Blind atheism vs blind faith

78 posts / 0 new
Last post
Leper's picture
Blind atheism vs blind faith

There's a lot of atheists who actually study religions and scriptures and I have much respect for such people for that they sincerely study what they doubt, if they don't become obstinate and only study and read what validates the beliefs they already hold.

But statistically most people don't study religions to a significant level, and that should then apply to atheists as well - majority of atheists are blind atheists.

The same applies to theists. By far the majority of them only formally belong to a religion. Such people if they have no faith can't be said to have blind faith either just as simply the fact that a person doesn't officially belong to a religion doesn't mean they are an atheist.

Majority of those with actual faith never deeply study their own religion or any other one for that matter.

Should both be studied to come to a conclusion?

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

CyberLN's picture
As someone who is identified

As someone who is identified as atheist, I will not spend my time deeply studying any god beliefs. Just as I won’t spend my time studying unicorns, yetis, faeries, or dragons.

Since I am not making any assertions concerning the existence about any deity, I’ll not go racing off to investigate every instance of those assertions. If a theist wants to demonstrate the existence of their god(s), I’ll listen...but the onus is not on me to pursue it. My mother would have worded it, “put up or shut up!”

If a theist wants to accept (what I consider) flimsy ‘evidence’ for their god, good on ‘em. Don’t expect me to accept it and don’t expect to insert a god into the public realm.

Leper's picture
But @CyberLN, how do you know

But @CyberLN, how do you know the evidence is 'flimsy' if you haven't studied it? Isn't that just a decision based on a sentiment?

CyberLN's picture
No, it isn’t.

No, it isn’t.

Leper's picture
Based on what? Can you reason

Based on what? Can you reason?

CyberLN's picture
I can, but won’t do so with

I can, but won’t do so with you. It has to do with atheism and you’ve already stated you don’t want to learn about that so I’d be wasting my time.

Cognostic's picture
@Leper: The evidence is

@Leper: The evidence is obviously flimsy or you would be using it and succeeding instead of attempting to use it and sounding like you don't know what the hell you are talking about. One class in logical fallacies would cure you of your nonsense. Why not go to school?

Randomhero1982's picture
I have openly admitted before

I have openly admitted before on here and will again, that I have not read any scriptures, holy books nor any other material, simply because I give the notion of a "god" no credence.

I know many atheists are of the train of thought where theyll state something akin to, "I am not convinced that there are any god(s)".
And I respect that, but equally, I'm happy to say there is nothing and if there was, they'd be some shred of evidence.

The best that has been put forward are debunked claims of reality, logical fallacies in the form of appeals to authority and God of the gaps... and of course all major claims of divinity rely on miracles, in of itself are daft to believe.

All of the holy books are plagiarized from an older predecessor and have had all their claims basically destroyed in the face of empiricism and science.

If that makes me a blind atheist, so be it.

But I know my actions are mine alone, I'm not here to do someone's bidding, or wasting time praying to something that is not there nor living in the knowledge that some mythical deity will forgive me for basically any times I do horrible things.

I treat others how I wish to be treated, simple as that.

If any religion could actually demonstrate any objective proof of their validity, i may be persuaded to delve into these belief systems, but as they are, they have nothing going for them.

From riding into the sky on winged horses, being raised from the dead, immaculate conceptions... I mean, really?!

As Thomas Paine said, "Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course. But we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time. It is therefore at least millions to one that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie".

Leper's picture
@Random

@Random

"All of the holy books are plagiarized from an older predecessor and have had all their claims basically destroyed in the face of empiricism and science."

There you're wrong. Nothing in the Qur'an has been "destroyed". Even if one insisted on not accepting the scientific miracles in it (which you can't really do if you study it) there is just no way around that there is nothing in it that has been proven false despite it making what would be pretty bold claims regarding science, if they were mere guesses..

This is just the kind of thing I mean. You say everything's clear, no need to read and then you say something so silly that a bit of reading could prove false.

NewSkeptic's picture
Scientific errors in the Qur

Scientific errors in the Qur'an, not hard to find. I'm sure you will attempt to redefine in order to attempt "muddy the water" (yes, for those paying attention, that is in reference to one of the errors), but you will fail with anyone capable of rational thought.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Qur%27anic_scientific_errors

Randomhero1982's picture
Scientific miracles? Have you

Scientific miracles? Have you been sniffing paint thinner?! Please provide the peer review papers on this!

