• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Do Atheists/Agnostics/Skeptics have a scripture?!

Jumi

Well-Known Member
No scripture for most of those in that group. They think on their own, unless they follow saints Hitchens, Harris or whathaveyou.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I don’t think they have any or they need/ed one.
Well sometimes strange things do happen in this world, in case they have.
Please name such scripture and the name of the renowned religion which belongs to them, the sources as to how it got authored, its being secure till our times and its usefulness when it was written/compiled/authored and
suitability in our present age.
Thread open to everybody belonging to religion and no-religion.

Regards

The only time I think of my being an atheist is when I'm on RF. Outside of RF, the word atheist doesn't come to mind. That being said, there are a lot of books that don't have deities mentioned in it. Any atheist can take up any book say a fiction story or the history of Uncle Tom's Cabin and find a personal meaning to it.

That's what scripture is. It's a book or oral stories (etc) passed down and seen as sacred to the its followers. It's not an isolated word. So, the only atheist I'd think that might have scripture for their personal morals not for atheism are those that follow a religion. It doesn't have to be eastern nor stereotypical western.

Atheist scripture....hm... I like @Revoltingest answer.

Scripture: Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
Source: Douglas Adam's imagination
How it got authored: Publisher: Pan Books

Its being secure till our times and its usefulness when it was written/compiled/authored and suitability in our present age.​

"The novel was first published in London on 12 October 1979.[2] It sold 250,000 copies in the first three months.[3]" Wiki

Number of copies as of 2016 unknown as of moment.

It has been suitable for children and adults to present age so they can use their imagination and be one with the characters within the book. It is also suitable because it captures the fantasies of the human mind and they can use this to "keep young" as they age.

The book has been secured given it continued on with it's trilogy. Read more about it's authority here: About Hitchhiker's Guide

What is the force behind Adam's inspiration, you may ask? What is the Tao of this book?

None other than:

42

:leafwind:
 
Last edited:

Orbit

I'm a planet
I don’t think they have any or they need/ed one.
Well sometimes strange things do happen in this world, in case they have.
Please name such scripture and the name of the renowned religion which belongs to them, the sources as to how it got authored, its being secure till our times and its usefulness when it was written/compiled/authored and
suitability in our present age.
Thread open to everybody belonging to religion and no-religion.

Regards
Some treat "The God Delusion" as scripture [that's a joke], but no they don't and it's kind of an absurd question. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods, that's all. No scripture needed.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I have stories and quotations I'm drawn to. But I use those quotes to explain my beliefs, I don't pattern my beliefs based on those quotes. Maybe that's an important distinction. Not sure.
 

Rick O'Shez

Irishman bouncing off walls
Some treat "The God Delusion" as scripture [that's a joke],

Richard taught me an atheist catechism: :p

Q. Who made you?
A. Evolution made me.

Q. What else did evolution make?
A. All living things.

Q. Why did evolution make you and all things?
A. God knows!
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
maybe math and physics textbooks could come close to an atheist's scripture - but it's really stretching the definition of the word.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
I have stories and quotations I'm drawn to. But I use those quotes to explain my beliefs, I don't pattern my beliefs based on those quotes. Maybe that's an important distinction. Not sure.
Yes!
That is the crucial distinction. I agree with some people and not others. I am not the type of person to submit to human authority, which @paarsurrey is. So he believes in things because a human he has faith in tells him to do so.
Even when those things are extremely implausible.
Its the foundation of religion, in the Abrahamic world. Submit to a human telling you what a "prophet" claims that God said.
Tom
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
Atheists, agnostics and skeptics can adhere to most any religion. Some religions can be less accepting of skepticism. Buddhism for example tends to be pretty open-minded on those matters.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Those are not religions though so of course there is no scripture. Unless you include some branches of Buddhism and Jainism, which are atheist/agnostic but count as religions.
If Buddha had belonged to Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism/Humanism/Secularism or would have wanted to be his follower as such, they wouldn't have needed any scripture from Buddha, and Buddha would have left none. The existence of a scripture in a religion itself is proof that they don't belong to Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism/Humanism/Secularism.
Regards
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
If Buddha had belonged to Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism/Humanism/Secularism or would have wanted to be his follower as such, they wouldn't have needed any scripture from Buddha, and Buddha would have left none. The existence of a scripture in a religion itself is proof that they don't belong to Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism/Humanism/Secularism.
Regards
Scripts are for followers, Buddha didn't need them. It's the words of Buddha that make the ideas atheistic agnostic skeptic secular. What followers do with it is on them.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
If Buddha had belonged to Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism/Humanism/Secularism or would have wanted to be his follower as such, they wouldn't have needed any scripture from Buddha, and Buddha would have left none. The existence of a scripture in a religion itself is proof that they don't belong to Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism/Humanism/Secularism.
Regards
That makes no sense.
 

Madhuri

RF Goddess
Staff member
Premium Member
If Buddha had belonged to Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism/Humanism/Secularism or would have wanted to be his follower as such, they wouldn't have needed any scripture from Buddha, and Buddha would have left none. The existence of a scripture in a religion itself is proof that they don't belong to Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism/Humanism/Secularism.
Regards

Buddha taught a different philosophy that rejects belief in God.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Scripts are for followers, Buddha didn't need them. It's the words of Buddha that make the ideas atheistic agnostic skeptic secular. What followers do with it is on them.

