Atheist Bible

[caross73]

Okay, being an atheist means you don't believe in a god.

I'd like to see this book of yours, especially the number of pages in it.

http://www.amazon.com/Portable-Atheist-Essential-Readings-Nonbeliever/dp/0306816083

 

[cuddly_tomato]

God is not the only source of morality.

Do a search for "natural law" or "natural rights."

No. But belief systems and faith are the only source of morality. There is no logic or scientific basis for morality, ethics, justice etc.

I suppose...if you're trying to define morality from a religious point of view...but doesn't it only boil down to because God/Ahriman/Odin/Buddha said, not because there's any more inherent logic behind it than having morality with no-reason at all.

And more importantly...are we going with the line of thinking, that without belief in something above, that a similar, or even exact copy of say the ten commandments couldn't be totally non-'divinely' inspired?

I mean...it isn't much of a stretch to take something from simple observation: Hmm, you know people don't like being killed or hurt, maybe we should do our best not to kill or hurt each other?

Absolutely. The thing people should remember is that, well,

Atheists, even if you reject the idea of God completely and claim to live according only to the cold logic of the physical sciences, you all still live as if the absolute morality of some magical lawgiver were true.

No, wait. Don't go away.

When some guy hustles you out of eighty bucks in an ebay scam, you don't nod and say, "Interesting! This fellow lacks the genetic predisposition toward equitable dealing that generations of sexual selection in favor of social behavior has instilled in the rest of us! A fascinating difference!"

No, you think what that guy did was wrong. You want justice. You think he should have acted differently.

Even though there's no "wrong" molecule floating in the air and there's no "justice" element on the Periodic Table. You don't think of the swindler as just a fellow animal who happens to behave differently than you. You think he should have acted some other way, according to an invisible ideal that everybody is aware of and knows they should obey.

When that "boob at the Super Bowl" incident happened a while back, I constantly heard atheists making fun of Christians and their puritan silliness over sex. "Come on! It's just meat! We're all just mammals! Sex is natural! What are you afraid of?!?!?" ...Suddenly sex is something to get upset about. Suddenly it's not just meat slapping against meat. Suddenly the exclusive sexual bond between you and your girl was important, was to be protected, was almost... sacred.

Again there's this invisible rule that was supposed to be followed, that everybody was supposed to be aware of, that can't be proven by logic. Whatever it is, wherever you think it came from, you can't deny that it's there. Your own behavior would make you a liar.

http://www.cracked.com/article_15759_p2.html

It is a part of a belief system, same as any other.

 

[Loiosh91]

the closest thing to a bible for atheists is Battlefield Earth

 

[caross73]

@cuddlytomato

You're foisting upon us the typical religious canard that atheists can't be moral. Its bologna. Just because there is no magical man in the sky doesn't mean we don't have certain societal responsibilities and expectations.

Besides which, conventional God-based morality suffers from the same problem. Why is it moral to listen to God's dictates? Without some logical reason for morality, the religious have no reason to listen to God. Avoiding punishment perhaps? Thats one of the reasons that atheists behave morally, except that punishment is logical consequences of behavior, not some farcical afterlife.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

@cuddlytomato

You're foisting upon us the typical religious canard that atheists can't be moral. Its bologna. Just because there is no magical man in the sky doesn't mean we don't have certain societal responsibilities and expectations.

Besides which, conventional God-based morality suffers from the same problem. Why is it moral to listen to God's dictates?

Well... that would be foolish of me seeing as I do NOT believe in god. What I am saying is that morals, ethics, justice, and other such concepts are not scientific, so waving "no proof" in the faces of people for believing in something makes you hypocritical if you still claim to have morals.

As Gall said though, most atheists are not this way inclined. I am not talking about atheists at all here, I am talking about theophobic people.

 

[caross73]

@cuddlytomato

You're foisting upon us the typical religious canard that atheists can't be moral. Its bologna. Just because there is no magical man in the sky doesn't mean we don't have certain societal responsibilities and expectations.

Besides which, conventional God-based morality suffers from the same problem. Why is it moral to listen to God's dictates?

Well... that would be foolish of me seeing as I do NOT believe in god. What I am saying is that morals, ethics, justice, and other such concepts are not scientific, so waving "no proof" in the faces of people for believing in something makes you hypocritical if you still claim to have morals.

As Gall said though, most atheists are not this way inclined. I am not talking about atheists at all here, I am talking about theophobic people.

You are confusing formal and informal logic. I don't need proof, I just need a good reason to behave a certain way. That pattern of behavior is what you are calling morality.

