Why An Atheist SHOULD Read The Bible

[Gawen]

I have tried a few times to read the bible, can't seam to get past whom begot who.

It's alright to skip the superfluous stuff. I rather enjoyed reading it.

There are few times I try to debate it. (I am not good at debating anyways.) 

It'll come to you.

For instance, my son is gay, so when I see or hear something that shows hate or ill will toward homosexuals momma bear wants to come out and protect her cub. Of course I try not to express myself in that sense, but I feel that I can't just let it pass either.

There's nothing wrong with being a momma bear...*grinnin*

[Sweetdeath]

I have tried a few times to read the bible, can't seam to get past whom begot who.

There are few times I try to debate it. (I am not good at debating anyways.)  For instance, my son is gay, so when I see or hear something that shows hate or ill will toward homosexuals momma bear wants to come out and protect her cub. Of course I try not to express myself in that sense, but I feel that I can't just let it pass either.

Awww, you're so cute!  <3  <3

Back on topic: there seems to be no point in reading the bible. Once you tell people you're atheist, they don't want to hear what you have to say anyway.

Besides, it doesn't say "hate gays" in the bible, but religious pricks do it anyway.  Half the time I think they are making up their own stories of rules. 

[xSilverPhinx]

I have tried a few times to read the bible, can't seam to get past whom begot who.

There are few times I try to debate it. (I am not good at debating anyways.)  For instance, my son is gay, so when I see or hear something that shows hate or ill will toward homosexuals momma bear wants to come out and protect her cub. Of course I try not to express myself in that sense, but I feel that I can't just let it pass either.

Awww, you're so cute!  <3  <3

Back on topic: there seems to be no point in reading the bible. Once you tell people you're atheist, they don't want to hear what you have to say anyway.

Besides, it doesn't say "hate gays" in the bible, but religious pricks do it anyway.  Half the time I think they are making up their own stories of rules. 

They think that atheists think that their idea of god is the old guy with the white beard in the sky, which isn't so. I think they even feel threatened by the fact that many atheists know more about the bible than they do (myself not included).

[Sweetdeath]

I have tried a few times to read the bible, can't seam to get past whom begot who.

There are few times I try to debate it. (I am not good at debating anyways.)  For instance, my son is gay, so when I see or hear something that shows hate or ill will toward homosexuals momma bear wants to come out and protect her cub. Of course I try not to express myself in that sense, but I feel that I can't just let it pass either.

Awww, you're so cute!  <3  <3

Back on topic: there seems to be no point in reading the bible. Once you tell people you're atheist, they don't want to hear what you have to say anyway.

Besides, it doesn't say "hate gays" in the bible, but religious pricks do it anyway.  Half the time I think they are making up their own stories of rules. 

They think that atheists think that their idea of god is the old guy with the white beard in the sky, which isn't so. I think they even feel threatened by the fact that many atheists know more about the bible than they do (myself not included).

They feel threatened because in a debate most atheists would prove them wrong by pointing out the contraddictions and bullshit of this outdated book?

[xSilverPhinx]

I have tried a few times to read the bible, can't seam to get past whom begot who.

There are few times I try to debate it. (I am not good at debating anyways.)  For instance, my son is gay, so when I see or hear something that shows hate or ill will toward homosexuals momma bear wants to come out and protect her cub. Of course I try not to express myself in that sense, but I feel that I can't just let it pass either.

Awww, you're so cute!  <3  <3

Back on topic: there seems to be no point in reading the bible. Once you tell people you're atheist, they don't want to hear what you have to say anyway.

Besides, it doesn't say "hate gays" in the bible, but religious pricks do it anyway.  Half the time I think they are making up their own stories of rules.  

They think that atheists think that their idea of god is the old guy with the white beard in the sky, which isn't so. I think they even feel threatened by the fact that many atheists know more about the bible than they do (myself not included).

They feel threatened because in a debate most atheists would prove them wrong by pointing out the contraddictions and bullshit of this outdated book?

Maybe not that in particular, because they turn to apologists who devot their entire careers to trying to reconcile contradictions for an answer, even if insatisfatory. 'God works in mysterious ways' can work pretty well too.  It depends on how they see the bible. Someone who believes that it is inerrant will be swayed by the contradictions.

They tend not to lean on their own understanding, but accept what another person they see as an authority tells them, without being able to show why they're an authority and have any understanding to show in the first place.

I think they feel more threatened by the fact that some real Christians can read the bible, learn about it and the ins and outs of their religion and still leave it.  

[Awolf26]

I've been waiting to comment on this for a while, but had to get my 10 posts in. So here I am.

I think someone mentioned this earlier in the thread, but I don't think atheists need to read the bible in order to sufficiently argue with believers. This is something I have had many conversations on blogs about.

Now, as an ex-right wing christian, I now a bit more about the bible than a lot of my Christian friends. Perhaps that is part of the reason I am an atheist. That is a story for another time. Seeing as I have this knowledge, I think it was beneficial when I first started arguing with the religious. However, overtime I noticed the conversations were getting no where. This is because the arguments started from the assumption that a god existed. This is a faulty place to start for someone trying to convince someone their religion is not truthful. I usually engage no from the perspective that a god does not exist. Therefore, even though I have the biblical knowledge (sometimes better than the religious), I do not stray toward pointing out hypocrisies and evil. Instead I stick with "before I engage you in that arena, I'm going to need to be convinced that a god exists".

In short, arguing hypocrisies and whatnot from holy books is a false start. Arguing from a false premise gets us no where.

