home
RSS
April 11th, 2011
11:21 AM ET

Leading atheist publishes secular Bible

By Jessica Ravitz, CNN

The question arose early in British academic A.C. Grayling’s career: What if those ancient compilers who’d made Bibles, the collected religious texts that were translated, edited, arranged and published en masse, had focused instead on assembling the non-religious teachings of civilization’s greatest thinkers?

What if the book that billions have turned to for ethical guidance wasn’t tied to commandments from God or any one particular tradition but instead included the writings of Aristotle, the reflections of Confucius, the poetry of Baudelaire? What would that book look like, and what would it mean?

Decades after he started asking such questions, what Grayling calls “a lifetime’s work” has hit bookshelves. “The Good Book: A Humanist Bible,” subtitled “A Secular Bible” in the United Kingdom, was published this month. Grayling crafted it by using more than a thousand texts representing several hundred authors, collections and traditions.

The Bible would have been “a very different book and may have produced a very different history for mankind,” had it drawn on the work of philosophers and writers as opposed to prophets and apostles, says Grayling, a philosopher and professor at Birkbeck College, University of London, who is an atheist.

“Humanist ethics didn’t claim to be derived from a deity," he says. "(They) tended to start from a sympathetic understanding of human nature and accept that there’s a responsibility that each individual has to work out the values they live by and especially to recognize that the best of our good lives revolve around having good relationships with people.” 

Humanists rely on human reason as an alternative to religion or belief in God in attempting to find meaning and purpose in life.

Determined to make his material accessible, Grayling arranged his nearly 600-page "Good Book" much like the Bible, with double columns, chapters (the first is even called Genesis) and short verses. And much like the best-selling King James Bible, which is celebrating its 400th year, his book is written in a type of English that transcends time.

Like the Bible, "The Good Book," opens with a garden scene. But instead of Adam and Eve, Grayling's Genesis invokes Isaac Newton, the British scientist who pioneered the study of gravity.

"It was from the fall of fruit from such a tree that new inspiration came for inquiry into the nature of things," reads a verse from "The Good Book's" first chapter.

"When Newton sat in his garden, and saw what no one had seen before: that an apple draws the earth to itself, and the earth the apple," the verse continues, "Through a mutual force of nature that holds all things, from the planets to the stars, in unifying embrace."

The book's final chapter features a secular humanist version of the Ten Commandments: "Love well, seek the good in all things, harm no others, think for yourself, take responsibility, respect nature, do your utmost, be informed, be kind, be courageous: at least, sincerely try."

Grayling, reached Friday at a New York hotel just as he began his U.S. book tour, has been dubbed by some a “velvet atheist” or an “acceptable face of atheism,” he says, in contrast to more stridently anti-religious writers like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, both of whom he counts as friends.

In other contexts, Grayling - who will soon take over as president of the British Humanist Association - admits he’s written critically about religion. But not in "The Good Book."

“It’s not part of a quarrel,” he says of his latest work. “It’s a modest offering… another contribution to the conversation that mankind must have with itself,” and one he says he wrote for everyone, Bible lovers included.

Given where society is today, inviting that conversation is all the more important, he says.

More than 16% of Americans say they are unaffiliated religiously, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. Even so, Grayling says the hunger for a spiritual connection continues. That yearning, he argues , can be satisfied for many by taking a walk in the country, curling up with a beautiful book of poetry or even in falling in love.

“In all different ways, we can celebrate the good in the world,” he says.

While many intellectual traditions – religious and otherwise – teach that there’s “one right way to live,” Grayling says he hopes “The Good Book” will encourage people to “go beyond your teachers, your text” to understand that “we have to respect and relate to one another.”

Early sales indicate that people are open to what this new "Bible" teaches. On Monday, Grayling’s book was number 41 on Amazon’s UK bestseller list and number 1 in the philosophy and spirituality categories.

