[002]
Aurabolt
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
You see, this one bother me a lot. There are people who do not deserve respect after death because of their actions in life. I won\'t name names because of certain laws, but to be fair, why would we even deserve these people a fair say?
to:
You see, this one bothers me a lot. There are people who do not deserve respect after death because of their actions in life. I won\\\'t name names because of certain laws, but to be fair, why would we even deserve these people a fair say?
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
As an atheist with a scientific background, I think this whole section deeply misrepresents the stances of atheists. Some atheists, especially young atheists, Objectivist atheists, and atheists who have the luxury to deal with purely theoretical debates, see the supposed consistency of literalists as a \
to:
As an atheist with a scientific background, I think this whole section deeply misrepresents the stances of atheists. Some atheists, especially young atheists, Objectivist atheists, and atheists who have the luxury to deal with purely theoretical debates, see the supposed consistency of literalists as a \\\"breath of fresh air\\\" and clarity. Some people like sharp, extreme views, because they make the arguments more fun and \\\"fact-based.\\\" if an atheist argues with a literalist, they can deal with certainty and argue whether or not certain things really happened. They might even identify with that lack of \\\"fuzzy thinking.\\\"
But this is NOT a majority stance among atheists, and I know a lot of atheists. It certainly isn\\\'t my stance. Eventually, the fact that a literalist may be CONSISTENT counts for a lot less than the impossibility of arguing practical social issues without running into a brick wall.
Between a literalist and a liberal theist, I identify more with the one who\\\'s willing to view a text as potentially distorted by centuries of copying and translation, not to mention the ambiguity inherent in historical choices of canonicity. The \\\"cafeteria theologist\\\" who just picks the convenient parts may exist, but is mostly made of straw; perhaps I am giving the religious too much credit, but isn\\\'t there a long history of interpretation and
moral debate to consider here? For that matter, even literalists, if they are intellectually honest, have to deal with cases where the text is genuinely ambiguous.
I\\\'d go so far as to say that the whole section is based on a false dichotomy! EITHER, it implies, you follow the word of your scripture literally and exactly, treating your interpretation as absolute and perfect, OR you are just getting your cultural morality from elsewhere and twisting your religion to fit. This is not nuanced reasoning. It sees a fundamental contradiction that isn\\\'t there.
Cultural norms inform the way people read their scriptures, and, conversely, religious views influence cultural norms. Even if you believe that a work is the word of God, it is the word dictated to a certain people, at a certain time, in a certain place. It may be hard to reconcile, say, the massacre of the Canaanites with anything resembling human rights... but I identify more with someone who sees a PROBLEM there than someone who is certain of its rightness!
But this is NOT a majority stance among atheists, and I know a lot of atheists. It certainly isn\\\'t my stance. Eventually, the fact that a literalist may be CONSISTENT counts for a lot less than the impossibility of arguing practical social issues without running into a brick wall.
Between a literalist and a liberal theist, I identify more with the one who\\\'s willing to view a text as potentially distorted by centuries of copying and translation, not to mention the ambiguity inherent in historical choices of canonicity. The \\\"cafeteria theologist\\\" who just picks the convenient parts may exist, but is mostly made of straw; perhaps I am giving the religious too much credit, but isn\\\'t there a long history of interpretation and
moral debate to consider here? For that matter, even literalists, if they are intellectually honest, have to deal with cases where the text is genuinely ambiguous.
I\\\'d go so far as to say that the whole section is based on a false dichotomy! EITHER, it implies, you follow the word of your scripture literally and exactly, treating your interpretation as absolute and perfect, OR you are just getting your cultural morality from elsewhere and twisting your religion to fit. This is not nuanced reasoning. It sees a fundamental contradiction that isn\\\'t there.
Cultural norms inform the way people read their scriptures, and, conversely, religious views influence cultural norms. Even if you believe that a work is the word of God, it is the word dictated to a certain people, at a certain time, in a certain place. It may be hard to reconcile, say, the massacre of the Canaanites with anything resembling human rights... but I identify more with someone who sees a PROBLEM there than someone who is certain of its rightness!
