People have and will twist it's message to manipulate people. But it does set out a moral framework. I find it ironic that many who profess to be atheists are often the ones with the biggest moral conscience.

but that did not make him the final authority on all topics. I'd venture to say that there are many people who know a lot more about many things.

Meanwhile, we are talking about perspective and philosophy, which is not necessarily quantifiable.

the last two years. Sad in my opinion!

“Ayn Rand's 'philosophy' is nearly perfect in its immorality, which makes the size of her audience all the more ominous and symptomatic as we enter a curious new phase in our society.... To justify and extol human greed and egotism is to my mind not only immoral, but evil.”
― Gore Vidal

You do know the awful Rand has a huge following with theists, right?

Very anti church and religion that are the bases for altruism. Self and greed is all she preaches. Even Paul Ryan got ripped by the US Council of Bishops for Objectivism.

I had a right wing minister apologize to me. I told him the Satanic Bible was written by a follower of her, He said no way and asked him to research it. Came back and said I was correct.

Of course most theist have never read scripture.

Interesting.

Neither system is all or nothing, but you know that.

Randian atheists a pass because they were idiots as you didn’t appear to be making that point at all.

It's also the same one that provides instructions on how to sell your daughters into sexual slavery and commands you to execute disobedient children, although those parts have somewhat fallen out of fashion.

...live in the same house as a menstruating woman, or wear sharp-edged clothing made from polyester.

Because these things make god angry.

But most of those things can be safely disregarded because the infallible version 1.0 was upgraded to the new and improved version 2.0. Version 1.0 only applies selectively on an ad hoc basis. I could explain how that works, but it involves hidden meanings that are beyond the understanding of your unbelieving mind.

"And no more bacon ever again!"

Christianity's first marketing campaign to the gentiles left something to be desired.

He promised bacon in every pot and more dick for everyone.

Oh wait...

if

I find it ironic that many who profess to be atheists are often the ones with the biggest moral conscience.

biggest moral conscience as you say.

by using the word "profess" that leads me to believe that you think that people who are atheists are incapable of having a moral conscience unless they have "religion" or have "teachings" from the bible.

I am an atheist, my parents were atheists, YET, I help the poor, do volunteer work and consider myself a good person. Why? because in the grand scheme of things, I was taught these things from my parents not because of some fake story of fire and brimstone and being "judged" by some sky being but because it's the right thing to do in society.

we are atheists, not psychopaths lacking in empathy.

the creation of god by man didn't also create empathy. empathy has been around long before there were any god based religions. how do I know this? because we as a species are a social bunch and one needs empathy to be social. otherwise, prior to the creation of gods or a god, we would have never progressed to the point of creating agriculture, art or the sciences. those came about for the betterment of the larger society. not because a god told them to.

you make it sound that if someone was as true atheist, such as myself, has no moral compass unless I have some religion in me.

I don't profess anything, I am a non-believer and have been my entire life.

Then there's a pretty good chance one never had any moral direction to begin with. A true sense of ethics does not require someone looking over your shoulder with the implicit threat of punishment or promise of reward to do the right thing. Doing the right thing carries its own justification.

You are the exact example of what I was saying. . . the TRUE Christian, according to Christ Himself, is the one who DOES all the things you say you are doing. . Not the person who "talks up" Jesus.
By you actions, YOU are the example of Jesus' teachings . . and yet you say you don't "believe". That means there is some philosophical disconnect. When you read the life of Jesus, you're reading about the life of someone who has the same philosophy as you do. That's what I'm saying, you have the moral underpinnings but I see it as a disagreement with organized religion. Me too.

and please do not ever associate me with any religion with good intentions or not.

my actions are my own and not influenced by any religious behavior or doctrine.

it is just this kind of assumption by people who follow religion to label us "non-believers" as more christian than others when we do not believe.

I keep my belief to myself until someone makes the kind of statement you made.

Now you might think, "well, I posted this in the religion forum, why is this atheist chiming in?" because it was on the front page of DU.

I do not and will not slight anyone in anyone in what they believe as long as they keep their belief and opinions to themselves, but when something is on the front page and labels we atheists as "professing to be atheists" as if it is impossible for us to do kind and un-selfserving acts and is only relegated to those who are religious, then that gets my goat up.

and your explanation only serves to highlight that fact.

I am not here to pick a fight, but just be more mindful the next time you choose to make a blanket statement, choose your words wisely.

and FYI, I consider myself to be a constitutional atheist. Meaning, believe whatever you wish, just don't bother me with it.

Posts like yours are appropriate in this group. The Religion Group is for discussing religion and topics related to religion. Atheists are welcome to participate. Criticism, disagreement, awkward questions, arguments and so on are allowed here. Here is the SOP for the group:

Discuss religious and theological issues. All relevant topics are permitted. Believers, non-believers, and everyone in-between are welcome.

There are some groups on DU that were created for religious people who don't wish to be exposed to different views, but this isn't one of them.

By the way, I agree with you. It's extremely offensive for someone to to say that because you're a good person, you must be religious. Fuck that.

Is it the one that says abortion is a mortal sin, and homosexuality is an abomination?

Or is it the one that says women must cover themselves from head to toe, and blasphemers must be executed?

There's really not any "twist"ing needed to hold these positions - the basis for them is right in the holy texts where these moral philosophies are found.

for an adulterous woman:

19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you.
20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband” —
21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse — “may the Lord cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell.
22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.” Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

Numbers 5:19-22, New International Version

I had it years ago and then forgot where to find it. I've been looking (fruitlessly) in Leviticus.