Trying to put the whole universe into little boxes labeled true and false that behave according to perfect rules and create "proof" is just a symbol system man imposes on reality to make it more comprehensible. It doesn't HAVE to work because the symbol system is not always a proper representation of reality. One can be rational and moral without being a hypocrite or being able to "prove" there is a proper course of behavior. There are merely actions and consequences. Some consequences it makes sense to avoid. Some consequences it doesn't. Throwing a bunch of values on those consequences is again, a simplification we impose in understanding reality.

 

[GothmogII]

God is not the only source of morality.

Do a search for "natural law" or "natural rights."

No. But belief systems and faith are the only source of morality. There is no logic or scientific basis for morality, ethics, justice etc.

Bologna. Morality comes about rationally due to the success of populations that practice it over ones that don't. There are purely pragmatic bases for the golden rule; namely, you don't have to waste a lot of energy defending yourself from people if you treat them with a modicum of decency.

God is not the only source of morality.

Do a search for "natural law" or "natural rights."

No. But belief systems and faith are the only source of morality. There is no logic or scientific basis for morality, ethics, justice etc.

That's crap. Social groupings further the survival of the individual in terms of protection, resource gathering, entertainment, healthcare etc. If you do to those others as you would have them do to you you instantly increase your chances of survival and indeed of success. This is a very simple way of putting the origins of natural law, but it alone invalidates your position.

Wrong. Provably so.

You find out your spouse is infertile and will not be able to have children with you. What is the moral thing to do, and what is the logical thing to do?

A blind person is born who will inevitably soak up more from society than he will ever realistically ever be able to put back in. What is the moral thing to do, and what is the logical thing to do?

A man is arrested for murdering his wife, but he is a genius chemist who will be able to advance anti-viral drugs if allowed to remain free. What is the moral thing to do, and what is the logical thing to do?

Morality is extremely subjective and is different from person to person. Science and logic are not, they can be clearly defined and categorized. The two have nothing to do with each other.

As it's currently set up, in the Western world:

1: A lot of people would consider you a dick for leaving your wife like that, at the same time, people leave each other all the time for less reasons than that, and hook up the same. I wonder though is anyone, when considering marriage and starting a family thinking: 'Must continue the species!!' I doubt it.

2:The blind person, all I can say is you must not know a lot of blind people, granted it's a little tougher getting a job and such, however you'd be foolish to think that having a sight impairment stops people working and contributing, it doesn't. Now, yes, I get the point you're trying to make, that some disabilities are more debilitating than that, and there it really is a toss up as to what each person is going to think on it. Some would think that helping people with disability's is a waste of time, or that they represent a drain on society. But you know what? Those people are still present and thinking regardless of any other factors. As are those who see no reason not to deny them the same rights and opportunities everyone else has.

3: The genius murdering his wife. You better believe he'd be prosecuted, but you know what? If he was that much of a genius, he wouldn't be executed. He'd probably be jailed, or kept under lock and key, but if there are people who recognise his worth then he's not going to be a prime candidate for execution.


You're correct. It is all subjective. It's always been subjective. And religion is just one of the many factors that people behave as they do, aswell as fear, peer pressure, social pressure, and the myriad of other little intricacies that make up a person pushing them this way and that and against the masses of other people.

 

[Skalman]

Okay, being an atheist means you don't believe in a god.

I'd like to see this book of yours, especially the number of pages in it.

http://www.amazon.com/Portable-Atheist-Essential-Readings-Nonbeliever/dp/0306816083

Yeah you don't need 528 pages worth of words to describe what an atheist is.

Unless of course you're a woman. Badum-tish.

(No offense to anyone)

 

[cuddly_tomato]

@cuddlytomato

You're foisting upon us the typical religious canard that atheists can't be moral. Its bologna. Just because there is no magical man in the sky doesn't mean we don't have certain societal responsibilities and expectations.

Besides which, conventional God-based morality suffers from the same problem. Why is it moral to listen to God's dictates?

Well... that would be foolish of me seeing as I do NOT believe in god. What I am saying is that morals, ethics, justice, and other such concepts are not scientific, so waving "no proof" in the faces of people for believing in something makes you hypocritical if you still claim to have morals.

As Gall said though, most atheists are not this way inclined. I am not talking about atheists at all here, I am talking about theophobic people.

You are confusing formal and informal logic. I don't need proof, I just need a good reason to behave a certain way. That pattern of behavior is what you are calling morality.

That is the point though, a lot of intelligent religous people have good reasons to believe in what they do [http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0702/voices.html]. You might not agree with them, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. Live and let live and all that.

You're correct. It is all subjective. It's always been subjective. And religion is just one of the many factors that people behave as they do, aswell as fear, peer pressure, social pressure, and the myriad of other little intricacies that make up a person pushing them this way and that and against the masses of other people.

