Atheist Bible

[godevit]

It's kinda silly writing a bible about nothing .....yes I'm an atheist :S

 

[Baby Tea]

So beliefs in supernatural things are inextricably tied to social behavior, and so we're hypocrites if we feel like saying God is a foolish idea, yet we don't murder, steal, rape on principle?

But what do you base that principle on? Where is the basis for it?
If you can steal and get away with it, why wouldn't you?

If naturalism is to be believed then this universe is completely amoral, and any notion of 'good' and 'evil' and 'right' and 'wrong' is not only subjective, but unprovable and unscientific. Therefore, it would be just as much a fantasy as the idea of God.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

Atheism and Christianity don't involve ethics and moral compasses in themselves. Those are tacked on as you get deeper into them.

Atheist = Refusal of all gods
Christianity = There is He, The Lord

Me, I'm as atheistic as can be, with a self-designed religion of ethics and morals.

 

[Ignignoct]

You think we have no morals because we don't believe your morals, morals that were set forth by an omnipotent puppet master. We do not believe in any singular set of morals for we are without a common creed, each of us chooses our own morals. You think you are the only one wise enough to grasp what right and wrong are? "believe in some invisible moral force that everyone supposedly should adhere to. No such thing as right and wrong in that world view" what world view exactly are you referring to? As i have said each of us chooses our own morals so how can you say we don't know what right and wrong are, I don't think that each of us has given you a list of what we think is right and wrong so how can you pass judgment on our morals when you do not know what they are? You truly are a fool if you would pass judgment on me without ever having known me.

Easy tiger! I never said atheists can't have morality or morals, I'm only saying there is no basis for it. You certainly can judge for yourself what right or wrong is, but to assume that there is a universal moral framework in an amoral universe is silly.

And in a naturalist worldview, where there is no god or anything 'supernatural' (That means spiritualism is out), there is no such thing as right or wrong. It's completely subjective. You could say 'stealing is wrong' and someone else could say 'stealing is ok'. Who is wrong? Who is right? You yourself said that we judge for ourselves what right and wrong is, so what happens when opposing judgments of morality collide?

And, finally, I never passed judgment on you. I never said you, or anyone else, was immoral or evil or anything of the sort. I simply said there is no basis for morality in a naturalist worldview, and no such thing as a universal moral framework in said worldview.

EDIT: Ah, ninja'd by Tomato!

There is no rational, nutritional basis for italian sausage and chicken pizza, but there it is, delicious, fatty, and begging for me to partake of it.

To be more concise: The basis is no longer relevant when the secular naturalists are by-and-large already onboard for a lawful, crime-disdaining society.

I'd try to bore you with how secular cultures themselves have rules, laws, etc, based on that humans are social animals that need to cooperate on some level to flourish, but I had pizza on the brain, and that idea seemed boring.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

No, he doesn't think that at all.

He probably thinks you have difficulty reading posts with an impartial eye though, because you completely missed the point both I and he were making.

It isn't that you don't have morals, in fact his point was THAT YOU DO HAVE MORALS, and that those morals are inherently unprovable and unscienficially justifiable concepts. They are just as much a form of belief as his god is to him. So if you wave the flying spaghetti monster in the faces of people who believe in god or something spiritual, you would be a hypocrite.

So beliefs in supernatural things are inextricably tied to social behavior, and so we're hypocrites if we feel like saying God is a foolish idea, yet we don't murder, steal, rape on principle?

I see the point you're going for, sort of a "HEY! Break it up you two!" cease-fire, but it seems weak and betrays its purpose in that it begs to be argued, to dissolve the already-thin adhesive of your notion.

Naah. Not quite so weak...

You said murder, steal, rape... prove they are wrong. No, I do not require proof. I don't need someone to tell me. I don't myself think they are right.

I am just asking, where is the proof?

Those things are wrong not just because we get taught it, but because we feel it. Guilt, conscience, other such things. But you see, to many religious people god is the same. Belief isn't the same as just thinking that there is some man in the sky, it is a feeling of something else.

Belief in a moral, belief in a supernatural entity, belief in nothing at all... it is all the same.

