I'm An Atheist Who Follows the Golden Rule

[ArtieE]

As far as I'm concerned, any taking of life, except in defense of one's country as part of its armed forces, is murder. You can play games with words; my view is that every moral rule has exceptions. Whether you want to word the exception as something else is just semantics.

The definition of murder is "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." It's not a "moral rule" it's an act with a legal definition and if you're murdering somebody you're committing a crime. To determine whether a killing is morally correct you would have to look at the details in each specific case.

 

[McBell]

As far as I'm concerned, any taking of life, except in defense of one's country as part of its armed forces, is murder. You can play games with words; my view is that every moral rule has exceptions. Whether you want to word the exception as something else is just semantics.

Except, as was pointed out, it is you who is "playing games with words" as evidenced by your Humpty Dumpty job on the word murder.
Simply put, I agree that not all killings are bad.
I will even go on record and say that not all murders are bad.
However, I understand that while all murders are killings, not all killings are murder.
I further understand that legal and moral, although oft times run parallel, are NOT the same thing.

 

[Acim]

I think, but I would love to be shown otherwise, that the Golden Rule ("Do to others as you would have them do to you.") is generally a good guide but there are exceptions. Even "Do not commit murder" has exceptions. Fortunately most of us get through life not having to worry much about the exceptions as they only happen in unusual, usually far-fetched, scenarios.

As one who thinks there are no exceptions to the Golden Rule, I would be interested in understanding how that would work. I actually perceive the world collectively, including myself, operates as if the Golden Rule is not in effect and (fully) believes the Golden Rule is not working as it 'should.' So, under this type of thinking, of all the things that are 'done unto me' are not, or do not appear to have anything to do with how I treat others and/or how I treat others. In a sense, I think the exceptions to the Golden Rule are perceived as plentiful. I think this perspective lacks acute awareness, is plausibly dishonest (with how one is treating others), or is intentionally limiting perspective to assert that the exceptions are clearly occurring with regards to a Golden Rule.

 

[Etritonakin]

Is that irony?

From a biblical perspective......

It is written that the things of God are apparent in what was made.
That it is good to love your neighbor is obvious -and it is also written that because such things are obvious, those who do not are without excuse.

Yet another verse essentially says that if any keep the law of love -regardless of belief -it is still counted as righteousness, and they will fare better in the judgment than those who believe but do not keep the law.

If you honestly, sincerely and innocently do not believe, you cannot be expected to.
That is not the sort of "unbelief" spoken against in scripture which will be met with a harsh judgment later.

At the judgment of all who have ever lived, "the rest of the dead" who were not called to the first resurrection (God did not even plan to call all to the first resurrection -and none can come to God except that he calls them, anyway) all will be "judged according to their works" -not their previous beliefs. That is only fair, as some will never even have heard of Christ or the Father, etc.

At that point, the existence of God and Christ will be rather apparent -so Atheism won't really be an option.

 

[JustWondering2]

Back while I went to church, I watched a 3 or 4 part series on the Golden Rule put on by one of the deacons of the church. It was all well done, well put together and all till the last sentence he spoke. "Do all these things, as long as the person concerned is a BELIEVER" .

 

[Frank Merton]

Except, as was pointed out, it is you who is "playing games with words" as evidenced by your Humpty Dumpty job on the word murder.
Simply put, I agree that not all killings are bad.
I will even go on record and say that not all murders are bad.
However, I understand that while all murders are killings, not all killings are murder.
I further understand that legal and moral, although oft times run parallel, are NOT the same thing.

Nope, sorry, I don't buy that one bit. Murder is the taking of the life of any sentient being. This is a good moral rule but has many exceptions -- you have confused the legal definition in order to keep you nit-picking going. Moral rules always have exceptions, which is why we need training in ethics, and just following legal standards is a chicken's way out.

 

[Deidre]

Doing good things in life comes down to choices. There's nothing ironic about it, really.

 

[Frank Merton]

As one who thinks there are no exceptions to the Golden Rule, I would be interested in understanding how that would work. I actually perceive the world collectively, including myself, operates as if the Golden Rule is not in effect and (fully) believes the Golden Rule is not working as it 'should.' So, under this type of thinking, of all the things that are 'done unto me' are not, or do not appear to have anything to do with how I treat others and/or how I treat others. In a sense, I think the exceptions to the Golden Rule are perceived as plentiful. I think this perspective lacks acute awareness, is plausibly dishonest (with how one is treating others), or is intentionally limiting perspective to assert that the exceptions are clearly occurring with regards to a Golden Rule.

As I already said, if you are on a jury and the defendant is obviously guilty, the Golden Rule would nevertheless force you to vote to acquit.

Another example is defending your family. Do you really want to allow intruders in, since if you were the intruder you would want to be let in?

 

[Frank Merton]

Doing good things in life comes down to choices. There's nothing ironic about it, really.

