Why I became an atheist: Why did you not?

[youreyes]

There are lots of notes on who to kill, who to rape, how to sell your daughter into slavery etc etc.

Let's discuss these parts in the Bible, where are they exactly?

was pretty much a rehash of the Code of Hammurabi.

...yet only few know of this Code of Hammurabi and billions know of the Bible. The efficiency of the Bible at passing the moral laws to people, is the key.

 

[youreyes]

...

 

[gmilam]

...yet only few know of this Code of Hammurabi and billions know of the Bible. The efficiency of the Bible at passing the moral laws to people, is the key.

I first learned about it in history class in elementary school. And that's even in this backwards world of Texas. (Of course, it was also the 1960s.)

The Bible had a better marketing campaign, doesn't make it the word of god. The fact that it has been said over and over must mean that it's something most of us instinctively know.

Hell, even monkeys know the difference between right and wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrAfqvIwt9E

 

[youreyes]

I first learned about it in history class in elementary school. And that's even in this backwards world of Texas. (Of course, it was also the 1960s.)

The Bible had a better marketing campaign, doesn't make it the word of god. The fact that it has been said over and over must mean that it's something most of us instinctively know.

Hell, even monkeys know the difference between right and wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrAfqvIwt9E

Some monkeys know the difference between right and wrong. The difference between us and monkeys is astounding, perception of the world and being able to be conscious through other objects/eyes. The Bible indeed had a better marketing campaign and atheism did not have as good of a marketing campaign as it does now.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Let's discuss these parts in the Bible, where are they exactly?

It's almost easier to ask where they are not. I would probably start at the top with the Angry God. Wiping out the entire human race, to save only one favored family, is about as bad as it gets for the principle that says "Do as I say, not as I do."

...yet only few know of this Code of Hammurabi and billions know of the Bible.

They know the Code of Hammurabi (in part) if they are familiar with the quip "eye for eye, tooth for tooth". They may not know Hammurabi wrote it long before it appeared in the oldest fragments of Biblical text, or they may not remember that they learned this in the 4th grade, but they also may not know that early Jews were still putting the story together which would become the Bible while they were captives in Babylon. Phrases like "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" are evidence of syncretism (borrowing from an older culture), nothing more. The recasting of the flood story from the older Mesopotamian Gilgamesh Epic into the story of Noah is another example. Not only did the Israelites bring this story (Gilgamesh) with them when they left Ur (cradle of the older culture), it was reinforced when they were later prisoners in Babylon, reunited with their ancestral homeland and its familiar flood story. Since the oldest text we have is later than that, and since the Bible stories speak of the captivity, we know the Bible stories were still being developed while they were in captivity. Whether a lot of people know details like this doesn't speak to the greater truth of what the Bible is, when it was written, who wrote it, and why did they write it. And that gets beyond the attention span of a lot of people who prefer to stay in shallow waters, not that interested in truth after all.

The efficiency of the Bible at passing the moral laws to people, is the key.

Persistent, yes, but not efficient. Efficient would be a book of just a few pages without all the extraneous stuff. Commandments 4-10 would suffice for a compact summary of Biblical moral laws. But none of this has been necessary, since even before Jewish people came into existence, there have always been civil laws to govern behavior. The Greeks did a much better job of teaching virtue in their writings, which are also beautifully written by real people who also happened to be gifted communicators. There is no solace in the fact that people who read the Bible are taking time that would be better spent reading Antigone or The Republic if they truly want to become better human beings. The Bible's popularity gives it no intrinsic worth, no more than any other thing that's well-known only because of aggressive and well-funded advertising.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Some monkeys know the difference between right and wrong. The difference between us and monkeys is astounding, perception of the world and being able to be conscious through other objects/eyes. The Bible indeed had a better marketing campaign and atheism did not have as good of a marketing campaign as it does now.

Funny, I never find Nietszche or Sartre in a hotel drawer. And last I checked, the soup kitchens weren't giving sermons on the Big Bang or evolution. It goes without saying that missionaries aren't busy distributing Plato or Origin of Species. Then there's all the churches around the word, the televangelists, and the billions of congregants, which have no interest in the truths in these kinds of writings at all.

