Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion

[Sybarite]

Sorry, Syb, I'm not the person to explain why substantial numbers of people, Christian or atheist, behave as they do. I think there are more than enough atheists who would be more than glad to provide their explanation to you about why Christians behave as they do, and many atheists as well.

But Peder, do you not think that what I attempted to illustrate a couple of posts back is a perfect illustration of what people mean when they talk of 'pick 'n' mix religion'? I'm sorry if I misunderstood your earlier post, but I thought that you were asking for an explanation of what that phrase meant ...

 

[Peder]

But do you not think that that is a perfect illustration of what people mean when they talk of 'pick 'n' mix religion'? I'm sorry if I misunderstood your earlier post, but I thought that you were asking for an explanation of what that phrase meant ...

I think I know what 'pick and choose' is intended to mean. My comment was that it is a standard pejorative phrase from the atheist's arsenal and that its use shows little insight into how faith and belief are formed. If your observation is that many people do not consistently follow the teachings that can be found in the Bible, then I can only ask "So what else is new?" I would only observe that atheists whom I know are hardly in positions to cast the first stone. And throwing stones is hardly enlightening anyway.

 

[ylris611203]

With respect Chris, I'm rather with Bob Magness on this. Like him, I went through a 'born again' experience. I was around 14 at the time. And I continued to believe, in one way or another, until I was 37. So again, with respect, I do have a clue. Which is partly why I also have a clue about what is actually in the Bible. I can discuss theology from the perspective of someone who learned a lot of it and read the Bible a lot (daily) for many years. I also had the 'advantage' of having a clergyman as a father.

It's a bit like having your cake and eating it. I don't believe, I do believe and now I don't believe again.

 

[Sybarite]

I think I know what 'pick and choose' is intended to mean. My comment was that it is a standard pejorative phrase from the atheist's arsenal and that its use shows little insight into how faith and belief are formed. If your observation is that many people do not consistently follow the teachings that can be found in the Bible, then I can only ask "So what else is new?" I would only observe that atheists whom I know are hardly in positions to cast the first stone.

My apologies, Peder. I thought you'd asked what the phrase meant. So presumably you don't think that it's an apt description – even with my explanation?

I would have thought that the problem with a pick 'n' mix approach to religion is that it seems to suggest that, really, God doesn't know best and humans in this intelligent age can override theology and make their own minds up on issues – which, as I suggest, doesn't actually do much for God's reputation as a, well, as a god, with all we know that word to entail.

I'm also afraid that I don't understand what the comparison would be, Peder: are there atheists that you know who don't abide fully by some atheist 'theology' of which I've never heard?

 

[Sybarite]

It's a bit like having your cake and eating it. I don't believe, I do believe and now I don't believe again.

Not really Chris. I was brought up, and thus indoctrinated from the earliest possible age, by fundamentalist, evangelical parents. I didn't really have a lot of say in the matter. So I have only gone from belief to no belief. No other changes.

Still, I do like to think that it gives me a perspective of what faith and religion mean in real life, which unfortunately seems to be quite inconvenient for some people, who would rather pretend that atheists don't know what they're commenting on.

 

[Peder]

My apologies, Peder. I thought you'd asked what the phrase meant. So presumably you don't think that it's an apt description – even with my explanation?

I think it is a pejorative description that hardly does justice to the situation.

I would have thought that the problem with a pick 'n' mix approach to religion is that it seems to suggest that, really, God doesn't know best and humans in this intelligent age can override theology and make their own minds up on issues – which, as I suggest, doesn't actually do much for God's reputation as a, well, as a god, with all we know that word to entail.

As far as I know humans have always had free will, to follow good or not, and we see which choice is frequently made.

I'm also afraid that I don't understand what the comparison would be, Peder: are there atheists that you know who don't abide fully by some atheist 'theology' of which I've never heard?

Since you ask. Guidelines for moral and ethical behavior are not confined to only the Bible. It seems to me that Socrates was asking the question of what constituted virtuous behavior in man, and providing the answer, long before I was born. And more recently one can think of Kant and his Categorical Imperative as another rule for ethical or moral behavior

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it become a universal law."

So yes, there are normative secular guidelines in the Western Canon that atheists might look to and obey if they chose to. I daresay not all do.

 

[Sybarite]

I think it is a pejorative description that hardly does justice to the situation.