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.

 

[caross73]

Okay, being an atheist means you don't believe in a god.

I'd like to see this book of yours, especially the number of pages in it.

http://www.amazon.com/Portable-Atheist-Essential-Readings-Nonbeliever/dp/0306816083

Yeah you don't need 528 pages worth of words to describe what an atheist is.

Unless of course you're a woman. Badum-tish.

(No offense to anyone)

The Bible isn't a description of Christians. Its a set of parables. There's no reason atheists can't have parables.

 

[Baby Tea]

You're foisting upon us the typical religious canard that atheists can't be moral. Its bologna. Just because there is no magical man in the sky doesn't mean we don't have certain societal responsibilities and expectations.

Oy vey, I'm jumping in! HIYAH!

In an amoral universe without God, there is no basis for morality. Sure you can be what you may perceive as 'moral', but you have no basis for it, and the ideas of 'right' and 'wrong' are just you trying to force others (Or others trying to force you) to follow your worldview.

Plus, as Cuddly Tomato said:

...morals, ethics, justice, and other such concepts are not scientific, so waving "no proof" in the faces of people for believing in something makes you hypocritical if you still claim to have morals.

Theophobes laugh at me because I believe in some 'invisible man'. Well I laugh at theophobes who, if there really is no God, believe in some invisible moral force that everyone supposedly should adhere to. No such thing as right and wrong in that worldview.

 

[caross73]

That is the point though, a lot of intelligent religous people have good reasons to believe in what they do [http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0702/voices.html]. You might not agree with them, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. Live and let live and all that.

Unfortunately, they don't have a good reason. Their model of reality is even more inaccurate than the atheists. I have met Francis Collins. The man isn't that smart -- or, to be kind, should I say, he is inconsistent in his rationalizations.

 

[caross73]

You're foisting upon us the typical religious canard that atheists can't be moral. Its bologna. Just because there is no magical man in the sky doesn't mean we don't have certain societal responsibilities and expectations.

Oy vey, I'm jumping in! HIYAH!

In an amoral universe without God, there is no basis for morality. Sure you can be what you may perceive as 'moral', but you have no basis for it, and the ideas of 'right' and 'wrong' are just you trying to force others (Or others trying to force you) to follow your worldview.

Plus, as Cuddly Tomato said:

...morals, ethics, justice, and other such concepts are not scientific, so waving "no proof" in the faces of people for believing in something makes you hypocritical if you still claim to have morals.

Theophobes laugh at me because I believe in some 'invisible man'. Well I laugh at theophobes who, if there really is no God, believe in some invisible moral force that everyone supposedly should adhere to. No such thing as right and wrong in that worldview.

I already told you, you have no basis for your belief in God's morality. So frankly, this is the pot calling the kettle black. I said there are avoidable consequences for certain behaviors. This pattern of rational behavior is morality. You made up a bunch of consequences to justify your pattern of behaviors. I have the advantage that my consequences are observable.

I'm sorry you feel the need to drag atheists down to your level, and say you have an equivalent basis for God based morality, but until God makes himself known as an actual consequence to our actions, you're guessing. I'm not.

 

[Baby Tea]

Okay, being an atheist means you don't believe in a god.

Atheist literally means 'No God'.

Atheism isn't the belief of no God.
Atheism isn't a I don't think there is a God mentality.
Atheism is the absolute statement that there is no God.

Which, of course, presupposes that you already know everything about everything and know for a fact there is no God. That, naturally, is impossible, so it's a self-defeating title.

 

[Skalman]

Okay, being an atheist means you don't believe in a god.

I'd like to see this book of yours, especially the number of pages in it.

http://www.amazon.com/Portable-Atheist-Essential-Readings-Nonbeliever/dp/0306816083

Yeah you don't need 528 pages worth of words to describe what an atheist is.

Unless of course you're a woman. Badum-tish.

(No offense to anyone)

The Bible isn't a description of Christians. Its a set of parables. There's no reason atheists can't have parables.

Well a christian wouldn't be a christian if they didn't have the bible to follow, an atheist would still be an atheist without a book or any set of rules.
(discounting the fact that some people apparently remember the entire bible)

 

[cuddly_tomato]

That is the point though, a lot of intelligent religous people have good reasons to believe in what they do [http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0702/voices.html]. You might not agree with them, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. Live and let live and all that.

Unfortunately, they don't have a good reason. Their model of reality is even more inaccurate than the atheists. I have met Francis Collins. The man isn't that smart -- or, to be kind, should I say, he is inconsistent in his rationalizations.