 

[Legion]

So beliefs in supernatural things are inextricably tied to social behavior, and so we're hypocrites if we feel like saying God is a foolish idea, yet we don't murder, steal, rape on principle?

But what do you base that principle on? Where is the basis for it?
If you can steal and get away with it, why wouldn't you?

If naturalism is to be believed then this universe is completely amoral, and any notion of 'good' and 'evil' and 'right' and 'wrong' is not only subjective, but unprovable and unscientific. Therefore, it would be just as much a fantasy as the idea of God.

Agreed.

Although there is *some* basis for "morals" from an atheists perspective.

A man who rapes/murders/steals is unattractive to women because they do not have any respect for them. Therefore they make a poor mate. (he might rape them, get caught stealing/murdering and get punished so not there to support them).

The reason they are punishable is because they detract from society as opposed to morality.

 

[Ignignoct]

So beliefs in supernatural things are inextricably tied to social behavior, and so we're hypocrites if we feel like saying God is a foolish idea, yet we don't murder, steal, rape on principle?

But what do you base that principle on? Where is the basis for it?
If you can steal and get away with it, why wouldn't you?

If naturalism is to be believed then this universe is completely amoral, and any notion of 'good' and 'evil' and 'right' and 'wrong' is not only subjective, but unprovable and unscientific. Therefore, it would be just as much a fantasy as the idea of God.

Because I conduct my behavior based on how I would want others to treat me as a human, even while acknowledging that such will not always be returned in kind.

I do good, as the reciprocation of kindness back from others is reward enough. Makes me feel good.

Kinda like that corny saying, "I just want to love and be loved."

You're stuck on a primitive, black-and-white, Lord of the Flies philosophy that is the polar opposite to fundamentalist Christianity, both of which we can all agree to be ill-suited to modern society.

 

[Ignignoct]

No, he doesn't think that at all.

He probably thinks you have difficulty reading posts with an impartial eye though, because you completely missed the point both I and he were making.

It isn't that you don't have morals, in fact his point was THAT YOU DO HAVE MORALS, and that those morals are inherently unprovable and unscienficially justifiable concepts. They are just as much a form of belief as his god is to him. So if you wave the flying spaghetti monster in the faces of people who believe in god or something spiritual, you would be a hypocrite.

So beliefs in supernatural things are inextricably tied to social behavior, and so we're hypocrites if we feel like saying God is a foolish idea, yet we don't murder, steal, rape on principle?

I see the point you're going for, sort of a "HEY! Break it up you two!" cease-fire, but it seems weak and betrays its purpose in that it begs to be argued, to dissolve the already-thin adhesive of your notion.

Naah. Not quite so weak...

You said murder, steal, rape... prove they are wrong. No, I do not require proof. I don't need someone to tell me. I don't myself think they are right.

I am just asking, where is the proof?

Those things are wrong not just because we get taught it, but because we feel it. Guilt, conscience, other such things. But you see, to many religious people god is the same. Belief isn't the same as just thinking that there is some man in the sky, it is a feeling of something else.

Belief in a moral, belief in a supernatural entity, belief in nothing at all... it is all the same.

I refer you to my pizza statement above.

Even if I were to concede entirely to your argument, it'd still sound like this:

"Okay, you got me, I ran out of ideas. I guess Religion's fear-mongering sin-scare-tactics served in the creation of laws we now take for granted. All past tense. Many of us don't need your Gods anymore to be happy, well-adjusted, law-abiding citizens."

Edit: I'll admit I'm taken aback by your "prove rape is wrong" statement, it seems so far-fetched like saying, "Prove that child abuse is wrong!"

The cause of intense human suffering from rape, murder, child abuse, molestations, etc, is reason enough.

So there's your buzz-phrase: "Intense Human Suffering."

Go ahead and reply about war/"good" murder/etc. I'll be waiting.

 

[Baby Tea]

To be more concise: The basis is no longer relevant when the secular naturalists are by-and-large already onboard for a lawful, crime-disdaining society.

