Oh my. My fiction books are generally kept in good nick, but you guys would have serious nightmares over my non-fiction works.

Tenting, coffee stains, scribbling, torn out pages for copying, post-its, marker pens, lying the trunk of the car for days on end together with everything from tools to skis, and of course the indescribable horror of the "joint gym and book bag".

The only one I might accept is writing notes.

Coffee stains is culpable homicide.

Sure I do, that's why I'm asking to understand the hypothetical situation being presented...

Right, but with this method, you're still going to always be playing the numbers. You'll never be able to "know" one way or the other.

Not too mention that the premise doesn't add up. I think there is a reasonable chance that many atheists with such doubt would actually be more motivated to destroy the Bible.

That's the problem with thought experiments; they tend to assume that one's subjective well thought out rationality applies to people in the real world with real world concerns.

That's why thought experiments are best used for exploring issues, not answering them.

What nonsense. If anything, a theist of any sort is more likely to not care if existence on earth ends. They would attribute it to "god's plan" and think that it is what was meant to happen. They'd probably think it would be better, and our existence could continue in "a higher realm" or whatever.

As an atheist, I care only about this life, the life of my son, the life of his son, all the people who are alive currently, and all the people who will be alive after us. The end of existence is the worst possible outcome. It seems like a reasonable goal, to try to do everything I can to promote continued existence (and minimize suffering). I actually used to not care about this, but after my son was born, for some reason I now care. I don't know why I care, but it definitely has nothing to do with my views on religion.

Nice to see you back jon

There's a big difference between accepting that people might not be around in 600 years, and actively seeking that out. You would seek to actively end all human life.

Self interest is fine, and I'd even say necessary for people. Self interest that seeks immediate gratification in exchange for the death of humanity is ****ed up.

Sup Zumby! I've been lurking here and there but haven't felt the need to contribute lately. Plus work and life gets in the way - all good things. You really missed my long, semi-coherent, stoned rants? lol.

Variety is the spice of life, innit.

I do agree

Incorrect use of 'innit'. You got that well wrong, innit.

I contend that human existence is defined by suffering. To paraphrase Descartes, patior, ergo sum. I also think religion is one of the many characteristics of humankind that have developed in response to suffering. If this thought experiment could be carried out, I submit that religion would relatively quickly, in evolutionary terms, die out. It might take longer than 500 years, but it would die out, because people would no longer need to believe their suffering was for a greater cause.

I don't think this is a particularly instructive question, either, because such a technological innovation is clearly outside the realm of possibility. Moral dilemmas are all predicated on the idea that suffering and death are bad things in themselves; conversely, life and well-being are good things for their own sakes. This presupposes the idea that suffering and death are unavoidable, as they clearly are in reality; the dilemma instructs us in how to choose between one form of suffering and another. Removing the suffering from the equation essentially removes the verisimilitude from the moral dilemma. We have no way of conceptualizing what a world with such amazing quality of life would look like. Like Agent Smith says in "The Matrix," we require suffering, and we would invent ways to suffer if we had the suffering taken away from us.

I don't think this is necessarily true. Some objects carry cultural significance that others don't, and religious objects are prime examples. I would hesitate to destroy a bible (or a copy of the Quran or whatever other widely-accepted holy book), though I am an atheist, to guard against having to justify the destruction of it to someone whose good opinion means something to me.
"Hey, whatever happened to that bible you had?" "I was out of kindling, so I burned it in the fireplace." "You WHAT???" "What? It's not special; there are plenty of other copies." "But I can't believe you did that!" (Imagine ensuing awkwardness.)
It would be tantamount to destroying the favorite stuffed animal of a child who has owned it his entire sentient life and then saying, "Oh, I'll just get you another one, what's the big deal?" We atheists know (or should know) that religion is a very strong cultural force, not one that we can simple argue away or ignore. We live with, work with, and love religious people, and we don't (or shouldn't) do things to antagonize them out of contempt or arrogance. Do I think destroying the bible would in any way jeopardize my experience after I die? No. But I do think there is some small chance that it might make my life less pleasant before I die, and since it costs me so little not to destroy it, I will shy away from that course of action. (If I were out on the street in the cold and had nothing to keep me warm, though, and I had the chance to burn a bible to stay warm, you bet I would do it.)

In Sklanksy's original version of this, the example was using a bible to clear up a coffee spill and no one would ever know that you did it.

Why, what happens after you die?

OK, that's getting a little strained. Who uses a book -- of any kind -- to clean up a coffee spill? I get that the idea is that an atheist shouldn't mind destroying a bible just because it is a "holy" book, and I don't, but hypotheticals that are so divorced from reality are not illustrative for precisely that reason.

Nothing happens after you die. That's why I don't think doing anything with a bible is going to jeopardize my experience: there is no experience.

.

So, you do, I guess.

I find the OP insulting. Just because one doesn't believe in gods or an afterlife, it means they cannot hold any cause greater than themselves? Bull****!

Why have so many replies ignored a major part of the OP? The "greater cause" was stipulated to be at significant cost to every human in the next few centuries. Not just to themselves.

My intellect isn't good to begin with and I think your examples are often overly tricky and unnecessarily complicated. You went back to add that everyone becomes sterile after 500 years. This implies the end of human civilization regardless. So why would anyone, atheist or otherwise, object? Or are you trying to find out people's commitment to other species and/or the planet in general?

And why is this a thought experiment for atheists? If you believe in an eternal magic land, why wouldn't you face a similar dilemma?

The idea was that some atheists, especially the ones who grew up religious, have vestiges of belief they don't even realize. Would you use the pages of a bible to clean off your daughter's dress when she spilled a drink on it right before her prom, if you had no other alternative?

I'd certainly use them before the pages from my copy of ToP!

You win.

If you're asking me specifically (I know you aren't) ... Depends on whether my daughter having a stained dress when going to prom is +EV. If it serves to repulse some wandering hands or compels a change into a more tasteful dress, then I would not. If the resale value of the bible were significant enough that I wouldn't want to ruin it (and higher than that of the dress without the stain), then I would not. If none of the above conditions were met, then yes, I would.

If I had the choice between using a copy of NLHE:TaP, War and Peace, this bible, and the Communist Manifesto, I would quickly try to assess which of them is least expensive to replace and use that one, unless its paper doesn't seem absorbent enough, in which case I would move to the next least expensive one.

Treating the bible as special is just one example of irrational thought that most people fall into: considering objects to have value over and above their utility. The American flag is another example. Most people have sentimental attachment to some things, and many do so despite knowing that it's irrational. I absolutely agree that some atheists think that way; that just shows how irrational people, religious or not, can be.