The Golden Rule

I saw the original on del.icio.us. I like the new version, that’s more like it.

Yes, religions have the same a lot of things. Funny how some people can’t see it, just because it’s worded a bit differently.

Cool. More religious people need to see that their core doctrine is not unique and exclusionary.

The “native spirituality” quote has nothing to do with the golden rule. It only tells us to take care of the earth so that we don’t die.

Atheists continuing to whine about not being invited to the party, I think. How many of you ACTUALLY disagree with the Christian version of the Golden Rule? How many of you are honestly running around thinking, “I can do one better than what JESUS said?”

Howabout a Humanist saying instead that could be added to the first poster?

Mike how about “Atheism: Be careful who’s toes you step on today, they may be connected to the ass you have to kiss tomorrow.”

OK how about this Mike, which is taken directly from the Humanist Manifesto III and is not poking fun at anyone:

Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.

Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.

Put in my own words, strive to give everyone human dignity and compassion.

Heck, I’d have preferred it if humanism or atheists were mentioned on the ORIGINAL poster.

That we were deliberately excluded from such a “peace and love, can’t we all get along kumbaya” poster warrants Suyka’s snarky comeback. I guess we’ll have to settle for making our own posters… not even the liberal christians want us stinking up their posters!

Mike,

I can be even-handed (as evidenced by another athiest article being discussed at my site http://www.thechristianmanifesto.com) and I can be a bit biting and sarcastic, as you have been in your last post.

Playing nice and being respectful is necessary…to a point. But, it feels like this is a place where scoffers tend to come to scoff and ONLY scoff. I’ve met a few like “Accountant By Day” who I respectfully disagree with. But, for the most part, Christians are lampooned and really not given any respect on this site. This is understandable, as many come here in a reactionary mood to begin with (Don’t believe me, then look at many of the comments on this site from its inception). Even the name of the site is a misnomer, as “Angry, Pissed-Off Atheist” isn’t going to attract ANY type of conversation.

I was trying to be humorous, but I guess it was mistaken for something else.

But, I agree with your point that “the simple-mined Sermon on the Mount” giving way to our new sophisticated philosophies have only given way to the worst century of warfare in the history of man.

Sometimes I feel like a Who.

MikeC asked:

How about a Humanist saying instead that could be added to the first poster?

Mriana suggested:

…strive to give everyone human dignity and compassion.

I honestly tried to give a response that was not demeaning or irrespectful as to what could be said in place of the one on the poster, but the dispute continues. Maybe I shouldn’t appease in the hopes of defusing the argument(s).

I agree that the title of this blog is increasingly a misnomer

Not necessarily. Some of us still try to meet believers part way. Sometimes.

You’re welcome, Mike. Glad you appreciated them and I agree, it does make more sense than the one they used. I don’t think it would have hurt to have a spot for Humanism, either. I’m not even sure if Taoism is a religion or a philosophy, and even Buddhism leans more towards philosophy even though it’s consider a religion, so if they have those, they could have Humanism too.

As for the difference between Unitarian and Baha’i, I think Baha’i is more universal and inclusive religiously- not quite Universalism, but more religious than that. I don’t know. I’m just guessing.

Hugo said,

March 7, 2008 at 7:38 am

The Humanist Manifesto or Humanism is not atheism.

How are you defining Humanism? Humanism is a philosophy based on reason and compassion and living ethical lives without supernaturalism. It is a non-theistic belief. However, the values of Humanism can be virtually incorporated into almost any belief system. True Humanism though, has no belief of a deity, even within Religious Humanism- i.e. Greg Epstein is considered a religious humanist, but he has no belief in a deity.

Given that is the definition of Humanism, albeit paraphrased, from the AHA, exactly how are you defining Humanism, Hugo?

OK now I understand what you are saying and I agree, even Spong and Culpitt consider themselves [Christian] Humanists and have a strong belief in the philosophy of Humanism. Yet, even though they are non-theists (or profess to be) they incorporate Christianity into Humanism. Christian Humanism, a more specific subcatagory of Religious Humanism, is one of the subcatagories under the large umbrella of Humanism. Even so, I cringe at this practice. I take no issue with appreciating things like 1 Corinthians 13 and alike, but the problem is, this Ground of All Being (AKA “God Talk”) doesn’t seem to fit into Humanism very well.

I was glad to see the references to the humanist take on the Golden Rule. If anyone’s interested, there are more Golden Rule materials at the link in my name.

For me, the trick is remember that the people who initially founded some of these beliefs were doing exactly what we’re doing now – trying to put come up with a way to live together in a specific place, time, and culture.

It’s when we try to force their ideas to fit our circumstances that we get into trouble.

I think there’s a positive aspect to the fact that atheists can have a sense of humor about this stuff and don’t really have to take themselves so seriously every moment of the day.

Amen, brother! I had enough pious, self-righteous pronouncements from religion to last 3 lifetimes, I’m sure. Some religious people need to get over themselves already.

In one aspect, I like “An Atheist’s Creed” well enough. But on the other hand there’s something that really gets on my wick about such airy-fairy language such that if I had to hear it every day, or worse, had to recite it every day, I think I’d lose my lunch.

I wouldn’t want to recite it every day, but it might serve rather nicely as a standing statement that we could point people to who are always asking the questions about “what DO atheists believe” and asserting erroneously that we believe in “nothing.”

former humanities major

Ditto here!

I don’t mind well-written flowery language. But it seems that in this instance PZ Myers is just mimicking the Nicene creed in form and meter. A creed that might have come trippingly off the tongue in latin, but comes off as a bit of a shopping list in english, at least to my modern ears.

As a writer, I don’t mind flowery language either. One can use various words in an attempt to show us a mental picture or convey emotions. A writer has to also consider the audience too. Six or seven years ago, my mother came down with breast cancer and has been a surviver for about 6 years now. I wrote her a poem shortly after that and not long after that I finally decided I was a Humanist. I looked at the poem again and was about to redo it, but then I thought, “That poem has great meaning for my mother. To change it, would be neglecting my intended audience and changing the communication to her as to how grateful I am to the doctors for curing her.” So I left it as is and did not change a word of it, even though it has religious wording in it. The emotion is strong and communicates to the person I intended the poem for.

Depending on the open-mindedness of the non-theist (and even theist) the emotional meaning is still apparent- which is my love for my mother, who happens to be a Christian, and how glad I still have her today. The poem is titled “For My Mother”, but almost anyone can appreciate the love that is expressed, esp if they can overlook the acknowledgement of her beliefs within the poem.