Atheist Fundamentalism

[genkaus]

There is some truth to this idea. Ultimately however morals do not come directly from any sacred text; but rather, from God. God’s influence is not limited to instruction from an inspired text. It can also include providential order in the form of civil laws that enforce moral behavior until an individual can understand and adopt as part of their religious understanding. It also includes a conscience and intellect that can reflect on the previous in the event that the individual has received flawed instruction and/or was raised in a wicked society.

We were having such a great discussion about the real social phenomenon of religion and you had to bring your imaginary friend into it.

Here's the deal - until you can prove god and his influence, let's keep him out of civil laws and experiential moral lessons.

Sacred texts do not exist in a vacuum. They are nested within cultures and traditions. They are particularly complex and one must receive proper instruction about them in order to make such subtle judgments. Demanding the precision of mathematics is simply unrealistic when navigating through the many and various circumstances of life to which the texts refer. Such a demand by an atheist is just as fundamentalist and literal minded as the believer he condemns. That I believe is the jist of the OP.

You are half-right. Its the religion that is nested within cultures and traditions. The evaluation of religion is particularly complex and it is unrealistic to reduce it to the sacred text of that religion.

---

Likewise, the opposite is true: even if people use their religion as a force of good, like Martin Luther King Jr. did, their religion is still factually incorrect. I don't care if every Christian on earth was a really great, peace loving person, the Bible would still be incorrect.

The implicit assumption here - that religion = bible - is what is being questioned.

But the fact that the Bible and the Koran both have people killing others and even each other over it's words leads me to believe that maybe it's not all as perfect as we would have been led to believe. I mean, if it includes misunderstandings severe enough that we're going to kill each other over them, that's a significant imperfection, isn't it?

I guess the counter-argument would be that it is overly simplistic to assume disagreement over religious beliefs is the only cause of such killings. One of the major causes - sure, but only cause - no.

---

We shouldn't take them at their word.

That is the question isn't it - who's word should we take it on and what would that word be?

Why is everyone so down on cherry-pickers? They make the modern world possible. More cherry-picking is in order, I say!

Aye - but it should be more systematic rather than picking whatever "feels" right.