I want to find pro atheism anti Bible arguments
Donating = Loving
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.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
No, I carefully read the full post.
I am opposed to anyone owning another human being.
You can never rationalize slavery.
Your position is unconscionable.
It's astonishingly stupid to claim an atheist has expectations that objective evidence for a deity exists. Nor did I remotely imply this, so you're being dishonest as well. i also notice you have ignored most of my post. If you have no objective evidence foe a deity, how on earth can you claim your archaic superstition provides objective morality?
You have been asked to list some objectively moral actions, unsurprisingly we are still waiting for you to even acknowledge the question.
So you keep saying, but you have just said you can demonstrate no objective evidence for the deity you claim gave these commandments, so how exactly are they objectively moral? Do you follow the commandments of Jesus? If so you must think slavery is objectively moral?
You have ignored my question utterly yet again, the deity in your bible commits and encourages murder, infanticide, ethnic cleansing, genocide, rapine and sex trafficking of young girls and women, and much much more, now are these things moral or not, it;s a very simple question? You seem to be implying there is a different standard of morality for your deity than for us, if you can't see the hilarious irony of that claim alongside your claim for objective morality then the mind boggles.
Now one more time, why is it immoral to commit acts like rape and murder, you seem determined not to answer? Or do you not know why?
Thanks for the red herring about slavery, but I asked you if it was objectively moral or not, you didn't answer, again, and I finding it more and more difficult not to even feign surprise at your reticence. We have seen this sermon performed by theists on here too many times, it's tedious when like you they relentlessly demand answers but refuse to give any.
And again I tell you, that I BELIEVE objective moral actions are those that follow commandments. No proof for that, just blind belief that they are, but rigorous and unlike other alternatives (I don't even know many, but there are), I can't imagine anyone blaming someone performing immoral action following these rules. It's just because they seem the most perfect form of ethical rules.
I BELIEVE murder and rape is wrong. Without belief in something you learn from the outside, you are stuck with believing in yourself. Humans as individuals are pretty stupid and can come to many absurd ideas (like previously mentioned Marquis de Sade demonstrated atheistic justifications for murder rape and thievery).
Biblical ethics are THE COMMANDMENTS and nothing else. No, slavery is not prohibited there, but neither it is in America (for criminals, 13th amendment). I think slavery can be ethical, ancient Egyptians and Greeks had it pretty well done (much like we have working class today, there really aren't many big differences). None of these commandments encourage "murder, infanticide, ethnic cleansing,, genocide, rapine and sex trafficking of young girls and women, and much much more", but you can try to convince me with examples from them that you think do.
I'm implying Biblical ethics are the most universal we have (even without the first three, that are about God) and it doesn't differ from one person to another, like I received in responses from your (plural) beliefs.
I'm interested in what else is left misunderstood, because it is in my absolute interest that there is none, I'm trying my best to be clear.
On the other hand, I haven't yet heard what you think would be an argument for an atheist not to be completely selfish if one decides to be such?
So you'r morals are based entirely on subjectively cherry picking the bible.
Even when your deity commits murder, or encourages it's followers to do so and commit rape? Or are you making the imbecilic claim that objective morality can encompass such an obvious double standard?
Really? What about the ones you're subjectively ignoring, like Jesus claiming slaves should obey their masters, even the cruel ones? If they're perfect why does your deity ignore them again and again in the bible, why don't they even mention rape or child molestation? Probably because anyone who has read the bible knows it is about to endorse both.
Then you are an immoral scumbag.
All of those are encouraged and endorsed by your deity in the bible, are you saying your deity is immoral? You are cherry picking one small part and then hilariously clamming this is objective morality, i donlt think you know what objective means, or morality come to that if you believe slavery can ever be ethical, as you claim above.
Yes you have, I have stated from the start that my subjective moral worldview is based on empathy for the suffering of others, I would not want to be raped or murdered, so how can I objectively think it would be ok for others to be raped or murdered. My morality doesn't require blind adherence to archaic and barbaric and cruel religious dogma.
Such actions are wrong because they deliberately cause unimaginable and unnecessary suffering. The bible, like you, doesn't seem to care about this, and that is a dangerous attitude to base morality on. Even Nazis managed to blindly follow rules, that's not moral.
It's not cherry picking, it is said that commandments are the rules we must follow, not do what God does. He's a completely different kind of living entity, it would be absurd to try to do as he does but again - that is not what the Bible says! Yes, God has committed mass murder, but why should he care about the ones that disbelieve and mock him? Makes sense for him in the case that he made us, we would also trash an AI that doesn't follow the rules we made him to (or fix, supposedly God couldn't fix those people that don't believe him), but nowhere it is said we must do that. How is it not clear that we are different? :D
I also mentioned completely normal slavery examples where people lived very close to working class today, do you just not like the name ''slavery'' that you are becoming arrogant?