Jeez...

Scientific miracles... that's right up there with peer reviewed alchemy.

Or, empirical astrology.

Bloody nora!

Sheldon's picture
Leper " if one insisted on

Leper " if one insisted on not accepting the scientific miracles in it (which you can't really do if you study it) "

This BS claim seems to have escaped the attention of the entire scientific world, and the global press, odd that?

Leper "then you say something so silly that a bit of reading could prove false."

Irony overload....try looking up science in the dictionary and see if you can work out why it is unlikely to evidence superstition that directly contradicts known scientific facts.

Miracle
A miracle is an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws.

So an argument from ignorance fallacy as well.

Cognostic's picture
@LEPER: Ha ha ha ha ha ha

@LEPER: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha "Nothing in the Qur'an has been "destroyed".

Origin according to academic historians: (Not Religious Bullshit Artists)
"Qur'anic studies, as a field of academic research, appears today to be in a state of disarray. Those of us who study Islam's origins have to admit collectively that we simply do not know some very basic things about the Qur'an – things so basic that the knowledge of them is usually taken for granted by scholars dealing with other texts. They include such questions as: How did the Qur'an originate? Where did it come from, and when did it first appear? How was it first written? In what kind of language was – is – it written? What form did it first take? Who constituted its first audience? How was it transmitted from one generation to another, especially in its early years? When, how, and by whom was it codified? Those familiar with the Qur'an and the scholarship on it will know that to ask even one of these questions immediately plunges us into realms of grave uncertainty and has the potential to spark intense debate. To put it another way, on these basic issues there is little consensus even among the well-trained scholars who work on them."

YOU KNOW NOTHING OF YOUR OWN HOLY BOOKS HISTORY! NOTHING!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Quran

xenoview's picture
@leper WTF blind atheism?

@leper
WTF blind atheism?

Sheldon's picture
Does one really need to read

Does one really need to read an encyclopaedia on unicorns in order to disbelieve they exist?

Leper "most people don't study religions to a significant level"

That sounds like an appeal to authority fallacy to me, used to pretend there is esoteric truth in vapid superstition.

LogicFTW's picture
@Leper

@Leper

Ya know I actually mostly agree with your post. The reality is, outside of these forums and a few other spots, a vast majority of the people I know give very little thought to god or lack of... mostly there are simply too busy, working full time jobs, raising kids etc. And by the time folks retire (often times very late in their lives) their ways are pretty much set in thinking by then, even if they have time to contemplate god/lack of.

Such people if they have no faith can't be said to have blind faith either just as simply the fact that a person doesn't officially belong to a religion doesn't mean they are an atheist.

I agree with you, but the reverse must also be realized. Just because they officially belong to a religion does not mean they are really theist. They may go for the community, because there parents make them, because there friends are there, etc. Community. They may not really care or think about god and all the stuff much at all. I see this sort of behavior ALL THE TIME.

There is a lot of folks out there that do "officially" belong to a religion, but really barely give many parts of what is done in the religion barely any thought at all, then folks that are not part of religion but not really atheist.

It is really in this area, that I see the waning power of major religions in western civilization. I imagine in many households in my area, outside of sunday church, god or the church is barely mentioned, frequently less than 1% of conversation. Would be an interesting study.

Should both be studied to come to a conclusion?

I think both should be studied, but I am not sure if we can count on any definitive conclusions.
 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

xenoview's picture
@Logic

@Logic
Social media is starting to replace the community the church provides.

LogicFTW's picture
@xenoview

@xenoview
At least on this subject you and I think very much alike xenoview.

Algebe's picture
@Leper: Blind atheism vs

@Leper: Blind atheism vs blind faith

You might be right about theists. For the vast majority, including many priests and preachers, religion is a matter of inertia. They just cling halfheartedly to whatever sect they happened to be born into. They certainly don't practice what their religions teach. And that's good, because true practitioners become crusaders or Islamic State fighters. Religions are dangerous enough with halfhearted followers.

