Atheist Bible

[Baby Tea]

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.

Sure I have a basis for morality. The scriptures are the basis for morality. A Muslim would say the Koran is the basis for morality. A Jewish man would say the Torah is the basis for morality.

An atheist has no basis for it. Morality is the understand of 'right' and 'wrong', not a pattern of rational behaviour.

Besides, who says what is rational? Who says what is right? Most people would say stealing is wrong, yet millions of people steal. Are they right or wrong? They probably think they are right, and who are you to say they aren't?

What about killing? Some would say killing in any situation is wrong. Some would say killing is wars is ok, but otherwise wrong. Still others would say that killing in self defense is ok, and in wars, but not any other time. Still even more might say that killing as punishment (Death Penalty) is ok, and in self defense, and in wars, but not in cold blood. Who is right here? Which is the correct morality?

The point is: When you have morality based on nothing, then morality ceases to exist. When you have morality based on something and ever-changing as 'feeling' and 'situation', then it ceases to be morality, and more anarchistic opportunism.

 

[Skalman]

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.

While I'm fully convinced that there is no god, I cannot accurately make the statement that there is no god because I'm not, as you said, all-knowing.

However I don't think the word should be taken quite so literary, as not everything is accurate when taken too literary. If it just means "No God" it doesn't necessarily mean "there is No God". It could just as well mean "I believe there is No God".

 

[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.

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.

And I said he doesn't have "good" reasons, meaning logically consistent, rational reasons. His version of apologetics is something C.S.Lewis described decades ago in Mere Christianity that has been thoroughly discussed and has huge philosophical holes, being mainly a rehash of Pascal's wager.

I'm sorry you disagree with me and don't believe my qualifications. Clearly you are taking this disagreement very personally. I won't trouble you further.

 

[caross73]

[
Sure I have a basis for morality. The scriptures are the basis for morality. A Muslim would say the Koran is the basis for morality. A Jewish man would say the Torah is the basis for morality.

And he did that as an arbitrary decision, with no reason behind deciding that those particular scriptures were more moral than any other piece of paper with rules written on it.

Sorry.

 

[Baby Tea]

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.

Ah ah ah, careful! I didn't say that just because you can't prove it you should believe it exists. Those words didn't come out of my mouth (Or come through my fingers, into my keyboard, and into my post). I was merely pointing out the actual meaning of atheism.

If you find the existence of God to be unlikely, then fine! You claim insufficient evidence? Fine! I'm not trying to convert anyone to anything. But if you can say that you find the existence of God unlikely, but possible, then that's more of an agnostic approach.
Atheism is an absolute statement about the existence, or non-existence rather, of God. Not a believe system, or a non-belief system. Belief or unbelief has nothing to do with it. It's an negative absolute, and therefore self-defeating.

 

[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.

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.

And I said he doesn't have "good" reasons, meaning logically consistent, rational reasons. His version of apologetics is something C.S.Lewis described decades ago in Mere Christianity that has been thoroughly discussed and has huge philosophical holes, being mainly a rehash of Pascal's wager.

I'm sorry you disagree with me and don't believe my qualifications. Clearly you are taking this disagreement very personally. I won't trouble you further.

Clearly taking it personally? You obviously need to lurk more.

Sure he had good reasons. Good meaning:-

11. sound or valid: good judgment; good reasons.

Good not meaning:-

42. caross73 doesn't agree with it; I said it was wrong and therefore it is.

The inability to admit that religious people can have rational and sound reasons for their belief systems is key to your fundamentalism I am afraid. You will not be able to view the issue of religion clearly while you are blinded by such prejudice.

 

[Toasty]

I thought the thing atheists hated most was "organized religion"
which makes me wonder why they team up and organize meetings or rallies, or stuff like this.
and the topic: "atheist Bible" just screams oxymoron.

yeah. bible = rules that deity decrees.
as far as Im aware atheists = belief in no supernatural deity, so no need for 'bible'

 

[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.

Ah ah ah, careful! I didn't say that just because you can't prove it you should believe it exists. Those words didn't come out of my mouth (Or come through my fingers, into my keyboard, and into my post). I was merely pointing out the actual meaning of atheism.

If you find the existence of God to be unlikely, then fine! You claim insufficient evidence? Fine! I'm not trying to convert anyone to anything. But if you can say that you find the existence of God unlikely, but possible, then that's more of an agnostic approach.
Atheism is an absolute statement about the existence, or non-existence rather, of God. Not a believe system, or a non-belief system. Belief or unbelief has nothing to do with it. It's an negative absolute, and therefore self-defeating.