Ok, I would be fine with you as a person, but what if one just doesn't believe he should be affected by empathy like perhaps anger. People tend to oppress their emotions. How about people that really don't care about others and society? Where is the rigorous basis on not being selfish? There is just this world, just this one life we have, why not make it completely about yourself? Examples in this kind of morality is all around.
God is a living entity?
Do you know the definition of living? I think you will find most of your religious "peers" within your own specific sect will strongly disagree with that statement.
So let me get this straight, you follow 2000 year old bronze age superstition rules ripped off by previous religions that predate your particular god idea, as rules to follow, but obviously this completely unevidenced god idea is above those rules that he wrote.
Do you know what your god idea most closely resembles? A dictator. Kim Jong Un operates like that.
So, its okay for "god" (and therefore his people supposedly acting on his direction) to commit mass murder of other people because they disagree with them about their god?
Since I don't believe your god idea, if someone tells you to murder me, its okay, as long as they say it was a command from god himself? (Just gotta take the guys word for it, he wont have any evidence of such a conversation!)
There are lots of people like that. All over the world. Kim Jong Un is a good example (a guy that compares well to your "god" idea as you described him.)
I know this is a scary thought for you, but it also should be obvious, there is no rigorous basis on not being selfish. There is basic common human ability to be compassionate and work with others that most of us follow, but to anyone that follows the news (the news seems to cover the bad almost exclusively!) it should be obvious there are many people that do not do this. Because they are not held to any standard. Not like your god idea has stopped any of these people. You already know there is no rigorous basis. It is all just hot air, just talk. Already your god concept in completely inept, powerless in any way to create some sort of purpose or morality this should be obvious. You lose nothing giving up the god idea in this area.
▮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.
Now now, ''Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself'' is a pretty decent thought (commandments just go into specifics) what people should follow. For everyone atheistic can come the thought ''why should I?'' and don't really see the reason to follow that. Atheists have all the justification not to, christians must because it's ordered by authority they choose to believe. Now, without bringing in off topic real life examples of stupid christians that fail to do that and atheists who are well raised and succeed, which of the two have bigger potential to live ethical life and stand by it till the end of it?
"I can't imagine anyone blaming someone performing immoral action following these rules."
I sure can.
For most of the defendants of the Nuremberg War Crime Trials, they explained that they were just following rules. That is not a viable defense.
Just because something in the bible is a rule, that does not make it morally correct. That is where you seem to lose the plot, because your sole defense is "it is in the bible, thus it is good". Yet many atheists have offered multiple examples of rules in the bible that are patently objectionable concerning morals.
And please cease referring to US law, it is not in the bible, which we are discussing. Leaning on US law is hiding behind them.
"I'm implying Biblical ethics are the most universal we have"
What came first, the chicken or the egg? Is it not reasonable to assume that humanity worked out broad guidelines for morals and conduct long before there was a bible? Is it not reasonable to assume that when the bible was written, that those general rules concerning conduct were adapted into the bible?
"On the other hand, I haven't yet heard what you think would be an argument for an atheist not to be completely selfish if one decides to be such?"
Everyone is selfish, the question is whether they take the time to balance their own selfish interests against the good of others. The interesting thing is that most atheists take the time to ponder this question, and their actions are determined by such careful consideration.
And I will repeat .. slavery is immoral.
What is it with theists dishonestly distorting what I have posted. I never asked for proof nor have I ever asked for it. You have also dishonestly ignored what I said, and the context. Here it is again then since you ignored it completely with pathetic hand waving.
"You're simply repeating the same unevidenced claims, and ignoring questions.
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?
NOW PLEASE NOTE THE CONTEXT If the answer is none then your objection to subjective human morality is entirely moot, as all human morality is subjective.
Your claim that subjective secular morality is (more) dangerous than subjective religious beliefs is one that requires evidence of course. Not only have you failed to do this, but the facts roundly refute your premise, see my comments above about secular democracies, and Christian morals were not invented by christianity, they preceded it. You have also failed to address the cruel and barbaric nature of the bible and the deity it describes. Is is objectively moral to torture a newborn baby to death, or torture people forever after they die, or commit and encourage genocide and ethnic cleansing, or endorse rapine and sex trafficking women and girls taken as prisoners? How about slavery as endorsed in the bible, even by Jesus is that objectively moral?
You are demanding that others justify their morality but refusing to reciprocate. Fairly typical of most theists who espouse this facile belief that they can't recognise behaviours like rape and murder as harmful and therefore immoral, unless archaic superstition claims divine diktat says so, that's absurd to me.
