Guys I want to take back everything I said early. That's right. Someone on the internet is making a retraction.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Atheist Bible
- Thread starter space_oddity
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Argh! Fucking laptop! My post got deleted just as I finished it... And I was so proud of what I had written too.
I'll try to write it all up again, but I might not put much effort into it.
You have been notified.
Doubtless this has already been said, but doesn't having a set book for moral codes to follow sort of defeat one of the main purposes of being an atheist?
That's not to say that an Atheist can't, if he or she so chooses, decide to use a book or the words of someone to influence their decisions on morality. But you need to keep in mind that Atheists aren't an organisation or a religion. Atheism is simply the decision to reject the idea of religion, it is the decision of an individual, that person doesn't have to follow any other rules in order to be an atheist. Individual atheists can easily have no viewpoints in common aside from the whole religion thing. One atheist could be a kind hearted Samaritan working in a homeless shelter where they hold the position of "chief dispenser of hugs", while another atheist could (quite ironically) be a fanatical douchebag intent on spreading the knowledge of the "Master belief" to others though whatever means necessary. One atheist could be an environmentalist, while the other could be a working on a Japanese Whaling ship.
Having one tome to encompass the views of all atheists, from all walks of life and moral standings, will quite simply not work.
Besides, we do have moral codes, due to humans being rather more on the theist side of things historically, they happen to have been put into the bible.
While I don't think all of the ten commandments are really necessary (particularly the ones specific to worshiping god), the key things like (to simplify a bit) "Don't y'all kill a fool", "Stealin' is wrong" and "Don't be a dick to your neighbour and be all up in his space by doing stuff with his woman" are still relevant. Having a book just to place down what is accepted as common human decency to most people seems like a waste of time.
If an atheist really needs to suckle at the warm inviting teat of a book for moral guidance, might I suggest that they go back to being religious? As they clearly aren't cut out for this whole "Think for yourself" thing.
I'll try to write it all up again, but I might not put much effort into it.
You have been notified.
Doubtless this has already been said, but doesn't having a set book for moral codes to follow sort of defeat one of the main purposes of being an atheist?
That's not to say that an Atheist can't, if he or she so chooses, decide to use a book or the words of someone to influence their decisions on morality. But you need to keep in mind that Atheists aren't an organisation or a religion. Atheism is simply the decision to reject the idea of religion, it is the decision of an individual, that person doesn't have to follow any other rules in order to be an atheist. Individual atheists can easily have no viewpoints in common aside from the whole religion thing. One atheist could be a kind hearted Samaritan working in a homeless shelter where they hold the position of "chief dispenser of hugs", while another atheist could (quite ironically) be a fanatical douchebag intent on spreading the knowledge of the "Master belief" to others though whatever means necessary. One atheist could be an environmentalist, while the other could be a working on a Japanese Whaling ship.
Having one tome to encompass the views of all atheists, from all walks of life and moral standings, will quite simply not work.
Besides, we do have moral codes, due to humans being rather more on the theist side of things historically, they happen to have been put into the bible.
While I don't think all of the ten commandments are really necessary (particularly the ones specific to worshiping god), the key things like (to simplify a bit) "Don't y'all kill a fool", "Stealin' is wrong" and "Don't be a dick to your neighbour and be all up in his space by doing stuff with his woman" are still relevant. Having a book just to place down what is accepted as common human decency to most people seems like a waste of time.
If an atheist really needs to suckle at the warm inviting teat of a book for moral guidance, might I suggest that they go back to being religious? As they clearly aren't cut out for this whole "Think for yourself" thing.
The thing that bothers me about hardcore Atheists is that they all seem to be flaming assholes and delight in launching ad hominem attacks against Christianity all the time.
On the other hand, I have met some pretty wacky Christians that hate Atheists with their guts. But I've also met some extremely friendly and nice radical Christians that treat Atheists with respect.
I have literally never met a (hardcore) Atheist who does not have a sense of intellectual superiority to his Christian fellows. And that is how you get zoologists who like to go on TV bashing religion and writing books about philosophy without having even touched the subject.
(Come on Dawkins, infinite regression is the ultimate proof that God does not exist? You have to try harder)
On the other hand, I have met some pretty wacky Christians that hate Atheists with their guts. But I've also met some extremely friendly and nice radical Christians that treat Atheists with respect.
I have literally never met a (hardcore) Atheist who does not have a sense of intellectual superiority to his Christian fellows. And that is how you get zoologists who like to go on TV bashing religion and writing books about philosophy without having even touched the subject.
(Come on Dawkins, infinite regression is the ultimate proof that God does not exist? You have to try harder)
That's because "hardcore" is just another word for "asshole."roflmao113 said:
The reason the nicer, less inflammatory atheists never get noticed is because they don't say anything.
It's the same thing from the other perspective, Atheists can quite easily only notice the "hardcore" religious people when they wave their book in our face, but there are plenty of religious people who don't do that. A vast majority of them in fact.