But atheists are by definition people who have thought deeply about their religions and realized that it's all nonsense. Religion is pervasive. Most atheists grew up in various religious communities. I was indoctrinated in Christianity throughout my childhood. Later I learned learned about Roman, Norse, and Japanese religions in the original languages. The more I learned, the more I realized that religions were all allegories and fables based entirely on human history, sociology, and psychology.

When you've done all that, come back and tell us why your religion is uniquely true and all the others are wrong.

chimp3's picture
@Leper:

@Leper:

Many atheists have been dedicated believers and left their religions anyway. Many were well schooled in the scriptures of their faith. I was raised Catholic, left by 13. Identified as an atheist through High School. In my early 20's I initiated into a Sufi Muslim order. I was part of an American cultural movement where people who took psychedelic drugs found they believed things that did not make sense before. Many young Americans joined the Hare Krishna groups, Yogis were a dime a a dozen. After a few years I faded out of Sufism in a state of apathy and assumed my previous atheist stance. But your post is an old tactic. It is called shifting the burden of proof. Atheism is a stance on one topic only. Believers make god claims and we don't believe them. It is not compulsory that we disprove what we don't believe. I want to ask you how much time you spend weighing the validity of scriptures in the Jewish/ Christian Bibles, the Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads?

Calilasseia's picture
Oh this is going to be good .

Oh this is going to be good ...

There's a lot of atheists who actually study religions and scriptures and I have much respect for such people for that they sincerely study what they doubt, if they don't become obstinate and only study and read what validates the beliefs they already hold.

The irony present here is galactic in scale.

Tell me, how many supernaturalists who deny the validity of evidentially supported scientific theories, have read relevant scientific papers on the subject?

This works both ways.

But statistically most people don't study religions to a significant level, and that should then apply to atheists as well - majority of atheists are blind atheists.

Oh dear.

What part of "many of us here have determined via appropriate study, that mythological assertions have zero evidential support" do you not understand?

Indeed, I'm aware of numerous instances of farcial and absurd errors contained in supernaturalist mythologies. Errors that cast serious doubt upon the asserted "special, privileged sources of knowledge" assertion erected by many supernaturalists about their favourite mythologies.

The same applies to theists. By far the majority of them only formally belong to a religion. Such people if they have no faith can't be said to have blind faith either just as simply the fact that a person doesn't officially belong to a religion doesn't mean they are an atheist.

So what? Your apologetics is starting to wander aimlessly here.

Majority of those with actual faith never deeply study their own religion or any other one for that matter.

Yet frequently, these are the same people who turn up here, claiming that science is wrong because it doesn't genuflect before the assertions of their favourite mythologies.

Should both be studied to come to a conclusion?

Oh, I'm all in favour of classes in comparative mythology. But there is no way that any of those mythologies should be regarded as anything but mythologies, for numerous reasons that have already been presented here by myself and others.

Leper's picture
@Calilasseia: "What part of

@Calilasseia: "What part of "many of us here have determined via appropriate study, that mythological assertions have zero evidential support" do you not understand?"

First of all I don't recall ever reading such a statement and second of all it is worthless since obviously this isn't about you. I'm talking about all the atheists in the world. And I said 'most', see? I left room for you to think you're educated.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
I find the vast majority of

I find the vast majority of theists I discuss their religion/sect with have little or no understanding of the origins and history of their particular faith/sect.
As a student of history, and a fascinated bystander of archeology and ancient texts I see layers of lies, politics and religiously motivated destructions of competing texts/sects in the Abrahamic faiths enlightening if not a little horrifying.

None of the major 3 Abrahamic religions have proved their case for their particular deity (or version thereof) through their texts (historiography) or historical fact. They have in fact each only produced hagiographies, each with little historical accuracy, and a whole bunch of mythologies and inaccuracies.

I have spent more than 30 years studying 1st and 2nd Century Christianity which has a profound later effect on the foundations of Islam.
Each theist I have debated with on these forums has come armed with pre suppositions, errors in historical fact and a grab bag of wishful thinking.

I have left the detailed debunking of the "perfect, divinely inspired Qu'ran" canard to others better qualified than I, but reading the debates it is obvious that the adherents of that bag of nails are as misguided and historically ignorant as the christian contingents.