Funny how much crime is committed daily, then.
If everyone agreed stealing is wrong, why is there so much theft?
If everyone agreed murder is wrong, how much there is so much of it? And not just by 'psycho paths' either. Gang wars, revenge, vigilante justice.
Software and media piracy, big businesses swindling consumers, illegal drug trade (Which is a billions-a-year 'industry'). All these things point to simple greed and selfishness. People aren't concerned about humanity flourishing.
People are concerned about their job.
People are concerned about their investments.
People are concerned about their wellbeing.

People don't wake up thinking 'How can I help advance the species?', they wake up thinking about themselves and their own.

 

[caross73]

To be more concise: The basis is no longer relevant when the secular naturalists are by-and-large already onboard for a lawful, crime-disdaining society.

Funny how much crime is committed daily, then.
If everyone agreed stealing is wrong, why is there so much theft?
If everyone agreed murder is wrong, how much there is so much of it? And not just by 'psycho paths' either. Gang wars, revenge, vigilante justice.
Software and media piracy, big businesses swindling consumers, illegal drug trade (Which is a billions-a-year 'industry'). All these things point to simple greed and selfishness. People aren't concerned about humanity flourishing.
People are concerned about their job.
People are concerned about their investments.
People are concerned about their wellbeing.

People don't wake up thinking 'How can I help advance the species?', they wake up thinking about themselves and their own.

Yeah, funny how many of those people are religious.

Atheists are the least represented, as a proportion of their frequency in the general population, among prisoners. Its one of the few things we can be proud of.

 

[Baby Tea]

Yeah, funny how many of those people are Christians.

Atheists are the least represented per capita, as a proportion of the general population, among prison populations. Just sayin.

People think that if they went to church as a kid, but now don't believe in any of it, that they are 'Christian'. I knew someone who said being 'nice' means you're a Christian. Pardon me if I don't take that seriously.

And where is the source anyways?

 

[caross73]

Hold on, let me google that for you, while you come up with more attacks on secular naturalism.

Here you go:
http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

 

[cuddly_tomato]

I refer you to my pizza statement above.

Even if I were to concede entirely to your argument, it'd still sound like this:

"Okay, you got me, I ran out of ideas. I guess Religion's fear-mongering sin-scare-tactics served in the creation of laws we now take for granted. All past tense. Many of us don't need your Gods anymore to be happy, well-adjusted, law-abiding citizens."

You are missing my point a bit. I don't believe in a god dude. I don't know, but I personally don't think there is one. So I am in no way trying to convince you that there is.

I am just trying to say that complaining the problem with religion is there is no proof, while at the same time having morals, is the same as complaining that alcohol is bad for you while lighting up a cigarette. If you want to have that smoke you go right ahead. There isn't anything wrong with it. All I am asking is that you let Baby Tea have his drink without bashing him for it.

 

[Legion]

Yeah, funny how many of those people are religious.

Atheists are the least represented, as a proportion of their frequency in the general population, among prisoners. Its one of the few things we can be proud of.

A survey done a few years ago turned up results showing that the majority of people in Islington, London said their religion was 'Jedi'. Does that mean they are Jedi, own lightsabers and can use the force?

No. Saying you are religious does not make you so. To quote Tyler Durden "Sticking feather's up your butt doesn't make you a chicken."

 

[caross73]

Yeah, funny how many of those people are religious.

Atheists are the least represented, as a proportion of their frequency in the general population, among prisoners. Its one of the few things we can be proud of.

A survey done a few years ago turned up results showing that the majority of people in Islington, London said their religion was 'Jedi'. Does that mean they are Jedi, own lightsabers and can use the force?

No. Saying you are religious does not make you so. To quote Tyler Durden "Sticking feather's up your butt doesn't make you a chicken."

I love how whenever data supports your contention, its unquestionable, and the person disputing it is an idiot, but when it doesn't, its ridiculous and only a moron would believe it. If you're going to invoke the No True Scotsman defense, then you need to start by defining what a True Scotsman is and how to recognize it.

 

[Legion]

Yeah, funny how many of those people are religious.

Atheists are the least represented, as a proportion of their frequency in the general population, among prisoners. Its one of the few things we can be proud of.