- CNN Writer/Producer

Filed under: Atheism • Bible • Books • Culture & Science • Ethics

soundoff (3,021 Responses)
  1. Krista

    This dude must be one of the horsemen.

    April 11, 2011 at 2:45 pm |
    • Eric

      No, that would be Hitchens, Harris, Dawkings and Dennet.

      April 11, 2011 at 2:58 pm |
  2. Paul

    Any written word ot man is based on their own interpretation and therefore it is suspect. Not to mention the more any text is copied and translated, the more inaccurate it becomes.

    Most of what we know about the world's various religions is second-hand and muddied to the point that it rarely reflects the original work. Have none of you ever played the "telephone" game?

    Organized religion is a scam and the world's greatest lie. They continually change the rules to fit the current facts.

    It's a shame so much human progress, human lives, and wealth has been wasted on it.

    If not for organized religion, we would all be reading this article from our holopads while we vacation on one of Jupiter's moons.

    April 11, 2011 at 2:45 pm |
  3. Richard Aberdeen

    Atheism pretends that the observable universal reality of zillions of parts within parts and processes that science calls "evolution" and "universal laws", just magically appeared all by themselves; atheism pretends that intelligence can arise from non-intelligence and, that beings of conscious awareness can magically arise from non-conscious "stuff", which such "stuff" of course, seems to just magically exist all by itself, emanating from a "big bang" that just magically went boom, caused by so-called "universal laws" that somehow existed prior to the universe itself an, that of course, just magically exist unto themselves. Sort of like an Oxford University test containing complex questions and equations to solve, just magically appears on a student's desk, without any professor or "brains" behind the questions (which may indeed be mainly true in the case of certain Oxford professors).

    There might be more foolish positions in the history of humanity, but one is at a loss to name them on two hands. Perhaps, pretending there is no sin is a more foolish position, in spite of the fact that educated scientists continue to create weapons of mass destruction and pollute the environment of their own offspring and, in spite of the fact that educated bankers, politicians and CEO's continue to bilk the common masses out of trillions of dollars... Who can really say for sure which position is most foolish, to not believe in God or, to not believe in sin, other than perhaps, our Father in heaven?

    April 11, 2011 at 2:44 pm |
    • Observer

      @Richard Aberdeen,
      "pretending there is no sin is a more foolish position"
      You seem to have little idea of what atheists and agnostics think. In effect, claiming that it takes a God to define what is right or wrong as a "sin" is nonsense. Humans are much more intelligent than you give them credit for.

      Your position seems to be that for something to exist, something must have created it and then claim that God exists, but nothing created him. So much for consistency and logic.

      April 11, 2011 at 2:53 pm |
    • Eric

      Yahweh is beyond evil and obviously not a very good creator since he apparently had to wipe out the entire planet with a flood which some how left no evidence.

      April 11, 2011 at 2:57 pm |
  4. enigma65

    When are the aliens gonna land an put an end to this rediculous squabble once and for all.

    April 11, 2011 at 2:44 pm |
    • ammofreak

      haha, oh my! I am glad to get a chuckle every once in a while reading through all these posts. Thank you enigma65. May the force be with you...( a canuck speaking from his igloo)

      April 24, 2011 at 9:42 pm |
  5. Lenny Pincus

    God didn't really give his son to us. Being all-knowing, God realized that Jesus would have one bad day, rest for a bit, then walk around for forty days and go back to Heaven (the Mormons believe Jesus made a left turn and hung out in Upstate New York for a while). To be honest. that's a pretty easy call.

    Who and what God is is far beyond the human being's ability to comprehend. That's why religions rely on these parables.

    April 11, 2011 at 2:43 pm |
  6. Louie

    I'm a Humanist and I don't particularly care for this book to be furnished in the way of the Bible nor do I care for its name. Grayling simply should have written a straight-out book about Humanism so people can understand that viewpoint rather than copying the existing "storybook" format.