I suppose one thing that does give atheism a larger base of "hardcore" people would be the fact that for some, especially the younger ones, atheism isn't based on a well thought out descision. It's done purely to either piss off authority figures, or because religion is too "conformist" for them and they want to be baddass rebels.
Note: "Badass rebels" is also another word for "Asshole"
(when it is a self proclaimed title, not in the case of Liam Neeson for example, who truly is a badass rebel)
That's just not true and is the sort of thing that theists bandy around to claim something back on the subject of creation. Darwin was bought up in a family whose tradition was Unitarian, though both his father and grandfather were freethinkers. Darwin himself trained to be an Anglican, but after his voyage to the Galapagos became unhappy with the balance of his own experience and the creation story from the bible. He still supported his local church, but stopped going on Sundays. As time went on he moved into self termed Agnosticism.bikeninja said:
Exactly.starrman said:
Darwin used to be a very religious man but he lost his faith when his darling daughter died a horrible death by a terrible disease.
He didn't become an atheist though, but stayed agnostic. I agree with Darwin that agnosticism is the only way to go.
most atheists i know don't say they KNOW, for an ABSOLUTE fact, that there is no god. we just find it so incredibly improbable that we have no reason to acknowledge the idea that a god might exist. no one absolutely knows that unicorns or faeries or dragons don't exist, but you'd be hard pressed to find someone who considered themselves an agnostic in regards to any of those mythological creatures.Glerken said:
i have never understood the viewpoint that atheism is nihilistic. just because i don't have the ego to think that my life has some kind of grand purpose on a universal level doesn't mean that it isn't incredibly meaningful to ME.cball11 said:
cant say theres an atheist bible, but we dont really need a bible to help with morals and how to live. i try to be as honest as i can, do the right thing and not let people down. wasnt told it in a book, just brought up this way and figured it out for myself.
Okay, I'm going to use this topic to describe why The Bible itself doesn't work.
If Heaven exists, then why is killing people wrong? Isn't it just putting more people into Heaven, populating this so called diety "God"'s home.
If the Garden of Eden were real, were is it? Essex?
If money weren't made, no-one would be depressed now or seventy years ago.
It's been two-thousand years. If every single religion was right, every hundred years or so a new prophet would be here. Why don't we have any prophets?
But to sum up, an atheist bible makes perfect sense and people will finally know my rare;y acknowledged views on the universe.
If Heaven exists, then why is killing people wrong? Isn't it just putting more people into Heaven, populating this so called diety "God"'s home.
If the Garden of Eden were real, were is it? Essex?
If money weren't made, no-one would be depressed now or seventy years ago.
It's been two-thousand years. If every single religion was right, every hundred years or so a new prophet would be here. Why don't we have any prophets?
But to sum up, an atheist bible makes perfect sense and people will finally know my rare;y acknowledged views on the universe.
Dude... Get out.Strong Intelligent said:
We'd gone almost two pages in a thread about religion without disolving into a flame war.
But had to you ruin it.
Didn't you?
We are not a common community any more than people who play tennis are... the most I'll organise for my Atheism is a nod and smile at my nearest Atheist for agreeing with me on one large point. Unless I find further common ground that is.
Whilst I mostly agree with your post I would like to challenge the notion that atheism is a state of non-belief in god. I'm an atheist and after many long and arduous discussions with other atheists and theists alike I've come round to the idea that my atheism IS a belief structure, not a lack of belief.The Iron Ninja said:
I came to this idea by accepting that my atheism was initially a native state, that a belief in god is something learnt and until it is acquired one remains what I call a 'normative atheist', this is indeed a lack of belief. However, as soon as you become aware of the notion of god you begin making a choice, learning about god and deciding whether he's true or not. I'm a massive W.V. Quine fan and his work on auxiliary assumptions in global belief structures is something that has stuck with me. Basically what he says is that it is impossible to test a hypothesis without using auxiliary assumptions. Once I know about the notion of god I begin to take match him against my belief structure and all the assumed auxiliary assumptions, ticking them off one by one to see if he is compatible with any of them. When I meet an incompatibility I either discard god or I discard an auxiliary assumption and thus change my belief structure. Whichever one of these I do it is undeniable that what I am doing is reaffirming a belief of some sort. I have gone from normative atheism to 'acquired atheism' and it is that acquired atheism which I think has a belief content.
As to morals I err on the side of 'ought to do', so I suppose I lean somewhat towards Kant. If I wouldn't want someone else to do something then I oughtn't want to do it myself. And whilst I agree with other posters about the incompatibility of defined or absolute moral structures with atheism, I don't agree that atheism can't have a relativistic moral code which begins with some small imperative such as I've set out above.
As to the initial post about collating a tome I'd just say that, to my mind, institutionalisation of anything is a bad thing.