These folks have a few reasons to disagree:

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/abortion/catholic-teaching/the-bibles-teaching-against-abortion

and

https://www.focusonthefamily.com/lifechallenges/love-and-sex/abortion/what-the-bible-says-about-the-beginning-of-life

...the purported word of the "perfect" being containing such great lines of moral philosophy such as:

Matt 10-34:
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Matt 10-35
"For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law."

Matt 10-36
"a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'"

Sam 15-3
"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"

Sam 15:18
"And he sent you on a mission, saying, 'Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; wage war against them until you have wiped them out.'"

Eze 23:20
"There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses."

- On

The kind of moral philosophy one would want to teach their children....

- Off

...Not!


The back of my hand to this so-called moral philosophy.

Give Caesar what is Caesar's.....a recipe for blind obedience to the state.

And the biggest and most objectionable moral failings of that day are totally ignored.....slavery and the abuse of women. And really, throwing babies into the trash and drowning them should have had at least a mention.

A loving god who destroys cities.

A loving god who lets children die of horrible diseases or starvation.

A loving god who will condemn you to an eternity of suffering if you don't obey his every command.

A loving god who lets his creations-- humankind-- fight wars and kill one another.

A loving and perfect god who creates imperfect humans who continually harm themselves.

Yeah. Such a loving god.

I'm a former Christian who has read the entire Bible several times. If that's the loving god, count me out.

Don't tell me the Bible provides a moral compass. It really doesn't.

“Well said.”

Swami Prabhananda said that when reading scriptures you have to separate the sand from the sugar. A lot of people here seem to be OCD on the sand.
Anyone in this thread who professes their good deeds, they are not all good in every respect, right? It's always a matter of percentages.
All the self righteous who are bad mouthing religion, you may think of yourselves as "good people", but ask those close to you if you are a little angel 24/7. Ask yourself if you are perfect all the time. No, you aren't. BUT, the people who know you know that you are mostly a good person. They recognize the good in you and don't focus on your flaws.
You have to do the same thing with scriptures. . . take in the whole and not be one of the small minded who OCD on the flaws.

...it's all sand.

just sayin'

“Religion is the opiate of the people.”

He describes religion as not just fantasy for the sake of fantasy, but fantasy that is self-defeating.

Less often quoted is a more profound statement...

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.

I see the defenders of the faith have brought the same day-old tropes they brought last year.

It's interesting that those who argue for a god to provide a moral framework or some such usually have their own version of god in mind. Probably old male living somewhere out there.

Others may have versions that live in the bowels of earth or the center of the biggest/baddest black hole in the universe. Of course some may believe that the Earth is the center.

That's just my opinion anyway.

...atheist

You are most likely right. Most of us do have an old man living out there somewhere. Although I no longer believe in the religion of my parents, I did grow up with a strong moral compass. It has served me well.

Like invisible gods who telepathically communicate with them, but they rely on con men to make sure the invisible guy gets his 10% cut of their salary.

The OP: Words of a wise man.
Responses: Words of the weak, just like Al said, who go on to offer their interpretation even though he said not to bother.

it was used to force everyone to salute a guy who thought he was a god, with god-certitude, and kill miillions

now we have another with god-like "i-am-never-wrong" royal certitude

wilhelm reich who was there in europe to observe it thought fascism was caused by sexual repression and adolescent masturbation made guilty and fearful with religion, which caused children to transpose godliness on their parents (paternalism) and then by extension on to der fuhrer (something like that). he wrote a book on fascism, about it, and after he had escaped to the US, in 1956 a judge for the food and drug admin ordered it burned!

today authoritarianism in groups may be measured with the UAI or uncertainty avoidance index, as research has narrowed down what motivates most authoritarianism - and extra irrational need for certainty.

the sex on the wrong brain (sowb) theory, a unified theory of human behavior suggests that reich was half way there to explaining authoritarianism.

sowb theory suggests the need for certainty/avoidance of uncertainty that causes the authoritarian fear that drives them to find security (see einstein) in dogma and order-imposition may be exacerbated by wrong handed masturbation - because it mixes /associates reproductive impulses with logic (right hand - left brain) where they try to find satisfaction with certainty

and that would happen relatively recently in human history as populations grew and competed for resources and frustration and masturbation increased as it became necessary to delay the age of reproduction

so we're still learning sex with the wrong hand and we global warming is out of control because we can't even get real sex education past a bunch of sowbed-up republicans

...

views regarding deities. He was asked about the existence of god or gods many times. He did not like the question, since it had nothing really to do with his areas of expertise.

In this letter, he made his opinion known quite clearly, but most of the time, he tried to avoid making such clear statements in response to the questions. He knew where his genius lay, and it wasn't in metaphysics. He was a mathematician and a physicist. He dealt with the physical universe, not the metaphysical one.

His letter brought a huge price at auction, because it settles the issue of Einstein's opinion on the matter, once and for all. And yet, it remains the opinion of a man of science, and will be ignored by people who look at the world through a different set of eyes.

And, just in case anyone wonders, I share Einstein's view of those matters.

So philosophy, art, love, ethics -- things like that are all metaphysical. Religion is one way to explore such topics, but of course there are many other ways.

He seems to think He is.

yogurt