@aidan,
aidan wrote:
Diest - I really can't get into this 'literalist take every post apart word by word and try to prove someone wrong or right' game - that's why it was so confusing to me that Advocate thought I was a religious literalist.
That sort of thing drives me nuts. I'm a big picture sort of person.
Thank you for the clarification aidan. I'll explain below with an example in a minute.
aidan wrote:
I said the Bible, because that's the only religious text I've had more than cursory exposure to. I like the ideas Christ espouses- that's why I don't find 'Christian' to be a derogatory term and I can admit that my foundation and background in terms of morals and ethics has a very Christian basis. I would be lying if I tried to call myself something else.
If your morals have a Christian basis, but the construction of Christian morals were in fact copied from previous pagan cultures, then aren't your morals then pagan in their foundation? Continue to repeat this process, and at some point, no moral has any real religious foundation, just a social one.
I'm confused about your statement about "Christian" being used as a derogatory term.
aidan wrote:
I've read that some other religions have very similar teachings, but I will be honest enough to tell you that I haven't delved deeply enough into them to compare or contrast or endorse them. I do feel comfortable endorsing the teachings of Christ (note that I said Christ - not the Bible) if asked whether or not I believe they are a good guiding tool for human behavior one to another.
The teachings of Fred Rogers are a good tool for guiding positive human interaction and behavior as well. Mr Rogers doesn't have to be a deity for it to be valid, and I can evaluate on my own whether his message is useful or not. The story of Jesus can be profound and meaningful without having to be true. As an atheist, I can learn the story and find value in it as a piece of fiction just as much.
Literary works of art have inspired people for ages. For example: Tom Sawyer or To Kill a Mockingbird, don't need to be true stories for the message about racism to be valid.
aidan wrote:
If there are other guiding tools that teach the same thing - more the better.
In some cases, but not all. Having multiple stories from multiple religions that give a message about gender superiority wouldn't make that message any more valid or useful. I'm sure you agree.
aidan wrote:
Quote: It seems additionally odd that an Atheist can be asked to set aside a judgement of a literal translation of the bible, but a christian will try to use a scientific principle like evolution to bind an atheist to a literal application on an irrelevant social issue. E.g. - A Christian asks a Atheist how survival of the fittest applies to a political matter. This is like asking about the morals of calculus.
Did I do that or are you talking about something someone else asked about? I can't really comment unless I know what the political matter is.
Example: You wrote...
aidan wrote:
Humans are very good at seeing their own needs and closing their eyes to the needs of others. Isn't that an evolutionary suvival mechanism?
In this situation, you've presented the theory of evolution with a moral question. The problem here is that evolution is theory on history, and a utility of science to explain the origin of all life on the planet. It is not a social/moral theory about how any species MUST behave to be successful.
Additionally, you've actually described humans in a way which at surface level seems accurate, but doesn't square with history or even our actual nature as an animal. We are not eagles, we do not survive on on our own. We do not thrive as individuals. As animals, we aren't particularly strong or fast. As for senses, we do not have the best eyesight, hearing, smell, or tactile ability. We are social animals.
Our fit to our environment and our ability to survive (and thrive) as a species so long has come from our cooperative social behaviors, not our ability to survive on our own.
Food for thought, think about other animals. Where do you see the selfishness you describe as an evolutionary advantage?
aidan wrote:
But I do think the Golden Rule as stated is not a behavior that is instinctual or innate within humans. And I do think that it's good that it's taught somewhere- and has seemed to be adopted as something to strive for - if not obviously achieved.
The Golden Rule is quite an obvious social norm for social animals BTW. Many animals are probably better at it's application than humans are.
T
K
O