Education isn't a marketing campaign, no matter how hard creationists cast it as such.

 

[Trippy]

Let's discuss these parts in the Bible, where are they exactly?

Some examples for you (I am sure there are many).
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law [the Old Testament] until everything is accomplished. Matthew 5:17-18

From the NIV.

Murder:
14 “Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. 15 Say to the Israelites: ‘Anyone who curses their God will be held responsible; 16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death. Leviticus 24:14-16

Rape:
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her. Deuteronomy 21:10-14

Selling your daughter:
7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,[a] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

 

[absols]

wat is outstanding is to say that humans and monckeys is mainly the same thing

why dont u say it about urself and clarify it for u without meaning all humans that down, is the evil u r

right and wrong are very conscious concept which involve first the objective knowledge of existence, so impossible for monckeys to even sense, right and wrong is never through feelings anyways

right is an individual plus clearly objectively giving smthg more to everything around while out of it

wrong is an individual too minus objectively taking smthg from everything around pretending being attached to while clearly substracting the value of everything around

ur notions of right and wrong are evil to rights and for wrong life, as if right is to b nice and wrong is to hurt

which prove that god words are evil since obviously ur background is ur love to religious teachings

being nice is all to oneself, giving to oneself while being a sense of constant positive
hurting is also all to oneself, by hurting when it is not in self reactions, the positive self is lost so the self become in constant need to find any positive replacement in being

right and wrong has nothing to do with that, right and wrong are only meaning conscious objective values, when one act by knowing how it affects everything n in that purpose, wether to b over everything or to support its superiority

 

[kwhilborn]

@ Spidergoat,

I actually was in a reversal of this process.

I started life as an atheist. As I got older I starter exploring PSI topics, and despite that many here seem to be happy to dismiss overwhelming odds in many cases, have seen evidence both in probabilities and personal experiences to suggest that Telepathy and such are undeniable. It is also true that telepathy is not measurable as the only known devices for sending and receiving are the forever fallible humans/animals. Without measurement, probabilities is the best telepathy can do.

Imagine for a second that this were true. I am not looking for auto skeptic stance just yet. I want you to PRETEND that telepathy is a real thing for a whole minute. Now if telepathy were real, how could a mass consciousness not exist? I mean every mind would be connected in some way to every other mind, and then some.

So it is hard for me to imagine that there is no mass consciousness. I believe that "God knows of every sparrow that falls in the forest, because god is every sparrow that falls in the forest". I say God is "all that is" plus a bit more. I suppose that is MY RELIGION, however I also think the bible is as ridiculous to me as to the OP. I think Jesus did teach valid creative "Law of Attraction" methods, likely picked up from the Egyptian Mystery Schools.

These could almost be quotes from todays "Law of Atraction" teachers.

"Go your way," Jesus told him. "Your faith has healed you." Immediately he could see and began to follow Him on the road.

Jesus did not say I will heal you, or I have healed you. He is saying your own belief has healed you.

IF you had faith as small as a mustard seed you could command this mountain to move from here to there and it would move.

Again he is talking about what you imagine and believe you can create. It is taught in every country on earth today by "Law of Attraction" teachers, and Indian Gurus.

If we are created in gods image then maybe we also have creative power. Visualize your goals everyday.

I think it all boils down to science myself, and that one day all of our thoughts will be weighed and measured.

My solutiion (according to me) is Russellian Science. Walter Russell was ahead of his time and still is apparently. He taught about Plutonium in 1926 before it was even discovered, and has predicted a few other elements that are not yet discovered. Had he been believed, the entire 2nd world war could have been averted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Wn5DRII0RA

Here is free book here
http://abundanthope.net/artman2/uploads/1/The_New_Concept.pdf

His ideas are nothing if not thought at least thought provoking.

