Ever Wonder Why They Wrote The Bible?

[Quagmire]

An atheist does not believe, therefore to assume they take moral guidance from scripture is perhaps stretching it.

Sorry, but without any reasoning behind your claim it just sounds like a self-serving guess.

Btw, you should quote the people who's posts you're replying to. They're probably going to see it eventually anyway.

At least we are on the same page with not having to be religious to have a moral code. My own personal belief is that lack of religion provides you with the tools to build a stronger moral code, because it would be more influenced by accepted societal norms, instead of religious norms.

Most accepted societal norms are superficial (which is why we have laws regulating the more important ones). IMO, anyone who bases their personal moral code (the one we use to regulate ourselves) on a "follow the herd" mentality---especially in any society where narcissism is encouraged (like ours)---might as well not even have one.

I am unsure of your claim about non religious charities being scams, as you offer no evidence.

Can I look at your books?

Anyway, it wasn't a claim about all secular non-profits being scams, it was a claim that "I can tell you from my own experience that most of the secular non-profits I've dealt with...". In other words, it's anecdotal, just like this was:

I am an atheist but have started up a charity and been on the board of a few charities too.

do with it what you will.

(and now I understand why you didn't quote me directly. )

I know religious people do a lot of good work, and believe all charity work is worthwhile, and I can also say that in my instance they were not scams, and if that was your inference, then I am sorry for you.

Which "they" are you taling about? The sentences in your above paragraph don't seem logically connected to each other.

Here's what I mean:

You say: "I know religious people do a lot of good work, and believe all charity work is worthwhile," OK.

" and I can also say that in my instance they were not scams," are you saying you've never known of any charities that weren't scams? Or are you saying that the charities that you've been involved in weren't scams? It's hard to decipher the meaning of "in my instance" in this sentence.

and if that was your inference, then I am sorry for you

If what was my inference? The last statement won't make sense until I know what the points preceeding it were meant to be.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

An atheist does not believe, therefore to assume they take moral guidance from scripture is perhaps stretching it. At least we are on the same page with not having to be religious to have a moral code. My own personal belief is that lack of religion provides you with the tools to build a stronger moral code, because it would be more influenced by accepted societal norms, instead of religious norms.
I am unsure of your claim about non religious charities being scams, as you offer no evidence.
I know religious people do a lot of good work, and believe all charity work is worthwhile, and I can also say that in my instance they were not scams, and if that was your inference, then I am sorry for you.

I met an atheist that seemed to try to live by the golden rule.
He'd give his shirt off his back, so to speak.

Jesus gave an illustration of how to help on a one-on-one basis.
[see a need and when possible to help]
In Jesus illustration of the neighborly good Samaritan Jesus showed to widen out in love for another, but Jesus never taught to set that up on a large scale.

Religion's 'Feed the poor' on the surface looks oh, so good.
But the wave of godlessness has adverse affects on their religious position.
-2nd Tim 3vs1-5,13

As far as a stronger moral code the conscience becomes involved.
All have a built in conscience as an inner witness bearer.
However, a damaged conscience can become calloused unfeeling like flesh branded by a hot iron. [Romans 2 vs14,15; 1st Tim. 4v2]
For example: Who'd want the conscience of a serial killer?

So, if the conscience does not have good guidance or direction,
then Jimmy Cricket's 'let your conscience be your guide' is faulty.
What is wrong with the golden rule guidance or Jesus Sermon on the Mount?

 

[cablescavenger]

Sorry, but without any reasoning behind your claim it just sounds like a self-serving guess.

Btw, you should quote the people who's posts you're replying to. They're probably going to see it eventually anyway.



Most accepted societal norms are superficial (which is why we have laws regulating the more important ones). IMO, anyone who bases their personal moral code (the one we use to regulate ourselves) on a "follow the herd" mentality---especially in any society where narcissism is encouraged (like ours)---might as well not even have one.



Can I look at your books?

Anyway, it wasn't a claim about all secular non-profits being scams, it was a claim that "I can tell you from my own experience that most of the secular non-profits I've dealt with...". In other words, it's anecdotal, just like this was:



do with it what you will.

