the Christian church in the UK since the 1970s as church attendance has plummeted to the mid to low single digits and with every generation that passes, fewer and fewer people are identifying with the faith.
There was no 9/11 moment, most of the decline happened before the Internet and social media ruled our lives, and there has been no toxic mix of religion and politics in the UK (excluding Northern Ireland, of course) during that time. The abortion debate was vigorous, but both left and right parties agreed to allow MPs to vote their conscience (no party whip) during multiple votes in the 1970s and 1980s until the current state of the law was reached.
So while I abhor the toxicity of the right-wing comingling of religion and politics in the USA, it's pretty easy to see how the weaponizing of religious fanaticism and fears has helped stave off the same slide into irrelevance happening over here. The US is at least one generation behind where the UK and many other European nations are in terms of the decline in Christian faith. It's much easier to energize people to fight against real (or imaginary) enemies than it is to fight against apathy.
Thus when an atheist files suit to remove "In God We Trust" from US currency, it can be used as a call for action to defend religious rights, even though most people probably didn't even notice the phrase was on every coin. I had lived in the US for years before I noticed it!
Of course, apathy about religion in the UK didn't stop the populist far right from demonizing immigrants from other EU countries and leading to the bitterly divisive Brexit vote that split families and friends just as effectively as any religious divide. So apathiesm is not going to solve the deep political divisions in the USA either.
There are no far right parties in the United Kingdom.
The apathy is justified by religion retreating from any claims that might be tested. It no longer portrays itself as being beneficial to the individual or society.
If a good and loving God exists, then, as Julian of Norwich grasped, all shall be well, all manner of things shall be well, including all of the suffering of every creature that ever lived. If such a God does not exist, then all shall not be well, leaving all of that unimaginable suffering unhealed and unredeemed. Who but a mindless person or one insanely callous could be apathetic about a question this momentous, the existence or nonexistence of a good and loving God, who alone could transform our painfully perplexing world into paradise?
In a strange way though, tasting this - this experience Jullian describes, of knowing that all shall be well - has a paradoxical effect. It made me realise that none of it matters at all ….. yet paradoxically at the very same time I realise that it all matters.
The thing is - the arena of life is soooooooo big. Our idea of our ability to orchestrate it is way overblown. Yet every little thing we do changes the shape a little like each leaf on a tree is part of the overall shape of the tree.
So now I feel free - free to participate in life, knowing it all doesn’t depend on me and yet knowing whatever I do does matter.
It seems to me that if you view the world as "painfully perplexing", you would not want to place your faith in the God who created said world. If all you are doing is holding out for a promised paradise that you have no way of knowing even exists, then you are not acting in a rational manner.
If you don't know if God exists, but you act according to his teachings, than you are more likely to be build a world in which "all manner of things shall be well." Belief is not the important element in faith. It is your actions / behaviour, and supporting community, i.e. belonging.
Apatheism actually means apathetic _atheism._ The atheist already doesn't believe that a good and loving God exists, so for them the question isn't "momentous" at all. The question is only important to people that believe such a God is plausible. Besides, the atheist has no means of determining the existence (or not) of such a God, so dwelling on the question is futile.
If that’s true, then it makes no difference what people believe or don’t believe. An excellent argument for being apathetic.
@@dwaneanderson8039 "a good and loving God... the atheist has no means of determining the existence (or not) of such a God"
Some atheists have come to believe in the existence of a loving God.
Are you an atheist?
If only one could be apatheist. But we have to share this world, and irrational theistic beliefs have terrible consequences in the real world, as 9-11 showed. Rauser’s beliefs are relatively benign, but one can never tell where the rejection of reason will lead.
The cause is fanaticism or ideology when taken to its extremes not theism itself. What about atheistic communist regimes? You can conclude that atheism is irrational by this example.
Please be charitable. Something that is rational or irrational depends if the views they held are informed and are aware of the refutations and how to reasonably/charitably respond to them.
