should atheists get their own bible?

[Ulver]

I dislike this idea greatly.

I'd be interested to know why. I'm neither pro nor con the idea myself.

It took me a bit to figure out exactly why I didn't like this idea   I agree with Whitney and xSilverPhinx; atheism is not a religion, it is not a "way of life", it is just a lack of belief in a god on a continuum of strength for this assertion. Sure, many of us are similar in other aspects of our life, but to create a "bible" for atheism is just pandering to religion and is precisely opposite of what atheism is about (for me, at least). I feel the whole point is that we don't need a reminder of how to live, or guidelines about what we believe in...it's about free thought and making personal choices.

[fester30]

Atheists don't need a bible.  We have history, science, literature, art, philosophy... we have all the wonderful creations of man at our fingertips.  I don't think you could do a one-stop-shopping for atheists with all of that great stuff out there.

However, I did think this article was interesting.  

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/'atheist-bible'-an-impossible-fairy-story,-say-christians-201104053690/

Grayling's The Good Book explains why human beings are capable of being nice to each other even without the guidance of divisive, self-serving organisations that preach a moral doctrine riddled with obvious contradictions.

But the Right Reverend Julian Cook, the Anglican Bishop of Hatfield, said: "It suggests that a man who doesn't believe in the resurrection could help a neighbour or give money to charity. It just doesn't make any sense.

"In one chapter we are told that an ordinary person could volunteer at a homeless shelter when there is no evidence whatsoever that this person believes Jesus turned water into wine or healed a leper with his special finger."

Monsignor Stephen Malley, a leading Catholic theologian, added: "So this person just woke up one day and miraculously decided to do something for someone else?

"I'm sorry Professor Grayling, you may convince some people with this voodoo hocus pocus, but I will stick with the empirical logic of transubstantiation, thank you very much indeed."

Tom Logan, a practicing non-believer from Finsbury Park, said: "Yesterday I gave twenty quid to the Japanese Red Cross and then wiped my backside with St Paul's Third Letter to the Kardashians.

"I think that's one of the ones where he encourages the ritual slaughter of homosexuals.

"Nice man."

That's hilarious!  First, a preacher talking about "empirical logic of transubstantiation," which seems rather like an oxymoron to me, then Mr. Logan's "St. Paul's Third Letter to the Kardashians."  I choked on my apple when I read that.

[Tank]

Maybe an atheist bible is too narrow a definition. Possibly a 'Humanist Guide to Life' may be a more useful document. Mohamed knew the value of a book, that's why he wrote the Koran. The Jews had the Torah and the Christians had the Bible. If you want to get a meme going you have to start somewhere. Mohamed realised that he needed to write down what he needed to create a following. He could not possibly talk to all the people he needed to. So he wrote a book and it was copied and distributed. People tend to give credence to stuff that is written down, not least because they can read it repeatedly and it is consistent. One of the ways humans have evolved to perceive somebody as honest is by spotting inconsistencies (fuck knows how people cope with the Bible) in their behaviour. Mao had his 'Little Red Book', everybody carried it and many knew it by heart. I'm still in two minds about this. I think a common description of how humanity should behave is a good idea, but the inflexibility of a book and the possibility of dogmatisation worry me.

[Ulver]

I dislike the idea of any sort of "guide to life" type book because it may cause people to stop their pursuit of information there. Atheists would obviously be much less prone to this sort of narrow-minded behavior and would be less likely to treat such a book as the "final word" (so my argument may be completely moot!) but I have liked that my pursuit of knowledge about the world, the past, and what meaning I hold for these things has been completely void of a guide.

[hismikeness]

I don't like the idea of an atheist bible...atheism is not a religion and atheists do not necessarily share common interests, goals or beliefs.  There is no possible way anyone could create a book like that which would meet the approval of all atheists, unless it just said "I don't believe in gods. The end."  Not to mention that there is no reason to by copying from the bad aspects of religion, the only thing we should take from it is their years and years of experience in community building.

Maybe I can have an Atheist Bible printed, with just those words on page 1 and the remaining, say, 299 pages blank.

I once saw a book titled "Everything Men Have Learned About Women" and it was 300 blank pages. Same idea, right?

[fester30]

Maybe an atheist bible is too narrow a definition. Possibly a 'Humanist Guide to Life' may be a more useful document. Mohamed knew the value of a book, that's why he wrote the Koran. The Jews had the Torah and the Christians had the Bible. If you want to get a meme going you have to start somewhere. Mohamed realised that he needed to write down what he needed to create a following. He could not possibly talk to all the people he needed to. So he wrote a book and it was copied and distributed. People tend to give credence to stuff that is written down, not least because they can read it repeatedly and it is consistent. One of the ways humans have evolved to perceive somebody as honest is by spotting inconsistencies (fuck knows how people cope with the Bible) in their behaviour. Mao had his 'Little Red Book', everybody carried it and many knew it by heart. I'm still in two minds about this. I think a common description of how humanity should behave is a good idea, but the inflexibility of a book and the possibility of dogmatisation worry me.

So instead of something stuffy and rigid-sounding like The Atheist Bible, perhaps Chicken Soup for the Soul-less?

[Tank]

Maybe an atheist bible is too narrow a definition. Possibly a 'Humanist Guide to Life' may be a more useful document. Mohamed knew the value of a book, that's why he wrote the Koran. The Jews had the Torah and the Christians had the Bible. If you want to get a meme going you have to start somewhere. Mohamed realised that he needed to write down what he needed to create a following. He could not possibly talk to all the people he needed to. So he wrote a book and it was copied and distributed. People tend to give credence to stuff that is written down, not least because they can read it repeatedly and it is consistent. One of the ways humans have evolved to perceive somebody as honest is by spotting inconsistencies (fuck knows how people cope with the Bible) in their behaviour. Mao had his 'Little Red Book', everybody carried it and many knew it by heart. I'm still in two minds about this. I think a common description of how humanity should behave is a good idea, but the inflexibility of a book and the possibility of dogmatisation worry me.

