Atheist Bible

[CapnGod]

And denying that much of the worldwide conflict is religious in nature is ludicrous. Let's look at, oh, for starters, Israel. The holy land. Fighting over that particular patch of ground is NOTHING if not religious in motivation.

Bosnia and Serbia in the '90s? Religious. How about the uproar after 12 Danish cartoons? There was conflict and bloodshed afterward. Religious. The crusades? Religious. Sri Lanka today? Oh, yeah, religious.

Man, funny how religion has been the cause of a lot of suffering and misery.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Then, by your own admission, the bible is NOT the end all, be all of morality. One does not take morality straight from the infallible word of your god. So, where then does it come from?

Of course it isn't. Besides....

I do NOT believe in god.

Yes, absolutely. I am not saying that religion is a source of morality. All I am saying is you can't reproduce morality in a lab, it is not a logical or scientific thing.

Nobody really knows do they? Each person has their own definition of morality and what it entails. Religion is the same. The Bible is a million different things to a million different people. While some will use it as justification for murder, William Wilburforce used it as justification to end slavery.

 

[caross73]

Then, by your own admission, the bible is NOT the end all, be all of morality. One does not take morality straight from the infallible word of your god. So, where then does it come from?

Of course it isn't. Besides....

I do NOT believe in god.

Yes, absolutely. I am not saying that religion is a source of morality. All I am saying is you can't reproduce morality in a lab, it is not a logical or scientific thing.

Nobody really knows do they? Each person has their own definition of morality and what it entails. Religion is the same. The Bible is a million different things to a million different people. While some will use it as justification for murder, William Wilburforce used it as justification to end slavery.

Of course they don't know. Because morality is a man made concept, and we can make up whatever morality we want. But just because we don't have an absolute source doesn't mean that more moral societies won't fare better than less moral, or that we can't come up with some standards for behavior that work. In fact, there are probably a great many equally good moral codes, and there is no reason to pick one over the others, but they will work, and they will encourage a minimization of human suffering when practiced. Eg., theft is only immoral because we have chosen to value private property. If everyone acknowledged there was no private property, would theft be immoral?

And if morality doesn't minimize suffering, what good is it?

 

[cuddly_tomato]

And denying that much of the worldwide conflict is religious in nature is ludicrous. Let's look at, oh, for starters, Israel. The holy land. Fighting over that particular patch of ground is NOTHING if not religious in motivation.

Bosnia and Serbia in the '90s? Religious. How about the uproar after 12 Danish cartoons? There was conflict and bloodshed afterward. Religious. The crusades? Religious. Sri Lanka today? Oh, yeah, religious.

Man, funny how religion has been the cause of a lot of suffering and misery.

Then so has Atheism. Chairman Mao no? Stalin? Look at the list of atheist states [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism]. Which is your favorite? Soviet Union, China, Communist Albania, Communist Afghanistan, North Korea or Communist Mongolia? Ohh but they weren't oppressive and despotic regimes because they were atheist were they? That was more like... a coincindence or something.

But when religious states go bad, it has to be the fault of religion!

Pot, I'd like to introduce you to kettle...

 

[Captain Blackout]

If this already got mentioned then sorry.

Existential Psychotherapy by Yalom. Despite being a misanthropic atheist I maintain faith in a higher power and fight against my atheistic tendencies. Book I just mentioned is brilliant and is a great place to start any philosophical discussion on morals without a higher power.

 

[Spacelord]

Interesting wikipedia article. From what I've read, the man makes a valid point.

However, introducing it as 'our moral tome' will result in further polarization, and essentially creating a false dichotomy: as with theists, no one atheist has identical beliefs. Though on the surface on things it would seem that, say, all christians think alike because they read the same book, their interpretations and according faiths/practices are as many as there are christians.

By implying that they do, you'll only spark more religion threads.

TL;DR: Great that you introduced something new, but stop inciting flamewars.

 

[NeverAiling]

I would like to take this opportunity to stop the knowledge/thought/logic defeatists right now. If you find that the universe fails your definition of truth, than I would suggest your definition of truth fails.

My earlier, half-jesting ideas, and retractions aside, here's a simple, somewhat off-topic thought for you.

Truth, knowledge, logic, and yes, math, are behaviors. They are not intrinsic to the universe, and rather than being created by human minds, are more correctly characteristics of the human mind.