I don't need to justify my atheism, as disbelief is a standard position I take on all claims for which no objective evidence can be demonstrated. Its theists who exhibit bias in their beliefs, unless you can cite some beliefs you hold that form no part of your religious beliefs, and for which you can demonstrate no objective evidence.
Parenthetically you have also failed to offer any examples of objectively moral actions, with objective evidence of why they are so....
Why is it wrong to rape someone, or murder someone? Do even know?"
Slavery in the bible is not a euphemism for exploitation, so that is a pathetically dishonest response, though typical of the kind of dishonest nonsense apologists trot out to avoid facing the truth that their claims for objective morality, and moral ascendancy is risible after even a crsory leaf through the bible.
Lastly if the ten commandments trump pronouncements form Jesus that "slaves should obey their masters, even the cruel ones" then you're not a christian by definition. And do please stop wasting everyone's time with risible euphemisms, the slavery being referred to is the owning of one human being by another, you either think it is moral or you do not, the bible fully endorses it again and again.
Rubbish, and why is it that theists do not grasp how arrogantly insulting this facile claim is when aimed at a forum of atheists? There is mountains of research that shows atheists are at least as moral as theists.
I can only hope you never loose your delusional superstitious beliefs if you genuinely believe that, however it is beyond arrogant to project that facile belief onto others. I am an atheist, and don't remotely believe this to be true.
Earlier in this thread you mentioned how much of society morales are based on the 10 commandments.
Do you even know what the 10 commandments are? And if you did, you realize that idea is preposterous.
Why do you believe something of which there is no actual evidence for? Seriously? Why? If you believe "god" with zero evidence, why not believe that you owe me 1 million dollars because I told you, you owe me 1 million dollars?
Should I expect a check in the mail for 1 million dollars, or are you sane and realize I made a claim made with zero evidence, do you actually realize is a complete nonsense claim that you can and should ignore?
Get that? Understand what I just said? Good! Now apply the same basic reasoning to any and all god ideas. Also realize: that millions (billions perhaps?) of people been trying to get any actual evidence at all for their god idea, and in all those thousands of years, utterly failed to come up with even one actual piece of real evidence for any of the thousands of slightly different god ideas humans have come up with?
▮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.
Bible is a smart book, people believe it.
Nietche wrote smart books, people believe them.
Freud wrote smart books, people believe them.
Not a single evidence in any of them about anything, just something that might make sense. You have misunderstood a very core element of religion, it doesn't prove anything and people who are trying to will ultimately fail without a doubt.
"Bible is a smart book"
I respectfully disagree.
Can we agree that in some way, the bible is the word of god? Either divinely inspired, or directly transcribed.
So god chose to put into a book instructions, yet the end result is that we have over 33,00 different christian sects. Obviously, the bible is not precise or offers valid instructions that are easy to follow.
If the bible was smart, everyone would interpret it the same way, everyone would get the same message. Instead the bible is the all time greatest multiple choice book. For a book that on average is 1,200 pages, we get at least 33,000 interpretations.
Let's assume that Bible conspiracy is true. Bible is written to control society. Now let's look at all 1.5 millennia it completely worked. If Bible wasn't a smart book, would that happen? What other book can do something even remotely similar? I think it's absurd to think it's not a smart book whatever you believe.
@RE: What other book can do something even remotely similar?
Mao's Little Red Book
Manifesto of the Communist Party (German: Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei), is an 1848 political pamphlet by the German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.
The Big Book: Bill's Story.
The Bagavad Ghita.
The Book of Odes, Book of Documents, Book of Changes, Book of Rites, and the Spring and Autumn Annals.
Lao Tsu, Tao Te Ching
Sun Tzu, The art of War.
Pretending the Bible is a greater work than any other book is pure ignorance.
Bible is more influential globally and has been like that for a long time. I just don't really understand why someone wouldn't call it smart if it has been like it.
Elemental: Who didn't call it "smart?" Not a word I would choose. The Bible was written, and then rewritten, rewritten again, only to be rewritten a few more times, by some of the elite writers of its time. What is STUPID, is applying Iron Age Mythology to a modern world.
Look at comments above :D
"Bible is written to control society."
The bible was first compiled with the goal of documenting the dogma, and only what favored the religion was included. Most of the dogma directly led into controlling the masses.
Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
Matthew 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
"I think it's absurd to think it's not a smart book whatever you believe."
It is both a smart book, and a very dumb book ... written by humans, not any god. It is incredibly stupid because with approximately 1200 pages, there are over 33,000 different sects, and thus interpretations. One could draw the logical conclusion that if this book of guidance and rules was composed by a diving being, that being wouldn't fuck up so much and provide just one interpretation not open to guessing.