We all have the illusion we are doing the right thing. That won't do. We need moral standards, objectively and mindfully thought through, not just some rules. Doing what is right is not easy and I fear many people take it for granted they do what is right when they are doing the opposite.

 

[Acim]

As I already said, if you are on a jury and the defendant is obviously guilty, the Golden Rule would nevertheless force you to vote to acquit.

I partially disagree. Or would need to have "obviously guilty" better explained. If I obviously take money from you, then I would think I would obviously expect repercussions from that action even if you didn't have a clue that I took that money. I would not see myself as 'innocent' of taking money from you, not if I were being honest with myself.

I see the Golden Rule as holding one accountable for one's own perspective, possibly for own actions.

Another example is defending your family. Do you really want to allow intruders in, since if you were the intruder you would want to be let in?

This, like the previous example, seems to assume that only one party (the intruder) has the Golden Rule in effect for them. I don't observe/understand it working that way.

 

[Etritonakin]

As I already said, if you are on a jury and the defendant is obviously guilty, the Golden Rule would nevertheless force you to vote to acquit.

Another example is defending your family. Do you really want to allow intruders in, since if you were the intruder you would want to be let in?

The golden rule is not a sliding scale which references any particular individual. It is "golden" only if it references the "you" one ought to be.

Though anyone can read the bible, Christ was not speaking of or to everyone when he said that.

 

[ArtieE]

Nope, sorry, I don't buy that one bit. Murder is the taking of the life of any sentient being.

You are extraordinarily confused. The definition of kill is "causing someone or something to die". Murder is an unlawful killing. In many states in the US for example they have capital punishment. That killing would be "lawful" and therefore not per definition murder.

 

[ArtieE]

As I already said, if you are on a jury and the defendant is obviously guilty, the Golden Rule would nevertheless force you to vote to acquit.

Why? The Golden Rule says "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself". And since I would like others to put criminals behind bars so they can't hurt me I will do the same for others and vote guilty.

Another example is defending your family. Do you really want to allow intruders in, since if you were the intruder you would want to be let in?

LOL No I don't want my house to be intruded so I won't allow intruders in since the intruders treat me in a way I don't want to be treated by others.

 

[ArtieE]

We all have the illusion we are doing the right thing. That won't do. We need moral standards, objectively and mindfully thought through, not just some rules. Doing what is right is not easy and I fear many people take it for granted they do what is right when they are doing the opposite.

We have a simple moral standard. In every situation do what is beneficial to the greatest amount of people and/or detrimental to the least amount of people. Unfortunately, some people are immoral or irrational or simply not intelligent enough to determine the moral course of action in every circumstance and for those we have simple rules like the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule.

 

[McBell]

Nope, sorry, I don't buy that one bit.

I am not selling anything.
I am merely stating fact.
Denial of facts is on you, not me.

Murder is the taking of the life of any sentient being.

"Murder" is a legal term with a specific definition.
It matters not one bit how much you Humpty Dumpty the definition of the word.

This is a good moral rule but has many exceptions -- you have confused the legal definition in order to keep you nit-picking going.

No, you are the one playing Humpty Dumpty with the word, not me.
Nice try though.

Moral rules always have exceptions, which is why we need training in ethics, and just following legal standards is a chicken's way out.

I agree.
Seems the biggest difference between you and me is that I do not play word games with the definitions....

 

[McBell]

As one who thinks there are no exceptions to the Golden Rule, I would be interested in understanding how that would work. I actually perceive the world collectively, including myself, operates as if the Golden Rule is not in effect and (fully) believes the Golden Rule is not working as it 'should.' So, under this type of thinking, of all the things that are 'done unto me' are not, or do not appear to have anything to do with how I treat others and/or how I treat others. In a sense, I think the exceptions to the Golden Rule are perceived as plentiful. I think this perspective lacks acute awareness, is plausibly dishonest (with how one is treating others), or is intentionally limiting perspective to assert that the exceptions are clearly occurring with regards to a Golden Rule.

You have obvious never met a masochist.

 

[Acim]

You have obvious never met a masochist.

I wouldn't even know what one looks like.

Unless I looked in the mirror.

 

[Quagmire]

Is that irony?

Yes, but not because you're an atheist.

 

[Muffled]

It's not about being convinced that a god doesn't exist, it's just that I don't see a reason or a need to believe in a god or gods.

I've asked this question before, but why should I believe in a god? I can't think of a reason.

I believe that is like why should you believe in the police. The answer is that believing one can do whatever he wishes without getting arrested is a delusion.

 

[Muffled]

Doing good things in life comes down to choices. There's nothing ironic about it, really.

I believe what is ironic is that a sinner believes in keeping the golden rule without the aid of God to counteract that sinfulness. I believe the only way for that to happen is for it to have been learned somewhere along the line without remembrance or knowledge that God had something to do with it.