Responding to the above comment about fundamentalists.
I've been noticing this trend, perhaps confirmation bias and selection bias, maybe not. While the fundamentalists are just fundamentally and utterly wrong, I think the "liberal Christians" piss me off more in a certain sense and in a certain context. The fundamentalists at least care about what's true, or at least speak and operate as though they care about what's true. I don't get bogged down in discussions where I make a truth claim, and I hear back "but it's true for them" or "it's good for them" or "it gives them comfort, so who are you to say it's not true?". Dealing with liberal Christians is far more frustrating because of the way the conversation works. Instead of discussing what is actually true and what is not, and what are reliable means of discovering truth, when I talk with liberal Christians, I first have to have the conversation that we should have a conversation about what is true, what truth means, and why we should care about what is true.
Again, to contrast and compare, with a fundamentalist, they're already sold on the idea that truth matters. They just happen to think that verifiability and reliability and skepticism aren't really required to get to truth, but they're sold on the idea that for some things, there is only one truth, no matter what people think about the matter.
Whereas for liberal Christians, they have this element of postmodernism that pisses me off. It's a kind of relativism, or nihilism in extreme cases, where they refuse to recognize or talk about truth in any objective sense. Instead, I'm berated about being colonialist or egotistical or unreasonable because I'm saying something is not true which may be "true" for them.
Of course, I'm sure there's lots of overlap.
However, my main point of this post is that I find the liberal Christians to not be obviously less ... deranged? ... or harmful, or noxious, than the fundamentalists. I'm not talking about the ones who don't care. I'm talking about the ones who care deeply, but who also don't hold to any sensible literal interpretation, but who pick and choose based on ... hell if I know.
For example, I was having a conversation my stepfather, a very smart man. (I think I mentioned this in another post.) I mentioned how Christianity is demonstrably false, and he immediately started saying it's not fair say it's false when it works for them, and starting arguing for a very postmodernist relativist position. It was very disheartening. I eventually asked him if there could ever be a position where person A could reliably and reasonably safe that person B is wrong on topic C. At least he acquiesced there, but he did so with the nuance that he would still say that I cannot say that a religious person is wrong about their religious beliefs.
Excepting extreme indoctrination, I'd rather go against a fundamentalist any day. I have no reason to think this - except maybe hope for the human species - but it has got to be easier to break someone down with fundamentalist or literalist beliefs if they're willing to be honest. The liberal Christians are the worst. It's far more difficult to get them to state what they believe, let alone why they believe it, and it's difficult to even get into a conversation where you can talk about what is actually true.
In that sense, I think that liberal Christianity may actually be destructive to critical thinking than fundamentalism. As Jefferson once said, an idea must be distinct before reason can act on it, and liberal Christianity excels at making sure their beliefs never become distinct.
Sorry for the rambling.