(and now I understand why you didn't quote me directly. )



Which "they" are you taling about? The sentences in your above paragraph don't seem logically connected to each other.

Here's what I mean:

You say: "I know religious people do a lot of good work, and believe all charity work is worthwhile," OK.

" and I can also say that in my instance they were not scams," are you saying you've never known of any charities that weren't scams? Or are you saying that the charities that you've been involved in weren't scams? It's hard to decipher the meaning of "in my instance" in this sentence.



If what was my inference? The last statement won't make sense until I know what the points preceeding it were meant to be.

Hello Quagmire, sorry I did not quote yours post, as it was just above mine I didn't think I had to. If that i a rule, I will bear it in mind,

I can't answer your point bout the self serving guess.
I stated 16% of the world population didn't turn to scripture because they were agnostic or atheist, you seem to think I have overstated that number because you believe that many of them take their moral guidance from scripture.

I actually thing that 16% was a very low estimate. I was being kind, after all, how many people labelled as Christian do you suppose have never read the Bible in it's entirety? let alone taken moral guidance from it.

Regarding your point about the charity work I was not sure of your point, when I mentioned that I had done charity work, your response was that in your experience charity work done by non religious people was a scam.

So to expand on my response, I was stating that the charities I have been involved in were not scams, and if you were implying that they were then I was disappointed with the inference.

 

[Quagmire]

Hello Quagmire, sorry I did not quote yours post, as it was just above mine I didn't think I had to. If that i a rule, I will bear it in mind,

I can't answer your point bout the self serving guess.
I stated 16% of the world population didn't turn to scripture because they were agnostic or atheist, you seem to think I have overstated that number because you believe that many of them take their moral guidance from scripture.

I never suggested that you "over-stated" the number, although now I am wondering where you came up with it.

My point is that just because there are X-amount of non-theists doesn't mean that there are x-amount of people who haven't been influenced by religious texts.

I know for a fact that many non-theists use moral precepts from any number of religious texts to fashion or form their own personal code or philosophies.

We have atheist/agnostic members in here who read the Toa Te Ching, the bible, the Quran, The Vedas,.... Ask them whether these books have had any influence on their on personal codes.

I actually thing that 16% was a very low estimate.

Ah, so it was an "estimate". Based on what exactly?

I was being kind,

You were being disingenuous (like I said, you were just guessing).

after all, how many people labelled as Christian do you suppose have never read the Bible in it's entirety? let alone taken moral guidance from it.

Quite a few. Even many who claim that they have.

Regarding your point about the charity work I was not sure of your point, when I mentioned that I had done charity work, your response was that in your experience charity work done by non religious people was a scam.

No my response was this:

I've been working in the non-profit world for more than 20 years, and I can tell you from my own experience that most of the secular non-profits I've dealt with were at least somewhat scam-ish. Some were scams outright.

If you're going to quote someone, you should actually quote what they said. Otherwise people might think you were being intentionally dishonest.

Especially anyone who has any experience in the non-profit world and who would know that no one in the non-profit industry uses the word "charities" anymore.

(with the exception of Catholic Charities, but then you can't expect an organization to give up a name it's been using for almost 200 years for the sake of being politically correct)

So to expand on my response, I was stating that the charities I have been involved in were not scams, and if you were implying that they were then I was disappointed with the inference.

For some reason you decided to take what I said personally, regardless of the fact that I went out of my way to make it clear I was talking about particular organizations that I was personally familiar with. Since I'm not personally familiar with your organization (although I strongly suspect that no one else is either) how could I have been talking about it?

 

[cablescavenger]

I never suggested that you "over-stated" the number, although now I am wondering where you came up with it.

My point is that just because there are X-amount of non-theists doesn't mean that there are x-amount of people who haven't been influenced by religious texts.

I know for a fact that many non-theists use moral precepts from any number of religious texts to fashion or form their own personal code or philosophies.

