Atheist Bible

[BNguyen]

It would be one page long with one line: God does not exist...the end.

prove to me that God does not exist! Go on and try it.

He never said god does not exist. He said that the atheist bible would simply consist of this phrase. That is what the thread was asking about. (although he may not believe in God, your indignation at his post is unjustified in this context).

And one final question for all atheists, if the apocolypse does occur and Jesus did come back for his people, how would you feel about your life choices?

Not as an atheist: What? This suggests that only Christians can be good people. Atheist's don't all burn puppies to death you know.

I'm not saying that only Christians are in the right, anybody and everybody has the chance of being wrong, and I'm not saying, nor did I even mention that Christians were the only ones to be right. Atheists don't all burn puppies to death? Well neither do Christians, or any other sane persons. But all I'm saying is that if God decides to end the world, and he come to save those who believed in him, then how would athesists feel about seeing this.

 

[BNguyen]

I never tried to force my beliefs onto any one, and if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, but I still feel good in believing that there might have been someone out there who cared more about me than anything on this earth ever cuold.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Yeah I know more about evolution than most, being a nut for entomology. Where it come from wasn't anything I have an issue with, merely that we persist with altruism even when it costs us from a logical perspective.

I'm not sure what you mean. You originally posted this: "belief systems and faith are the only source of morality. There is no logic or scientific basis for morality, ethics, justice etc." Price's work shows that there may be a non-belief oriented basis for morality and the counter cases you originally offered are too vague and contain too many auxiliary assumptions to be used to refute the notion of natural origins. You seem to be saying that one should act either logically or morally and never the twain shall meet, but not every situation is one which even demands both. At any rate, whichever one you choose doesn't invalidate the notion that morality can have a non-belief oriented basis.

Hmmm.. Right lets see... altruism =/= morality. Acting for the good of family members in order to increase the chances of your genetic material being passed on are not quite the same as ethics. Ethics, morality, and other such concepts cover quite a vast area and depending on the eye of the beholder cover different areas. For instance, I am one of those pussy tree-huggers, and as such I go around saving the lives of every spider I find in my house. Others would stamp on them and not think twice. I find that morally reprehensible, but I know that is just me. This leads quite nicely onto our next point.

Well they aren't are they? Science only deals with measurably observable fact and events right? How do you test for justice in a laboratory? Where is the ethics on the periodic table.

Justice is a complex relative aspect of morality, so you'll have to be more specific as to what a)the definition of justice is and b)what it is about justice you wish to test scientifically. If a) is not falsifiable then clearly we're not going to be able to test it scientifically, but we could easily, for example test that people employ morals in various situations. As Price shows we can even test altruism. So it seems they are empirically observable, assuming that an agreed definition has been made and it does not lay outside the realm of falsifiability.

If someone steals from me, what is the scientifically appropriate response? How do we test this? What form of repeatable experiment would we be able to create in order to assess what the "right" thing to do with blind people is?

Let's leave justice for a sec. Try to explain, in non-subjective terms, a moral. Not what morals are, but a particular moral. Any you like.

There is a place in this universe. Unimaginably bright and hot. ...........SHORTENED.......Terry Pratchet, The Hogfather

We can easily agree that human perception is required to assert a relativistic view of morals, just as we need a divine one to assert an absolute view, but I don't see how this changes anything in the current discussion. You can't measure human growth rates in that place either, but it doesn't stop such things being measurable elsewhere where humans are present. As to the Terry Pratchet bit, I'm a fan of nodding to the absurd in all things, but it's not really going to help our discussion

That's going to have to be the last post from me for a while, I gotta go to bed and tomorrow's a busy day.

The Pratchett quote wasn't absurd, not at all. The point is there is no such thing as morality where you don't get life. Life is in some way "special" in the way it is the only form of matter which actually defines its own existence. But in order to accept this "specialness" one needs to believe in it, if nothing else. Or it is merely just chemicals in your brain forcing you to think the way you do. Free will and independant thought are illusions created by those chemicals.

 

[BNguyen]

If you were God, Heaven forbid, would you want someone who could not follow a simple rule to be immortal and enjoy living forever without at least some punishment?

Yes. Especially when it makes no sense how they could follow that rule. The tree they were not to eat from was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

How were they supposed to know to obey God's rule if they didn't have knowledge of good and evil?

Before eating the fruit, they were like children. Upon eating it, they came to understand what evil was. God did not want them to eat the fruit so that they would have the ability to commit evil.

 

[Legion]

I'm not saying that only Christians are in the right, anybody and everybody has the chance of being wrong, and I'm not saying, nor did I even mention that Christians were the only ones to be right. Atheists don't all burn puppies to death? Well neither do Christians, or any other sane persons. But all I'm saying is that if God decides to end the world, and he come to save those who believed in him, then how would athesists feel about seeing this.