In this ultra-relative context, truth is limited to the mind, not the universe, and represents the tendency to, process by, and degree to which mental activity recreates, conforms to, and reproduces the universe.

In other words, saying that truth is second degree is redundant. As a product of the observer: truth, knowledge, and math already recede to the observer's position in the universe.

 

[Charli]

*facepalm* Stop embaressing us Agnostics will you?

Im very happy you've found your own mental independence but really think about it before you say somthing idiotic like this. It's like you're asking to conform right after breaking free.

And like many others are saying. Ox-ee-morooon.

Agnostics and Atheists don't need a bible or set of laws. We're each to our own! Thats what makes us what we are.

 

[caross73]

And denying that much of the worldwide conflict is religious in nature is ludicrous. Let's look at, oh, for starters, Israel. The holy land. Fighting over that particular patch of ground is NOTHING if not religious in motivation.

Bosnia and Serbia in the '90s? Religious. How about the uproar after 12 Danish cartoons? There was conflict and bloodshed afterward. Religious. The crusades? Religious. Sri Lanka today? Oh, yeah, religious.

Man, funny how religion has been the cause of a lot of suffering and misery.

Then so has Atheism. Chairman Mao no? Stalin? Look at the list of atheist states [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism]. Which is your favorite? Soviet Union, China, Communist Albania, Communist Afghanistan, North Korea or Communist Mongolia? Ohh but they weren't oppressive and despotic regimes because they were atheist were they? That was more like... a coincindence or something.

But when religious states go bad, it has to be the fault of religion!

Pot, I'd like to introduce you to kettle...

Thats another canard. Those aren't atheist states. They aren't making war to impose atheism on you, they were imposing politics on you.

Thats as good as my saying the War in Iraq is a Christian war, since the majority of soldiers fighting are Christians.

But if you want a deep, long lasting hatred, look no further than religious views that can't be backed up by any sort of unbiased, empirical test.

 

[CapnGod]

So, you want to aspire to be not as bad as totalitarian regimes? That speaks highly to religion's good standing.

They happened to be atheist, yes. But they also turned into religion. Stalin's cult of personality? What do you think his picture over every fireplace was if not the substitution of the state for religion? It was unquestioning belief in the infallibility of the state. It was not about free and open inquiry.

Question the church, torture and murder: Inquisition. Same with your totalitarian regimes. Not really the same thing, now, is it?

 

[L33tsauce_Marty]

Talk about a huge oxymoron.

 

[Spacelord]

Überpost

This is awesome. I love Escapist people. Thank you for this post.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Thats another canard. Those aren't atheist states. They aren't making war to impose atheism on you, they were imposing politics on you.

Thats as good as my saying the War in Iraq is a Christian war, since the majority of soldiers fighting are Christians.

So, you want to aspire to be not as bad as totalitarian regimes? That speaks highly to religion's good standing.

They happened to be atheist, yes. But they also turned into religion. Stalin's cult of personality? What do you think his picture over every fireplace was if not the substitution of the state for religion? It was unquestioning belief in the infallibility of the state. It was not about free and open inquiry.

Question the church, torture and murder: Inquisition. Same with your totalitarian regimes. Not really the same thing, now, is it?

QED.=p

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union#Anti-religious_campaigns

But if you want a deep, long lasting hatred, look no further than religious views that can't be backed up by any sort of unbiased, empirical test.

That is actually you. You can't stand religion, therefore you attack it. The difference between that and a religious person not liking someone elses religion and attacking it is...?

Dude, if you want to escape all these theists around here then just move to North Korea. It is an atheist state where religion isn't practiced.

Alternatively you could, you know, just try not to insult, belittle, and generally be a jackass towards people for having beliefs which differ from your own?

 

[CapnGod]

Alternatively you could, you know, just try not to insult, belittle, and generally be a jackass towards people for having beliefs which differ from your own?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists

I point out that religion is in need of a little belittling. It excommunicated a man for looking up at the solar system and reporting what he saw. And then, centuries later, admitted that he was right. It has rules for selling your daughter into slavery. It exhorts the killing of those who do not believe.

I'm not aware of any atheist text that exhorts the killing those who believe. Dawkins does not tell you to go and kill the believer. His "The God Delusion" is an argument to attempt to convince one that religion is holding people back. It's an argument to convince. It is not a sword or gun or a call to pick one up and kill those with differing views.