It is a very, very smart book because it pushes all the right buttons and preys on human frailties. I provides comfort to the emotionally weak, it preys on gullibility and ego. It also preys on fear, with an escape clause from inevitable death. It pretends to know all the answers, when it is obvious humanity still has a lot to learn about our universe.
Alright, there is a lot of information in Bible and a lot to understand. Like any complicated literature it has many layers and many possible interpretations. Most sects and religious bullshit (like so much from catholic church) is based on tradition they have made up themselves, not what can be found in Bible (Mother Mary cult, seven deadly sins, holy people and all that shit). New Testament (which is what could be called an update for modern societies) is pretty straight forward and not much space for speculations that could be wrong.
If one believes we can create an AI, that means someone could have created us and our universe as well, and this world is a test we must pass for us to qualify as worthy later on. We might even do it some day and give our creations some similar guide as Bible to see who can follow our rules and are worthy of living amongst us, can it really not be like that?
"Most sects and religious bullshit (like so much from catholic church) is based on tradition they have made up themselves"
I will not deny that local traditions have an influence. But in this case, not. In this case it is because the bible is incredibly flawed with contradictions and inconsistencies. That allows anyone to make a determination of the bible based on their local traditions.
It is, by far, the greatest multiple choice book ever.
“Honor thy father and thy mother…”– Exodus 20:12
“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. ” — Luke 14:26
It contradicts if you don't really understand it. Your example is pretty straight forward, if you try at least a little to understand. Problem it seems is that most people really try not to understand it and look at it shallow, but when watching movies or reading anything else people suddenly start to look for all possible meanings there and actually try to make sense of it if first reading requires it.
Like the commandments place God before other people, maybe you have seen them even, we must also God before other people as Jesus is closest to relative perfection we have. He has often asked people to ditch their lives and follow Him, as only the ones who do are really worthy of being His disciple. Every person in world has hate for other all people, it just has to be found and seen, we are all sinful beings.
You can give me other examples where you find contradictions, but you can also do a 5 minute research on them and crack it yourself.
Waiting for an answer to my AI example theory and why it wouldn't count as empirical evidence to a possibility if we agree that humans are capable of making an AI.
What a pile of horseshit about.
One deep biblical scholar went through the bible meticulously, and all of a sudden, we had the Westboro Baptist Church. Another biblical scholar carefully digested the bible and we had people drinking cool-aid in Jonestown.
In my previous post I gave examples on how contradictory this bible is, and my previous paragraph shreds your argument that you must delve deep into the bible to come up with the correct interpretation/ answer.
It is a multiple choice book.
@Elemenalenal: RE: "The New Testament is pretty straight forward with not much space for speculation?"
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA 30,000 Christian sects ALL DISAGREE WITH YOU! (Straight forward my ass!)
Christian sects mostly don't really try to follow the Bible, just as nazis did with Nietzche, so it's off topic because they can't represent Bible as it is.
Until you study its history....then you get an understanding of the revisions, interpolations, contradictions, fraud and forgeries that it contains.
Do you mean "source" or have you confused these forums with branch of Macca's?
Yes, I'm sorry, source, please! I've had my head inside too much of present day culture :D
There is so much information available to you in libraries and on the net on the origins of the modern biblical texts. I can't list them all. Here is a quick synopsis. If you want a reading list, PM me and I will supply.
Mark is the oldest gospel dating to approx 75-85 CE, Matthew and Luke were copied largely from Mark and written later. None of them are eyewitness accounts.
John (the earliest fragment of which) came later still, in a different style and contradicting much of the earlier texts.
The earliest fragment of Mark we have dates to second century.
Each gospel and biblical text has been subject to compilation, interpolation, redaction, and downright forgery ( see Titus, 2 Peter, just for a couple of examples)
Early texts did not contain and conversely also contained verses and whole chapters that were not present/present in later versions. Sources? Multiple sources, we do not have the texts as they were all destroyed by the dominant sect (The Paulines) but their criticism ( detailed by line in some cases) survives. That is how we know. The original text writers enemies. (see Oregen)
Your texts date roughly to the 4th century CE (See Codex Sinaiticus) and even then contain more than 3,000 differences to the texts in use today.
Do you want to discuss the wholesale burning and declaration of many early texts by the Bishop of Rome in 492CE? The declaration of anathema of the texts and the worshippers? Wholesale burning and murder?
That is what your texts are based on nowadays, suppression, copies of copies, translations of translations....and none of them contemporary (no not one) to the events they describe.
Try again sunshine. And less of the sauce.