Tradition and supposition are not historical facts.

I find most atheists are eager to grapple with the sometimes convoluted FACTS of history, even when they (rarely) bear out a theists assertion. Theists on the other hand, even when staring st incontrovertible historical fact, invariably retreat into the la la land of denial.

Theists cannot understand in the main that Theology is not History. Historical fact is not Historiography, archeology is a tool for historians, confirmation is required for every tradition and myth surrounding your various prophets. ( that includes Josiah Smith BTW).

Extraordinary claims as made by EVERY religion are subject to standards of evidence that not one of them has managed to produce.

In conclusion , in my experience atheists are open minded, eager to find new evidence for your assertions, theists are mainly...well...ignorant of their own religion.

Jo's picture
@ Old man shouts

@ Old man shouts

You may be surprised to hear that I agree with much of what you say.
I respect and recognize your knowledge of history and your expertise in the areas you mentioned.

I have some more questions if you are interested.
We have touched on some of this before, but I never felt finished.

I agree that no contemporary historian mentions Jesus.
Couldn't the same be said for most ancient figures?
I have read that no temporary historian of Shakespeare mentioned him.
That was only a few hundred years ago.

Do you generally agree that the NT was written from 30 to 60 years after Jesus death.
I know it was compiled much later.

Doesn't the Bible reflect the writing style of the time?
Would it be erroneous to evaluate it using later standards.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

I agree that no contemporary historian mentions Jesus.
Couldn't the same be said for most ancient figures?

This is an apologist canard that can be easily debunked by 10 minutes research. Like most apologist canards it trips easily off the tongue and is meant to impress the ignorant and show disrespect for actual historians. Equating the existence of actual historical figures with the existence of a fantasy prophet of choice is denigrating to those who spend their lives really looking for facts. .

I have read that no temporary historian of Shakespeare mentioned him.
That was only a few hundred years ago.

What the blue fuck were you reading:

Let's go: Shakespeare left a will and relatives
The beneficiaries are all actual people Susanna (eldest daughter)
Judith (second daughter)
Joan Hart (sister)
Joan’s three sons (nephews)
Elizabeth Hall (granddaughter)
the poor of Stratford
Mr Thomas Combe (friend’s nephew)
Extracts from the Commissioner of taxes in 1597, 198 and the Exchechequer roll in 1561 (unpaid taxes) list Will Shakespeare
Shakespeare's Father left a will on his death for the sum of £83 7s 6d

Just three primary sources that I had right in front of me. There are many more secondary sources, so many I have not got them right in front of me, they are a fekking book.....compare that with your jesus figure and your assertions.

You really should steer clear of apologist websites, they only add to ignorance.

Do you generally agree that the NT was written from 30 to 60 years after Jesus death.
I know it was compiled much later.

No, because there is no evidence that your Jesus figure existed, never mind 'died'. Furthermore the "NT" was never "written", it is a compilation of tales and texts.

The original gospel of Mark has been dated to between 80 and 95 CE, therefore the copies and changes by Luke and Matthew must have been later.
There is an academic hypothesis for a precursor manuscript "Q" that Mark and Matthew had access to. It is a theory but has yet to be proven.

The gospels were each intended to be 'The Gospel" for disparate audiences and never intended to be compiled, compared and rewritten as they were. The earliest fragment of any Gospel is that of "john" dated to approx 125CE at the very earliest (Fragment P52).
Most regions had a special affinity for a single gospel writing and were slow to accept any of the others until towards the end of the 3rd century (Around 200CE) when unified copies of the New Testament began to appear.
As a note the earliest fragment of 'Mark" is dated to 160CE. We only have that faulty label "tradition" for its original contents.

Doesn't the Bible reflect the writing style of the time?
Would it be erroneous to evaluate it using later standards.

Each book of the anthology you refer to the "bible" has its own style, except where that has been corrupted by the translators, e,g the Douai version, the KJV to name but two. They both try and impress a stylistic template on the texts.