    April 11, 2011 at 2:42 pm |
  7. kdowg

    NC: A fact is a fact, it makes no judgment about its meaning.

    April 11, 2011 at 2:41 pm |
    • NC

      An unproven "fact" is not a "fact".

      April 11, 2011 at 4:59 pm |
  8. Nurse Lisa

    A little girl asked her father, 'How did the human race appear?' The father answered, 'God made Adam and Eve and they had children and so was all mankind made.' Two days later the girl asked her mother the same question. The mother answered, 'Many years ago there were monkeys from which the human race evolved.' The confused girl returned to her father and said, 'Dad how is it possible that you told me the human race was created by God, and Mom said they developed from monkeys?' The father answered, 'Well, dear, it is very simple. I told you about my side of the family and your mother told you about hers.'

    April 11, 2011 at 2:40 pm |
    • Eric

      So dad's ancestors practiced incest?

      April 11, 2011 at 2:54 pm |
    • Peter McLenon

      So you know how to google and steal jokes, Nurse.

      April 11, 2011 at 2:55 pm |
  9. Katmoondaddy

    Atheists have a big problem. They cannot disprove the existence of God just as equally as the Bible can't prove God's existence. The bigger problem is that if you have no "god" to be morally accountable to, you can justify and rationalize anything. Hitler thought he was doing the "right thing" by killing all the Jews.

    April 11, 2011 at 2:40 pm |
    • Lenny Pincus

      Christians have a big problem. They use the Bible to morally justify anything, including tax cuts.

      April 11, 2011 at 2:45 pm |
    • Eric

      You can't disprove a negative, can you prove that there isn't a flying spaghetti monster out there? The likelyhood is very high that there is no god.

      Plus Christianity has the biggest loop hole in the world when it comes to punishment. You can go kill someone, ask for forgiveness and you go to heaven, where's the punishment there? There are an un-proportionate amount of religious people in jail verse atheist and they repeat offend at a higher rate too. Claiming that religion has a monopoly on morality is total bunk. I contend I'm much more moral that the god of Abraham, he's beyond evil.

      April 11, 2011 at 2:52 pm |
    • D Russell

      Christains and other theists have an even bigger problem. By accusing athiests of failing to prove that god does not exist, Christians seem to think that is it possible to prove an existential negative ( i.e. that god or anything for that matter does not exist). Perhaps Christians need to take a 1st year logic or philosophy course....

      Now if a Christian want to attribute traits to their god concept such as him/it being both omnicient and omnipontent at the same time – again a first year logic course will prove that to be false.

      April 11, 2011 at 2:57 pm |
    • Dunno

      So you have no reason whatsoever to do good except the fear that your god will be mad at you? If your bible were proven to be false, you would then go out and randomly slaughter people?

      Atheists do not, as a whole, go out and randomly slaughter people. Therefore, it is possible to be good without the bible.

      April 11, 2011 at 3:03 pm |
    • D Russell

      As for Hitler:

      "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." – Mein Kampf

      "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited." – Mein Kampf

      Hitler was a theist – there is not doubt of that.

      April 11, 2011 at 3:03 pm |
    • Sybaris

      Bad analogy and the tie to Hitler has been refuted a thousand times (PRATT)

      If what you are saying is true then a higher percentage of people who claimed to be atheists would be criminals.

      Regardless, Bush partially used his religion as justification to invade Iraq leading to the deaths of tens of thousands.

      Hitler was Catholic.

      April 11, 2011 at 3:05 pm |
  10. The Unchosen One

    HELL EXPLAINED

    BY A CHEMISTRY STUDENT

    The following is an actual question given on a University of Arizona chemistry mid term, and an actual answer turned in by a student.

    The answer by one student was so 'profound' that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well :

    Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?

    Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.

    One student, however, wrote the following:

    First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving, which is unlikely.. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today.

    Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.

    This gives two possibilities:

    1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.

    2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

    So which is it?

