Carefully selected evidence.

[floppit]

This might sound argumentative, but actually I'm interested if there is something I've missed. On the radio this am there was some faith bod talking about compassion playing a part in religion, pretty one sided, carefully selected view of religious text. This is hardly something new, in fact it seems a fairly constant thread through most of my now musty memories of religion. Realistically most religious people I've known (including family) have little idea of the horror quotes, they've carefully selected out the text what they can defend. Here's the kicker, I think that approach leads to less reasoning, to support and fertilise a preference for the bits which sit nicely with a pre set world view, or religious view. So how is it any different when atheists do the same thing?

I know the scary bits of the Bible, and a few of the Koran (though not as many) but I also know parts I actually quite like in both - no I don't mean I have a secret faith, I just like the story of the Good Samaritan and 77 X 7 forgiveness stuff. I'm not saying I would ever mange to live by it, or that it's right for all occasions, just that I like it being as soft as lard. When I think about the good stuff, I recall the presence of the whole dashing babies on rocks stuff, but likewise I rarely see quoted a hell fire bit of the bible without remembering the other side is present.

As whole texts to live life by they don't make sense but how is picking out the dark side any more rational than picking out it's slightly more saintly twin?

The reality is I care more about what atheists do than believers because I think believers spend half the time feeling compelled and we are not, we have got the freedom to think without the clutter, and maybe we have less excuse to do so badly.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

As whole texts to live life by they don't make sense but how is picking out the dark side any more rational than picking out it's slightly more saintly twin?

It's a response to their, excuse me, "holier than thou" attitude. They are sanctimonious about how perfect the book they've never read is. So it's only far to feed them some of the gristle along with the fat.

[floppit]

It might not have meant to come across like it but that sounded to me a bit more like tit for tat than reasoning (feeding the gristle not your response! ).

Also I've seen plenty of the 'dark side' played with on largely atheist forums - in fact, I've seen more bible quotes on atheist forums than I ever saw on travel forums, or any other non religious forum (not that I've been on that many to say).

[Thinking Aloud]

As whole texts to live life by they don't make sense but how is picking out the dark side any more rational than picking out it's slightly more saintly twin?

Because they would have us live by their biblical standards - so it's only fair that we point out the inconsistencies, the evil, the contradictions, the hatred, the homophobia, the incest, the violence ... in that same book. We, on the other hand, don't ask them to submit to any such standards. I think we've got every reason to cherry pick and point out the worst of their book of standards.

[floppit]

But how would saying (as I could) that I don't mind living by some of it and be specific, but not ...., also being specific, harm that case? Let's face it, I don't know if it's only me, but I'd like them to live my way too, ie not homophobic, supporting the secularisation of the state, pro human rights, interested in science - I think wanting others to go our way is possibly fairly global despite our best intentions!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It might not have meant to come across like it but that sounded to me a bit more like tit for tat than reasoning (feeding the gristle not your response! ).

Also I've seen plenty of the 'dark side' played with on largely atheist forums - in fact, I've seen more bible quotes on atheist forums than I ever saw on travel forums, or any other non religious forum (not that I've been on that many to say).

Frustration leads to impulsive action. And anger isn't far behind when dealing with a person who defends killing a woman because she got a better offer.

[Feck]

I don't quote their holy books at them but I will reply in kind if they start . Saying that there are some "nice" bits in the books is bit like saying that a genocidal dictator really loved his dog ,It may be true but it is not significant.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

But how would saying (as I could) that I don't mind living by some of it and be specific, but not ...., also being specific, harm that case? Let's face it, I don't know if it's only me, but I'd like them to live my way too, ie not homophobic, supporting the secularisation of the state, pro human rights, interested in science - I think wanting others to go our way is possibly fairly global despite our best intentions!

How often do you things getting feisty because some religulous type demands that his/her/its religion be granted special status solely because that what they've been programmed into believing?

[floppit]

I get it from both sides once anger and frustration get a toe hold but I suppose I hold us more accountable in stepping back when that happens because we are more able to see how emotions drown good reasoning and reinforce lopsided belief - we see it in believers all the time.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I get it from both sides once anger and frustration get a toe hold but I suppose I hold us more accountable in stepping back when that happens because we are more able to see how emotions drown good reasoning and reinforce lopsided belief - we see it in believers all the time.

We're all human, except me of course, so you can't hold one side to higher standards than the other.

[floppit]

Saying that there are some "nice" bits in the books is bit like saying that a genocidal dictator really loved his dog ,It may be true but it is not significant.

I can't do that - I can't pick out the bits that don't support what I think and say they are less significant. In fact anything outside of my mindset has an extra significance because I always want it to be possible to be proved wrong (unlikely in terms of faith), but impossible if I wilfully ignore what does not support my case.

Bugger - have to go now, VIP cuddle tradition!

I'll come back to it though.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Saying that there are some "nice" bits in the books is bit like saying that a genocidal dictator really loved his dog ,It may be true but it is not significant.

I can't do that - I can't pick out the bits that don't support what I think and say they are less significant. In fact anything outside of my mindset has an extra significance because I always want it to be possible to be proved wrong (unlikely in terms of faith), but impossible if I wilfully ignore what does not support my case.

Bugger - have to go now, VIP cuddle tradition!

I'll come back to it though.

Floppit, you can, they're fatal flaws in the idea that some all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god caused those words to be written down. Game over at that point.

[Thinking Aloud]

One can argue (and possibly should) that if there are bits in the bible that are worth living by, then they're the kinds of standards we could probably apply without reference to that book.

"Do unto others..." - the Golden Rule - could be said to be the basis for much of the "nice" stuff one might want to live by from the bible, but since that rule exists outside of it, why use the bible as the reference point?

[Rum]

You are looking at this is back to front guys, if you don't mind me saying! Altruism and kindness to others is a natural human quality. It is socially and personally advantageous for us to help each other, be kind and follow many of the values described in the sermon on the mount (for example). This has been arrived at though evolutionary processes. Religion stole those values from humanity and sourced them mythologically with god..as the weather once was too. And we owe nothing to religion for their existence.

Religion motivated altruism, one could argue, is in fact motivated by naked self interest - i.e. a reward of eternal life after you die.

[Thinking Aloud]

You are looking at this is back to front guys, if you don't mind me saying! Altruistic and kindness to others is a natural human quality. It is socially and personally advantageous for us to help each other, be kind and follow many of the values described in the sermon on the mount (for example). This has been arrived at though evolutionary processes. Religion stole those values from humanity and sourced them mythologically with god..as the weather once was too. And we owe nothing to religion for their existence.

That's kind of what I was trying to say, but you said it better.