Atheist Bible

[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?

I think we differ on what the word "good" means. In my world, good means "likely to be correct."

That isn't what good means, and "good" itself is subjective.

You don't believe in god, and neither do I. You don't know who is right about this, and neither do I. The difference between us is that you pretend that you not only know who is right, but that people who think differently are somehow less than you or don't have sound and heartfelt reasons to believe the things they do.

I like that atheism has come out of its shell and is an accepted "belief" system now. I think it has been instrumental in advancing a lot of good things in modern life and society. Everything needs a counterbalance, and having a few folks around to question belief systems rationally is an excellent and healthy thing. The problem is some people who profess to be atheists are going way too far in their campaign against religion and are endangering atheism in the process. Atheism is a belief there is no god. Saying that all religious people are misguided, saying that religion "poisons everything", and trying to convert other people to your belief system is fundamentalism, and theophobia. This is actually poisoning atheism as the rest of the atheist world is being tarred with this anti-religious brush.

 

[caross73]

... 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.

So is the idea that the mind, or love, needs to be more than chemistry - or the fact that it is chemistry somehow takes away your enjoyment of the phenomenon that is the mind or love, or that the Universe MUST have an incomprehensible creator who can't offer any tangible evidence of his reality, or there would be no basis for morality. With all due respect, this also is utter hubris.

 

[Mrsoupcup]

Funny. See they hate organized religion but if you think about it, they way they work Aithism is a religion.....

 

[caross73]

That isn't what good means, and "good" itself is subjective.

You don't believe in god, and neither do I. You don't know who is right about this, and neither do I. The difference between us is that you pretend that you not only know who is right, but that people who think differently are somehow less than you or don't have sound and heartfelt reasons to believe the things they do.

Why don't you have any confidence in your ability to discern truth from fiction? Are you just trying to be polite or are you really unable to judge the validity of this particular belief, when you have no problem seeing the flying spaghetti monster, santa claus, the tooth fairy, for what they are?

That is the crux of this. I think it is possible to judge the validity of a hypothesis - namely the existence of God, to some degree of certainty, and you don't.

I don't think they are less than me. I think they are wrong.

 

[Baby Tea]

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.

Well it's a good thing that your perceptions aren't any sort of absolute. The thing about the existential understanding of worldviews is that you actually have to be willing to understand them, rather then stone-wall your mind and hide your rationality behind smug, self affirmed intellectualism.

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.

I don't mind if you don't agree with me. God gave the free will to choose believe, which therefore means He gave the free will to choose unbelief.

The problem lies in theophobic, anti-theist rhetoric that claims to be the voice of reason, but is really just another mouth of bigotry and hate.

 

[Legion]

That isn't what good means, and "good" itself is subjective.

You don't believe in god, and neither do I. You don't know who is right about this, and neither do I. The difference between us is that you pretend that you not only know who is right, but that people who think differently are somehow less than you or don't have sound and heartfelt reasons to believe the things they do.

Why don't you have any confidence in your ability to discern truth from fiction? Are you just trying to be polite or are you really unable to judge the validity of this particular belief, when you have no problem seeing the flying spaghetti monster, santa claus, the tooth fairy, for what they are?

That is the crux of this. I think it is possible to judge the validity of a hypothesis - namely the existence of God, to some degree of certainty, and you don't.

Probably the same reason why you can't accept that you do not know that there is no God, and that you simply believe there isn't?

 

[cuddly_tomato]

That isn't what good means, and "good" itself is subjective.

You don't believe in god, and neither do I. You don't know who is right about this, and neither do I. The difference between us is that you pretend that you not only know who is right, but that people who think differently are somehow less than you or don't have sound and heartfelt reasons to believe the things they do.

Why don't you have any confidence in your ability to discern truth from fiction? Are you just trying to be polite or are you really unable to judge the validity of this particular belief, when you have no problem seeing the flying spaghetti monster for what it is?

You need to understand this: Atheism isn't The Truth(TM), it is a belief system. You don't know whether there really is a god or not do you? You don't believe it, I don't believe it, but I can admit that, and you can't.

Why is that?

 

[oktalist]

Read anything by Darwin. How dare he be all logical and practical.. the douche.

Random fact: Darwin was Catholic, and trained for priesthood before traveling to the Galapagos islands. still practiced after he wrote his theory too

Non-random fact: The Vatican now accepts evolution as being true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church

 

[caross73]

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.

Well it's a good thing that your perceptions aren't any sort of absolute. The thing about the existential understanding of worldviews is that you actually have to be willing to understand them, rather then stone-wall your mind and hide your rationality behind smug, self affirmed intellectualism.

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.

I don't mind if you don't agree with me. God gave the free will to choose believe, which therefore means He gave the free will to choose unbelief.

