Atheist Bible

[cuddly_tomato]

Much as your argument has no use. The point is that The God of The Christian Bible is patently false. We can CLEARLY prove that the world was not created in 6 days. We can CLEARLY demonstrate that women did not originate from ribs. We can CLEARLY show that the entire human race was not narrowed down to 8 inbreeds a few thousand years ago.

These are facts, by any useful definition.

Really? Well we can CLEARLY prove that hardly anyone takes the Bible literally and we can CLEARLY prove that you are making strawman arguments because you seem to be implying that the majority of Christians do.

And so is this: Observing that all physical objects in the universe share a common origin, we can SEE that there was life a point in time when life could not, in any form, have existed. We can SEE now that life does exist.

ERGO life arises from non-life. Though we do no know how, why, or when, it is, more than fact, a SIMPLE OBSERVATION that non-life gives rise to life.

Erm... as the theophobes are so fond of saying... prove it. Prove that life comes from nothing. Test it in a lab and then get back to us, or else you have just another belief system, same as anyone else.

 

[Delicious]

I like how quite a few of you pointed out how the "Athiest Bible" is an oxymoron, but ignored how attempting to use logic to disprove faith is pretty much the same concept (in terms of ridiculousness that is).

Most faith has logic somewhere in it that is open to being shown invalid

Logic is kind of an all or nothing deal.

Yeah, but logic isn't really a belief, it's more a way of linking one belief to another. What I'm talking about is how faith usually isn't "I believe X" with the faith in X, it's usually "I believe X because of Y" with the faith in Y.

Where logic comes in is in that "because" part. Many times people say they believe something because of faith, but when you look at their explanation, they actually don't believe what they are claiming on the basis of faith: instead, they believe on the basis of faith in *something else* and are using logic to prove what they are claiming on the basis of the logical connection between those two things.

Well then they would be trying to use logic to prove their faith, which probably means they don't have that much faith to begin with, or are just saying that so they can provide some sort of justification so as to not look like an idiot in an everyday conversation.

I don't think we are really arguing here.

 

[caross73]

You only THINK the act of thinking proves you exist. That logic might be faulty if you are being kept in the dark. Maybe in fact, nothing can indeed think. Nothing being Not Something.

If nothing can't think, how can I think the act of thinking proves I exist?

If I do not exist, what is being kept in the dark?

Not really referencing the two towers, but what I meant was, you've been trained to think that only something is capable of thought, and since you think, therefor you are something. If in fact NOT something can think,

That's just playing with words. There's still a difference between the kind of "NOT something" that can think, and the kind of "NOT something" that cannot.

Not if the evil genius is tinkering with your syllogisms.

These aren't syllogisms. They are things that can be known because to deny them would be self-referentially incoherent.

They would appear coherent to you because of the Evil Genius' influence. Its like a rootkit on your brain.

 

[laikenf]

The athiest's bible is the newspapers, magazines, books (fiction preferably), the phone guide, the internet and basically any type of literature that people read on a daily basis. Some other poster said that this is an oxymoron and I completely agree. Athiests are NOT an organized community, they are the ones who simply don't believe amongst the masses of millions of believers.

 

[Hookman]

I don't have to give you an answer. I have no evidence to favor one conclusion over any other. There are an infinite number of ways the universe could have started. I don't know which way it was. I wasn't there. Maybe somebody has some evidence to suggest a way, but I don't know of anyone who can look beyond the beginning of time.

What you refuse to do is your problem. Bold text doesn't trump Bayesian epistemology.

There are an infinite number of ways to be wrong, only one way to be correct. You'd be a fool to make a claim you don't have any evidence for.

And if you insist, I will insist you tell me how God began. Its just as useless a question.

After reading many of your remarks, I've come to realize how stupid you truly are. You claim to understand this and that and that this is more likely to happen/exist/etc. than that, but you can't see yourself for how little you know. Just because you've studied this or that you immediately think you know it all, but the truth is that almost nothing in science or these studies is correct because we go by human standards, which are the way they are because we believe them to be true. Wisdom and intellect are illusions.
And by the way, if you can't prove that the universe began because of God, then you can't mark it out as an impossibility.

