mike_decock

"One who disbelieves the existence of God(s)."

-Mike...

Starboy

Check out this thread - Is atheism a belief?

The Other Michael

I had the thought a minute ago that the extreme "cherry pickers" seem to have a lot in common with homeopathy.

They dilute the religion to the point where there is nothing of it there, yet still claim that it's the same (and just as efficacious, if not more so).

I don't have a high opinion of the "reasoning" behind homeopathy.

cheers,
Michael

Mageth

It seems to me that someone who cherry-picks the good and leaves the "bad" does not consider the bible (as a whole) an authoritative voice for morality. Quite the opposite.

Stephen T-B

Don't know why I'm posting this but hey, there's not much to watch on TV. So here goes:

Some atheists take the view - I do - that since this is the only existence we get, and since we can make it pleasant or unpleasant for our fellow creatures depending on how we treat them, and since they can make it pleasant or unpleasant for us depending on their behaviour towards us, and since kindness to others tends to provoke kindness in return and malevolence provokes malevolence in return, it is sensible to lead a considerate life.
Do-as-you-would-be-done-by encompasses and expresses the moral code by which very many atheists live. It has nothing to do with rewards and punishments in an imagined after life and everything to do with rewards and punishments in the present life. It owes nothing to an invisible, immaterial deity the size of the Universe, and everything to common sense.

And to answer the question:
Some atheists don’t see anything outside the natural order and therefore regard supernatural entities as fictional.

Mageth

Originally posted by Starboy
Mageth, as an atheist I see the major purpose of religion as being a guide to people on how to live life well. Why just pick on the bible? Why restricting yourself to it alone?

Where did I say one should restrict oneself to the bible (or any other source) alone? I think I've recommended the opposite.

By doing so you are assuming that everything worth knowing about living life can only be found there. That it has all been said and there are no improvements in understanding the human condition.

Once again, I agree that (seeking guidance only from one source) is a poor way to approach a search for life's truths. Never said different.

The platinum rule is an excellent example of how new knowledge is being gained daily. We learn about ourselves from our genome, our natural history and our animal behavior. There is nothing in the bible worth knowing that can’t be found elsewhere, better explained, better suited to our times and in many cases just plain better at helping us understand ourselves. If we seek to do better than the past than we must do things differently.

Fine, that's true, but if someone stumbles across a good thing in the bible (or the Tao Teh Ching, or Homer, or the Vedas) first, where's the problem? We shouldn't necessarily throw out old sources just because they're old or newer sources have emerged. The important thing is that people follow (at least) the Golden Rule, not where they find it.

And much of the human condition is universal and timeless, so if old sources have addressed it, why not look to see what they have to say?

Let’s take our new acquaintance Rational BAC. He pretends to be liberal and tolerant yet as liberal as he thinks he is he is conservative because as far as I can tell he still clings to the bible as his sole source of guidance. This is not a helpful attitude for our times.

I agree, and don't think I've said differently. IIRC I recommended he look at other sources at least once on this thread.

Sure there are a very, very small minority that are tolerant enough to look beyond the bounds of Christianity and to accept people as they are but so what.

I think there may be more than you think. The problem is the "intolerant" ones are more vocal - including demonizing the tolerant ones.

It is not the tolerant Christians that concern me. I don’t know where you live, but in the country where I live we have a president that praises the lord every other sentence and then says he wants a secular government in Iraq.

I live in the same country you do, and the same problem concerns me as much as it does you. But we perhaps should be careful not to "throw the baby out with the bathwater." Encouraging just what we've been talking about here, tolerance, an extended world view, and looking also at other, and new, sources for our moral guidance may be the best way to go, rather than just trashing the bible in total. Face it: we're likely never going to shed the bible and other religious texts. To me, the best path seems to be to encourage better understanding of the true meanings, the "good stuff", behind the bible and other religious texts, even to encourage "cherry picking" so that xians and others feel free to leave off the bad bits while applying the good.

The aggressive, intolerant, thoughtless and annoying Christians have way too much say. How could this happen with so many thoughtful, tolerant, peaceful and friendly Christians that are supposed to be good Americans?

Well, one "problem" of living in a "free" society is that everyone's supposed to get their say. And those who feel most strongly tend to be the most vocal. It's when they start trying to apply what they believe to the government, to others' lives, that I get my gander up.

I like the Platinum Rule, BTW. However, I think one might be best served having an "Alloy Rule" of the Golden and Platinum Rules, because it's not always possible to know what someone else wants done unto them. I don't always know what strangers want. The default should be, if you don't know, do what you would wish done to you in that situation.

And I'll end this with a quote from Joseph Campbell, which addresses the issue of what the Bible (and other religious texts) really intend to mean, and what's happened to that meaning in the hands of Religion:

"(Organized) Religion takes poetry and turns it into prose."

Think about it.

mike_decock

Mageth, I very much agree with you that it's benign on an individual basis. It's just that I see the cherry pickers as contributing to the propagation of the Bible as an authoritative voice for society in general.

-Mike...

Mageth

Mageth, I very much agree with you that it's benign on an individual basis. It's just that I see the cherry pickers as contributing to the propagation of the Bible as an authoritative voice for society in general.

Well, that's true if they just cherry-pick from the Bible, and consider other sources non-authoritative. So maybe we need another category - "universal cherry-picker" versus "local cherry-picker".

I personally thing "good things" can be found in the western and Eastern religious texts, as well as in myths, poetry and other literature, etc. Pretty much anywhere. I guess that makes me a cherry-picker of sorts. I don't consider the Bible (or any other text) authoritative, that's for sure, but I don't think that that makes any of them useless as sources for personal guidance and understanding of the human condition, for learning or teaching life lessons. The problem comes when the Bible (or other text) gets turned, as I mentioned above, from poetry (intended as myth, intended to enlighten, not intended for literal creation of a structure (religion)) to prose (intended as history, intended to govern, intended to give a particular structure (religion) for living one's life).

Goliath

Rational BAC,

An atheist is one who does not believe that any gods exist.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Bumble Bee Tuna