The problem lies in theophobic, anti-theist rhetoric that claims to be the voice of reason, but is really just another mouth of bigotry and hate.

Where have I posted any theophobic, anti-theist rhetoric. Is it so hard for someone to tell you you are wrong without resorting to the drama of faux victimhood? You've been telling me I'm wrong, I'm arrogant, I should question my beliefs but heavens forbid I question the utility taking things on faith?

I have never claimed theists are somehow evil, theists are anti-atheist, theists are incapable of being moral, yet this is what is done to any atheist with some conviction.

 

[caross73]

That isn't what good means, and "good" itself is subjective.

You don't believe in god, and neither do I. You don't know who is right about this, and neither do I. The difference between us is that you pretend that you not only know who is right, but that people who think differently are somehow less than you or don't have sound and heartfelt reasons to believe the things they do.

Why don't you have any confidence in your ability to discern truth from fiction? Are you just trying to be polite or are you really unable to judge the validity of this particular belief, when you have no problem seeing the flying spaghetti monster for what it is?

You need to understand this: Atheism isn't The Truth(TM), it is a belief system. You don't know whether there really is a god or not do you? You don't believe it, I don't believe it, but I can admit that, and you can't.

Why is that?

I would like you to parse your own statement. You say "Atheism isn't The Truth(TM)" as if your OWN STATEMENT is "The Truth(TM)" after admitting that you don't KNOW the Truth.

I hold disbelief in God the same way I hold disbelief in Unicorns. You are the one who seems to have a problem with that. Absolute truth? No, I could be wrong. But I doubt it.

 

[Legion]

Where have I posted any theophobic, anti-theist rhetoric.

Here you go. Bolded for you as well, aren't I nice.

Why don't you have any confidence in your ability to discern truth from fiction? Are you just trying to be polite or are you really unable to judge the validity of this particular belief, when you have no problem seeing the flying spaghetti monster, santa claus, the tooth fairy, for what they are?

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.

 

[LewsTherin]

... 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.

So is the idea that love needs to be more than chemistry - or the fact that it is chemistry somehow takes away your enjoyment of the phenomenon that is love, or that the Universe needs to have an incomprehensible creator (which somehow we know all about what this uberbeing wants from us). With all due respect, this also is utter hubris.

Begging your pardon, but I believe you misunderstand.

Selfless devotion doesn't make sense when broken down and examined. Why do something when you gain nothing from it? Why sacrifice your time and hard earned resources for someone else and ask nothing in return? Simply to mate? Well, if that is all you want, rape seems to open itself as an option. If the woman i question isn't strong enough to prevent me, it is my right to take her as I see fit. She should be proud to bear my child and carry on my superior genetics.

To the point that the universe has an incomprehensible creator: I am comprehensible, you are comprehensible, but neither you nor I can create things from nothing, it is defined as chemically impossible. Therefore, wouldn't the force that created the universe be beyond our understanding, seeing as how it is able to do something that is impossible? As to knowing what he wants from us, if you choose to believe that Jesus was the son of God, he states in no uncertain terms: "Love thy neighbour as thyself" and "Love thy God with all your heart, mind, body and soul.".

EDIT: Blimey, I need to post quicker, I'm falling behind

 

[caross73]

Where have I posted any theophobic, anti-theist rhetoric.

Here you go. Bolded for you as well, aren't I nice.

Why don't you have any confidence in your ability to discern truth from fiction? Are you just trying to be polite or are you really unable to judge the validity of this particular belief, when you have no problem seeing the flying spaghetti monster, santa claus, the tooth fairy, for what they are?

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.

Yes yes, that was just SO HATEFUL. Apparently I'm actually afraid of religious people because I think their ideas are as silly as fairies at the bottom of the garden.

Puhleaze.

Calling your religion silly, in so many words, is hardly HATE. I suggest you visit some white supremacy sites or Fred Phelp's if you want to see what hate is. You have a huge double standard when it comes to whether or not its okay to reject an idea. Apparently South Park's expose on Scientology was anti-theistic hate.

 

[LewsTherin]

Funny. See they hate organized religion but if you think about it, they way they work Atheism is a religion.....

And the ironic thing is they won't admit it to themselves, either.

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

I do believe an atheist "BIBLE" would be an incredibly hippocritical(sp?) thing to have

 

[Baby Tea]

I have never claimed theists are somehow evil, theists are anti-atheist, theists are incapable of being moral, yet this is what is done to any atheist with some conviction.

