Atheist Bible

[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?

 

[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?

I believe his name is George Lucas?

Is he a Jedi?

Here ya go: http://templeofthejediorder.org/index.php

Looks legit to me. "Jediism is not the same as that which is portrayed within the Star Wars Saga by George Lucas and Lucasfilm LTD. George Lucas' Jedi are fictional characters that exist within a literary and cinematic universe."

"I Believe in The Living Force Of Creation;
I am a Jedi, an instrument of peace;
Where there is hatred I shall bring love;
Where there is injury, pardon;
Where there is doubt, faith;
Where there is despair, hope;
Where there is darkness, light;
And where there is sadness, joy.

I am a Jedi.
I shall never seek so much to be consoled as to console;
To be understood as to understand;
To be loved as to love;
For it is in giving that we receive;
In pardoning that we are pardoned;
And in dying that we are born to eternal life.

The Living Force Of Creation is always with me; I am a Jedi."

Perhaps Islington is a splinter group.

 

[Baby Tea]

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

Whose attacking it? I never said it was this big evil thing. I'm merely pointing out the lack of evidence for the existence for morality in said worldview. That's not an attack, just an observation.

 

[Ignignoct]

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.

MMMM... How am I missing the point? We're discussing religion's effect on law here, right? I'm sorry if you thought I was pretending to know your personal religious affiliations.

Don't mind me, I'm not going to bash someone for their beliefs, but I'll be damned if I, by proxy, am labeled illogical for being "nice" myself without a god-figure to scare me into it. Your analogy is sketchy, in that you assume our discussing morality either-which-way is somehow toxic. Better to compare it to chocolate VS vanilla ice cream, m'thinks.

Your little brother Jimmy lit a firecracker in his hand and now has a stump. Jimmy can no longer has a hand. This is bad for obvious reasons. God or no God.

Your little sister Jenny got raped and impregnated by a trucker on her way home from high school, she will experience such intense human suffering over the course of deciding if she wants to keep the child, abort it, report the rapist, prosecute her abuser, relive her trauma, having trust/sex issues. This is bad for obvious reasons. God or no God.

Oh, and to catch up on all the smack talk I've been forgetting to inject:

"WTF UR A MORON Y DO I EVEN TRY TO GET THROUGH TO YOU GO KILL URSELF PZL!"

 

[caross73]

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

Whose attacking it? I never said it was this big evil thing. I'm merely pointing out the lack of evidence for the existence for morality in said worldview. That's not an attack, just an observation.

Lack of morality, evil, whats the difference?

You said, paraphrased "if Secular Naturalism is so great, why are there so many criminals?"

Apparently they are more moral, if you are regarding morality as committing fewer crimes.

 

[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.

MMMM... How am I missing the point? We're discussing religion's effect on law here, right?

No, we are not. We have been discussing peoples right to believe whatever they want without scorn, prejudice, belittlement, or abuse. That is how you are missing the point.

My views on secularity are thus:-

There are a LOT of things connected with religion that need to be addressed. God shouldn't be in the law, or in the government, or in the classroom (not taught as fact anyway).

 

[Mullahgrrl]

I would say that Christians are atheist mostly.

Sure, they belive in one god. but if you consider all the gods they dont belive in I really don't think one more or less is that big of a deal.

 

[Ignignoct]

No, we are not. We have been discussing peoples right to believe whatever they want without scorn, prejudice, belittlement, or abuse. That is how you are missing the point.

My views on secularity are thus:-

There are a LOT of things connected with religion that need to be addressed. God shouldn't be in the law, or in the government, or in the classroom (not taught as fact anyway).

BUAHAHAH!

Well then, we've been in agreement the entire time. Why are you so angry!?!?!

Do you want to spoon for a bit and watch some X-Files? Hmmm?... Maybe get some Reese's PB Cups?

 

[Baby Tea]

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

Whose attacking it? I never said it was this big evil thing. I'm merely pointing out the lack of evidence for the existence for morality in said worldview. That's not an attack, just an observation.

You said, paraphrased "if Secular Naturalism is so great, why are there so many criminals?"

Apparently they are more moral, if you are regarding morality as committing fewer crimes.

Oh now I get it, you just misunderstood me.
That paraphrase would be correct if I was using it in an example where everyone was a naturalist.
But I wasn't.
I was pointing out how crime is still as big a problem as ever in rebuttal to Ignignoct saying that society, as a whole, is moral (At least, that's what I got from him). Which is silly, considering the prisons systems are overflowing.
While one could say that even with the state of the prison system , the majority aren't committing crimes, I would say that there are thousands of crimes that go unsolved every year (This isn't CSI, people do get away with things), and that combined with the prison system shows that while there certainly are 'normal' people who don't commit crimes daily, or ever, the amount of people who do commit crimes isn't a number to be easily ignored.

And like I said, people confuse being a certain religion with being raised that way. I'm not convinced by the survey.