Stylistically most of the NT can be dated in parts to the mid to later Second and Third Centuries, with obvious fraudulent entries such as 2 Timothy, 2 Peter, Titus and large sections of other texts.
In addition other texts we KNOW were included in various compilations were excised and destroyed when the dominant sect eventually controlled christianity

Personally I find the research fascination...for your information on the versions of texts that were declared anathema : By Galetius Bishop of Rome 492-496CE
Itinerary (book of travels) under the name of the apostle Peter,
which is called The Nine Books of the holy Clement apocryphal
Acts under the name of the apostle Andrew apocryphal
Acts under the name of the apostle Thomas apocryphal
Acts under the name of the apostle Peter apocryphal
Acts under the name of the apostle Philip apocryphal
Gospel under the name of Matthias apocryphal
Gospel under the name of Barnabas apocryphal
Gospel under the name of James the younger apocryphal
Gospel under the name of the apostle Peter apocryphal
Gospel under the name of Thomas, which the Manicheans use apocryphal
Gospel under the name of Bartholomaeus apocryphal
Gospel under the name of Andrew apocryphal
Gospel which Lucian has forged apocryphal
Gospel which Hesychius has forged apocryphal
Book about the childhood of the Redeemer apocryphal
Book about the birth of the Redeemer and about Mary or the midwife apocryphal
Book which is called by the name of the Shepherd apocryphal
All books which Leucius, the disciple of the devil, has made apocryphal
Book which is called The Foundation apocryphal
Book which is called The Treasure apocryphal
Book about the daughters of Adam: Leptogenesis(?) apocryphal
Cento about Christ, put together in Virgilian lines apocryphal
Book which is called the Acts of Thecla and of Paul apocryphal
Book which is ascribed to Nepos apocryphal
Book of the Sayings, compiled by heretics and denoted by the name of Sixtus apocryphal
Revelation which is ascribed to Paul apocryphal
Revelation which is ascribed to Thomas apocryphal
Revelation which is ascribed to Stephen apocryphal
Book which is called the Home-going of the Holy Mary apocryphal
Book which is called the Penitence of Adam apocryphal
Book about the giant Ogias,
of whom the heretics assert that after the flood he fought with the dragon apocryphal
Book which is called The Testament of Job apocryphal
Book which is called The Penitence of Origen apocryphal
Book which is called The Penitence of the Holy Cyprian apocryphal
Book which is called The Penitence of Jamnes and Mambres apocryphal
Book which is called The Portion of the Apostles apocryphal
Book which is called The Grave-plate(?) of the Apostles apocryphal
Book which is called the Canones of the Apostles apocryphal
The book Physiologus, compiled by heretics and called by the name of the blessed Ambrose apocryphal
The History of Eusebius Pamphili apocryphal
Works of Tertullian apocryphal
Works of Lactantius (later addition: or of Firmianus or of the African) apocryphal
Works of Postumianus and of Gallus apocryphal
Works of Montanus, of Priscilla and of Maximilla apocryphal
Works of Faustus the Manichean apocryphal
Works of Commodianus apocryphal
Works of the other Clement of Alexandria apocryphal
Works of Thascius Cyprian apocryphal
Works of Arnobius apocryphal
Works of Tichonius apocryphal
Works of Cassian, a presbyter in Gaul apocryphal
Works of Victorinus of Pettau apocryphal
Works of Faustus of Riez in Gaul apocryphal
Works of Frumentius Caecus apocryphal
Epistle of Jesus to Abgar apocryphal
Epistle of Abgar to Jesus apocryphal
Passion (Martyr Acts) of Cyricus and of Iulitta apocryphal
Passion of Georgius apocryphal
Writing which is called Interdiction (Exorcism?) of Solomon

A lot of christian texts were judged way back then...and destroyed...so what we can evaluate using 'later standards" is a small anthology.

Christianity has been driven by internecine warfare and combative theologies since "Paul" and "James" fell out over the admission of gentiles to christianity without first becoming Jews, adopting the Holy days and circumcision. Even the Romans up to about 95CE ( and even later) treated christianity as a sect of Jewry, who had special dispensations from Emperor worship and certain taxes.

We only have our standards to go by, as the 19th century historians only had their times and mores to go by. That is what humans do, they (most of us) evolve.

(Edit to ensure accuracy and of course tags)

Cognostic's picture
@Jo: OMG what a bunch of

@Jo: OMG what a bunch of ignorant BS.