Wow,way to be respectful. To be honest,I thought you would have been banned or suspended by the time I got back from school,because of your clear lack of respect for anyone with a different opinion and obvious hypocricy.

 

[caross73]

Wow,way to be respectful. To be honest,I thought you would have been banned or suspended by the time I got back from school,because of your clear lack of respect for anyone with a different opinion and obvious hypocricy.

Its okay with me, I figure that he just wanted to throw the argument since he was unable to attack the message, only the messenger.

 

[Ayatchi]

Don't the words "Athiest" and "Bible" contradict each other?

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

Erm... as the theophobes are so fond of saying... prove it. Prove that life comes from nothing. Test it in a lab and then get back to us, or else you have just another belief system, same as anyone else.

\

Aspects of this have been tested actually, one was done by Carl Sagan as I recall, actual life has yet to be created from "nothing" but you can create the building blocks of life with just a few elements and some electricity.

Not saying that life DID form in that manner, but it certainly COULD form from "nothing".

Anyway that's all I have to say, everyone here knows where I stand on these issues, I weighed in on Page 1.

 

[anavrintobin]

Hmmmm. Anyone else suspect that the op is just a creationist troll? I mean, come on? Athiest bible? Utter stupidity.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

Hmmmm. Anyone else suspect that the op is just a creationist troll? I mean, come on? Athiest bible? Utter stupidity.

Possibly, but Bible is just another word for "book", now it has come to mean something more and different. He may have just wanted a discussion on Atheist Philosophy as well. Creationism and Christianity are not entirely comfortable bed fellows you know, you do not NEED to be one or the other. I have a good friend who has a degree in Evolutionary Biology AND happens to be a devout Lutheran, she's a pastors daughter as a matter of fact.

 

[martyrdrebel27]

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.

i hate when people try to make this "argument". being against an organized religion doesn't mean you're against organizations. it's the particular organization that atheists get together against. Atheists against organized religion hate the capitalist pigs taking advantage of the weak and ignorant through fear and manipulation. It's not their right to assemble that pisses us off.

it's like when i got arrested for vandalizing churches (i was 15, what do you expect...) my catholic aunt tried to prove that i do have "faith" in the power of money, so that proves that i have faith, which means that i'm religious. wtf?! i had never heard anything that close minded and arrogant in my life...

and as for Atheist bibles, i love the idea, because it's a gathering of thoughts and ideas and different views on our belief, while at the same time insulting the christian bible by perverting it's name for our own use. that's why my cd collection is called The Bible, i've even got an Old Testament (all the punk rock i grew up with) and a new testament (the underground revolutionary hip-hop that i got into later)

 

[Kellerb]

kindov hyprocritical. isnt atheism against organized religion? its like having the Gandi military.

 

[martyrdrebel27]

kindov hyprocritical. isnt atheism against organized religion? its like having the Gandi military.

haha, so something like a... Mahatma-litia?

 

[Legion]

Funny how Atheists accuse Christian's of "believing in the Bible without proof" and yet will believe a scientist's "proof" even though they were not physically there to validate their findings and as such are merely taking their word for it, just as Christian's do with the Bible.

 

[martyrdrebel27]

Funny how Atheists accuse Christian's of "believing in the Bible without proof" and yet will believe a scientist's "proof" even though they were not physically there to validate their findings and as such are merely taking their word for it, just as Christian's do with the Bible.

another terrible argument that i hear all the time. look, the difference is that if you wanted to and had the tools, everything in science is tracable and repeatable. i've never seen my blood cells, but i know if i busted out a microscope, there they'd be.

but christianity and religion as a whole is NOT repeatable or testable. "This guy walked on water once." okay, so it's possible, do it again!

"jesus was ressurrected!" really? i sure could use some of that!

it's rediculous! show me one modern biblical miracle. and don't link me to the grilled cheese christ please....