 

[jdog345]

We shouldn't have one, laying down, as you say it... our "moral tome" implies that we have concrete morals and beliefs, which isn't true. One of the things I consider SO VERY IMPORTANT about being an atheist is always questioning, always wondering and always molding my values to fit the situation and myself.

For goodness sakes, a lot of The Christian Bible DOES in fact teach some good lessons about how to live life. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," is pretty much a good be all and end all of morality, and the statement "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," is another good one.

Just discount the moralizing bits based on archaic societal structures and hokey superstition.

I could not have put it better.

 

[sokka14]

"But where is our moral tome, our compendium of all that we believe?"

There isn't one. That's the whole point.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Alternatively you could, you know, just try not to insult, belittle, and generally be a jackass towards people for having beliefs which differ from your own?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists

I point out that religion is in need of a little belittling.

No it isn't.

It excommunicated a man for looking up at the solar system and reporting what he saw. And then, centuries later, admitted that he was right. It has rules for selling your daughter into slavery. It exhorts the killing of those who do not believe.

No, IT didn't, PEOPLE did. Don't you get it yet? Atheism wasn't to blame for Stalin. Theism wasn't to blame for... whoever you are going on about. PEOPLE do nasty things to each other and THEY are the ones responsible.

If you really think that people wouldn't find excuses without religion involved then you really are lost in hate.

I'm not aware of any atheist text that exhorts the killing those who believe. Dawkins does not tell you to go and kill the believer. His "The God Delusion" is an argument to attempt to convince one that religion is holding people back. It's an argument to convince. It is not a sword or gun or a call to pick one up and kill those of differing views.

Does Darwins work on evolution tell people to go forth and kill? Of course not. But look [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7082795.stm].

Nutters will find reason. But spreading hate isn't very helpful. As for religion holding people back...

Well that is bollocks, really. The examples of Francis Collins [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_(geneticist)] and Georges Lemaître [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre] prove that. Remember the scientific method - if a hypothesis can be proved wrong then it must be considered false. A lot of intelligent people who have made important discoveries have been religious, therefore it is impossible to credibly argue that religious belief is a hinderance.

If you want to go on the offensive against theocratic states, religious bigotry, and organized religion then that's different. But religion in general? No sorry, you are in the wrong here.

 

[caross73]

That is actually you. You can't stand religion, therefore you attack it. The difference between that and a religious person not liking someone elses religion and attacking it is...?

Dude, if you want to escape all these theists around here then just move to North Korea. It is an atheist state where religion isn't practiced.

Alternatively you could, you know, just try not to insult, belittle, and generally be a jackass towards people for having beliefs which differ from your own?

Afraid not. I've been living with religious people my whole life. Only most of them are big enough and secure enough in their faith to be able to handle another opinion and not confuse it for hatred. You are the one who seems to have a big problem with people not being just like yourself. Maybe you should learn the difference between an attack, and a criticism.

If I told one of them that the difference between God and the Tooth Fairy is merely semantic, they would say "Maybe so, but I'm willing to take that chance because it would be one heck of an awesome tooth fairy."

Only you would say "You're such a bigoted theophobe, why can't you just live and let live."

Religion has plenty to answer for. Sticking your head in the sand and playing the victim isn't going to get us anywhere. If the truth is out there, we aren't going to find it by tiptoeing around each others feelings or being thin skinned.

 

[Baby Tea]

It has rules for selling your daughter into slavery. It exhorts the killing of those who do not believe.

I'm assuming you mean the Bible (Since you parroted these same two point in an earlier post), which only shows how little you understand of hermeneutics, the Bible, and it's use in the Christian faith.

Christianity doesn't condone the killing of other people for whatever reason. Go ahead and throw verses at me, and I'll show you how they are all either from the Old Testament (Which isn't what Christianity is based on), or how they were taken out of context. I'll also throw verses right back that say killing is very very bad and those will not be taken out of context.

Have people done terrible things in the name of Christianity in the past? Sure they have. But when all of those terrible things are condemned by the very worldview they claim to follow, who is to blame? The people? Or the worldview that said they were wrong the whole time?

It's easy, and lazy, to generalize.

 

[Flap Jack452]

Your beliefs basically say you mean nothing. Thats really simple, no "Bible" is needed to copy that down.