I haven't said it in such a manner here. But on the basis of what I have carefully and respectfully described, do you agree that a pick and mix approach to religion exists – indeed that it is the norm amongst believers? Do you not agree that, were religious believers to feel that they absolutely had to stick with every single tenet of their chosen holy book, there would be rather less people declaring themselves believers – for instance, if Christians actually stuck with the teaching of Christ on wealth, instead of worrying about the teaching of Christ on homosexuality that doesn't actually exist?

And if the pick and mix approach to religion exists, does it not present the rather obvious problem of humans saying that they know better than god (unless what is supposed to be god's holy word is actually nothing of the sort and can therefore be casually dismissed – although I doubt many religious believers will be happily acknowledging that any day soon).

As far as I know humans have always had free will, to follow good or not, and we see which choice is frequently made...

It's not quite that simple if one believes the Christian tradition, Peder. According to Judeo-Christian beliefs, God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. If this God created the world, the he did so in the full and certain knowledge of everything that would ever happen. Thus he created sin and 'evil'. He created the apple and the serpent, in the full and certain knowledge of what Eve would do. He created the sin that he knew would eventually mean that he would make himself into his own son so that he could send himself to die on the cross to save human beings from the sin that he had created. Thus it is rather difficult to see how, within Christian theology, one could claim that 'free will' has really ever existed.

Since you ask. Guidelines for moral and ethical behavior are not confined to only the Bible. It seems to me that Socrates was asking the question of what constituted virtuous behavior in man, and providing the answer, long before I was born. And more recently one can think of Kant and his Categorical Imperative as another rule for ethical or moral behavior...

Of course you're right. But then again, I never claimed that philosophers have not provided many different analyses of the world. But I would merely point out the rather obvious – that religious people tend to believe that their holy texts are the source of all moral teaching etc. And this is completely true of the overwhelming bulk of Christian sects and sub-sects, through a couple of millennia.

... So yes, there are normative secular guidelines in the Western Canon that atheists might look to and obey if they chose to. I daresay not all do.

So please, Peder: I'm still missing the point. What are these texts exactly that atheists, in organised group, treat in the same way as Christians would treat the Bible, as Jews would treat the Torah and as Muslims would treat the Qu'ran? Not "might" treat in such a manner – do treat in such a mnner. Because until you can show us a text that an organised group of atheists adheres to now – and claims to adhere to – your comparison doesn't stand up.

 

[beer good]

I don't think anyone's argued that all atheists are inherently moral or anything of the sort - that would make little sense, given that the only thing all atheists have in common is that they have one less thing in common than all theists. But isn't there an important distinction between, say, Leviticus and Kant? If the God one believes in says not to do something, then the fact that it's God saying it is what gives it power - regardless of whether the commandment is "thou shalt not kill" or "shrimp are unclean." If God says something, then supposedly - and correct me if I'm wrong - the believer cannot go "Well, God is wrong on that one, but he's right on all the others"; after all, God is God and supposedly knows more than we do.

Whereas Kant doesn't have superior authority by virtue of being Kant, but by virtue of whether people think his maxim makes sense or not. If someone disagrees with God and acts accordingly, that makes them a sinner. If someone disagrees with Kant's take on morality - it just so happens I do, at least partly - that doesn't in itself make them immoral. Unlike God, Kant can be wrong.

Like you say, people have been trying to figure out what constitutes moral behaviour since the dawn of time, and funnily enough, most societies - whether Christian, otherwise religious, or secular - have come up with roughly the same rules (with some notable exceptions, of course). Which of course is one of the points that Dawkins makes as well. The fact that most people today - including most Christians - would say they disagree with some of the things in the Bible (say, the condoning of slavery), whereas the fact that most people also - including most non-Christians - would say they agree with some other things in the Bible (say, the golden rule) seems to suggest to me that what gives a moral guideline weight isn't who says it, but whether or not it works.

For the record, I agree that Dawkins has his faults; especially in the way he polarises the debate by essentially saying everyone has to make a choice between 100% rationality or 100% religious fundamentalism. I disagee with him there. However, like Kant, the value of his statements doesn't come from the fact that Dawkins makes them, but from whether they make sense in and of themselves. He can be wrong about one thing and yet be completely spot-on about others.

 

[Revised]

According to Judeo-Christian beliefs, God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. If this God created the world, the he did so in the full and certain knowledge of everything that would ever happen. Thus he created sin and 'evil'. He created the apple and the serpent, in the full and certain knowledge of what Eve would do. He created the sin that he knew would eventually mean that he would make himself into his own son so that he could send himself to die on the cross to save human beings from the sin that he had created. Thus it is rather difficult to see how, within Christian theology, one could claim that 'free will' has really ever existed.