    If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, 'It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,' and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct..... ....leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting 'Oh my God.'

    THIS STUDENT RECEIVED AN A+.

    April 11, 2011 at 2:40 pm |
    • Anon

      Snopes, please.

      April 11, 2011 at 2:49 pm |
  11. Ezra

    I'll buy one

    April 11, 2011 at 2:39 pm |
  12. stonedwhitetrash

    There is no God but God and muhammad is NOT his messenger. The one God would never have a messenger tell all humanity to abuse women as islam does

    April 11, 2011 at 2:39 pm |
    • Chris R

      How do you explain St. Paul and St. Augustine then? Are they not his messengers? Did they not exhibit all the signs of misogyny?

      April 11, 2011 at 2:42 pm |
    • Eric

      And he wouldn't tell parents to stone their kids to death for disobedience, or kill a bunch of kills for making fun of a guy's bald head, or turn someone into a pile of salt for the hideous crime of looking over their shoulder, or killed for picking up sticks for a fire.

      April 11, 2011 at 2:45 pm |
  13. Nurse Lisa

    In an effort to prove even atheists have faith, Rich Deem asked – – Does everything have a natural cause?
    Atheists believe that all cause and effect in the universe has a naturalistic origin. Observational data lead us to the conclusion that the universe first began to exist 13.7 billion years ago. Since all things that begin to exist must have a cause, this means that the universe has a cause. However, a naturalistic cause for the origin of the universe cannot be confirmed observationally. Therefore, atheists believe the tenet that all phenomena have a naturalistic cause based solely upon faith in naturalism.

    April 11, 2011 at 2:38 pm |
    • Dunno

      Atheists believe that the cause has not been found yet. Everything else has a natural cause; therefore, it is likely that this does, too. "Goddidit" is a bad answer because it automatically halts all research in that direction. Imagine the horror if medical research had been halted because "God ordains how long we live" instead of trying to find the (natural) causes of disease and cure them. People would suffer unrelieved agony for something an antibiotic (for instance) could cure. People would die of simple injuries because no one knew how to treat them.

      Why do believers have to insist that atheists MUST believe something without proof like they do?

      Besides, you can't prove that your god brought the universe into being, either, so either answer is valid.

      April 11, 2011 at 2:58 pm |
    • Jean-Paul Sartre

      Of course, Atheists do have faith; being an Atheist does not negate the existence of faith in things, like man and nature.
      We just do not believe or have any faith in a GOD, an after-life or an invisible friend, sitting somewhere on a cloud, writing down everything we do so he/she may judge us worthy to comb his/her hair sometime, for eternity... most rationale people gave up their imaginary friends at around age 10.

      April 11, 2011 at 3:00 pm |
  14. GABRIEL

    Well they said themselves, this is a book by humans, so it does not make fokk of a difference what they mean. Furthermore there a no "Top atheists or leading secularists".

    There are only bottom-atheists and loosing secularists.

    April 11, 2011 at 2:37 pm |
    • Free Thinker Seeking Reason

      It's so sad that some have such a closed mind that they don't realize that religious texts were also written by other men. There never was, never could have been, and never will be any supposed divine influence on that activity. The voices inside their heads were, well, inside their heads, an overactive, fearful imagination driven to control others for their own personal gain, causing wars, untold loss of life, and misery in the process. By agreeing with long defunct mythologies so vehemently, some people are only proving themselves to be very useful tools, which isn't exactly a point of intellectual pride. Nobody wakes up to worship Zeus, Thor, or Ra, so why do so today in just another deity’s name in the modern world? Are the masses really still that uneducated??! Rhetorical question, obviously.

      On average, I would vote for an Atheist/Secular candidate before I would ever vote for a religious one. Unfortunately, the brainwashed majority of America don't have glass window navels, so we rarely even get the choice.

      April 11, 2011 at 3:10 pm |
    • NC

      Well said Free Thinker!

