'First World Issues' are those that are minor next to wider concerns, it can be said that much of the Atheistic barking in the west is just that, and much of the 'Social Justice' fanatics are simply part of the same problem in some cases. In fact, since I don't like to edit my thoughts, I will correct by saying that SJWs are worse, Atheists can be easily offended, as can theists of every stripe, and in the scale of things EoF isn't that bad.
Diego seems like an intelligent man, Jessica seems to have some good ideas too, as do others, I'm a maybe light weight in the old research department myself, but to be honest I don't get a lot of information from them in person, via skype. In fact, by reading up on them I've found more.
I find that they have some interesting, if unclear ideas of examining your beliefs, meme-ish concepts, well thought out by Diego, yet not my cup of Java. I'm perhaps too old fashioned with my own philosophy, or I have a fundamental disagreement that I can't quite explain.
I am of a school of thought that insists that for one to know what one means, it can be expressed in simplistic terms, or at least the impression of the complex can be given by simplistic ideas. And I don't mean you need to condescend to me and the average Joe. I mean that one's beliefs should be explainable without sounding like a person who loves to speak too much, or one who has a thesauras on hand with every topic of discussion. Maybe this is harsh?
I should say that both Jessica and Diego seem like nice people, but I don't think they help themselves by sounding like they have a case of verbal diarrhea. My own case is far from passing solids, yet I can happily explain logical facts in simple terms, not that Jessica is the complex one as far as language.
We agree that many gurus are deluded persons of little merit, we agree that religion doesn't really help a society, and ideology is the problem, but in a free society there will be those who are fond of religion or politicial beliefs. I may have missed the point?
They seem to oppose religious thinking, yet wish to use techniques that are not unlike the thought reform methods of spirituality. Or so it can seem?
Memes can only carry you so far with this, sceptical memes that have an End of Fear symbol or watermark is not changing anything, and selling a few books is doing little too.
And what are they concerned about? oh, right, ideology.
I don't think you can break people out of ideology in general, ideologies can be surpassed no doubt, but when you have a series of ideas and engage in your own ideological methods, aren't you then part of the limitation of belief?
it seems to me that EoF project is like many groups, not like joining a secularist party, nor a humanist discussion forum, but rather an ideology of anti-ideology. So what's so bad about that? not too much, to be fair, but you can tell why their critics call them a cult. The Lost symbols don't calm down the mad dogs, or fundamentalist Christians as they prefer to be known.
If we agree ideologies aren't all bad, which I think they[Jess and Diego] would, then the real question is where do we draw the line in the dirt, to whom to we declare out defiance?
Well, a good start in what is a bad ideology is obviously that which does real world harm, this level we can call 'A', and it refers to actual physical or mental harm, and don't be tempted to add more than you need to this first type, stretching definitions, like 'harm', isn't very clever.
Then to 'B', what is the lesser of evils? rare harm, mild harm, mostly not direct, and thus we can throw many ideologies in this category.
Now we arrive at a safe 'C', what fits this, safe and non-demanding beliefs of any kind.
'C' is akin to a club, open religion, personal religion, etc. Whereas 'B' has more power and control, it's fair to say that many churches as somewhat safe in this way.
It's not the end of the world if a fundamentalist believes in dumb things, as long as no harm is done. Even if some harm maybe done by the brainwashing of children and the limits you set in place for your own view of reality.
'A' is the extreme case, add here any who kill, torture, etc. so personal religions in rares cases of mental illness and belief coupled, but more the dangerous beliefs that many ideologies have, or have had in the past.
A religious fascist may well pick mt pocket and break my leg, the number of gods, or lack thereof, is not as important as how they act on their beliefs and what is claimed within their ideology.
As you should to be able to guess, I think the 'A's deserve being regulated based on their conduct, the 'B's too, yet they are safe to have in society, and 'C's are none of our concern.
Safe beliefs are just the mediocre[C], the less safe[B] are worth keeping an eye on, and the dangerous extremists[A] are by definition unable to accept and live within a free society.
The Extremists are not a powerful western faction, the somewhat harmful are often largely regulated against in a balanced society, so at best we can be trongly critical of some such groups where they act out, or try to ban things such as critics.
I don't think ideology as a topic is clear enough, dangerous cults is a worthy issue, and saying learn to move on from beliefs may have a minor level of merit. Although, I think most people move forward themselves, self-help methods or trying to counter presumptions does little.
psychologically helpful ideas may help, even if that market is saturated. You may see a meme of a young buddhist boy in Asia, what do you think of? meditation, peace? well why not indoctrination?
Okay, it is a point, but why not anything. Note the indoctrnation exists, and that ideas can bring peace, or meditation is a tool to make yourself think in different ways. it's an obvious point, and I don't think asking what you think of first is the best thing, nor is suggesting we should think brainwashed is the first thing to come to mind when seeing a young buddhist boy in a meme-like image.
It is also a question of what ideology is at play, I mean was it is like, not just that it's buddhist-like, but is it harmful, since some brands of buddhism are quite reasonable. I don't think generalising is helpful in every case.
I could go on, and I may do in the future, for now I want to make clear...
I see little reason in moving beyond whatwe need do, we can defend the right to believe and help increase education, in which case religion is a choice, and mostly not my business.
[some of the points here are minor side issues and not so much primary concerns, although where we draw the line in a free society is. ]