Now who's playing the victim?
No, you didn't say those things. Instead you'd rather insult the holy text of different religions by calling them mere 'piece of paper' and call their choice to follow their faith 'arbitrary'.
I'm not saying atheists are evil, or all atheists are anti-theist, or that atheists are incapable of being 'moral'. What I will say, however, is that atheism has no need for conviction. It isn't evangelical or organized, it's just the idea that there is no God. You don't need conviction for that. It isn't hard, since you say there is no evidence for God, so where is the need for conviction?
What you do need conviction for is shoving your atheism in the faces of the theist community. You don't like it, I'm sure, if there is a street preacher shouting at you or guy knocking on your door asking about your salvation. I don't blame you for that. It bugs me too. Hopefully one would be able to see the parallels of that and anti-theism and 'convicted' atheists.

 

[caross73]

Begging your pardon, but I believe you misunderstand.

Selfless devotion doesn't make sense when broken down and examined.

Perhaps then you shouldn't examine those phenomena, since it takes away your enjoyment of them. Not everything man does needs to make sense and if reductive empiricism ruins them for you, then don't use reductive empiricism. Art can be seen as just paint on a canvas, or it can be enjoyed. This is entirely for you to determine.

Why do something when you gain nothing from it? Why sacrifice your time and hard earned resources for someone else and ask nothing in return? Simply to mate? Well, if that is all you want, rape seems to open itself as an option. If the woman i question isn't strong enough to prevent me, it is my right to take her as I see fit. She should be proud to bear my child and carry on my superior genetics.

To the point that the universe has an incomprehensible creator: I am comprehensible, you are comprehensible, but neither you nor I can create things from nothing, it is defined as chemically impossible. Therefore, wouldn't the force that created the universe be beyond our understanding, seeing as how it is able to do something that is impossible? As to knowing what he wants from us, if you choose to believe that Jesus was the son of God, he states in no uncertain terms: "Love thy neighbour as thyself" and "Love thy God with all your heart, mind, body and soul.".

EDIT: Blimey, I need to post quicker, I'm falling behind

As to rape, well, obviously its not that simple. Society has made rules against rape.

As for the last paragraph,you are positing things you have no evidence for. You have no evidence to say something can not come from nothing, you've just never seen it happen. So you are doing the same thing that you would claim the atheists should not do when rejecting God.

 

[caross73]

I have never claimed theists are somehow evil, theists are anti-atheist, theists are incapable of being moral, yet this is what is done to any atheist with some conviction.

Now who's playing the victim?
No, you didn't say those things. Instead you'd rather insult the holy text of different religions by calling them mere 'piece of paper' and call their choice to follow their faith 'arbitrary'.

If you don't want your ideas questioned, then perhaps you shouldn't be so public with them -- those holy texts are proselytizing advertisements for your religion. Being thin-skinned doesn't become religions. If you truly have confidence in your beliefs, they should be able to stand a little criticism. My beliefs have been called arbitrary and baseless several times. You don't see me upset. I just said that I think you're wrong.

If that is just too much for you, then I apologize, but it doesn't change thats what I think.

 

[Baby Tea]

...instead you'd rather insult the holy text of different religions by calling them mere 'piece of paper' and call their choice to follow their faith 'arbitrary'.

If you don't want your ideas questioned, then perhaps you shouldn't be so public with them. Being thin-skinned doesn't become religions. If you truly have confidence in your beliefs, they should be able to stand a little criticism. My beliefs have been called arbitrary and baseless several times. You don't see me upset. I just said that I think you're wrong.

Looking above at my post you quoted, it seems you didn't 'just say I was wrong'. There are plenty of people here, Cuddly Tomato included, who don't believe in God. I don't argue with them simply because they don't insult the idea of faith when they disagree. If Cuddly Tomato, or anyone else, say 'I don't don't believe in God', then they are automatically also saying that they assume my worldview to be incorrect. Still, I don't argue with them.

But you belittle the holy texts of billions of people, call their choice of faith 'arbitrary', and then play the victim card by saying 'All I said was I thought you were wrong!'. Yeah, I'm not feeling bad for you.

I don't care you're an atheist, but I do care if all faiths and worldviews don't get equal respect. You don't have to agree, but I'd like to think we can all get along without passive aggressive remarks about one's faith.

EDIT: Fixed the bad formatting. My bad.

 

[GothmogII]

Funny. See they hate organized religion but if you think about it, they way they work Atheism is a religion.....

And the ironic thing is they won't admit it to themselves, either.

Atheism doesn't have a set of codified beliefs, and still wouldn't qualify even if it did. It's not even a belief in science or logic, it's simply a non-belief in extra-dimensional things. Sure many atheists share the same way of thinking, and will group together, or be put into groups based on this, but that does not a religion make.

The sticking point, is whether provable or not, a religion needs to have not only a codified set of rules/morals/ethics but also the belief in things that can in no way be proven or dis-proven.

It's like the fire triangle: You need tree things for the fire to form, fuel, air, and heat. Without even one of those you don't have a fire. You can qualify atheism as a set of beliefs or a belief in it's own right, fine, but without the faith in the unknown, and the belief in supernatural elements it still doesn't make it a religion.