In response to Christian fundamentalism (although I'd assume you are more than likely referring more so to literalism), I would just like to mention that I particularly feel it stems from an inability to properly read a text (in this case, the books of the Bible) in its proper context. There are certain cultural and linguistic weights attached to each book of the Bible and it has taken years upon years of textual and source criticism, as well as historical knowledge, to even break the surface. Fundamentalism arrises out of the idea that one can simply pick up the Bible and read it and do as it says literally. The Bible is not one work nor is it written as an easy-to-use instruction manual; it's not even all in the same language (and even within that, the original language of some sections is debated). An example I like to use that is susceptible to idiotic religiosity without proper context is the "number of the beast" found in Revelation. It is translated as 666, but it is actually [in Greek and Aramaic sources alike] numerical values when translated to their alphabetic equivalents spell cognates of Nero Caesar; an Aramaic source of Revelation even completely omits 666 and means Nero by name. Scholars widely agree that Revelation is a historical book written in cryptic criticism of how Nero was a jerk (which also explains the beast) rather than a book prophesying eventual earthly destruction. Another example is Jesus's turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, etc. These phrases taken alone seem extremely passive and weak, whereas in the context of 30CE Palestine they make a lot more sense. Turn the other cheek is a sassy nonviolent response, as it makes your face only able to be hit by either your enemy's left hand or the backhand of their right, which both would have resulted in their fining and social ridicule if they're your peer. In terms of going the extra mile, Roman soldiers were only permitted to press inhabitants of provinces into service of carrying their equipment to the next milestone; if they forced you to carry it for more than one, they'd be fined for breaking the law. Keep in mind a lot of the stories told by the Gospel writers are probably clever retroactively applied stories, so they've had time to think them out. That means there is specific numerology and symbology where things are seemingly nonsensical. If you pay attention to the Last Supper, Jesus specifically blesses three cups but does not finish his fourth; any orthopractic Jew or Biblical scholar can identify this is referencing the four cups used at Passover and there's a specifically symbolic omission of the fourth cup because Jesus is suppose to implicitly be the fourth. There are countless other examples in the NT; the Biblical books require particular scholarly inspection to understand, and when they're just read like a novel it is obviously misconstrued by literalists. Often the Bible is just assumed to be some silly religious work without even being read (forget about being properly read). Even to an atheist, as a literary work the symbolism and cultural references, if the cultural context is understood, is highly fascinating on the level of literary studies. Of course, every Christian is incapable of studying the Bible in depth, so they must rely on what textual scholars conclude. Religion, without proper textual and theological understanding, is worthless ritual; that's basically what literalists have. I've also noticed, many Christians lose their faith when they realize much of the Bible can actually be rationalize as retrospective account and is not God prophesying. However, someone keeps asking what the "Christian moderate" is and not to play the semantics game but that's an extremely vague term. Define for me the beliefs of the moderate conservative, I'm sure your definition will vary from everyone else's.