      April 11, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
  15. Steve

    @Observer,

    Read the book of John

    April 11, 2011 at 2:34 pm |
  16. Steve

    @ Observer,
    Read the book of John.

    April 11, 2011 at 2:33 pm |
  17. phoenix

    greyling is super heathen maybe the anti christ

    April 11, 2011 at 2:32 pm |
  18. Jackson

    Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

    Whether AC Grayling wants to admit it or not, he puts his belief in "something" supreme every single day. He may sell a lot of books and get a lot of press, but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter. A Christian knows what Grayling is doing is wrong and God will be just with that when the judgement day is upon us.

    April 11, 2011 at 2:31 pm |
    • Chris R

      What he is doing isn't your place to judge. As a Christian we need to attend to our own souls and let those who wish to travel a different path travel that path. Judgement (and vengeance) are both the domain of God and God alone. God will judge this man in light of his works and balance that against his lack of faith. It's not our job – nor is it right – for us to judge him.

      April 11, 2011 at 2:40 pm |
    • StoopidIzAzStoopidDuz

      I don't see how what he is doing is wrong, per se. His beliefs, in the eyes of a Christian, yes, are incorrect. However publishing a book like this isn't any more wrong than Christians who make up rules as they go along. Why do Catholics believe that only men can be priests? Why do we follow the Bible in its current form, when it was a group of men at the Vatican who decided which books would and would not be included? Why do different denominatinos read different versions of the Bible? The King James version was written because King James wanted it to be presented in a certain way, NOT because he wanted to preserve the original context or translation. Why do you feel it OK to judge what this person is doing, when we are taught that there is only one true judge?

      April 11, 2011 at 2:41 pm |
    • Sybaris

      To the Hindu, you are an atheist.

      Reagardless, your claims require proof. You have none.

      April 11, 2011 at 2:44 pm |
    • Jean-Paul Sartre

      Your MEDS too are being shipped OVERNITE EXPRESS...

      April 11, 2011 at 2:48 pm |
    • Landon

      Well said, Chris

      April 11, 2011 at 2:51 pm |
    • Floyd

      @StoopidIzAzStoopidDuz there are a lot of questions there that have answers, but too long for this forum so look them up. Bottom line is this guy is a hypocrite because he is making a fortune by quoting philosophers and writing a moral code. He wants to be the leader, is that not obvious? He is the leader of the new atheist religion. Talk about a pile of BS!

      April 11, 2011 at 2:55 pm |
    • steve

      ChrisR- Your response is the most logical thing I have seen on any boards from a Christian. I was raised Catholic, however, being a scientist has led me to have doubts about religion, and I generally don't support it. However, I like to think there is something else out there, and I believe that if there is a God, he would hopefully judge people based more on their actions then on how faithful they are. If God is going to tell someone like Ghandi or any of these humanistic philosophers that they have not done enough good to be saved, then he is no loving God. I believe religion should serve as a moral compass, and no more. If people can be good without being faithfully religious, then good for them. Some of the absolute best people I have ever met are devout Christians, and some of them are atheist. Likewise for bad people. However, the misconception among many evangelicals (or any type of religious extremist) that as long as they love God and worship him they are most righteous, is horribly wrong and fosters hatred and violence, justified by saying "it's in the name of God". This is the problem with religion. I also feel that it is completely man-made

      April 11, 2011 at 2:59 pm |
  19. longerview1

    A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.
    C. S. Lewis

    April 11, 2011 at 2:30 pm |
    • Corey

      Irrelevant. Random quotes mean nothing. I cannot believe it is 2011 and there are still people talking to nothing. It's delusional. Homeless people are being locked up and yet people who believe in something less likely than unicorns roam free..

      April 11, 2011 at 2:36 pm |
    • Sybaris

      Quoting persons more noted than yourself doesn't make it any more rational or true.

      Don't be so gullible.