Buddha left no words in writing? None, never. He did not dictate anything to anyone. No, never, no . Right? Please
Regards
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
Well there is always the Eight Condiments of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster: I really like them. (Your mileage may vary.)


Condiments

The Condiments of Pastafarianism, also known as the eight "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts", are the sacred commandments given to the Pirate Captain Mosey by Flying Spaghetti Monster Himself.

While brooding atop Mount Salsa because he could not find a Pirate ship, Mosey received some advice from Flying Spaghetti Monster in the form of ten stone tablets. There were originally ten "I'd Really Rather You didn'ts," but two were dropped on the way back down the mountain, with eight remaining. This event "partly accounts for Pastafarians' flimsy moral standards." The Flying Spaghetti Monsters commandments address worship of Him, the treatment of people of other faiths, sexual conduct, and nutrition.

The Eight "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts" from the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

1. I'd really rather you didn't act like a sanctimonious holier-than-thou *** when describing my noodly goodness. If some people don't believe in me, that's okay. Really, I'm not that vain. Besides, this isn't about them so don't change the subject.

2. I'd really rather you didn't use my existence as a means to oppress, subjugate, punish, eviscerate, and/or, you know, be mean to others. I don't require sacrifices, and purity is for drinking water, not people.

3. I'd really rather you didn't judge people for the way they look, or how they dress, or the way they talk, or, well, just play nice, okay? Oh, and get this into your thick heads: woman = person. man = person. Samey = Samey. One is not better than the other, unless we're talking about fashion and I'm sorry, but I gave that to women and some guys who know the difference between teal and fuchsia.

4. I'd really rather you didn't indulge in conduct that offends yourself, or your willing, consenting partner of legal age AND mental maturity. As for anyone who might object, I think the expression is "go **** yourself," unless they find that offensive in which case they can turn off the TV for once and go for a walk for a change.

5. I'd really rather you didn't challenge the bigoted, misogynistic, hateful ideas of others on an empty stomach. Eat, then go after the *****es.

6. I'd really rather you didn't build multi million-dollar synagogues / churches / temples / mosques / shrines to my noodly goodness when the money could be better spent (take your pick):
I. Ending poverty
II. Curing diseases
III. Living in peace, loving with passion, and lowering the cost of cable
I might be a complex-carbohydrate omniscient being, but I enjoy the simple things in life. I ought to know. I AM the creator.

7. I'd really rather you didn't go around telling people I talk to you. You're not that interesting. Get over yourself. And I told you to love your fellow man, can't you take a hint?

8. I'd really rather you didn't do unto others as you would have them do unto you if you are into, um, stuff that uses a lot of leather/lubricant/vaseline. If the other person is into it, however (pursuant to #4), then have at it, take pictures, and for the love of Mike, wear a CONDOM! Honestly, it's a piece of rubber. If I didn't want it to feel good when you did it I would have added spikes, or something.

http://flyingspaghettimonster.wikia.com/wiki/Condiments
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
"Scripture" would be entirely the wrong word to use. Scripture is the wrong word to use in describing the written works that come out of many other religions as well.
But not all the written works of all religions. Any holy and sacred writing from a religion qualifies as scripture.

scripture
Pronunciation: /ˈskripCHər/
noun
(often Scripture or Scriptures)
1The sacred writings of Christianity contained in the Bible: passages of scripture the fundamental teachings of the Scriptures
1.1The sacred writings of another religion.​
Source: Oxford Dictionaries



scripture
noun[C/U] /ˈskrɪp·tʃər/
› the holy writings of a religion: [C] sacred Scriptures
› Scripture or the Scriptures refers to the Bible, including the Old and New Testaments.​
Source: Cambridge Dictionaries Online



scripture
noun /ˈskrɪptʃər/
1 scripture or Scripture the Bible
2 the holy writings of any religion
the Hindu scriptures
Source: Macmillan Dictionary


.
 
Last edited:

idav

Being
Premium Member
Buddha left no words in writing? None, never. He did not dictate anything to anyone. No, never, no . Right? Please
Regards
That doesn't really concern me. The words attributed to Buddha are atheistic and skeptical in nature.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
But not all the written works of all religions. Any holy and sacred writing from a religion qualifies as scripture.

I think that's a poor call. The Christians typically believe their holy writings come from their god and thus there's a particular authoritativeness attached to them that is not present in other religious traditions. This is not a trivial distinction, in my mind. The term "scripture" gets applied to writings of other religions largely because I live in a Christian-centric culture, and I question whether or not that is appropriate given how differently such writings are regarded in Christianity compared to other religions. There's an unfortunate tendency as it is for folks in my culture to interpret all other religions as if they behave like Christianity - using Christian-centric terminology when discussing other religions tends to amplify that.

At any rate, with respect to the question of the OP, I'd tend to interpret it as "do non-theists have a text that they regard as a primary or important authority for guiding and governing their lives?" based on what "scripture" really implies within Christian traditions. The OP would have to clarify what they really meant, though. I'm honestly kind of perplexed by the lumping together of atheists, agnostics, and skeptics as if they are the same category of people.
 
Top