That is how I view it as well.

 

[Peder]

But isn't there an important distinction between, say, Leviticus and Kant? If the God one believes in says not to do something, then the fact that it's God saying it is what gives it power - regardless of whether the commandment is "thou shalt not kill" or "shrimp are unclean."

I would call that a fair statement of how it is supposed to work, and there are devoted people who do follow God's commandments quite scrupulously.

If God says something, then supposedly - and correct me if I'm wrong - the believer cannot go "Well, God is wrong on that one, but he's right on all the others"; after all, God is God and supposedly knows more than we do.

Well, that is not quite how I would characterize disobedience to God's Word. One moral of the Story of Adam and Eve is that man will act in accordance with his own will, even though he knows exactly what God told him he should not do. Maybe Adam rationalizes God as being wrong -- I don't have my Bible handy -- but I think more appropriately one might describe the falling away frm God's will as simply ignoring it and following one's own self interest, rather than explicitly forming a judgement that God was wrong on that one. And it is not unknown that religious people do have qualms when they don't follow what they know the Bible's teaching to be. Some people do have consciences that worry about such things, and I regard that as a good thing that comes from religion.

Whereas Kant doesn't have superior authority by virtue of being Kant, but by virtue of whether people think his maxim makes sense or not. If someone disagrees with God and acts accordingly, that makes them a sinner. If someone disagrees with Kant's take on morality - it just so happens I do, at least partly - that doesn't in itself make them immoral. Unlike God, Kant can be wrong.

My mention of Kant was a direct answer to a direct question about whether there might be some 'atheist theology' for virtuous atheist behavior and Kant came to mind as someone an atheist might look to if they were interested, not because of any infallibility of his.

Like you say, people have been trying to figure out what constitutes moral behaviour since the dawn of time, and funnily enough, most societies - whether Christian, otherwise religious, or secular - have come up with roughly the same rules (with some notable exceptions, of course). Which of course is one of the points that Dawkins makes as well. The fact that most people today - including most Christians - would say they disagree with some of the things in the Bible (say, the condoning of slavery), whereas the fact that most people also - including most non-Christians - would say they agree with some other things in the Bible (say, the golden rule) seems to suggest to me that what gives a moral guideline weight isn't who says it, but whether or not it works.

I definitely prefer not to rely on man's own self interest to decide what 'works' and is 'good'. There have been too many bad examples, and some very very bad examples. But that is another old and worn topic.

For the record, I agree that Dawkins has his faults; especially in the way he polarises the debate by essentially saying everyone has to make a choice between 100% rationality or 100% religious fundamentalism. I disagee with him there. However, like Kant, the value of his statements doesn't come from the fact that Dawkins makes them, but from whether they make sense in and of themselves. He can be wrong about one thing and yet be completely spot-on about others.

I disagree more with his flat-out explicit statement that religion is a force for evil in the world, offered as justification for his extreme hostility to it. Someone correct me if I am wrong. It has been a while since I have had the book in my hands.

 

[Peder]

Sybarite,
I think I responded fairly to the questions you raised in the detail with which you raised them. If you now tell me you quarrel with my answers because they didn't respond accurately or completely enough to further considerations you had in mind at the time, but didn't state, well, I can only say I am not a mind reader.
Perhaps you might find some relevant commentary in my response to Beer Good, so I recommend it to you. However, I have to say your 'proof'' that there never was free will might qualify you as a theologian, but it cuts no ice with me.
Peder

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

Bolding above mine.

MC,
How does your statement differ from Peder's comment?
To my eyes it is the same difference, but I'd like to understand your analysis of why it is different.

p.s. long time, no see. :flowers:

Peder was suggesting that athiests think that they know more about Christian teachings etc than Christians do. I was pointing out that it's not a case of knowing more, but a case of viewing the teachings without blinkers - a case of seeing the teachings as they really are, rathering than trying a bit of rationalization here, a touch of blindness there in order to make these teachings work in a modern world. I'm guessing that Peder is suggesting that athiests claim to "know more" because they don't put up with the excuses that Christians have formed, such as "it's not literal, it was merely an allegory" etc. We understand what Christians believe when they say this - we just don't buy into it. And I guess that can come off as seeming as though we think we know more. We don't. We just see things more clearly. IMO.

