Atheist Bible

[LewsTherin]

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.

Society has made rules, yes, but rules based on what? Their own flawed, theist, viewpoints?

If the creation of matter were possible, but just not seen as of yet, the Law of Conservation of Mass would be false. And on that train of thought, if you are so ardent to defend something that you have no evidence for or have not seen, why do you have a problem with myself doing similar?

 

[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?

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.

My own statement is the truth, the only truth. The truth which all religions, creeds, and cultures should have on their front page...

Nobody know what the truth is.

Nobody knows what the truth is, that is the truth.

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.

Challenging belief is positive and healthy.

Attacking and be-littling people who practice said belief is not.

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.

Not so much hateful as insulting. Not only insulting but extremely flawed.

BTW, South Park also did an expose on Atheism, I think you could probably do with watching those two episodes.

 

[caross73]

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.

So, why do their beliefs deserve protection from ridicule? Because they are popular? Because they are heart felt?

I think Watchmen is a great movie. I'm sure someone here disagrees. How dare he say that movie is crap. He's attacking my deeply held beliefs.

I'm not sure I see a difference, except in the minds of the believers. Again, heaven forbid I say that I think the idea of God, these folk-tales they revere, are silly.

No, no, even when a belief is decidedly silly, like talking snakes, well, if somebody takes it seriously then we can't ever say anything about it.

Okay then. I'll shut up and leave you alone.

BTW, South Park also did an expose on Atheism, I think you could probably do with watch those two episodes.

I thought it was hilarious. Best episodes ever next to the ones about Mr. Garrison's Shiny New Vagina and Make Love Not Warcraft.

 

[Legion]

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.

Perhaps you should read my earlier post. You are proving my point exactly.

I do not recall saying I was religious and yet you presume that I am purely because I don't agree with your rantings.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.95495.1486988

You claim that believing in a god is illogical and yet you can't seem to use rationality in your own arguments, the fact you claim that you were insulting MY religion despite being given no indication of what I believe, is just one of many examples.

Just because you don't swear and use aggressive language does not mean you are being any less hateful.

 

[caross73]

Just because you don't swear and use aggressive language does not mean you are being any less hateful.

You have decidedly strange standards for what constitutes hate.

you claim that you were insulting MY religion despite being given no indication of what I believe is just one of many examples.

Then I'm not sure why you are so upset.

 

[Baby Tea]

So, why do their beliefs deserve protection from ridicule? Because they are popular? Because they are heart felt?

Oh yeah, sorry.
My mistake that people would actually want to be respectful of others rather then subject people to ridicule because you don't agree with them, or find their worldview 'silly'.

You can critique someone's worldview, and have a healthy discussion and even debate about it with them and still be respectful.

 

[caross73]

So, why do their beliefs deserve protection from ridicule? Because they are popular? Because they are heart felt?

Oh yeah, sorry.
My mistake that people would actually want to be respectful of others rather then subject people to ridicule because you don't agree with them, or find their worldview 'silly'.

You can critique someone's worldview, and have a healthy discussion and even debate about it with them and still be respectful.

I think I just did. When someone's worldview is ridiculous, I'd be doing them a huge disservice to hold back. Does religion need a handicap before it can be debated? Attacking an idea is quite different than attacking the person that holds it.

 

[Lord George]

All of you should just convert to Georgism then you'd know the truth and answer to all life's questions and wonders. But yeh an atheist bible seems like one of the most pointless things you could create . Its like making an island under the sea.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

So, why do their beliefs deserve protection from ridicule? Because they are popular? Because they are heart felt?

Oh yeah, sorry.
My mistake that people would actually want to be respectful of others rather then subject people to ridicule because you don't agree with them, or find their worldview 'silly'.

You can critique someone's worldview, and have a healthy discussion and even debate about it with them and still be respectful.

I think I just did. When someone's worldview is ridiculous, I'd be doing them a huge disservice to hold back. Does religion need a handicap before it can be debated? Attacking an idea is quite different than attacking the person that holds it.

You know what you sound like there? You know those people who insist that others need to be taught about Christ because if they don't they will go to Hell? Them. It is the exact same thing. You are not someone with a simple belief system, you are The Bringer of Truth and are The Saviour of the people who need to be converted into realising the Right Way.

 

[Legion]

Just because you don't swear and use aggressive language does not mean you are being any less hateful.

You have decidedly strange standards for what constitutes hate.

Not really, the fact that you can't express your belief in No God without belittling others views shows the contempt you feel. Like I said, you do not need to be aggressive to show hatred.

you claim that you were insulting MY religion despite being given no indication of what I believe is just one of many examples.

Then I'm not sure why you are so upset.

I never said I was upset. I simply dislike the way many atheists so frequently feel the need to express their contempt for religion when such things should not mean anything to them.

You are simply a reminder of everything I dislike about atheism.

 

[GothmogII]

All of you should just convert to Georgism then you'd know the truth and answer to all life's questions and wonders. But yeh an atheist bible seems like one of the most pointless things you could create . Its like making an island under the sea.

Wouldn't it turn out the same though? I mean...all the stuff about not killing and stealing would still be there. All that would be different is the genesis portion and possibly more liberal stances on things such as homosexuality and such.

Here's the atheist (Christian at least) bible would be like: [ul]Take the regular bible and remove every single supernatural element from it. BOOM! What's changed? Nothing.[/ul] The ideas put forth are still there, all that's gone is the idea that something 'had' to have influenced those ideas in the first place. And that thing was humanity.

(And I do realise all I've described is Christian Atheism, again.) The point is, if all that is good enough on it's own. Why do you need 'word of god' to validate it?

 

[Baby Tea]

You can critique someone's worldview, and have a healthy discussion and even debate about it with them and still be respectful.

