The Bible is a awesome Book even if you dont believe its Gods word

[RootsBooster]

In Jonathan Haidt's TED talk I linked to, he quotes Émile Durkheim who stated that the function of religion is to unite people in a moral community. In that respect we perhaps can see that as religions decline, little else is replacing religious communities with an intention of promoting moral behaviour. However for Christians that do remain part of a community that purports to promote moral values, the Bible continues to be a source of ideas and energy that they can draw upon. And it has history and some credibility.

I haven't listened to the talk yet but it sounds like he's somewhere in the similar frame of mind as Alain DeBotton, with his redundant 'atheism 2.0' idea. There was no harm in DeBotton putting his idea forward, that's what TED is all about. He just didn't seem to think it through thoroughly.

 

It seems to me that many non believers are seduced into amoral communities (more and more online) and there is little that has the same power as a revered holy book.

could you give examples of this?

 

As an atheist, I wish I could point to some other book that has anywhere close to the power as the bible continues to have (despite its irrelevance to the majority)

In my opinion Aesop's Fables would be of much more value as a moralistic guide.It's a shame it doesn't get the same amount of exposure as the Bible.

 

---------- Post added 30-08-2015 at 23:40 ----------

 

We know hobbit is fantasy but as the years roll on science and archeology prove that the content of the bible is not fiction to compare them is not credible, I am not asking you to believe anything but at best buy this is a very poor comparison. The book of acts is very solid historically

 

wait.....

..whut?

[DrNorm]

I don't really see that. Otherwise we'd see lower rates of crime and 'immorality' amongst more religious societies. This is not the case, mostly.

 

There's a complex interaction between hard laws and soft morals. Haidt explores the "free rider" problem in his talk. (If you like scientific examination of religion, you'll get a lot from this)

 

So whereas Mexico for example is recognised as a religious country, it also has very high levels of crime and murder. The religious community, the moral majority if you will haven't outmaneuvered the communities of corrupt gangs. But there's no point attempting to fight the gangs as individuals. So what moral community is there to take on the corruption? What will that community use as its guide and source of inspiration? (Open question)

 

And as a work of morality it is deeply flawed. Where is the condemnation of slavery and rape?

 

Perhaps indirect condemnation? borderline?

 

No, we've moved on morally from the time of the bible, and have our current morality in spite of it as much as because of it, we're much nicer now.

 

Can we not do better? For example I think the success of America is despite their leaders general attitude of "might is right" not because of it. Yes there is corruption in American society, but they are better at weeding it out than in Mexico. I suspect that the success of the good ol US of A is in large part due to their the liberal, tolerant forgiving people not their belligerent media and leaders. You see tolerance and forgivenees are values that I think you will find in the bible. There's much else that maybe you don't agree with and much that may be missing. But the bible ain't all bad.

 

---------- Post added 30-08-2015 at 23:53 ----------

 

I haven't listened to the talk yet

 

Highly recommended

 

it sounds like he's somewhere in the similar frame of mind as Alain DeBotton, with his redundant 'atheism 2.0' idea. There was no harm in DeBotton putting his idea forward, that's what TED is all about. He just didn't seem to think it through thoroughly.

 

Haidt examines whereas DeBotton was proposing. I personally like both but suspect you'll get more from Haidt than DeBotton.

 

could you give examples of this?

 

Amoral communities? I'd count SF as an amoral (not immoral) community (or have I missed signing up to a prescribed set of values?)

 

In my opinion Aesop's Fables would be of much more value as a moralistic guide.It's a shame it doesn't get the same amount of exposure as the Bible.

 

Yeah yeah, I think we've been here before. I don't think the fables will ever have as much clout as the bible no matter how much PR you put into the job. (Not that there's anything wrong with the fables - great for kids)

Edited August 30, 2015 by DrNorm

[RootsBooster]

Amoral communities? I'd count SF as an amoral (not immoral) community (or have I missed signing up to a prescribed set of values?)