Yeah, it's good to see you

"Pick and choose" is a famous and not entirely accurate or complimentary broad-brush phrase which I think gives short shrift to how belief and faith are formed -- at least for some people, and perhaps many more than one might suppose. However, it is one of the phrases from the atheist arsenal which I think indicates exactly the atheist lack of insight that I take exception to.

I'm not the person to explain why substantial numbers of people, Christian or atheist, behave as they do.

You're not the person to explain this because I don't think that anyone can. Every individual has their own personal set of beliefs and behavours regarding religion, and it's a perfect example of this pick-and-mix philosophy. It shows in all the different denominations - if Christians do not pick and choose which sections of the Bible to adhere to, which to take literally, which were meant as allegorys etc, then how do you explain these different groups of Christians with vastly different views on how to live day-to-day? Is Mary a saint? Are there any Saints? Did God create the world in 7 literal days? Is the Earth 6000 years old? Did the Great Flood actually happen? Each individual Christian has their own viewpoint on these questions. This is what I mean by pick-and-mix.

You can also look at the decisions people make morally. The Bible states that you should kill a person who is disrespectful to their parents, along with people who work on the Sabbath. Yet I don't think you'll find many people these days who adhere to this. How then do Christians decide which morals to follow if it's not by their own personal choice?

Am I supposed to understand that atheists "think" and "reason" while believers only "pick and choose"? Or that only atheists have brains and others don't? Shorthand pejoratives don't really further understanding in a discussion such as this.

I stated in my post that I know that Christians think and reason. The problem is that their reasoning is based on flawed premises. Christians are intelligent, they are able to reason just as well as anyone else - you and a number of other Christians on this forum show that clearly. But if you start off with flawed premises, then perfect reasoning is going to lead to flawed conclusions.

 

[Peder]

An afterthought re "pick and choose," since it seems the phrase will not go away.

The Reformation began very nearly 500 years ago (in 1517) so it seems to me to be rather late in the day to be suddenly astonished that there are a variety of ways for the faithful to view the authority and accuracy of the Bible. I have been supposing that most people were aware that these views ranged from belief in literal accuracy to much more liberal interpretations, as in say The Jefferson Bible.

I have also supposed that people are generally aware of a similar wide range of attitudes among atheists regarding religion, from live-and-let-live to extreme hostility.

So, I am somewhat surprised by the extreme vehemence of one segment of the atheist population attacking one segment of the Christian population. To me it seems rather out of proportion and lacking in overall perspective.

For anyone interested in seeing both sides of the coin, though, there are two approachable books, as good as any in my opinion, that provide balanced perspectives from each side.

The Quest of the Historical Jesus by Albert Shweitzer, where a range of approaches to Bblical scholarship down through the ages can be seen, although somewhat dated by now, and

The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God by Carl Sagan, a more up-to-date book which I have already mentioned.​

 

[Peder]

Monkey Catcher,
I see we cross posted.
However, I think my post is not inappropriate in response to yours anyway, so I'll let it stand without further detailed comment. But I do think you go rather far beyond anything I have said when you impugn my supposedly 'flawed premises' and 'flawed conclusions.' Do you really know so much about my faith and my beliefs as to characterize them that way?

 

[Sybarite]

Sybarite,
I think I responded fairly to the questions you raised in the detail with which you raised them. If you now tell me you quarrel with my answers because they didn't respond accurately or completely enough to further considerations you had in mind at the time, but didn't state, well, I can only say I am not a mind reader.
Perhaps you might find some relevant commentary in my response to Beer Good, so I recommend it to you. However, I have to say your 'proof'' that there never was free will might qualify you as a theologian, but it cuts no ice with me.
Peder

Peder, I'm shocked. I was doing my utmost to behave in a respectful way in this debate and I'm sorry if you've taken my approach in a different way. I certainly have not suggested that you didn't respond "fairly" to anything. What I'm concerned to do here is merely to make the discussion as clear as possible.

As to your dismissal of my analysis of the notion of free will in terms of Christian theology, I notice that you haven't actually given an explanation of why it "cuts no ice" with you, but have merely dismissed it, apparently out of hand. Are you saying that:

• in terms of Christianity, theology doesn't matter;

• in terms of the Judeo-Christian tradition, God is not omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent;

• in terms of Christianity, omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent don't really mean omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent – thus the omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent god wasn't/isn't really all-seeing, present everywhere and all-powerful?