 

[Legion]

Funny how Atheists accuse Christian's of "believing in the Bible without proof" and yet will believe a scientist's "proof" even though they were not physically there to validate their findings and as such are merely taking their word for it, just as Christian's do with the Bible.

another terrible argument that i hear all the time. look, the difference is that if you wanted to and had the tools, everything in science is tracable and repeatable. i've never seen my blood cells, but i know if i busted out a microscope, there they'd be.

but christianity and religion as a whole is NOT repeatable or testable. "This guy walked on water once." okay, so it's possible, do it again!

"jesus was ressurrected!" really? i sure could use some of that!

it's rediculous! show me one modern biblical miracle. and don't link me to the grilled cheese christ please....

It wasn't an argument and you are missing my point.

I did not say that science is not testable. I said that blindly believing in somebody you never met because they have a PHD is no better than believing in a book written by people who were alive thousdands of years before you.

It's still blind faith until you get thet microscope and test it for yourself.

Oh, and do not make the assumption that I am a Christian, just because I do not support Atheism.

 

[Mrsoupcup]

Bloody hell.. I leave for a minute and what happens?

How about we ALL agree on this, belive in what you wan't AND respect others beliefs. See that isn't so hard, stop fighting and shut up.

But then who would we hate and blame and ridicule?

Hmm, how about...Stephan Dion?

 

[Spectre39]

Wow. This thread has been entirely blown out of proportion. I think these theatrics could have been avoided if the topic hadn't said "Bible" and "Atheist moral code".

Omitting anything dealing with morality, I have found a few books that any atheist would enjoy reading.

God vs. The Bible is my favorite so far. The author compares creation to biblical scripture and often finds them inconsistent. The author is a deist though, but the biblical skepticism is presented so well that any atheist can get in on it. His book is available in both paperback and free online at www.godvsthebible.com .

Other books that interest me, but I haven't got the opportunity to read:

The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine
The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man by Robert M. Price
The God Virus: How religion infects our lives and culture by Darrel W. Ray
The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins

 

[martyrdrebel27]

Funny how Atheists accuse Christian's of "believing in the Bible without proof" and yet will believe a scientist's "proof" even though they were not physically there to validate their findings and as such are merely taking their word for it, just as Christian's do with the Bible.

another terrible argument that i hear all the time. look, the difference is that if you wanted to and had the tools, everything in science is tracable and repeatable. i've never seen my blood cells, but i know if i busted out a microscope, there they'd be.

but christianity and religion as a whole is NOT repeatable or testable. "This guy walked on water once." okay, so it's possible, do it again!

"jesus was ressurrected!" really? i sure could use some of that!

it's rediculous! show me one modern biblical miracle. and don't link me to the grilled cheese christ please....

It wasn't an argument and you are missing my point.

I did not say that science is not testable. I said that blindly believing in somebody you never met because they have a PHD is no better than believing in a book written by people who were alive thousdands of years before you.

It's still blind faith until you get thet microscope and test it for yourself.

Oh, and do not make the assumption that I am a Christian, just because I do not support Atheism.

but you're missing MY point. you don't have to blindly follow the PhD'd person to get scientific facts. you are completely capable of doing it on your own. if you're blindly following scientific facts, its just because you don't feel the need to verify for yourself, but the option IS there. whereas religion just tells you something, and you have no way of verifying or denying it, you've got no choice but to blindly follow.

 

[Legion]

*snip*

*snip*

It wasn't an argument and you are missing my point.

I did not say that science is not testable. I said that blindly believing in somebody you never met because they have a PHD is no better than believing in a book written by people who were alive thousdands of years before you.

It's still blind faith until you get thet microscope and test it for yourself.

Oh, and do not make the assumption that I am a Christian, just because I do not support Atheism.

but you're missing MY point. you don't have to blindly follow the PhD'd person to get scientific facts. you are completely capable of doing it on your own. if you're blindly following scientific facts, its just because you don't feel the need to verify for yourself, but the option IS there. whereas religion just tells you something, and you have no way of verifying or denying it, you've got no choice but to blindly follow.

Actually I wasn't missing your point at all. Hence the sentence in bold.

Atheism is not blind faith for those that actually do test these things. The vast majority do not so however, they are following as blindly as any religion based on books written thousands of years ago.

Maybe the option is there, but until you test it you are just as blind so it does not matter if the option is there or not.