A.C. Grayling Mimics the Bible

In an act of supreme envy, British philosopher A.C. Grayling has authored a secular book of philosophy called The Good Book which mimics the Bible in as many ways as possible. Grayling asserts that the Bible is attractive because its size and format is so accessible, arranged in double coumns with numbered verses for example. Presumably that attracts unwary people to become fans of God.

Grayling's book uses that format and also borrows some of the organization of the Bible, such as starting with Genesis, in which he states, according to the article:

“All things take their origin from earlier kinds: Ancestors of most creatures rose from the sea, some inhabitants of the sea evolved from land-dwelling forefathers.”

Presumably Grayling has resolved the issue of abiogenesis, and the nature of life itself. I find it difficult to reward Grayling with the purchase of this book, but I probably need to buy it in order to properly dismantle it. Particularly onerous is that Grayling gives "Commandments" in order to compete with the Ten Commandments. The idea that Atheists do not consider themselves gods is immediately highlighted by Grayling's god performance, giving the world his word as revelation, and his comandments for behavior. Yet he goes on to contradict his own position:

"During his Thursday talk, he faulted the Bible and the spread of religion for humanity's strife. He asserted that the fanatical study of the Bible and other religious texts prompts followers to commit acts of violence in the name of God. He denounced the Bible as false because it holds itself as being the sole source of truth.

"By contrast, Grayling argued that The Good Book, which he compiled over the course of 30 years, embraces plurality. He believes study of his humanist bible will promote free thinking because his bible is not about rules or deities. "There's no command there to believe, to accept, to obey. There's no promises of rewards or threats of punishment," the 62-year-old outlined."

Usually Atheists claim that there exists no truth, no absolute. Grayling apparently asserts that there are other sources for truth and absolutes (perhaps himself?). And like most Atheists, Grayling refuses to consider that the source of some 250,000,000 deaths in the 20th century were not related to either religion or the Bible, except for those killed because of their beliefs. The source of those murders was Atheist at its core, and its morality is a part of earth's history, a fact that I doubt appears anywhere in Grayling's account.

And here is an interesting twist on reality:

"The Good Book establishes that everything and everyone is innately good."

Either the author of the article has not recognized the internal contradictions he has written here, or Grayling has built them into his book. Here is the most internally contradictory statement of Atheist philosophy:

"In fact, morals and ethic should be negotiated among free thinkers, he contended. He brushed off the golden rule of doing unto others as you would like to have them do unto you because "they may not like it." Humans must, through a free exchange of ideas, create their own good lives, he asserted."

Eliminate the Golden Rule because others might not like being treated that way, yet do whatever pleases yourself. Atheists can in no manner agree through free change of ideas on what constitutes "good", much less what constitutes a good life. My good life might include ridding you of your ideas to which I object; every philosopher objects to the ideas of every other philosopher, at least to some degree. And my idea of "flourishing", that overused Atheist moral objective, might just be to kill and eat my gay lovers and keep their heads in the freezer. Or at least to starve off entire demographic populations I don't care to have around.

Atheists have had control of much of the earth in the past 100 years; I am not impressed with their moral choices.