A survey done a few years ago turned up results showing that the majority of people in Islington, London said their religion was 'Jedi'. Does that mean they are Jedi, own lightsabers and can use the force?

No. Saying you are religious does not make you so. To quote Tyler Durden "Sticking feather's up your butt doesn't make you a chicken."

I love how whenever data supports your contention, its unquestionable, and the person disputing it is an idiot, but when it doesn't, its ridiculous and only a moron would believe it.

So you are saying that because data says that most Islington dwellers are Jedi then I should believe that they really are Jedi?

Didn't think that one through did you.

 

[Ignignoct]

To be more concise: The basis is no longer relevant when the secular naturalists are by-and-large already onboard for a lawful, crime-disdaining society.

Funny how much crime is committed daily, then.
By Christians and agnostics alike!

If everyone agreed stealing is wrong, why is there so much theft?
Mama didn't raise their kids right. Many of us secular adults are very-well suited to being a part of a community, as I stated above. This is not everyone, but I know you couldn't resist stretching my words out a bit to unload this pre-conceived rebuttal.

If everyone agreed murder is wrong, how much there is so much of it? And not just by 'psycho paths' either. Gang wars, revenge, vigilante justice. Because there's such a wonderful, bi-chromatic rainbow of the costs and effects of such violence, that is the subject of so many good drama movies these days. Such violence committed by people honestly God-fearing and not. How does this relate to lawful, kind non-believers?

Software and media piracy, big businesses swindling consumers, illegal drug trade (Which is a billions-a-year 'industry'). All these things point to simple greed and selfishness.
Yes indeed. This relates to lawful, kind non-believers how?...

People aren't concerned about humanity flourishing.
Be specific. I'm working towards being financially robust enough to support my friends and family that I deem worthy of my efforts. My own personal pleasure is low on the priority list.

People are concerned about their job.
And rightfully so; who else would care?

People are concerned about their investments.
And rightfully so; who else would care?

People are concerned about their wellbeing.
And rightfully so; who else would care?

People don't wake up thinking 'How can I help advance the species?', they wake up thinking about themselves and their own. Yes, themselves and their own. Why is that so bad?

 

[caross73]

Yeah, funny how many of those people are religious.

Atheists are the least represented, as a proportion of their frequency in the general population, among prisoners. Its one of the few things we can be proud of.

A survey done a few years ago turned up results showing that the majority of people in Islington, London said their religion was 'Jedi'. Does that mean they are Jedi, own lightsabers and can use the force?

No. Saying you are religious does not make you so. To quote Tyler Durden "Sticking feather's up your butt doesn't make you a chicken."

I love how whenever data supports your contention, its unquestionable, and the person disputing it is an idiot, but when it doesn't, its ridiculous and only a moron would believe it.

So you are saying that because data says that most Islington dwellers are Jedi then I should believe that they really are Jedi?

Putting aside that Christians are a diverse bunch, and you are contesting a different survey (the Bureau of Prisons has a bit more authority than an informal survey) is there a Jedi authority that defines who can and cannot be a Jedi?

If there is no recognized authority, and I say I am a Jedi, then who are you to say I'm not?

 

[Legion]

Yeah, funny how many of those people are religious.

Atheists are the least represented, as a proportion of their frequency in the general population, among prisoners. Its one of the few things we can be proud of.

A survey done a few years ago turned up results showing that the majority of people in Islington, London said their religion was 'Jedi'. Does that mean they are Jedi, own lightsabers and can use the force?

No. Saying you are religious does not make you so. To quote Tyler Durden "Sticking feather's up your butt doesn't make you a chicken."

I love how whenever data supports your contention, its unquestionable, and the person disputing it is an idiot, but when it doesn't, its ridiculous and only a moron would believe it.

So you are saying that because data says that most Islington dwellers are Jedi then I should believe that they really are Jedi?

Putting aside that Christians are a diverse bunch, and you are contesting a different survey (the Bureau of Prisons has a bit more authority than an informal survey) is there a Jedi authority that defines who can and cannot be a Jedi?

I believe his name is George Lucas?