When you describe an inconsistent being, someone who is all good, all powerful, all knowing but creates a universe of flawed humans, and allows evil to exist because "free will" is more important than "good" (typical apologetic canard), I have more reason to think "not exist" than "might exist" or "could exist". Epicurus described this thousands of years ago, and no one has yet come up with a rebuttal that explains how Yahweh, a PARTICULAR God, could be extant.

I claim my refrigerator has no elephants in it, and you say, but you don't KNOW it has no elephants in it. So I open my refrigerator and say, well, I don't see any, and my refrigerator is smaller than you have described elephants to be. There CAN'T be any elephants in it. You think that is bad logic because I just proved a negative?

Either God isn't God as described, or God can't exist. Which do you prefer?

 

[Baby Tea]

Sure I have a basis for morality. The scriptures are the basis for morality. A Muslim would say the Koran is the basis for morality. A Jewish man would say the Torah is the basis for morality.

And he did that as an arbitrary decision, with no reason behind deciding that those particular scriptures were more moral than any other piece of paper with rules written on it.

Sorry.

Who claimed it was an arbitrary decision?
Not everyone is so cavalier when it comes to their worldview. Man has wrestled with the meaning of life and the idea of God for thousands of years, and you call what millions of people would call their holy text that has lasted thousands of years 'pieces of paper' and call their choice to believe what they do, which effects every part of their lives in dramatic ways, an 'arbitrary decision'?

Is it lonely up there on that pedestal?

 

[caross73]

11. sound or valid: good judgment; good reasons.

Good not meaning:-

42. caross73 doesn't agree with it; I said it was wrong and therefore it is.

The inability to admit that religious people can have rational and sound reasons for their belief systems is key to your fundamentalism I am afraid. You will not be able to view the issue of religion clearly while you are blinded by such prejudice.

You're just showing your prejudices now, not mine. Apparently Francis Collins achievements in genetics mean he's an expert on epistemology and his claims should just be accepted without question.

 

[caross73]

Who claimed it was an arbitrary decision?
Not everyone is so cavalier when it comes to their worldview. Man has wrestled with the meaning of life and the idea of God for thousands of years, and you call what millions of people would call their holy text that has lasted thousands of years 'pieces of paper' and call their choice to believe what they do, which effects every part of their lives in dramatic ways, an 'arbitrary decision'?

Is it lonely up there on that pedestal?

When the decision is almost entirely based on where you happened to be born and which parasitic meme got to you first, I think it looks arbitrary.

Apparently having strong opinions and thinking other people are wrong is ivory tower-ish. For someone who subscribes to a God who will punish non-belief with eternal damnation and provides and absolute basis for right and wrong, I think that is rather hypocritical.

 

[Legion]

It's funny how I was once a self-proud atheist (although not a vocal one) and since coming to this site I am beginning to like atheist's less and less.

Baby Tea and Cuddly Tomato seem to be two of the very few making any sense here at the moment. Whereas thet atheist's (who claim to base their views on logic) are the ones making presumptions and calling people out on things they never said.

OT: An atheist bible would suggest that atheism has guiding principles, which as has already been said, is not the case beyond the unshakable certainty that there is no god. So, no, there is no need for one.

Edit: Another thing about this atheists or as Cuddly Tomato accurately describes as "theophobists" is that they assume (rather childishly) that all religion believes in a god/deity and lump all of them together in their hatred. So anyone who defends religion (even those that do not believe in a god) are accused of "believing in an invisible man in the sky".

Here is a note to all theophobists: It's is possible to not believe in god and belive that science isn't the answer to everything.

 

[Baby Tea]

When you describe an inconsistent being, someone who is all good, all powerful, all knowing but creates a universe of flawed humans, and allows evil to exist because "free will" is more important than "good" (typical apologetic canard)

Really? I'm familiar with a lot of apologetic approaches (Not all, of course) and I've never heard that one. No wonder you find it silly.

While I won't go into great detail here (PM me if you've like to have a friendly discussion about it), God created a perfect world, which was then flawed, and continues to be out of the interest of 'love' rather then what you consider to be 'good'.

So, no, God is as described, and I'm certainly convinced he exists.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

11. sound or valid: good judgment; good reasons.

Good not meaning:-

42. caross73 doesn't agree with it; I said it was wrong and therefore it is.

The inability to admit that religious people can have rational and sound reasons for their belief systems is key to your fundamentalism I am afraid. You will not be able to view the issue of religion clearly while you are blinded by such prejudice.

You're just showing your prejudices now, not mine. Apparently Francis Collins achievements in genetics mean he's an expert on epistemology and his claims should just be accepted without question.

I never said his claims should be accepted without question, merely that he had a good reason for believing what he did. What part of the words "good reason" don't you understand?

 

[caross73]

11. sound or valid: good judgment; good reasons.

