Happy Atheist Forum

I frequent richard dawkins' website .....frequently. Thought this was a good read.
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/6130 ... -own-bible (http://richarddawkins.net/articles/613041-do-atheists-need-their-own-bible)

QuoteIn place of the more well-known Ten Commandments, his atheist principles are: "Love well, seek the good in all things, harm no others, think for yourself, take responsibility, respect nature, do your utmost, be informed, be kind, be courageous."

Think for yourself probably should have been the first principle.

I dislike this idea greatly.

Quote from: "Ulver"I dislike this idea greatly.

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

Atheist bible? Whatever for?

Why would we want to imitate the religious with their blind adherence to a book - or worse - the cherry picking to shame even the most shameless hypocrite?

If we do not want to do that, be it making one code for all or one thing we can all pick and choose from however we please, why call it a bible? Why do it at all?

Quote from: "Asmodean"Why do it at all?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬Â£Â£Â£Â£Â£Â£Â£Â£Â£Â£Â£Â£Â£Â£Â£

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬Â£Â£Â£Â£Â£Â£Â£Â£Â£Â£Â£Â£Â£Â£Â£

Oh...   I was hoping for some Kr, actually.

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬â,¬Â£Â£Â£Â£Â£Â£Â£Â£Â£Â£Â£Â£Â£Â£Â£

Oh...   I was hoping for some Kr, actually.

I can do better than that.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbeforeitsnews.com%2Fckfinder%2Fuserfiles%2F0000000000000013%2Fimages%2FZimbabwe_100_trillion_2009_Obverse.jpg&hash=46277a04b309a93807fab2a945efea60b0757b04)

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbeforeitsnews.com%2Fckfinder%2Fuserfiles%2F0000000000000013%2Fimages%2FZimbabwe_100_trillion_2009_Obverse.jpg&hash=46277a04b309a93807fab2a945efea60b0757b04)

But... But... I dislike dollars. It's one of those words that sound stupid to me for some reason...  :|

Here ya go.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FeL14r.jpg&hash=90449f667178d2c3240922487546a58b0f8a09ab)

Better.  

Here you go, Asmodean. 1 krone. Buy yourself a grape or something.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-BqSYLE0zoNw%2FTWTe_FBHp2I%2FAAAAAAAAACg%2Fn3jNUzn2THA%2Fs1600%2Fkrone.jpg&hash=256242fbb672c28378bfc4cd53a9b586e6fc4733)

[spoiler:1qwx1xeu]I couldn't find a smaller picture and I couldn't be bothered to resize it.[/spoiler:1qwx1xeu]

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.

But don't communities build around shared goals/ideals/aspirations? There is not  lot to share after "I don't believe in gods. The end." I don't see anything wrong with codifying ideals and working towards a shared vision of the future. The problem is getting the rest of the 'Heard of cats' to agree In addition I suppose even if an atheistic world view were codified and recorded you can bet you bottom dollar that some bugger will get all dogmatic about it and use it as an excuse to oppress somebody who does not agree with them.

I think it's ridiculous, it takes one step closer to making atheism a religion of bleating sheep looking to a source for guidance as if it contained all the wisdom in the world. All we need is Pat Condell with his flock preaching it and boom, a religion.  

Quote from: "Asmodean"Atheist bible? Whatever for?

Why would we want to imitate the religious with their blind adherence to a book - or worse - the cherry picking to shame even the most shameless hypocrite?

If we do not want to do that, be it making one code for all or one thing we can all pick and choose from however we please, why call it a bible? Why do it at all?

I don't see a problem with picking and choosing...I pick and choose things I follow from various sources, but the plus side of picking and choosing from an 'atheist bible' or secular sources versus a religious scripture is that the formers won't claim they are inerrant and all True and have followers that then say that some parts don't apply. An atheist bible wouldn't nearly be as hypocritical. But like you said, why have a book of values and philosophy at all? Why attach it to an irreligious minority group as if it were a religion?  

The only good reason I can think of is to try and find a way of "herding cats", as Tank put it, though nothing I think does that more than religious influence and stupidity itself. A book is unnecessary.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "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.

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/

QuoteGrayling'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.

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.

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.

Quote from: "Whitney"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?

Quote from: "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?

Quote from: "fester30"

Quote from: "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  

Quote from: "Tank"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/ (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bookshow/)

It appears its been done http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/1 ... le/?hpt=T2 (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/11/leading-atheist-publishes-secular-bible/?hpt=T2)

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.

Quote from: "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.

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.

Quote from: "Tank"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.

Quote from: "Tank"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.

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "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.

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.

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?).

Quote from: "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?).

I wish I knew more Christians like this. I run across a disproportionately high number of Christians who do believe the Bible is the 'W'ord of 'G'od, and to point out its inconsistencies in use is to engage in blasphemy. Oy.

That said, I try to assume your point is true.

Quote from: "Ulver"

Quote from: "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?).

I wish I knew more Christians like this. I run across a disproportionately high number of Christians who do believe the Bible is the 'W'ord of 'G'od, and to point out its inconsistencies in use is to engage in blasphemy. Oy.

That said, I try to assume your point is true.