There are regularly people speaking up against spiteful, hateful and/or discriminatory remarks all the time on SF, not sure how you see that as amoral

 

 

Yeah yeah, I think we've been here before. I don't think the fables will ever have as much clout as the bible no matter how much PR you put into the job.

No, it's way too late for that, but it's a much better moral guide. I think I'd use a sad emoticon rather than a laughing one

 

(Not that there's anything wrong with the fables - great for kids)

This is a key point though, you can't say the same about the Bible.

 

Also, I don't think it'd be a bad book for adults, do you?

Edited August 30, 2015 by RootsBooster

[borderline]

In my experience, there are very few who have actually read it in full at allAnd

possibly, but what place would it be on their list of all the many other religious texts waiting to be read? (unless you think the Bible is the only one they should bother with)

 

So where would you place the bible on your list and who would you say is the most influential man in history?

[DrNorm]

There are regularly people speaking up against spiteful, hateful and/or discriminatory remarks all the time on SF, not sure how you see that as amoral

 

I have no doubt that there are moral people on SF. That doesn't mean that you are required to be. Posting on SF does not require you to hold a certain set of beliefs. In that respect SF is an amoral community. Similarly it's apolitical. You are not required to belong to any political party.

 

Also, I don't think it'd be a bad book for adults, do you?

 

Not bad, no. But is it the best possible book for teaching morals to adults? You know I'm not even sure what we're talking about here - is it the hare and the tortoise?

 

---------- Post added 31-08-2015 at 00:22 ----------

 

... And what do the fables have to say about slavery and rape

[RootsBooster]

So where would you place the bible on your list and who would you say is the most influential man in history?

 

It wouldn't be on my list, I already read it as a kid.

I wouldn't say there's a most influential man in history, or if there is, I don't have the data to say who he is.

[borderline]

really?

you have archelogical proof god, noah, jesus etc existed?

Using methods historians approve for many historical caricatures we can say Jesus lived and many others in the bible, not moses or noah not yet anyway!

[RootsBooster]

I have no doubt that there are moral people on SF. That doesn't mean that you are required to be. Posting on SF does not require you to hold a certain set of beliefs. In that respect SF is an amoral community. Similarly it's apolitical. You are not required to belong to any political party.

You seem to be synonimising beliefs with morals, they are not the same. If you're talking about the Forum itself being amoral, of course it is, it isn't a sentient being, it's merely a virtual place where members discuss things, the majority of whom do have morals.

 

Not bad, no. But is it the best possible book for teaching morals to adults?

Better than a book that condones cruelty and suffering to fulfil the pleasures of a supernatural being, without a doubt.

 

You know I'm not even sure what we're talking about here - is it the hare and the tortoise?

Yes, that's one of the fables. In the same way that Orwell did Animal Farm.

 

And what do the fables have to say about slavery and rape

I honestly couldn't tell you at this moment, I read Aesop's Fables long before I read the Bible, and that was a long time ago. WHat I can tell you is that Aesop himself was a slave and most of his fables (not all necessarily authored by his hand) were a kind of rationalised karma tale. There were more than a few that basically said "Don't do nasty stuff to others", the difference being that he didn't have an earlier half to his book that said "Do nasty stuff to others, if I want you to".

[borderline]

It wouldn't be on my list, I already read it as a kid.

I wouldn't say there's a most influential man in history, or if there is, I don't have the data to say who he is.

It's just a personal opinion of who you think might be on that list. On Google jesus is not always top but in most of the lists he is top 3, number one in most, not a bad result for someone who is preached as a myth by atheists

Yours number one might be Plato if he is real

[RootsBooster]

It's just a personal opinion of who you think might be on that list. On Google jesus is not always top but in most of the lists he is top 3, number one in most, not a bad result for someone who is preached as a myth by atheists

Yours number one might be Plato if he is real

 

Well, it was a 'to-do/to read' list, which is why the Bible wouldn't be on it.

 

Also, being an atheist (someone without belief in any gods) doesn't mean you have to be interested in philosophy. There's plenty of ignorant atheists who couldn't give a fig about philosophy, just like there's many theists (believers) who are ignorant and don't care either.