Erm... Ok, the director of the human genome project, author of several books,...

From 1978 to 1981, Collins served a residency and chief residency in internal medicine at North Carolina Memorial Hospital in Chapel Hill. He then returned to Yale, where he was named a Fellow in Human Genetics at the medical school from 1981 to 1984. During that time, he developed innovative methods of crossing large stretches of DNA to identify disease genes.

After joining the University of Michigan in 1984 in a position that would eventually lead to a Professorship of Internal Medicine and Human Genetics, Collins heightened his reputation as a relentless gene hunter. That gene-hunting approach, which he named "positional cloning," has developed into a powerful component of modern molecular genetics.

In contrast to previous methods for finding genes, positional cloning enabled scientists to identify disease genes without knowing in advance what the functional abnormality underlying the disease might be. Collins' team, together with collaborators, applied the new approach in 1989 in their successful quest for the long-sought gene responsible for cystic fibrosis. Other major discoveries soon followed, including isolation of the genes for Huntington's disease, neurofibromatosis, multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1, and the M4 type of adult acute leukemia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_(geneticist)

Yet he isn't that smart? Can you please inform us of your advances in a scientific field? If you didn't do something on par with discovering the gene responsible for causing cystic fibrosis then you can't credidibly say that man is not as smart as you.

Why don't they have good reasons? Because they come to a conclusion that you don't agree with? You are not an atheist. You are merely theophobic. You seem to hate religion and will not accept it in other people. This is bigotry.

 

[caross73]

Okay, being an atheist means you don't believe in a god.

Which, of course, presupposes that you already know everything about everything and know for a fact there is no God. That, naturally, is impossible, so it's a self-defeating title.

So, you don't KNOW there are no unicorns or dragons... so why don't you believe in them too? Applying that rationalization to every silly idea man has ever come up with, pretty soon I'm believing in all sorts of things because I can't PROVE they don't exist. I just find them to be highly unlikely.

 

[GothmogII]

You're foisting upon us the typical religious canard that atheists can't be moral. Its bologna. Just because there is no magical man in the sky doesn't mean we don't have certain societal responsibilities and expectations.

Oy vey, I'm jumping in! HIYAH!

In an amoral universe without God, there is no basis for morality. Sure you can be what you may perceive as 'moral', but you have no basis for it, and the ideas of 'right' and 'wrong' are just you trying to force others (Or others trying to force you) to follow your worldview.

Plus, as Cuddly Tomato said:

...morals, ethics, justice, and other such concepts are not scientific, so waving "no proof" in the faces of people for believing in something makes you hypocritical if you still claim to have morals.

Theophobes laugh at me because I believe in some 'invisible man'. Well I laugh at theophobes who, if there really is no God, believe in some invisible moral force that everyone supposedly should adhere to. No such thing as right and wrong in that worldview.

Question: If I tomorrow make my own universe, complete with a tiny world and tiny wee little people and give them a set moral code and tell them such is law. Who gives me my authority? (Presuming there is nothing above me.)

Answer: I do.

Therefore: I have presented my own morals based on what I perceive to be good and ill, not necessarily what would be the best for my wee little folk, but what I consider to be so.

 

[caross73]

Yet he isn't that smart? Can you please inform us of your advances in a scientific field?

Why don't they have good reasons? Because they come to a conclusion that you don't agree with? You are not an atheist. You are merely theophobic. You seem to hate religion and will not accept it in other people. This is bigotry.

Sure. I've published an average of 3 peer reviewed papers in bioinformatics and molecular biology every year for the last 5 years. I hold a Ph.D. is Molecular and Cell Biology. Collins is succesful, it doesn't mean he's right about everything or that I have to agree with his C.S. Lewis style apologetics. I was very happy when he stepped down as director of NHGRI.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Yet he isn't that smart? Can you please inform us of your advances in a scientific field?

Why don't they have good reasons? Because they come to a conclusion that you don't agree with? You are not an atheist. You are merely theophobic. You seem to hate religion and will not accept it in other people. This is bigotry.

Sure. I've published an average of 3 peer reviewed papers in bioinformatics and molecular biology every year for the last 5 years. I hold a Ph.D. is Molecular and Cell Biology. Collins is succesful, it doesn't mean he's right about everything or that I have to agree with his C.S. Lewis style apologetics. I was very happy when he stepped down as director of NHGRI.

No you haven't. You are now making crap up. I can tell this because someone who was publishing papers who held a Ph.D wouldn't be misreading simple forum posts to such a breath-takingly enormous degree.

I never said he was "right about everything", I merely said he had good reasons to think the way he does. I don't agree with his conclusions as I pointed out earlier, so there could be no mistaking it.