1. "no contemporary historian mentions Jesus." All contemporary historians who study Jesus, mention him. Bart Erhman, Richard Carrier, et al. (What you mean to say is there there were no historians contemporary to the supposed life of Jesus that mention him.)

2. No. The same can not be said for "Most" ancient figures.
https://www.shakespeare.org.uk/explore-shakespeare/shakespedia/william-s...

https://www.folger.edu/shakespeares-life

You are confusing Shakespeare the person with Shakespeare the writer. They may not be the same.

3. The New Testament was written 30 to 60 years after the supposed death of Jesus. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
"The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in AD 170. The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John. In AD 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with one book of the Apocrypha) and 26 books of the New Testament (everything but Revelation) were canonical and to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (AD 393) and the Council of Carthage (AD 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative."

The individual books were around, hundreds of them. The selection process took centuries. During this time different sects used different books. Books that you have never heard of. Christianity was more divergent during the first century than it is today. You could be a Christian and believe in 365 gods. You could be a Christian and believe in 7 gods. You could be a christian and believe in two gods. All these Christian religions had religious texts. The books had to be gathered, waded through, selected, voted on, and then added to what became the official cannon. (FYI - Not all churches use the same books. Not all of the same books are written in the same way. The KJV is very different from other versions. ) THE SHORT ANSWER: The bible is still being written today. The Catholics have changed their version to allow idol worship. The born again Christians have altered their versions to fit their need to be separate from the Catholics. JW have altered their bibles "The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society denies that the Holy Spirit is alive, the third person of the Trinity. Therefore, they have changed the correct translation of "...the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters," to say "...and God's active force was moving over the surface of the waters."

Are you even aware of the fact that the KJV is one of the worst translations we have? Do you know why it was written? Something to look into.

Jo's picture
@ Cognostic

@ Cognostic

"Are you even aware of the fact that the KJV is one of the worst translations we have? Do you know why it was written? Something to look into."

Yes and yes.

Grinseed's picture
@ Leper

@ Leper

I fully agree that comparative religion should be a part of everyone's education, from early childhood and onwards. The ignorance about religions and their structure is disheartening if only because such ignorance leaves people unable to defend themselves against the deceit and control of organised religion.

I would add that it should be "critical" comparative religious study. It should be compulsory and include the three Abrahamic religions and all their sects, Greek philosophies, Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism, etc as well as atheism, satanism, paganism and Wiccan. And all without bias, to or for, any single belief, or non-belief. A completely balanced study from which people can make informed choices about which religion they might prefer to follow....but that is not going to happen anytime soon, given the inherent bias of religions regarding rejection of other faiths.

As I believe most atheists are far more knowledgeable about religions in general than theists, I don't believe I have ever met any professed theist who "sincerely study what they doubt", or who does not remain "obstinate and only study and read what validates the beliefs they already hold." Atheists seem to be far more open to alternative ideas given justifiable reason, than theists adhering to dogmatic tenets of their faith.

I read from the Bible (KJV), the Orthodox Jewish Bible (English with Jewish glossary), the Koran (Penguin edition by N.J.Dawood), various religious websites and a whole range of books on history, science, and psychology, on a regular basis and I remain an atheist but I do not consider myself as being obstinate, but rather open-minded, if unconvinced about the supposed truth of theism.

Leper, have you read LaVey's Satanic Bible?

I am assuming you would not be permitted ownership of a copy, depending on where you live, but I dare say you might not read it anyway, as godless and evil as it sounds.

But I would like to reveal that it is a totally secular celebration of all the things the Christian Bible, and by extension the Torah and Koran, forbids. It attempts to promote principles by which to live a fuller and more humane life, mixed with a good deal of dress up and play acting.

Not exactly my cup of tea, but I can confidently say so, because I have read it, along with their Nine Satanic Statements, Nine Satanic Sins and the Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth.
Whenever I mention LaVey Satanism, people immediately assume I am talking about devil worship. This group believes in neither gods, devils or the supernatural, just humans, which makes it utterly preferable to any faith-based god-worship.