You, Peder, have raised (in this part of this discussion) the issue of free will of terms of the Christian religion. Are you now suggesting that you wish to discuss aspects of the Christian religion without recourse to Christian theology and tradition?

Isn't that just a little bit pick 'n' mix?

I think that beer good makes some very salient points – not least that if you have something that has divine authority claimed for it, it is different from something that does not have such a claim attached to it.

beer good also raises the issue of how morals have changed. He mentions the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, which apparently implies that a 'good man' can still be a 'good man' even after he's offered his virgin daughters up to be raped.

He could equally have mentioned the story of Job, whom God and the Devil gambled with to see just how faithful he was, allowing his family and servants and slaves to be murdered and killed etc.

He could have mentioned how God told Abraham to murder his own child, Isaac. At this point, I'll interject a small anecdote if I may. I used to have to go to a little event called Sunshine Corner every Monday evening when I was a child. It was a sort of slightly more playful version of Sunday school. I remember the clergyman – in this case, my other father (anyone see how this is coming out?) – telling us the story of Abraham and Isaac, and how it was a test of faith and thus 'A Good Thing'. It's rather perverted hearing one's own father tell one (and other children) that being prepared to kill one's child on the grounds that God told them to is 'A Good Thing'.

So yes – morality has changed. We don't consider slavery acceptable any more. We probably wouldn't think it acceptable to kill someone for not keeping the Sabbath holy. We don't (I imagine) consider it 'moral' for a father to offer his virgin daughters to a mob in the hope that that would dissuade them from any ideas of sodomy. We wouldn't think it right that anyone should gamble with another person's life and the lives of their loved ones for a bit of a bet.

But all that leaves us with rather a problem.

Either the book that tells all these stories is 'holy', is 'divine', or it is not.

Concepts such as 'holy' and 'divine' are absolutes – you can't be 'a bit divine' or, in the case of the Bible, a 'bit divinely inspired'.

If the Bible is a 'holy' and 'divine' work, and these stories are 'holy' and 'divine', then we have outgrown them. We have decided that God got it wrong – that those stories are immoral at worst: at best, not appropriate to our times.

But where does that leave God? Can an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent god be wrong? If God, as described in Judeo-Christian tradition, is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, then those stories, those teachings, are still relevant – we have simply become disobedient and have moved away from God.

So if the god of Judeo-Christian tradition exists, then most of us in the Western world have moved beyond him, which rather suggests limits on his omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence.

The point with 'pick 'n' mix' religion, as opposed to atheism, is that believers have to decide whether their holy book is, indeed, holy. If they say that it is, then perhaps they should stick to the whole of it and not just picks out the bits that they find convenient or easy to abide by or suit their own prejudices? After all, if it's holy and divine, then who are humans to decide which bits are relevant today and which bits should be shoved quietly into a corner and forgotten?

There is no atheist theology. There is no atheist set text. No atheists are sitting down trying to excuse themselves from one bit of some atheist set text on the grounds that they don't like that bit – when in fact, someone has told them that that is what they should do/think – and claimed special authority for doing so. They can read something – or nothing. They can listen to someone – or no-one. They can construct their own morality – their own ethical framework for living – by themselves or with the help of others. There are no rules to atheism – and nobody suggesting that there are or should be.

That is a difference.

 

[beer good]

My mention of Kant was a direct answer to a direct question about whether there might be some 'atheist theology' for virtuous atheist behavior and Kant came to mind as someone an atheist might look to if they were interested, not because of any infallibility of his.

I understood that, but I'm going to have to agree with Sybarite that the answer wasn't completely on point. Some atheists may agree with Kant, others may disagree; that in itself doesn't make them any more or less moral, and the comparison as an "atheist theology" doesn't hold up since there is no requirement for an atheist to follow or not follow the teachings of Kant (or Spinoza, or Russell, or Buddha, or Jesus, etc). Atheism is a statement of fact - "there is/are no god(s)" - not of morality; you may find the statement to be true or false, but it's not inherently a moral standpoint, and atheism in and of itself usually doesn't make a person more or less moral. Some may get their morals from Kant, some from other sources, some by their own reasoning, and some simply by living in a society where the same basic rules have always applied; Kant isn't necessarily more or less valid as a source of morality than any of the others.

But I might be splitting hairs. And thank you for acknowledging that there are valid non-Christian sources of morality.

I definitely prefer not to rely on man's own self interest to decide what 'works' and is 'good'. There have been too many bad examples, and some very very bad examples. But that is another old and worn topic.