You imply that is what you meant by the part in bold.

You suggest that God will save people based on those who believe as opposed to those that are good people. This was the point I was getting at.

Edit: By this logic, someone who has never heard of Christianity, but who spends their life helping others, respecting nature and staying faithful to their partner is not welcome in Heaven. Which does not make sense at all.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

I'm not saying that only Christians are in the right, anybody and everybody has the chance of being wrong, and I'm not saying, nor did I even mention that Christians were the only ones to be right. Atheists don't all burn puppies to death? Well neither do Christians, or any other sane persons. But all I'm saying is that if God decides to end the world, and he come to save those who believed in him, then how would athesists feel about seeing this.

You imply that is what you meant by the part in bold. You suggest that God will only care about those who believe in him as opposed to those that are good people.

Machines speaks the truth. Your god is not a great god if his mercy and benevolence only extends as far as those with "club membership".

 

[BNguyen]

Without our flaws, we would not be humans, we would be as gods on earth, perfect in every way beings

And why would that be a bad thing? What prevented a perfect being from creating us like that? It sounds like, rather than creating beings simply to suffer, he could have created them in a state of perfection from day one, as befits a Perfect, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent God.

Once again, apparently free will is more important, is a greater good, than the nonexistence of evil -- a nonsequitor. And an omnipotent being couldn't manage to reconcile the paradox between free will and perfection. Ergo, God was not omnipotent.

It technically would not be a bad thing but then what would be the point of an endless existence that most people would probably get tired of. If we were perfect beings, then there would only be need of 1 single person and no more.
He did not make us imperfect to suffer, but to test us as humans. People believe that they are strong but when they are faced with suffering, see how weak we become, we are being tested on how strong we believe we are. Those who admit they aren't strong are the right ones, no one is strong without some sort of support, and that support is all around us, it is support we cannot get from humanity. It is also the same with good and evil, we are being tested over what we would chose with free will.

 

[BNguyen]

I'm not saying that only Christians are in the right, anybody and everybody has the chance of being wrong, and I'm not saying, nor did I even mention that Christians were the only ones to be right. Atheists don't all burn puppies to death? Well neither do Christians, or any other sane persons. But all I'm saying is that if God decides to end the world, and he come to save those who believed in him, then how would athesists feel about seeing this.

You imply that is what you meant by the part in bold.

You suggest that God will save people based on those who believe as opposed to those that are good people. This was the point I was getting at.

Edit: By this logic, someone who has never heard of Christianity, but who spends their life helping others, respecting nature and staying faithful to their partner is not welcome in Heaven. Which does not make sense at all.

Even if you act good, you are not acknowledging the fact that you were given those gifts around you, such as a faithful partner, a good life, and the ability to help others. When you do not acknowledge that someone or something had given you that life, then I do not believe that you are welcome into Heaven.

 

[BNguyen]

I'm not saying that only Christians are in the right, anybody and everybody has the chance of being wrong, and I'm not saying, nor did I even mention that Christians were the only ones to be right. Atheists don't all burn puppies to death? Well neither do Christians, or any other sane persons. But all I'm saying is that if God decides to end the world, and he come to save those who believed in him, then how would athesists feel about seeing this.

You imply that is what you meant by the part in bold. You suggest that God will only care about those who believe in him as opposed to those that are good people.

Machines speaks the truth. Your god is not a great god if his mercy and benevolence only extends as far as those with "club membership".

His greatness does not extend to just those with "club membership" but to all people. He is great in the fact that you would not exist as who you are or in any other way without God. His mercy falls to all people, if it didn't, then would we still be standing here? Without his mercy, for every evil deed or even slightly bad thought, then we would just be struck down. Those who have "club membership" thank God for those second chances and for his gifts of life, love, and happiness.

 

[BNguyen]

The Pratchett quote wasn't absurd, not at all. The point is there is no such thing as morality where you don't get life. Life is in some way "special" in the way it is the only form of matter which actually defines its own existence. But in order to accept this "specialness" one needs to believe in it, if nothing else. Or it is merely just chemicals in your brain forcing you to think the way you do. Free will and independant thought are illusions created by those chemicals.[/quote]

Free will and independent thought are not illusions created by chemicals, emotions are not controlled by chemicals. The brain does not have chemicals to make you believe something, but rather it is like a memory bank and a machine that controls the functions of every part of us. If you believe that free will is just a chemical, then you must be a robot or something.

 

[Ignignoct]

I'm not saying that only Christians are in the right, anybody and everybody has the chance of being wrong, and I'm not saying, nor did I even mention that Christians were the only ones to be right. Atheists don't all burn puppies to death? Well neither do Christians, or any other sane persons. But all I'm saying is that if God decides to end the world, and he come to save those who believed in him, then how would athesists feel about seeing this.