So instead of something stuffy and rigid-sounding like The Atheist Bible, perhaps Chicken Soup for the Soul-less?

As long as Terry Pratchett writes it I'm cool  

[The Magic Pudding]

As long as Terry Pratchett writes it I'm cool  

I heard Terry on the radio this morning.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bookshow/

[Tank]

It appears its been done http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/1 ... le/?hpt=T2

[Stevil]

Atheist generally don't like being told how to think nor be given a rule book on morals. Atheists like to think for themselves and come up with their own answers. Open to debate, open to being challenged or enlightened but ultimately the responsibility is on ones self.

[Tank]

Atheist generally don't like being told how to think nor be given a rule book on morals. Atheists like to think for themselves and come up with their own answers. Open to debate, open to being challenged or enlightened but ultimately the responsibility is on ones self.

This is true but not a problem. The issue is how one presents one's points/arguments. When faced with 'debaters' one needs to use a leading style rather than a pushing style. This begs the question should there be more than one 'bible' and is this possible? One may need a range of documents aimed and different intellectual levels and behavioural types? Consider the types of TV programmes available and which ones you personally choose to watch. I would expect that you're not a great fan of 'soaps', could be wrong but your attitude and your involvement here lead me to believe you would not sit in front of mass produced TV. My eldest daughter on the other hand is not academically inclined at all, but she can control a drunken crocodile of 200+ young holiday makers. She watches all the soaps and could probably win Mastermind if it wasn't for the general knowledge category.

Should theism continue its decline there will be those who simply will not have the mental capacity and/or inclination to engage in the sort of debates about morality et al that we do here, sorry if that sound elitist but it's a fact. How will a secular, atheist and humanist society engage with that section of society? If they can not be engaged what will happen? Will they be ignored? Will they be ostracised? Will they feel disenfranchised from society? How we deal with all members of society is an issue that will never go away.

[Stevil]

I would expect that you're not a great fan of 'soaps', could be wrong but your attitude and your involvement here lead me to believe you would not sit in front of mass produced TV.

Good call Tank.

Although it's hard to get away from soap like storylines. Especially these days, as producers put all elements into shows to try and catch the lion's share of the audience. Gone are the days of niche shows like Sapphire and Steel, American Gothic...
Not sure if you've seen much NZ tv, Outrageous Fortune was quite good but was a soap. The Amazing Johnsons is really good, similar to Outrageous Fortune except it is about a bunch of gods and goddesses, getting up to mischief, sleeping around, getting drunk, getting stoned, drawing on each other when they are wasted. Not much powers or magic, just lower class working people getting upto mischeif, no different to non gods. Anyway, althought it is a soap it has enough of a twist to keep it interesting, not just simply about relationships.

If they can not be engaged what will happen? Will they be ignored? Will they be ostracised? Will they feel disenfranchised from society? How we deal with all members of society is an issue that will never go away.

I actually have alot of compassion for other people. I see a secular country as one that welcomes all people and accomodates as much as possible. I don't like that my country officially celebrates Christian holiday's as I feel this is unfair to people of other religions or cultures, for example when Jew's or Hindi's or Muslim's or Chinese want to celebrate their own holidays they need to use up all their Annual Leave because the Stats are used for Christian feastivals. I would like people to elect their culture or religion and have Stats occomodate on a person by person basis. The logistics would be difficult, probably prohibitive, but I like things to be fair.

one needs to use a leading style rather than a pushing style

I don't argue with theists in real life, but might push a bit on this site to try and get an understanding of why or how they think. I do find it rather interesting simply because I don't understand it. But I certainly am coming to a frustrating conclusion that I may never understand it. I can't comprehend some of the things they say. I don't try and convert, although maybe it can sometimes come across that way, my EQ can be quite low at times. But I do ask lots of questions, not to second guess them but to try and understand them. I appreciate your feedback though.

[Tank]

one needs to use a leading style rather than a pushing style

I don't argue with theists in real life, but might push a bit on this site to try and get an understanding of why or how they think. I do find it rather interesting simply because I don't understand it. But I certainly am coming to a frustrating conclusion that I may never understand it. I can't comprehend some of the things they say. I don't try and convert, although maybe it can sometimes come across that way, my EQ can be quite low at times. But I do ask lots of questions, not to second guess them but to try and understand them. I appreciate your feedback though.

I don't think I made myself clear there. I was generally saying that intelligent people usually respond better to being lead into a discussion rather than given a conclusion and being expected to swallow it whole. Thus one would need a document that lays out logical arguments for given behaviours as opposed to another document which would be a bit like "thou shall not..." etc.

[JuggernautJon]

I agree that atheism isn't a religion, and there are a lot of atheists I disagree with. However, there are different sects of religion that use the same NIV or KJV bibles. Just interpret it different. I also believe that a person shouldn't need a book to tell that person how to live correctly. A person shouldn't need "commandments" to know not to do harm to somebody else. But that's the hold that religion has on people.

[xSilverPhinx]

To be fair to christian theists, they don't follow their holy book as if it were the word of their god and infinitely wise guide for their christian lives. It's more like something they gather around, as a group "property" and identifier, and pick and choose values for other reasons other than "it's in the bible", even if they attribute those values to being the bible's (do they know that many of the moral values are way older than scripture?).