I agree.  The six denominations of which I was a member all talked about it being THE Word of God, and each had a different way of putting higher emphasis on some passages than on others depending upon their doctrine.  They all had a scriptural way to deal with inconsistencies.  There are so many passages in that thing worded in such an ancient way that you can find a way to twist certain passages to explain inconsistencies.  There is a way to interpret things to make it all fit, even the verse that tells them not to interpret things.  Someone who is very determined can work through it, so long as they're willing to ignore or misconstrue science.  The favored way among the different churches I attended to work out the problems in the Old Testament, and the problems between the OT and NT, was to say that the OT was the "old covenant."  The NT was the "new covenant of God," and while the OT may be great for background, history, and connecting prophesies, the NT was the new truth, and the OT was really not necessary for salvation.  In other words, it's license to ignore any and all inconsistencies and problems in the OT.  Now you just have to concentrate on ways to explain inconsistencies of the NT as not being inconsistencies, but instead being a sort of scriptural gymnastics, connecting all the different passages together in just the right way to explain it all.  Let's just not mention it was humans, not God, that decided which books and letters made the cut and which didn't.

Quote from: "Ulver"I wish I knew more Christians like this. I run across a disproportionately high number of Christians who do believe the Bible is the 'W'ord of 'G'od, and to point out its inconsistencies in use is to engage in blasphemy. Oy.

That said, I try to assume your point is true.

I came across a comment posted on YouTube some time ago that made a valid point: that people who supposedly believe that the bible is as good as written by an infinitely wise god himself don't really act as if it were, but I based what I thought people would do if they had such a thing in their possession with what I would do -  be a real fanatic bible reader, memoriser, and quasi scholar (I would probably be a fundie :bananacolor:

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"I came across a comment posted on YouTube some time ago that made a valid point: that people who supposedly believe that the bible is as good as written by an infinitely wise god himself don't really act as if it were, but I based what I thought people would do if they had such a thing in their possession with what I would do -  be a real fanatic bible reader, memoriser, and quasi scholar (I would probably be a fundie ;)

Quote from: "xSilverPhinx"

Quote from: "fester30"I agree.  The six denominations of which I was a member all talked about it being THE Word of God, and each had a different way of putting higher emphasis on some passages than on others depending upon their doctrine.  They all had a scriptural way to deal with inconsistencies.  There are so many passages in that thing worded in such an ancient way that you can find a way to twist certain passages to explain inconsistencies.  There is a way to interpret things to make it all fit, even the verse that tells them not to interpret things.  Someone who is very determined can work through it, so long as they're willing to ignore or misconstrue science.  The favored way among the different churches I attended to work out the problems in the Old Testament, and the problems between the OT and NT, was to say that the OT was the "old covenant."  The NT was the "new covenant of God," and while the OT may be great for background, history, and connecting prophesies, the NT was the new truth, and the OT was really not necessary for salvation.  In other words, it's license to ignore any and all inconsistencies and problems in the OT.  Now you just have to concentrate on ways to explain inconsistencies of the NT as not being inconsistencies, but instead being a sort of scriptural gymnastics, connecting all the different passages together in just the right way to explain it all.  Let's just not mention it was humans, not God, that decided which books and letters made the cut and which didn't.

That's interesting. The bible is so fragmented because of its editing that maybe it's way easier to focus more on pieces rather than the whole thing...but doesn't it bother those who think that it is the literal and perfectly inerrant Word Of God if one passage says one thing and another (both in the NT) says the negation? Or are they so biased towards it being true by default that they don't see any of it?

God and the bible are a really weird 'theory of everything'...trust the human mind to make sense of what makes no sense at all.  

I'll give you an example.  Revelations specifically says that in the end times there will be a judgment (commonly known as the Great White Throne Judgment).  During this judgment, all humanity will be brought before God, and will be judged according to the Book of Life.  Names will be written in the Book of Life according to each person's WORKS.  A few verses later actually describes specifically what works will get someone sent to the pit of fire.

If you take the Bible literally, than this would be a second path to heaven beyond salvation by the blood of Christ.  Problem is, there is another part of the NT that says the only way to heaven is through faith.  Contradiction?  A Biblical literalist told me that it's all in context.  He said that according to earlier verses, people will be saved or damned according to their acceptance of Christ's blood sacrifice as their salvation.  The Great White Throne Judgment is for all those who do not accept Christ.  He told me that when God opens the Book of Life, it will be empty, and he'll show that book to all the sinners who didn't accept Christ, and banish them to the pit of fire.  It doesn't actually say God will do that, or that the Book of Life will be empty.  I told him he was interpreting the Bible, which is forbidden according to several places in the Bible.  http://www.uniquebiblestudy.com/how-to-study-the-bible-b.htm  This URL is to demonstrate some of the Bible verses I showed this guy.

He said he wasn't interpreting, but instead looking at the context.  If someone is already condemned because they weren't saved by grace, they will not find their names in the Book of Life.  Those already saved by grace will not be at the Great White Throne Judgment, because they will already be in heaven.  Therefore, the Book of Life will be empty.

He just refused to understand that what he was doing was, in fact, interpreting the scripture by highlighting some verses and discounting others, because God is perfect, and God works through his heart as a pastor to understand things so that he can guide his flock.  I decided to end the conversation right there, as it wasn't worth it to me to get into which version of Christianity or which pastoral hearts were the ones to follow to get to heaven.  

As you can see, if your beliefs are based only upon faith in an all-powerful, supernatural, above-the-laws-of-physics or even common sense god, you can make anything make sense to you.

One way to put it... if God is limitless, then so are the justifications available to one who chooses to believe in God.  This is what happens when an concept is not falsifiable.  I've heard theists say that atheism is one theory, and their belief is another.  My response is theirs cannot be a theory, as it isn't falsifiable.  Their response is "How can you be an atheist if you don't believe it's possible that God is false?"  All you can do at that point is just shrug your shoulders and move on.