XIII
INADEQUACY AND FALLACY OF NEWTON'S THREE LAWS AND ONE HYPOTHESISThe Newton laws and hypothesis seemed to be a master statement of Nature's underlying principles. They have held their prestige with reverence for their validity for three hundred years, during which time the misconception that all matter attracts all other matter with mathematically measurable power has been a fundamental of scientific thinking.
New enlightenment as to God's ways and processes will demonstrate that this belief is but one more of the many seemingly obvious facts of Nature which deceive the senses into forming wrong conclusions. The senses of man have too readily accepted these simulations of facts for real facts.
Newton's first law says: "Every body tends to continue in its state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line unless it is acted upon by an outside force".
Page 36
This law was written to fit non-existent premises which were mistakenly presumed to exist. A body cannot continue its state of rest because bodies at rest do not exist in Nature. Bodies are but waves of motion. When motion ceases, bodies cease to be. One might as appropriately refer to sound being at rest in silence, for sound is matter-in-motion like all other bodies.
A body cannot continue its uniform motion in a straight line in this radial universe of curved pressure gradients. Such a phenomenon is impossible. Likewise, all bodies are continually being acted upon by two outside, opposed forces--not one intermittent force.
Every body in the universe is constantly in violent motion, even though it simulates rest. When motion ceases matter ceases. A cloud floating motionlessly above the earth is moving at a speed of a thousand miles per hour as the earth rotates. It is also moving violently in all of its parts.
It is also moving in a curved line of direction, not a straight line, even though the force acting upon it is unchanging.
The same thing may be said of airplanes, planets, moons or radio waves. They all follow the curvature of gravity pressure gradients because gravity is always curved.
Even the lead pencil lying motionlessly upon a table cannot simulate rest except through motion so violent that your entire house would be instantly destroyed if the dual forces which cause that motion suddenly withdrew their support of it.
I herewith offer the following laws which have meaning in Nature to replace this meaningless first law:
1. All motion in this polarized, radial universe is curved, and all curvature is spiral.
2. Every body is the result of the exertion of two opposing strains which thrust away from each other in opposite radial directions to condition its attributes and determine its motion.
3. Every body is perpetually in motion until the strains of opposition which keep it in motion void each other in the universal zero of rest, into which all bodies disappear for reappearance in reversed polarity.
Newton's third law says: "To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction".
This law is inadequate and incomplete, for it confuses the facts which govern motion. Just what does it mean? Had it been written in either of the two following ways the confusion as to its meaning would disappear, but either one would still be incomplete.
(1) To every action there is an equal and opposite simultaneous reaction, or
(2) To every action there is an equal and opposite sequential reaction.
The inference is that the latter meaning was Newton's intent.
To rewrite this law in conformity with Nature's processes, Newton's third law should read as follows:
Page 37
"Every action is simultaneously balanced by an equal and opposite reaction, and is repeated sequentially in reversed polarity".
That the above may be better understood by the scientist whose traditional training has fixed within his Consciousness the one-way-universe concept, it would be well for me to give a few familiar examples of the fundamental principle of the two-way concept which operates in every action-reaction effect of motion without exception anywhere.
1. An outward explosion compresses in advance of the direction of the action and simultaneously evacuates in the opposite direction. The following half of the cycle is in reverse. The evacuated condition becomes a compressed one, and the compressed condition becomes an evacuated one.
No better example of polarity than the above could be cited. All electric division of the indivisible equilibrium into pairs of opposite conditions takes place in this manner
--and the only two conditions in the universe are the compressed-plus and the expanded-minus conditions, and their resultant effects of heat and cold--male and female--positive and negative, and other wave vibrating pairs of opposites.
2. The discharge of a revolver and its recoil are simultaneous. The sequential reaction is in reverse. That which was a discharge becomes a charge--and their directions are reversed. That which was evacuated becomes a force of gravity which compresses at its center instead of around its circumference . The concavity of outward pressures reverses to the convexity of inward pressures.