I endorse your suggestion for comparative studies in religion, but it can only be of any real value if it is critical and unconstrained by religious censorship and such latitude is simply not a feature of most religions.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Grinseed

@ Grinseed

I endorse your suggestion for comparative studies in religion, but it can only be of any real value if it is unconstrained by religious censorship and such latitude is simply not a feature of most religions.

Hear, hear, same for their warped view of history....

cranky47's picture
@Leper

@Leper

Atheism is not an homogeneous position. It is neither a belief system nor a philosophy. There is nothing an atheist 'ought' to do , nor does the atheist owe the believer anything whatsoever.

I call myself an agnostic atheist. That means I do not believe in god(s) duet to lack of proof. However,I don't claim to know. This a position, not an argument . I do not invite others to share my lack of belief . Nor do I care about the personal beliefs of others----until they get in my face my face . If such people come to an atheist forum, I consider them fair game.

Comparative religious studies perhaps should be taught in schools if that were possible without say a Christian in or Muslim bias. Right now, I'm unconvinced that is possible, at least not in Australia .

I have been interested in Judaism since I first saw a documentary on TV at age 16 about theLiberation of the Nazi Concentration camps in 1945 .. That was in 1963.

I became interested in Islam whilst living in a Muslim country (Malaysia) whilst on an army posting in 1969. My interest in Hinduism began in the early 1970's, when I first read some of the sacred Hindu texts. I studied aspects of both Islam and Hinduism at university, as part of a degree course in Social Anthropology. . I finished my degree in 1985. My interest has never waned.

My interest in comparative religions has never been about finding 'the truth' In fact, I'm unconvinced that there is any such thing an an objective absolute truth . I believe are an indefinite number of small truths, of which we have discovered a few.

My ongoing interest is about meaning; what religions mean to believers. In fact, one of my university professors, defined the discipline of Social Anthropology as 'the study of meaning' ' .

It is my belief that shared understanding is the antithesis of fear, ignorance hatred. I do not believe I need a set of arbitrary , dogmatic beliefs based on blind faith , to find meaning in the lives of human beings .

Romantic? Probably , it is said that inside every cynic is a disappointed romantic.

Mutorc S'yriah's picture
Leper . . . Blind atheism vs

Leper . . . Blind atheism vs blind faith

In logical arguments, it is the person making a claim, who must show that their claim is true. The epistemologically blind person ought necessarily to be atheist. If you don't know, you don't believe, or to put it another way, to believe something that you don't actually know to be true, is irrational, and just a matter of personal preference. As an adjunct to that, I have heard that some people claim to be agnostic about the existence of "God", and yet also believe that this god exists. And that is an irrational position. One ought NOT to believe something, unless one can show that it is true, otherwise plain vanilla agnosticism is the only logical position. One should, if one does NOT have something to show that a position or an idea or a supposed fact is true, RESERVE BELIEF until that showing of truth comes to bear.

Much as a god-believer might dislike it, it is not the task of the atheist to investigate the existence of any particular god, in order to hold to a claim of unbelief. A proviso to that, is it only applies, when the atheist says:-

"I do not believe that a god exists".
------------------------------------------
If the atheist goes a step further, and says :-

"I BELIEVE that NO god exists".

. . . then in logical arguments, THAT atheist has stated a positive position, which he or she ought then to SHOW for truth, in the realm of epistemology, (knowledge and justified belief).

If the person who says that "God" DOES exist, would like the unbeliever to come around to belief, then it is the task of the believer to present the evidence for why that unbeliever ought to change and come to realise that the claim has been shown true.

Furthermore, there are dozens if not thousands of gods, which have been proposed, and believed in, in the past. Shouldn't the seeker after truth, including any theist, put as much effort into discluding, (or possibly believing in), ALL THOSE OTHER GODS, as they would suggest that the atheist ought to be putting into accepting or declining the chosen GOD OF THE BELIEVER?

As far as blind faith goes, blind anything means, (metaphorically), not seeing.

Finally, if I as an atheist cannot find good reasons to accept that a god actually exists, then I have no reason or obligation to behave in a way that others might take part in, in recognition of their god(s). And I do not accept that any rules, laws and obligations, which individuals or government might put in place, to hold over me, should be permitted. Such rules, laws and obligations would be making me act irrationally by fiat, and I have no wish for that.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.