Just to clarify - if I've understood the phrase "man's own self interest" correctly, that's not what I was referring to. I'm not talking about complete moral relativism and selfishness, which is a rare case outside of psychopaths, academical discussions and Paulo Coelho novels. I was referring to the fact that the basic rules that all working societies have adhered to are fundamentally similar as far back as we have historical or archeological sources; don't kill your neighbours, don't steal their possessions, don't lie, don't have sex with your parents or siblings, don't eat food that goes bad unless refrigerators have been invented, etc. The Bible, the Qur'an, the teachings of Buddha, the philosophy of Kant etc are not the source of these rules; they are interpretations and specific examples of them, they are in those books because they work and not the other way around. They develop over time (and, as some of the now-mostly-disused older rules in the OT demonstrate, occasionally become irrelevant) because without them, we cannot function as social animals.

 

[Peder]

Sybarite,
I refer you, too, to my post this morning for some general observations that are relevant to your questions.
Regarding Free Will, and Original Sin too, I believe they are alive and well as doctrines in my branch of Christianity, even though you seem to think that yours is the only definition of Christianity. And, no, I have not mounted a theological discussion of them, any more than I have presented a description of my own faith and beliefs. I am not the topic of this forum; Dawkins is. And I thought we have been mainly discussing our different reactions to his attitudes and beliefs, not my attitudes and beliefs. Suffice it to say I am a comfortable participant in congregations engaging in Christian modes of worship, and welcome there, and my discussions of my personal faith and beliefs are conducted in other more churchly and receptive offline venues than here. I can assure you, however, that I am a Christian in the broad mainstream of Christianity, in case you were wondering.

 

[Sybarite]

I refer you, too, to my post this morning for some general observations that are relevant to your questions...

And I respectfully refer you to beer good's comments from this morning, Peder. At no point have you suggested any atheist 'text' that would be a comparable to theology.

... Regarding Free Will, and Original Sin too, I believe they are alive and well as doctrines in my branch of Christianity, even though you seem to think that yours is the only definition of Christianity...

Oh dear, oh dear. I really cannot find anywhere where I have said or suggested that Peder. In fact, I've just checked back and nowhere have I even implied that such doctrines no longer exist in any or all branches of Christianity. Indeed, it's worth pointing out, as a little factette, that I have not even mentioned original sin at all in our exchanges since yesterday. I can't imagine why you've introduced it now. And in terms of the idea of free will, I was attempting to explore that issue – not pretend that such a doctrine doesn't exist.

I'm sorry that you feel that discussing theology is not actually relevant to the question of religion – I would have thought that theology was very much at the heart of much of this sort of debate. It is certainly something that is a very prominent part of The God Delusion.

Anyway, fair enough – it's your decision not to discuss it and you're perfectly entitled to make that choice.

In many ways, you've illustrated one of the points that Dawkins and various others have made: that when confronted with attempts to rationally discuss aspects of a specific religion, many people refuse, in some cases, claiming that a general discussion on a point of theology is a specific assault on their personal faith. Perhaps they're afraid of the challenge that their faith might face from asking such questions in such a manner?

 

[Peder]

And I respectfully refer you to beer good's comments from this morning, Peder. At no point have you suggested any atheist 'text' that would be a comparable to theology.

And I'll repeat for the second or third time, that I understood you to be asking for some guideline outside of the Bible for virtuous behavior that might be applicable to atheists. I did not understand you to be asking for something with the authority of the Bible, nor did I offer Socrates or Kant with that intention.

Perhaps they're afraid

And that sounds to me like as good a juncture as any for us to go our separate ways.
Have a good day.

 

[Sybarite]

And I'll repeat for the second or third time, that I understood you to be asking for some guideline outside of the Bible for virtuous behavior that might be applicable to atheists. I did not understand you to be asking for something with the authority of the Bible, nor did I offer Socrates or Kant with that intention...

I was asking for you – or anyone else – to come up with something that was regarded by atheists in general and at large, as a non-religious guideline for living: something that would be comparable to the Bible/Torah/Qu'ran for that 'group'.

There are obviously plenty of books and philosophies that individuals might find helpful to themselves personally – but there are probably far more atheists that have never even heard of Kant than have read him. And the same can be said of many other philosophers. So we are back at the point that there is nothing comparable to a theology or a holy book for atheists as a whole.

And that sounds to me like as good a juncture as any for us to go our separate ways.
Have a good day.

We have a saying in the UK: 'if the cap fits' ...

Thank you.