Atheism to me (Buddhist) appears to just be a confusing mixture of nihilism and materialism. There are deities in Buddhism, but this is the display of your own mind.
This is the kind of argument that has lead Americans to rate atheists as scarier, more dangerous people than violent fundamentalists.
Just because you need to derive your sense of morality from a book doesn't mean everyone does. I find that most of the positive things that people hold up as some kind of justification for the existence of their religion tend to be painfully obvious. "Don't steal." "Help people that need help." "Don't rape." Do we really need to write this down as the law of the land? You don't need a deity to remind you not to be an asshole to everyone... hopefully.
The point the article is making is that the author apparently doesn't believe that last one, which is a shame. He seems to suggest that religion is stopping bad people from acting badly. He must not read the newspapers... or history books.
Do we really need to write this down as the law of the land?
We reason from our perspective and it is easy for us to view ourselves as the model of people and when we reflect on ourselves and even our peer group we come to the conclusion that no we don't need to write this stuff down because we are civil. About this time some guy cuts you off in traffic and about flips you and your kids. It is at this point that having these simple rules written down helps. Not only might they help the guy that cuts you off, if he happens to see the wisdom of the book, but they also help us in reflecting on the situation and giving people the benefit of the doubt. What if that guy had a person having a heart attack in the back seat. It may very well change your entire perspective of the situation. I used to think that it was all common sense, until I realized that common sense is not common at all. I also think that there is a lot of wisdom contained in the book. Some of it is very nuanced such as the parable of the king and the servant in that particular parable it has a very nuanced explanation of forgiveness and why it is important. So while it does lay down some very simple laws, there is also a lot of depth that explain grey area situations that many people face.
Sure, I do agree that having a law like "don't rape people" is a positive thing. My argument is that I am not yet cynical enough to believe that the only way to prevent rape is to threaten people with an eternity of agony beyond all comprehension. You could just as easily justify it with "This is wrong because you are infringing on that person's personal right. We, the people in the world who aren't lunatics, will remove you if you can't stop yourself."
As for the positive points in the book, it's a huge book. You can find nuance and insight in most books with that much content if you really try. The difference of course is that most books aren't as violent, misogynistic, or bigoted as the bible or the qu'ran. I can't speak much about the texts underlying the central and east Asian religions, but the bible is a pretty clear on a lot of situations (adultery, child rearing, "heathens") for which the advice is so destructive that would probably be banned in many places if it weren't grandfathered in.
The good points are self-evident if you aren't a sociopath and you believe in things like personal liberty. Rape and murder haven't been tolerated in communities since long before the bible was pieced together, and in the communities where it was common, the bible did not stop it.
For every person calling their terminal illness "part of god's plan" as a way to deal with the stress of mortality, there's just as many people abusing each other and denying rights as part of "god's plan" too.
My argument is that I am not yet cynical enough to believe that the only way to prevent rape is to threaten people with an eternity of agony beyond all comprehension.
My intention is not to get into theological debate as this is not the place for such issue, but I think you view the issue from a particular perspective that I once viewed it from. The doctrine of hell came about from the Greek view of Hades. This view was transplanted into a biblical view of hell during the dark ages by the church. It was not the original doctrine of hell. Jude 1:7 is very clear of the example of eternal fire, the translation is to burn up and be no more for eternity it cites Sodom and Gomorrah as examples of entities that underwent judgment by eternal fire, the symbolism of eternal fire is that the product is eternal not that anything placed in eternal fire burns for eternity. The book is very clear on the punishment for sin being death, not eternal torment in which the most rebellious angle is exalted with a commission to rule said eternal torment.
The reason I bring this up is not because I think that you need to believe what many think is a fairy tale. But because the very book documents such human nature and it may help your view of why some people need the book, yet may never even open it.
It documents that people will use the book and pervert it to their own devices. It also offers the wisdom that we should read what is in the book for ourselves and not let the actions and words of those that profess to be examples of the book be our brokers. There was a time when I absolutely loathed Christians due to the doctrine of hell. I thought that they worshiped a sick deity that never revealed himself and then punished people sadistically for their lack of belief in his lack of revelation.
My logical error was that I was relying on their misinterpretation to be my interpretation of what was actually in the book, I was relying on those very people to be my authority on what was in the book. Only afterwards did I come to realize that many of them are guilty of the same thing, they never read the book they just parrot what they here. I was asked by someone I respect a great deal, to read the book and it was after I did that I realize that the a part of the new testament is about those people, they parallel the Pharisees, it was then that I realized that most the people that claim to be of the book, have no idea what the book even says. So much so that they will accept that their god is a sociopath that will burn people forever, when the actual text is very clear on the laws and the justice laid out for them.
For every person calling their terminal illness "part of god's plan" as a way to deal with the stress of mortality, there's just as many people abusing each other and denying rights as part of "god's plan" too.
Again the book has very little to do with this, this is the word of those that claim to be ambassadors of the book. The old testament is an account of Jewish history and laws with divinity mixed in while the new testament is almost entirely a self help book about internal reflection, humility and forgiveness.
I guess my point is you can't listen to religious people about what is in their book most pervert it to their aims, or just flat out take others words for gospel and never confirm it and then parrot it as fact. Some of the writers of the books even have the foresight to explain such human nature.
Islam is the same, there is little justification in the book for their actions yet entire nations are lead to hold jihad in reverence because they are guilty of letting someone else read the book for them and tell them what it says. I used to have little tolerance for religion due to it's practitioners, so much so that I could have committed the same atrocities against them that they commit in the name of their books that they do not understand. Reading the text I actually came to see that a) there is a lot of wisdom in the books. b) that I now properly see the issue as complex human nature where I once had the simple convenient scape goat of religion and c) they are actually beautiful texts written by people that for the most part wanted to better humanity.
After reading the book I came to realize that Christ was actually a really awesome guy, he preached love and if everyone where to use him as a model the word would actually be a really awesome place. Whether or not he was divine or crazy is actually irrelevant to the fact that he was actually a great guy who really loved people and asked people to love and help one another. I was amazed to find that he was actually nothing like the people that profess to serve in his name. The story of Christ is about the redemption of men and forgiveness of all. Whether it is a fairy-tail or not, I think it is a beautiful and inspiring text that has a lot of value to the segment of society that actually take the time to read it. It is sad that so few people actually do.
Just because you need to derive your sense of morality from a book doesn't mean everyone does. I find that most of the positive things that people hold up as some kind of justification for the existence of their religion tend to be painfully obvious. "Don't steal." "Help people that need help." "Don't rape." Do we really need to write this down as the law of the land? You don't need a deity to remind you not to be an asshole to everyone... hopefully.
The point the article is making is that the author apparently doesn't believe that last one, which is a shame. He seems to suggest that religion is stopping bad people from acting badly. He must not read the newspapers... or history books.