Misconception of Substance in Matter5. Sense of observation has led to the erroneous conclusion that there are 92 different substances of matter.
This universe is substanceless. It consists of motion only. Motion simulates substance by the control of its opposing wave pressures of motion which deceive the senses into seeing substance where motion alone is. The senses do not reach beyond the illusion of motion, nor do those who believe that they can gain knowledge of the secrets of this vast make-believe universe even faintly comprehend the unreality of this mirage of polarized light-in-motion which they so firmly believe is real.
Motion is two-way, for all motion is caused by the division of an equilibrium, and its extension in two opposite directions to create the two opposite conditions of pressures necessary to make motion imperative.
One of these two conditions of electric motion thrusts inward toward a center to create a centripetal vortice to simulate gravity. On the other side of the dividing equator, the other condition thrusts outward from a center to create a centrifugal vortice to simulate vacuity.
Moving waves of oppositely-conditioned matter simulate substance, but there is no substance to the motion which simulates IDEA in matter. If a cobweb could move fast enough, it would simulate a solid steel disc--and it could cut through steel. If such a thing could happen it would not be the "substance" of the cobweb which cut through the steel--it would he the motion which cut it.
Fast-moving short waves simulate solids, while slow-moving long waves simulate the gases of space which surround solids. Waves of motion are substanceless, however. They merely simulate substance.
Motion itself is controlled by the Mind of the Creator Who uses it to express His desire for simulating IDEA of Mind by giving it a formed body. There is no other purpose for motion.
Desire in the Light of Mind for creative expression is the only energy in this universe. All motion is Mind motivated. All motion records Mind thoughts in matter.
All matter is but pressure-conditioned motion. Varying pressure conditions yield varying states of motion. Varying states of motion are what science misinterprets as the elements of matter.

http://abundanthope.net/artman2/uploads/1/The_Secret_of_Light.pdf


So science is my religion whether I am on the right path or not yet I do not know.

Return to auto-skeptic mode NOW....

Thanks.

In 1963, Walter Cronkite in the national television evening news, commenting on Russell's death, referred to him as "... the Leonardo da Vinci of our time."

He presented a view of the periodic table of elements that led him to the prediction of the existence of plutonium and the two isotopes of hydrogen, deuterium and tritium[19][unreliable source?] which were known in theory but as yet undiscovered in nature, (as well as elements which are still undiscovered in nature) e. g. the inert gases 'alphanon', 'betanon' and 'gammanon'[19][unreliable source?] as well as the creation of heavy water.[19][unreliable source?] Russell's periodic table has not been adopted by mainstream chemistry. However in 1923, Charles Steinmetz of General Electric was able to corroborate the existence of some of the predicted transuranium elements by direct experimentation in the laboratory which helped to usher in the Atomic Age, in 1945

Science and religion MAY Be compatible. This is my point.......

 

[sanam5511]

Science and religion are compatible....my problem with atheism is that it doesnot lay grounds for morality or any reason of existance....i have listened to many atheist scholars including richard dawkins and the sole emphasis has been defining atheism as the acceptance of science as the all knowing and the greatest force.however,it is the same science that mocked the fact that people could visit the moon or travel at fast speeds or have communications over long distances.....Mocking miracles of the present and the future do the concept of atheism no good

 

[kwhilborn]

@ Sanam,

I think believing in god simply to have a moral structure or for a sense of purpose is not true belief, and instead sounds like grounds for fabricating a religion to keep the people in line.

 

[sanam5511]

but religions do tend to give a moral code and a sense of purpose.....something that science has not and can not...

 

[arauca]

Some examples for you (I am sure there are many).
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law [the Old Testament] until everything is accomplished. Matthew 5:17-18

From the NIV.

Murder:
14 “Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. 15 Say to the Israelites: ‘Anyone who curses their God will be held responsible; 16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death. Leviticus 24:14-16

Rape:
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her. Deuteronomy 21:10-14

Selling your daughter:
7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,[a] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

Which law did Yashua was referring the Jewish law the 613 commandments or the 10 commandments , do you know which ?

 

[arauca]

Funny, I never find Nietszche or Sartre in a hotel drawer. It goes without saying that missionaries aren't busy distributing Plato or Origin of Species. Then there's all the churches around the word, the televangelists, and the billions of congregants, which have no interest in the truths in these kinds of writings at all.

Education isn't a marketing campaign, no matter how hard creationists cast it as such.

Are you not forgetting Education is part of the law of the land , you have to send you children to school, to read the bible is voluntary.
Are you not pushing this in school " the Big Bang or evolution."

