Atheist Fundamentalism

[TaraJo]

If you're creative enough in your interpretation, you can turn any ideology into a horrible blood bath. Yes, you can even turn atheistic, scientific ideologies bad. The idea of survival of the fittest has been used to justify eugenics before. But just because they use a douchebag interpretation of a theory doesn't mean the theory isn't legitimate. Evolution is true whether someone uses it to justify atrocities or not.

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.

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?

[genkaus]

But again, only the ones you want to follow. And hell, that's basically just describing me. I'm not a christian, but I celebrate christmas, use the word god as an expletive, etc etc. It's not like they gate that shit off from nonbelievers.

Think about that: the thing you just described is equally true of the religious and the atheistic.

That just goes to show that being atheist is not the same as being arreligious.

What else is there, that's specific enough to be a defining aspect of religion? You'd think that the content of its historical narrative and moral pronouncements would be enough, no? I mean, without that initial claim, "there's a god, and he did X and Y and Z, and that's why his moral authority is worth trusting when he says you shouldn't do A and B and C," there's not much left that's religious, is there?

The question here is not of sufficiency but of necessity. It is not whether historical narrative and moral pronouncements are enough to define a religion, but whether they are necessary to do so. Take Hinduism for example - if you keep all the religious norms and practices (one may have personal reasons to do so) but discard most of the historical narrative and moral pronouncements that conflict with secular morality - does that mean you are not a Hindu?

[Mister Agenda]

On one hand, I agree with his idea of the diverse ways of following religion. But then, we are not the ones making this shit up - Muslim's are the ones loudly proclaiming that the quran tells them how to live, Christians are the ones saying how they get their morals from the bible and so on. Atheists are taking them at their word.

Your views?

We shouldn't take them at their word.

---

Or, essentially, that cherry pickers should not have to face up to the inconsistency of their position.

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

[Minimalist]

Aslan goes off the track quite early:

that they have a better handle on what Islam actually mandates

Who gives a shit what it "mandates." We are concerned with what the fuckheads do. If the vast majority of muslims sit there like sheep, waiting to be slaughtered by more aggressive members of a rival sect it really is irrelevant. The moderates make themselves irrelevant and they make themselves targets. If the best the douchebags can come up with after a car bomb goes off in a market is say "insh allah" well, fuck them. It is their house which is burning and they don't seem to care.

[Mister Agenda]

Ignoring the fact that it's not atheists saying that, it's their own fucking holy text and/or believers!

It's a fact that many atheists agree with the sentiments of the fundamentalists on that account.

[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.

[Mister Agenda]

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

Nonbelievers can do that, because we can judge a religious idea on its own merits. It requires conscious awareness of the cherry-picking though, which would cause a cognitive dissonance embolism in a believer, I think. So cultural values have to be transmitted to religious interpretations unconsciously. I'm afraid we're stuck with cherry-picking based on whatever feels right. The most we can do is shift the culture in the direction we want the religious to follow.

That method is pretty effective. I'm sure that in 20 years, Christians will be taking credit for gay marriage, and will cite scripture to back it up.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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

Unmoved Mover. Next.

[FatAndFaithless]

Just saying it over again =/= proof.

[Chas]

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

I suppose you like ice cream sundaes and Manhattans.

I prefer to support the olive and onion pickers for my martinis and gibsons.

---

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

Unmoved Mover. Next.

Another nonsense reply. Dismissed.