I think I just did. When someone's worldview is ridiculous, I'd be doing them a huge disservice to hold back. Does religion need a handicap before it can be debated? Attacking an idea is quite different than attacking the person that holds it.

Hold back what? You didn't approach this thread with anything resembling tact or respect.
And guess what? It's not your place or position to teach anyone anything about their own worldview. If some guy believed that God was a box of french fries, then no matter how silly anyone thought it might be: It's totally his choice. I don't agree with him, you don't agree with him, but who cares? If the guy isn't hurting anyone, what does it matter?

And no, attacking in idea isn't different then attacking the one who holds it. Unlike atheism, most theist worldviews are completely life encompassing. My faith in Christianity effects every part of my life. A Muslim and Jew would say the same, as would many others. So to insult their faith is to insult them as well.
As someone who claims to be so educated, I find it odd that I'd even have to explain that to you.

 

[GothmogII]

So, why do their beliefs deserve protection from ridicule? Because they are popular? Because they are heart felt?

Oh yeah, sorry.
My mistake that people would actually want to be respectful of others rather then subject people to ridicule because you don't agree with them, or find their worldview 'silly'.

You can critique someone's worldview, and have a healthy discussion and even debate about it with them and still be respectful.

I think I just did. When someone's worldview is ridiculous, I'd be doing them a huge disservice to hold back. Does religion need a handicap before it can be debated? Attacking an idea is quite different than attacking the person that holds it.

You know what you sound like there? You know those people who insist that others need to be taught about Christ because if they don't they will go to Hell? Them. It is the exact same thing. You are not someone with a simple belief system, you are The Bringer of Truth and are The Saviour of the people who need to be converted into realising the Right Way.

True, but at least you won't go anywhere for not believing in atheism? (Unless there's an atheist hell I'm not aware of.)

 

[caross73]

I think I just did. When someone's worldview is ridiculous, I'd be doing them a huge disservice to hold back. Does religion need a handicap before it can be debated? Attacking an idea is quite different than attacking the person that holds it.

You know what you sound like there? You know those people who insist that others need to be taught about Christ because if they don't they will go to Hell? Them. It is the exact same thing. You are not someone with a simple belief system, you are The Bringer of Truth and are The Saviour of the people who need to be converted into realising the Right Way.

Hey, I'm not threatening them with damnation. I'm not trying to save them. All I did was say they have no epistemological basis for their belief. That its on par with believing in fairies. And honestly, I *know* people who believe in fairies, good people, a little wierd. I never even really spoke up until somewhere, somebody couldn't stand to not tell everyone how atheists don't have a rational basis for their morality. I found that mildly insulting and wrong.

Who is it who knows everything there is about morality? Who is it that was proselytizing? Not I. I was responding to a misconception about atheism. And you guys couldn't wait to dismantle that.

 

[Noone From Nowhere]

So long as the pre-requisite irony is in place, an Atheist Bible could have a dash of Darwin (Histirical element),a heaping helping of PZ Meyer's Pharyngula blog, James Randi's writings and videos and Richard Dawkins books (contemporary element) and just a dash of The Island of Doctor Moreau and/or David Brin's Uplift series (prophetic promise of paradise/cautionary tale element).
By the by, that article from Cracked.com (10 Things Christians and Atheists Can (and must) Agree Upon)is marred by cracks in it's facade of logic, particularly the part about why atheists mocked the Superbowl 38 incident. It's not because of sex being meaningless but because women's breasts are not sex organs. If one has even a working knowledge of human biology, one should know that.Still, David Wong keeps level headed.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

So, why do their beliefs deserve protection from ridicule? Because they are popular? Because they are heart felt?

Oh yeah, sorry.
My mistake that people would actually want to be respectful of others rather then subject people to ridicule because you don't agree with them, or find their worldview 'silly'.

You can critique someone's worldview, and have a healthy discussion and even debate about it with them and still be respectful.

I think I just did. When someone's worldview is ridiculous, I'd be doing them a huge disservice to hold back. Does religion need a handicap before it can be debated? Attacking an idea is quite different than attacking the person that holds it.

You know what you sound like there? You know those people who insist that others need to be taught about Christ because if they don't they will go to Hell? Them. It is the exact same thing. You are not someone with a simple belief system, you are The Bringer of Truth and are The Saviour of the people who need to be converted into realising the Right Way.

True, but at least you won't go anywhere for not believing in atheism? (Unless there's an atheist hell I'm not aware of.)

There is. Its an eldritch cinema, with a person behind you who won't shut up, someone in front of you with an afro, someone to your left who eats potato chips really loudly, and someone on your right who drinks the last bit of every drink with a straw, making that disgusting "shkskkshsshhhhkkkskskshhkk" noise.

And all it plays is Uwe Boll films all day.

 

[Souplex]

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=798#comic
All hail Athe!

 

[LewsTherin]

So long as the pre-requisite irony is in place, an Atheist Bible could have a dash of Darwin (Histirical element),a heaping helping of PZ Meyer's Pharyngula blog, James Randi's writings and videos and Richard Dawkins books (contemporary element) and just a dash of The Island of Doctor Moreau and/or David Brin's Uplift series (prophetic promise of paradise/cautionary tale element).
By the by, that article from Cracked.com (http://www.cracked.com/article_15759_10-things-christians-atheists-can-must-agree-on.html)is marred by cracks in it's facade of logic, particularly the part about why atheists mocked the Superbowl 38 incident. It's not because of sex being meaningless but because women's breasts are not sex organs. If one has even a working knowledge of human biology, one should know that.

Ye mighten wanna fix tha link, laddie.

 

[kawligia]

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.

If you do the searches and read up a little, you will find plenty of philosophers that discuss morality in a secular way.

 

[The Black Adder]

The Atheist Bible should be nature.