We have atheist/agnostic members in here who read the Toa Te Ching, the bible, the Quran, The Vedas,.... Ask them whether these books have had any influence on their on personal codes.

Just because the book is old, and says thou shalt not kill, does not mean they have a monopoly on that suggestion, and people that do not kill obviously take that from scripture. Social systems have far more impact than you are willing to claim, and have a legal system to enforce the norms.

Atheists don't go round raping, murdering and torturing people because they have no moral guidance? Look at your stats on US Prisons, and you will see a lower proportion of atheists end up in prison compared with Christians. That might surprise you, but it doesn't surprise an atheist.

I would suggest that figure will never be reversed while religion is around either, and am willing to have you check that fact every year until it does.

Ah, so it was an "estimate". Based on what exactly?

You were being disingenuous (like I said, you were just guessing).

I don't think I was being disingenuous, I took the percentage of agnostics and atheists (16%) to be people who do not refer to scripture when making moral judgments.

I might add that there are also plenty of Christians, labelled as such by accident of birth and not by the application of their faith, who have never read a bible, and do not turn to the bible for moral guidance. I was happy to leave these in with the official 84% religious section, and use the official 16% figure for atheist and agnostics, so I see my figure as being conservative, not a self serving guess.

If you want a revised poll, then be my guest, but that does not make my attempt at finding a figure disingenuine.

When you say:

anyone who bases their personal moral code (the one we use to regulate ourselves) on a "follow the herd" mentality---especially in any society where narcissism is encouraged (like ours)---might as well not even have one.

IMHO that follow the herd mentality has bought our society a long way from the barbaric solutions advocated in the bible. There seems to be a real detachment between what people are prepared to defend in the bible, and what they would really like to see in real life.

If people started killing men, women, children and babies as the remedies advocated by the Bible, there would be an outcry to ban the bible; so maybe it is not so moral as you would have us believe.

For some reason you decided to take what I said personally, regardless of the fact that I went out of my way to make it clear I was talking about particular organizations that I was personally familiar with. Since I'm not personally familiar with your organization (although I strongly suspect that no one else is either) how could I have been talking about it?

I did not mention the organisations, nor do I feel the need to. You can strongly believe what you like, that is your right, but you did go out of your way to say that most of the non religious charities were scams. That is a scandalous remark to make, without evidence, and it is my right to be disappointed with that, on behalf of the many good people I have worked with, who want to make a difference irrespective of their religious beliefs, or lack of them.

P.S.here in the UK, we still say Charity .

 

[Quagmire]

Just because the book is old,

"The book"? You said "religious scriptures" in general and I answered with a list. Debating with you is like trying to give a fish a tattoo.

and says thou shalt not kill, does not mean they have a monopoly on that suggestion, and people that do not kill obviously take that from scripture.

Who said they did?

Social systems have far more impact than you are willing to claim, and have a legal system to enforce the norms.

When did I make any claims about "social systems"? And all you're doing with the second part of that statement is parroting my own point.

Atheists don't go round raping, murdering and torturing people because they have no moral guidance?

No, they don't. Why did you feel the need to ask that? Are you saying they do?

Look at your stats on US Prisons, and you will see a lower proportion of atheists end up in prison compared with Christians. That might surprise you, but it doesn't surprise an atheist.

You're still missing the point.

I would suggest that figure will never be reversed while religion is around either, and am willing to have you check that fact every year until it does.

LOL! You're willing to have me go looking for statistics that you should have provided yourself? Gee thanks, that's big of you.

I don't think I was being disingenuous, I took the percentage of agnostics and atheists (16%) to be people who do not refer to scripture when making moral judgments.

Yes, and I responded to that by pointing out that many non-religious people refer to religious texts in the process of forming their personal codes and philosophies. If you disagree, explain why. If you don't understand what I'm saying, ask for clarification.

I might add that there are also plenty of Christians, labelled as such by accident of birth and not by the application of their faith, who have never read a bible, and do not turn to the bible for moral guidance. I was happy to leave these in with the official 84% religious section, and use the official 16% figure for atheist and agnostics, so I see my figure as being conservative, not a self serving guess.

