Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

70 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

113 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (24%)

Total Members Voted: 249

[Angle]

Alright, well, one thing that occurred to me is that we atheists have no holy book. Seeing as we clearly need one, (Because shut up, that's why), I thought of a way we could make one in proper atheistic fashion. We write it on github. That way, anyone can flag an error, and/or fork the project and/or make their own revisions and/or submit patches, etc, etc, etc.

Sound like a cool idea?

[Loud Whispers]

No

[Angle]

No

My genius is clearly not appreciated here.

[Putnam]

I agree with LW there, actually, atheists don't need the trappings of religion. Heck, we put ourselves neatly into cults without needing to make the attempt.

[Angle]

But then we'd have something else to argue over! Don't you see how important this is?

[TD1]

Yea, no.

An "Un-Holy Book" would suggest cohesion and a sharing of ideas between atheists - a form of uniformity. The only thing uniting atheists is that they don't believe in a form of divinity - any book seeking to be for atheists could only contain that one shared ideal. Anything else from morals and ethics to what foods to eat varies from person to person.

[Putnam]

Basically, it ends up being that one xkcd about standards, or... actually, wait, RationalWiki vs LessWrong is an already-existing perfect example of why that's a bad idea.

[Angle]

Basically, it ends up being that one xkcd about standards, or... actually, wait, RationalWiki vs LessWrong is an already-existing perfect example of why that's a bad idea.

No no, that's the point. I want there to be a dozen different competing books.

Indeed, in my version that would be an explicitly stated instruction - to disagree, citicise, and for extra credit write your own version.

[Rolepgeek]

I agree with LW there, actually, atheists don't need the trappings of religion. Heck, we put ourselves neatly into cults without needing to make the attempt.

Tribes ain't inherently bad, you know. Sense of community, belonging, and unity.

Though we most certainly do have Holy Books. It's called a philosophy book/the internet.

[Teneb]

Since ninjas, on the whole "atheist holy book".

Besides, it'd be a pamphlet, really. All you could write is: "there are no gods or higher powers". And discordianism already has a monopoly on holy pamphlets.

Spoiler: Principia Discordia 5th edition (click to show/hide)

[Angle]

An "Un-Holy Book" would suggest cohesion and a sharing of ideas between atheists - a form of uniformity. The only thing uniting atheists is that they don't believe in a form of divinity - any book seeking to be for atheists could only contain that one shared ideal. Anything else from morals and ethics to what foods to eat varies from person to person.

I will point out, while "Uniformity" isn't something I'd use to describe us, we DO hang out together and share ideas, and while there isn't anything we completely agree on except Atheism (And even that is very arguable) you are much likelier to find that you have things in common with other atheists than with theists. And again, the point is to help us formulate what we believe so that we can disagree on it, and thereby stimulate discussion and new ideas.

[TD1]

"What we believe"

I think you may be missing something

The main premise with a religious text is that it is truth. No atheist will believe their text is absolute truth. What you are speaking of already exists in the form of scientific journals and the like - the study of what is known, rather than the study of what is believed.

[Angle]

"What we believe"

I think you may be missing something

The main premise with a religious text is that it is truth. No atheist will believe their text is absolute truth. What you are speaking of already exists in the form of scientific journals and the like - the study of what is known, rather than the study of what is believed.

Yeah, that's why we put it on github and edit it frequently. And have dissenting opinions and texts, etc.

And yeah, scientific journals are very useful, but they're not very accessible. The point here is to compile a list of current beliefs into an easily accessible format where we can argue over them, change them, make competing versions, etc, etc. I think you're getting too tied up over what a "Holy book" is, such that you're missing what it could be.

[TD1]

The point here is to compile a list of current beliefs

Your target audience won't be very receptive. What you want is a Holy Book, not an atheistic alternative. Holy Books have many different volumes, edited and revised, split off from the main, and so on. Basically what you want this hypothetical text to do. And it is all based on belief, in the knowledge that your particular brand is the one which will beat the rival brands.

The closest an atheist could get to that is Wikipedia. And that already exists.

[Angle]

The point here is to compile a list of current beliefs

Your target audience won't be very receptive. What you want is a Holy Book, not an atheistic alternative. Holy Books have many different volumes, edited and revised, split off from the main, and so on. Basically what you want this hypothetical text to do. And it is all based on belief, in the knowledge that your particular brand is the one which will beat the rival brands.

The closest an atheist could get to that is Wikipedia. And that already exists.

But actual holy books aren't very good at it. They don't have issues or discussion pages, and you can't split off your own version with the click of a mouse. And wikis are way too messy. And also pretty hard to split off into competing versions. Also holy books don't contain proper atheistic values, and are updated at a positively glacial pace.