Good not meaning:-

42. caross73 doesn't agree with it; I said it was wrong and therefore it is.

The inability to admit that religious people can have rational and sound reasons for their belief systems is key to your fundamentalism I am afraid. You will not be able to view the issue of religion clearly while you are blinded by such prejudice.

You're just showing your prejudices now, not mine. Apparently Francis Collins achievements in genetics mean he's an expert on epistemology and his claims should just be accepted without question.

I never said his claims should be accepted without question, merely that he had a good reason for believing what he did. What part of the words "good reason" don't you understand?

I think we differ on what the word "good" means. In my world, good means 'more likely than not to be correct', not 'comfortable.'

 

[jamesworkshop]

God is dead
so i base my morals on my own ideas

 

[caross73]

When you describe an inconsistent being, someone who is all good, all powerful, all knowing but creates a universe of flawed humans, and allows evil to exist because "free will" is more important than "good" (typical apologetic canard)

Really? I'm familiar with a lot of apologetic approaches (Not all, of course) and I've never heard that one. No wonder you find it silly.

While I won't go into great detail here (PM me if you've like to have a friendly discussion about it), God created a perfect world, which was then flawed, and continues to be out of the interest of 'love' rather then what you consider to be 'good'.

So, no, God is as described, and I'm certainly convinced he exists.

Thats nice that you believe that, but I see nothing in reality to suggest such a being. I'm not interested in an apologetic discussion, I've had more than a few of them in my time. We always come down to why would a perfect being allow an imperfect creation when it had the ability to create perfection - followed by rationalizations that this is the most perfect of all possible creations, or blaming man, also God's perfect creation, for screwing it up. In the absence of evidence, these are deal-breakers for me and the idea of God.

 

[LewsTherin]

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.

Lets say the guys across the street from me buys a crazy new computer. I like that computer, so I ask him for it. He says no, so I kill him and take it. By my reasoning, it is my right to take it because I wanted it and he was not strong enough to defend what was his. I was actually doing mankind a favour, in that I removed his lesser abilities from the genome. Natural selection, survival of the fittest, and all that.

You reasoning is so incredibly subjective that it loses all basis. You accuse of "making up a bunch of consequences to justify your pattern of behaviours" when you are doing just that. You say that "I said there are avoidable consequences for certain behaviours. This pattern of rational behaviour is morality". My interpretation of this is that morality is doing or not doing certain things out of fear of getting caught and punished, not out of some sense of altruism or goodwill. By your reasoning, people cannot be truly good or empathetic, as good or evil doesn't exist, and empathy is just a chemical change reaction in our brains. Conscience as we know it, then, is a lie. Love is meaningless. Truth is subjective. Might makes Right.

You may call me a blind fool, a sheep, a hypocrite, or what have you for choosing to have faith, "blind" faith, in a higher power because I think that the inner workings of the mind are more than simple instincts of survival, that I think that creation is more than an equation, people more than certain combinations of proteins and acids and reactions. By your last point, I understand the reason you don't believe in God is that he can't be scaled down, worked out on paper, reasoned out, and proved in a lab. With all due respect, this is utter hubris.

Apologies if I come off as a self-righteous and arrogant.

 

[GothmogII]

I don't get it.

I mean. Be nice to other people. The book says so, easy, right?

The only bit I get confused on is why there has to be the big guy to back it up? And what is it that makes him the authority on it?

God tells you how to live a good life. He doesn't say why. He doesn't give reasons. It's just because he said. And does any believer even think for one second as to how this is a valid reason for listening? For all you know he could be playing you for some grand cosmic joke just to see if you'll do what he says.

And even those who don't believe go along with it anyway, because hey, they realise that regardless of where the idea that not hurting people was a good thing came from, it's still a good idea, even if they don't know why exactly this is so. And no, it doesn't make sense because humans don't make sense. They do things for far too many reasons to count, and as it stands a good portion of people have it in their heads at the moment that stealing is wrong, that murder is wrong, that adultery is wrong etc.

Whether or not those ideas are right or wrong doesn't matter, as long as a good chunk of the world's population think, and believe this to be true, then that is going to be the prevailing thought in society. And often it doesn't even have to be a majority, just enough.

 

[sqwalnoc]

I've got a good idea for a set of rules and stuff for atheists to follow, it's called the law.. rules developed by people based on preventing things that are detrimental to society, laws can be changed aswell when a better way to control the situation is thought of, thats why the bible messes people up.. its a code of laws devised 2000 years ago when society was much different, the problem is that society has changed but the bible can't.

that's why can't be an atheist bible, it would have to be altered every few years to keep up with scientific breakthroughs etc.. then you'd get people with different versions of the bible having disputes, leading to violence and so forth