Without linking to any actual statistics, why should anyone believe it's more than a guess?

If you want a revised poll, then be my guest, but that does not make my attempt at finding a figure disingenuine.

Still missing the point.

When you say:
IMHO that follow the herd mentality has bought our society a long way from the barbaric solutions advocated in the bible.

Then you'd be mistaken. Left to the follow the herd mentality I was talking about, we'd never have made it out of the Middle Ages, we'd still be living in a world dominated by religion.

The advances we've made have been mostly due to the efforts of individuals who were going against the grain of society and social norms.

There seems to be a real detachment between what people are prepared to defend in the bible, and what they would really like to see in real life.

If people started killing men, women, children and babies as the remedies advocated by the Bible, there would be an outcry to ban the bible; so maybe it is not so moral as you would have us believe.

When did I say it was? Any chance I can get you to actually address the arguments I've made instead of assigning arguments to me that I didn't make?

I did not mention the organisations, nor do I feel the need to.

Because they don't exist.

 

[Quagmire]

I did not mention the organisations, nor do I feel the need to. You can strongly believe what you like, that is your right, but you did go out of your way to say that most of the non religious charities were scams.

Was that before or after you said wife beating should be legal because it's fun?

That is a scandalous remark to make, without evidence,

and it is my right to be disappointed with that, on behalf of the many good people I have worked with, who want to make a difference irrespective of their religious beliefs, or lack of them.

Still not buying it.

 

[cablescavenger]

Sorry, I did not mention wife beating. Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[cablescavenger]

"The book"? You said "religious scriptures" in general and I answered with a list. Debating with you is like trying to give a fish a tattoo.



Who said they did?



When did I make any claims about "social systems"? And all you're doing with the second part of that statement is parroting my own point.



No, they don't. Why did you feel the need to ask that? Are you saying they do?



You're still missing the point.



LOL! You're willing to have me go looking for statistics that you should have provided yourself? Gee thanks, that's big of you.



Yes, and I responded to that by pointing out that many non-religious people refer to religious texts in the process of forming their personal codes and philosophies. If you disagree, explain why. If you don't understand what I'm saying, ask for clarification.



Without linking to any actual statistics, why should anyone believe it's more than a guess?



Still missing the point.



Then you'd be mistaken. Left to the follow the herd mentality I was talking about, we'd never have made it out of the Middle Ages, we'd still be living in a world dominated by religion.

The advances we've made have been mostly due to the efforts of individuals who were going against the grain of society and social norms.



When did I say it was? Any chance I can get you to actually address the arguments I've made instead of assigning arguments to me that I didn't make?




Because they don't exist.

Whatever. End of argument. I have heard enough!

 

[Quagmire]

Sorry, I did not mention wife beating. Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree.

Not specifically, no. All I'm saying is that just because a religious text says not to do something, that something doesn't automatically become OK just because you rejected that religious text.

For instance: The Bible says not to lie. Just because you reject the Bible, doesn't mean that lying suddenly becomes morally acceptable.

And I would think that anyone who's trying to make the argument that it is is just someone who has those tendencies to begin with and is trying to find some way to justify them.

There are certain moral precepts that are pretty much universal, and that aren't reliant in any way on religion or religious texts. What I'm saying is that trying to use religious texts inversely to justify your own moral deficiencies is just as false a philosophy as relying solely on religious texts for your personal codes.

Making sense now?

Whatever. End of argument. I have heard enough!

You haven't heard anything that I've said. For some reason you seem to be refusing to.

 

[cablescavenger]

You may be Staff, but it carries little weight with me. You broke the forum rules of engagement, and you broke mine.

In the interest of sticking to your forum rules, this conversation is over.

 

[Quagmire]

You may be Staff, but it carries little weight with me. You broke the forum rules of engagement, and you broke mine.

In the interest of sticking to your forum rules, this conversation is over.

What rule did I break?

And apparently your personal rule is that you get to twist other people's words but they don't get to do the same with yours. I love people with personal rules like that one.