@ Hey there. Sorry our previous exchange ended, for some reason my posts were being removed. I don’t find ‘charity’ to be a useful methodology in assessing ideas and their consequences. As for the communists, they were much closer to religious systems than to secular humanist societies. It was their lack of reason, their attachment to illogical economic and social ideals, that lead to the terrible atrocities. Equally, religious beliefs have frequently led to horrific barbarity throughout history.
@@davethebrahman9870 no problem. Let's call that a stalemate or impasse then. I enjoyed the discussion; I hope you did as well.
It is not supposed to be useful, but rather a necessary principle to apply to your opponents. It allows you to dignify them and not demonize them. If you don't it is likely that they would demonize you yourself and I think we should mitigate unnecessary hatred. We should steel man their positions to the best or their abilities. We should consider that they are genuinely seeking the truth regardless if they have viewpoints that are different than yours and that you disagree with. "Love your neighbours as yourself".
I disagree with that assumption as really any ideologies leads to extremes. It doesn't matter if their systems were religious in nature. The fact that it was an atheistic system that leads to terrible atrocities is good reason to think that these aren't religions fault. Also, religion is not all bad. They helped the development of science, moral reform, anti-slavery campaign, and peace-making.
@@eliseopaulsantos3725 I agree with and applaud your statements on how to treat others. But I couldn’t disagree more with your view that ‘atheism’ was the motivating factor for communist atrocities. It was in fact an illogical world view based on Hegelian philosophy, in particular ‘historicism’, the view that there are ‘laws of history’. The Communists, like the Nazis, rejected mainstream Enlightenment liberality, just as the religions did. Fortunately for us in the West the churches were forced to adapt to Enlightenment ideas, and so are much less dangerous than previously. But while they continue to follow the path of unreason, there is always the possibility that the horrors of the past will return.
@@davethebrahman9870 thank you very much. I am glad that resonated with you. let's call this a stalemate again. It seems we can't compromise the assumption on the cause of violence throughout the West.
Thanks again and God bless you (even though I think that you don't believe in it).
Why would Steve and Darlene spend any time with the MAGA father? Go No Contact.
Maybe Rauch's friends were universalists, so they were not at all concerned about his eternal fate. But let's face it, the vast majority of Christians never actively proselytize friends or family. I have been an atheist for 30 years, and only once in all that time has anyone in my family asked me about it -- my dad brought it up once and we had a good discussion about meaning in life and other similar issues, but that was a one off deal, and my sister, a life-long churchgoer, has never raised the issue once.
I'm sure it does happen in families relatively frequently, but there's no evidence I have seen that would suggest Christians, even of the fanatical variety, put much effort into evangelizing non-believers or people of other faiths. I was once cornered by a very enthusiastic Christian while visiting the church of my childhood (with my parents) and a Christian colleague once made a very oblique effort (raising Noah's Flood with me after a discussion on catastrophism had broken up) but that's all.
There are lots of people who leave Bible verses in comments on random videos here on TH-cam, but I'd wager almost none of them ever approaches anyone in real life in an attempt to evangelize. We also know that most apologists who target atheists are playing to their own audience more than being sincerely interested in the souls of the atheists they interact with -- even people like Ray Comfort, who claims he loves them all.
I remember a pastor asking, “How would people behave if they honestly believed the unsaved were going to hell?” His point was that people needed to get off their butts and start saving people. But it can also make you think that no matter what people say, they don’t actually believe in eternal punishment.
@@billcook4768 "no matter what people say, they don’t actually believe in eternal punishment"
I doubt they do "believe in eternal punishment."
"the vast majority of Christians never actively proselytize friends or family.
I have been an atheist for 30 years, and only once in all that time has anyone in my family asked me about it"
What led you to become an atheist?
"most apologists who target atheists are playing to their own audience more than being sincerely interested in the souls of the atheists they interact with -- even people like Ray Comfort, who claims he loves them all"
Knowing one's own motives, let alone the motives of others, can be difficult.
@@billcook4768 Yeah, there's a reason why belief in Heaven is consistently and significantly higher than belief in Hell.
Centrism.