If you want to read the bible, go ahead. It may be interesting, but it is wholly unnecessary to be a sufficient debater.

[xSilverPhinx]

I've been waiting to comment on this for a while, but had to get my 10 posts in. So here I am.

I think someone mentioned this earlier in the thread, but I don't think atheists need to read the bible in order to sufficiently argue with believers. This is something I have had many conversations on blogs about.

Now, as an ex-right wing christian, I now a bit more about the bible than a lot of my Christian friends. Perhaps that is part of the reason I am an atheist. That is a story for another time. Seeing as I have this knowledge, I think it was beneficial when I first started arguing with the religious. However, overtime I noticed the conversations were getting no where. This is because the arguments started from the assumption that a god existed. This is a faulty place to start for someone trying to convince someone their religion is not truthful. I usually engage no from the perspective that a god does not exist. Therefore, even though I have the biblical knowledge (sometimes better than the religious), I do not stray toward pointing out hypocrisies and evil. Instead I stick with "before I engage you in that arena, I'm going to need to be convinced that a god exists".

In short, arguing hypocrisies and whatnot from holy books is a false start. Arguing from a false premise gets us no where.

If you want to read the bible, go ahead. It may be interesting, but it is wholly unnecessary to be a sufficient debater.

You make some good points, there, but I was coming from the position of an accommodationist. I meant it more as in using the bible itself to refute behaviours based on scripture.

I haven't read the whole bible, but I'm guessing based on the bits and pieces that I do know of it that what really complicates things is that the bible already has so many contradictions that it refutes itself...all by itself, and still people use it to justify their behaviours. I'd be just another one arguing interpretation with people who feel they know the bible and their religion inside and out anyways.

So yeah since that happens, maybe it won't really go anywhere. Cherry-picking is a double edged sword.

[Awolf26]

You make some good points, there, but I was coming from the position of an accommodationist. I meant it more as in using the bible itself to refute behaviours based on scripture.

I haven't read the whole bible, but I'm guessing based on the bits and pieces that I do know of it that what really complicates things is that the bible already has so many contradictions that it refutes itself...all by itself, and still people use it to justify their behaviours. I'd be just another one arguing interpretation with people who feel they know the bible and their religion inside and out anyways.

So yeah since that happens, maybe it won't really go anywhere. Cherry-picking is a double edged sword.

Yeah, there are times when arguing points of the bible, because of behavior, is beneficial. My comment was mostly when engaging someone that tries to convince you that a god exists.

[Whitney]

I think someone willing to take time could use the Bible to prove that the Bible couldn't possibly be a holy text...pointing out all the immoral and contradictory things in it.  But with all the apologetic jumping jacks it would require a series of lengthy discussion...which is why I think  it's better just to point out that they are there and let the other person decide if they value their beliefs enough to actually investigate the claim.

[xSilverPhinx]

You make some good points, there, but I was coming from the position of an accommodationist. I meant it more as in using the bible itself to refute behaviours based on scripture.

I haven't read the whole bible, but I'm guessing based on the bits and pieces that I do know of it that what really complicates things is that the bible already has so many contradictions that it refutes itself...all by itself, and still people use it to justify their behaviours. I'd be just another one arguing interpretation with people who feel they know the bible and their religion inside and out anyways.

So yeah since that happens, maybe it won't really go anywhere. Cherry-picking is a double edged sword.

Yeah, there are times when arguing points of the bible, because of behavior, is beneficial. My comment was mostly when engaging someone that tries to convince you that a god exists.

With that I wholeheartedly agree.  I wouldn't even take someone who tried to prove their god by using a book with no special signs of being divinely inspired seriously. Pure circular reasoning.

[xSilverPhinx]

I think someone willing to take time could use the Bible to prove that the Bible couldn't possibly be a holy text...pointing out all the immoral and contradictory things in it.  But with all the apologetic jumping jacks it would require a series of lengthy discussion...which is why I think  it's better just to point out that they are there and let the other person decide if they value their beliefs enough to actually investigate the claim.

Your comment got me thinking about what a theist might mean when they say that they believe the bible is 'divinely inspired', especially if that means that the book is not inerrant. 

Such a person might place more value on their personal relationship with that they think is god with the bible as complementary rather than a foundation for their beliefs, especially among the more educated.

[Whitney]

Such a person might place more value on their personal relationship with that they think is god with the bible as complementary rather than a foundation for their beliefs, especially among the more educated.

Yes...exactly.  And someone who has that approach to religion is very likely to move away from Christianity as they find the bible less and less complementary to their own idea of what God ought to be.  I think this is why there seems to be a trend of people preferring to be considered spiritual rather than religious..they don't want to be associated with religious texts because they know it means being associated with the bad parts of the dogma too.

[xSilverPhinx]

Such a person might place more value on their personal relationship with that they think is god with the bible as complementary rather than a foundation for their beliefs, especially among the more educated.

Yes...exactly.  And someone who has that approach to religion is very likely to move away from Christianity as they find the bible less and less complementary to their own idea of what God ought to be.  I think this is why there seems to be a trend of people preferring to be considered spiritual rather than religious..they don't want to be associated with religious texts because they know it means being associated with the bad parts of the dogma too.

Going slightly off on a tangent here: I would throw both the bible and a church into that categorization. People who belong to churches which hold their preferred interpretations will also be associated with the bad dogma and doctrines. I think that a more independent believer is more likely to feel more responsible for their own actions and so be more moral (I see accountability as being a foundation for moral behaviour). Not having a holy book, official authoritative institution or devil figure to blame can have that effect...