 

[arauca]

Antigone[/i] or The Republic if they truly want to become better human beings. The Bible's popularity gives it no intrinsic worth, no more than any other thing that's well-known only because of aggressive and well-funded advertising.

Let me ask you , do you know how many times Platos republic was translated, and do you know if modification have taken place ? Have you looked that bible was put in writing in Babylon which is over 100 years the Socrates was born . Would you believe Greek classical period is not older then Jewish culture, which was sent into exile into the AssyPhoenicianrian empire, but Davids Psalms go about 1000 BC.

 

[Aquatic Ape]

I'm an atheist. Started an atheism party facebook page /AtheismParty if you are interested.

 

[arauca]

I'm an atheist. Started an atheism party facebook page /AtheismParty if you are interested.

How large is your membership, are there any fee for membership ?

 

[Dinosaur]

Interesting remarks.

Science and religion are compatible....my problem with atheism is that it does not lay grounds for morality or any reason of existance....i have listened to many atheist scholars including richard dawkins and the sole emphasis has been defining atheism as the acceptance of science as the all knowing and the greatest force. however, it is the same science that mocked the fact that people could visit the moon or travel at fast speeds or have communications over long distances.....Mocking miracles of the present and the future do the concept of atheism no good

but religions do tend to give a moral code and a sense of purpose.....something that science has not and can not...

The first of the above posters cannot spell & does not capitalize proper names. I wonder if he knows science better than he knows English. My apologies if English is his second or third language.

There is no way that science & religion are compatible except to a person who does not understand either. A person who is a scientist & religious must put the two concepts into different compartments of his mind & avoid mixing them. Does anyone here remember the novel 1984 & the double think concept?

I would like to see some citations relating to science mocking space travel or communication over long distances. Perhaps the science referred to is that of alchemy & other medieval science.

From my observations & from reading various sources, atheists tend to have a better code of ethics than most who profess to be religious.

I feel no need for an outside source of a sense of purpose. I have goals & ambitions. I do not need religion to provide them. Science provides a lot of worthwhile goals

BTW: On the issue of ethics, for 5000 years of human history, no religion campaigned or talked against slavery. The Quakers were the first to do so some time in the 1800's.

Note: I avoid the use of the term morality, favoring ethics/ethical. Morality suggests a religious concept. Religion oriented people are often hypocritical/unethical in their actions & views. The following from unknown sources express some of my sentiments very well.

Religion provides solace for the turmoil it creates.

He who has made great moral progress ceases to pray.

What is needed is the will to find out not the will to believe which is the exact opposite.

It is wrong always, everywhere, & for anyone to believe anything without sufficient evidence.

Our world is staking the future of our species on beliefs that should not have survived a good elementary school education.

Reality is that which does not go away when you stop believing in it.

 

[billvon]

There is no way that science & religion are compatible except to a person who does not understand either.

Stephen Gould, one of the more famous evolutionary scientists of our time, was also quite religious. His essay on "Non-Overlapping Magisteria" in 1996 explained how, to him, the two were compatible.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Stephen Gould, one of the more famous evolutionary scientists of our time, was also quite religious. His essay on "Non-Overlapping Magisteria" in 1996 explained how, to him, the two were compatible.

When you're on duty in the science lab, you are obliged to adhere to the scientific method. Any assertion that is presented without evidence must be automatically discarded as false.

But when you take your lab coat off and become an ordinary citizen, you have the freedom to believe any cockeyed hunch, suspicion, fairytale, intuition or plain old bullshit that you want to believe.

Of course if you're a famous scientist, you're a public persona. So you have an obligation to remain on duty as a member of your profession when in public, which obviously includes your writing.

I haven't read Gould's book, but I hope he is not violating that rule by teaching that the fairytales of religion should be respected despite the total lack of evidence. Any scientist who teaches that fairytales are anything but extremely useful metaphors should have his slide rule seized and broken in half in the town square.

The Rule of Laplace is a cornerstone of the scientific method: Extraordinary assertions must be supported by extraordinary evidence before anyone is obliged to treat them with respect.