      April 11, 2011 at 2:39 pm |
    • DeAguaDulce

      "Quoting persons more noted than yourself doesn't make it any more rational or true."

      LOL...Yet that is precisely what this guy founded his whole book on.

      April 11, 2011 at 2:47 pm |
    • Jean-Paul Sartre

      Your MEDS are being shipped OVERNITE EXPRESS...

      April 11, 2011 at 2:47 pm |
    • TheRationale

      A witty saying proves nothing.
      ~Volatire

      April 11, 2011 at 2:49 pm |
    • Izzy Mandelbaum

      ^ Equivalent to the schoolyard "yeah? ...well you're stupid" retort.

      Come on guys, just because he cited a pretty relevant quote, don't just poo-poo it. I don't consider myself a religious person at all but that was a pretty well-placed reference.

      April 11, 2011 at 2:49 pm |
    • Toby

      To which "god" do you refer? There are literally hundreds, if not thousands of gods, deities, goddesses, that reach back to the dawn of our species. CS Lewis' reasoning (while far from objective) was amusing, if not specious. I think this author is on to something real and concrete; we know we need each other to be happy and decent people, so we must treat others with kindness and generosity without fear of the unknown and supernatural. Peace.

      April 11, 2011 at 2:56 pm |
  20. TheThinker

    LOL, what is a "Top Atheist"?

    I mean, do the atheists vote on such things? Or is there a test to take?

    April 11, 2011 at 2:29 pm |
    • Corey

      You missed the election? I came in third.

      April 11, 2011 at 2:33 pm |
    • Sybaris

      Top Atheist is like Top Evangelist without an offering plate

      April 11, 2011 at 2:37 pm |
    • TheThinker

      Man, I'd like to try out for this Top Atheist position... how much does it pay? Do I get a car?

      April 11, 2011 at 2:38 pm |
    • Jean-Paul Sartre

      @TheThinker

      IF you ever had a thought it would surely die from loneliness...

      April 11, 2011 at 2:45 pm |
    • Floyd

      @Sybaris – the offering plate is the price of the book. This guy will make a killing by writing a borrowed moral code, and ripping off dead philosophers. What a waste of money. Pay to not believe. Talk about weird.

      April 11, 2011 at 2:46 pm |
    • Izzy Mandelbaum

      I'm not sure how official any of these rankings are.

      April 11, 2011 at 2:46 pm |
    • ScottK

      You do realize that it is the articles author, not the book author, who uses the term "Leading Atheist".

      "Grayling" "has been dubbed by some a “velvet atheist” or an “acceptable face of atheism,” he says"

      Thats hardly considering himself a "Top" or Leading atheist. The article is misleading in a number of ways, such as the inference that this is the "Atheist Bible" which it is not. The author calls it a "Humanist Bible" which is very different.

      April 11, 2011 at 2:48 pm |
    • Sybaris

      You get the gift of being released from a life tied to fairytales and myths.

      April 11, 2011 at 2:50 pm |
    • Sybaris

      @ Floyd, you just described the manner in which the Bible was written.

      Free your mind, know history.

      April 11, 2011 at 2:51 pm |
    • Kurt

      Similar to "Top Ramen."

      April 11, 2011 at 2:55 pm |
    • Floyd

      @ Sybaris- that is my point. He wrote it like the bible form. He is a fake. A plagiarist.
      This guy makes things up too: “Humanist ethics didn’t claim to be derived from a deity," he says. "(They) tended to start from a sympathetic understanding of human nature and accept that there’s a responsibility that each individual has to work out the values they live by and especially to recognize that the best of our good lives revolve around having good relationships with people.”
      There is no science behind this statement. It is made up! It is his opinion. Anyone can say anything. You people are eating this up as much as the religious faithful. Religion is man-made, of course. Atheism is a religion now too. Line these guys’ pockets because they make statements with no basis for fact. This is what you are supposedly against.

      April 11, 2011 at 3:33 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.