You imply that is what you meant by the part in bold.

You suggest that God will save people based on those who believe as opposed to those that are good people. This was the point I was getting at.

Edit: By this logic, someone who has never heard of Christianity, but who spends their life helping others, respecting nature and staying faithful to their partner is not welcome in Heaven. Which does not make sense at all.

Even if you act good, you are not acknowledging the fact that you were given those gifts around you, such as a faithful partner, a good life, and the ability to help others. When you do not acknowledge that someone or something had given you that life, then I do not believe that you are welcome into Heaven.

"You aren't acknowledging the fact that you were given..."

He just said that he was talking of someone outside of Christianity. This causes your "acknowledge" argument to flop, as there is no one, or at least not the Judeo-Christian God, to acknowledge things to. Your argument, the Christianity argument, that good people go to Hell not based on their actions, but their religion, is the biggest reason why I left the church.

God gives all good things.

Satan/You causes all bad things.

God has a plan, except when you go against it, but it's okay because even if you go against God's Plan, it was all a part of God's Plan the entire time.

Many people go against God's Plan, and go to Hell for it, but by the way, God planned that too.

 

[LewsTherin]

Bloody hell.. I leave for a minute and what happens?

How about we ALL agree on this, belive in what you wan't AND respect others beliefs. See that isn't so hard, stop fighting and shut up.

But then who would we hate and blame and ridicule?

 

[Ignignoct]

I'm not saying that only Christians are in the right, anybody and everybody has the chance of being wrong, and I'm not saying, nor did I even mention that Christians were the only ones to be right. Atheists don't all burn puppies to death? Well neither do Christians, or any other sane persons. But all I'm saying is that if God decides to end the world, and he come to save those who believed in him, then how would athesists feel about seeing this.

You imply that is what you meant by the part in bold. You suggest that God will only care about those who believe in him as opposed to those that are good people.

Machines speaks the truth. Your god is not a great god if his mercy and benevolence only extends as far as those with "club membership".

His greatness does not extend to just those with "club membership" but to all people. He is great in the fact that you would not exist as who you are or in any other way without God. His mercy falls to all people, if it didn't, then would we still be standing here? Without his mercy, for every evil deed or even slightly bad thought, then we would just be struck down. Those who have "club membership" thank God for those second chances and for his gifts of life, love, and happiness.

Which is awesome, because the vast majority of human souls go to Hell, which is undeniably FAR WORSE than nonexistence.

Even if you cut it like, "You wouldn't be here without God, so just tell the police officer you fell down some stairs...", God's still malevolent in creating the system in which life is created, exists on earth for a fleeting blink of His eye, and then tortured for all eternity.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

I'm not saying that only Christians are in the right, anybody and everybody has the chance of being wrong, and I'm not saying, nor did I even mention that Christians were the only ones to be right. Atheists don't all burn puppies to death? Well neither do Christians, or any other sane persons. But all I'm saying is that if God decides to end the world, and he come to save those who believed in him, then how would athesists feel about seeing this.

You imply that is what you meant by the part in bold. You suggest that God will only care about those who believe in him as opposed to those that are good people.

Machines speaks the truth. Your god is not a great god if his mercy and benevolence only extends as far as those with "club membership".

His greatness does not extend to just those with "club membership" but to all people. He is great in the fact that you would not exist as who you are or in any other way without God. His mercy falls to all people, if it didn't, then would we still be standing here? Without his mercy, for every evil deed or even slightly bad thought, then we would just be struck down. Those who have "club membership" thank God for those second chances and for his gifts of life, love, and happiness.

But your earlier post seemed to indicate that people would suffer horribly for all eternity for having the audacity to not applaud him loud enough in life. Such an act is incongruous with the notion of a being without extreme narcissism, which is (as I understand it) one of deadly sins.

While I am happy for you in that you have a faith that gives you peace and something to live by, you should be careful about applying that to others. People who think differently than you can be just as noble, good, decent, and honest as any Christian you like. And claiming to be Christian doesn't mean a whole lot if you don't follow it through by actually being a good person and living your life with some humility and without the kind of ego that some of "the chosen" develop.

 

[USSR]

It would be one page long with one line: God does not exist...the end.

prove to me that God does not exist! Go on and try it.

Tell me all the attributes of your God and where I can find them, and I'll show you that place is empty. If you can't define your God in a testable fashion, then there's no reason to bother. I could be pointing right at him and you wouldn't know it. Either way, I have no more reason to believe your particular God than I do Krishna, Zoroaster, or any of the others.

Given an infinite number of possible Gods, and no evidence for any one of them, the probability of being right on a random pick -- a choice without evidence -- is as close to 0 as to be irrelevant. Nobody can prove there is no God with certainty, but I can tell you the odds.

I'm sorry, but you're in no place to talk. Don't down a belief, unless you can back up your own.

You have the same odds he does.

 

[NewGeekPhilosopher]

Technically Douglas Adams is a saint of Atheism since he was Richard Dawkins's first convert to atheism. I'm a Christian but that doesn't stop me from helping my atheist friend from creating a non-religious icon of Douglas Adams with an atom halo in Photoshop to subvert the dominance of Christian art at my school's Religious Art Prize exhibition. And I'm certainly not telling him he's going to hell for making me help him do it.

 

[Typecast]

Um. The only thing Atheists share, is lack of belief in any gods.

Anything else is not involved. I'm sort of amoral nihilist, but it's just my philosophical view on life that probably isn't shared by too many.

*high fives* shared by me

 

[caross73]

It would be one page long with one line: God does not exist...the end.

prove to me that God does not exist! Go on and try it.

Tell me all the attributes of your God and where I can find them, and I'll show you that place is empty. If you can't define your God in a testable fashion, then there's no reason to bother. I could be pointing right at him and you wouldn't know it. Either way, I have no more reason to believe your particular God than I do Krishna, Zoroaster, or any of the others.

Given an infinite number of possible Gods, and no evidence for any one of them, the probability of being right on a random pick -- a choice without evidence -- is as close to 0 as to be irrelevant. Nobody can prove there is no God with certainty, but I can tell you the odds.

I'm sorry, but you're in no place to talk. Don't down a belief, unless you can back up your own.

You have the same odds he does.

I don't think you understand probability. I have not made a positive claim. If I said, God is made of cheese, well then you could quibble and say Cheese God is just as unlikely as Yhwh, but I haven't even suggested the idea of god. Until I make a claim that flies against the evidence I have, I can't be wrong. In the absence of evidence, EVERY assumption you make above nothing, the empty set, is wrong. As soon as you start to describe God, you've gotten it wrong.

Its like claiming there is a secret martian base with exactly 13 martians in it on the far side of the moon. Saying there is no secret martian base with exactly 13 martians on the far side of the moon is reasonable in the absence of any evidence that there is one. We have no reason to expect a martian base on the far side of the moon. It makes far fewer assumptions, zero in fact. You wouldn't consider a person as crazy as the crackpot who says there IS a martian base, if he said, 'no, you're wrong, there isn't.'

Replace martian base with flower pot orbiting the sun, whatever. Its not even worth guessing about these things you have no data on because whatever you guess ... is bullshit.

 

[USSR]

It would be one page long with one line: God does not exist...the end.

prove to me that God does not exist! Go on and try it.

Tell me all the attributes of your God and where I can find them, and I'll show you that place is empty. If you can't define your God in a testable fashion, then there's no reason to bother. I could be pointing right at him and you wouldn't know it. Either way, I have no more reason to believe your particular God than I do Krishna, Zoroaster, or any of the others.

Given an infinite number of possible Gods, and no evidence for any one of them, the probability of being right on a random pick -- a choice without evidence -- is as close to 0 as to be irrelevant. Nobody can prove there is no God with certainty, but I can tell you the odds.

I'm sorry, but you're in no place to talk. Don't down a belief, unless you can back up your own.

You have the same odds he does.

I don't think you understand probability. I have not made a positive claim. If I said, God is made of cheese, well then you could quibble and say Cheese God is just as unlikely as Yhwh, but I haven't even suggested the idea of god. Until I make a claim, I can't be wrong. In the absence of evidence, EVERY assumption is wrong.

Its like claiming there is a secret martian base on the far side of the moon. Saying there is no secret martian base on the far side of the moon is reasonable in the absence of any evidence that there is one. It makes far fewer assumptions, zero in fact.

Ok Mr. Probability, use your own logic and tell me, Where the hell did everything start and how?

And after that, please state the probability of everything being created by a :god, big bang, ect..

After that explain how your probability on your theory is any higher than anyone else's.

I refuse to let people down my belief if they can't back up their own.

 

[caross73]

I don't have to give you an answer. I have no evidence to favor one conclusion over any other. There are an infinite number of ways the universe could have started. I don't know which way it was. I wasn't there. Maybe somebody has some evidence to suggest a way, but I don't know of anyone who can look beyond the beginning of time.

What you refuse to do is your problem. Bold text doesn't trump Bayesian epistemology.

There are an infinite number of ways to be wrong, only one way to be correct. You'd be a fool to make a claim you don't have any evidence for.

And if you insist, I will insist you tell me how God began. Its just as useless a question.