Godspeed you holy book.

[Genericguy]

Most arguments for or against a religion, and for or against the god/s of the religion, inevitably lead back to a holy book. I've seen threads exposing the contradictions and impossibilities in holy books and the purpose of this thread is not that. Within the subject of religion, impossibilities can be pointed out as easily as they can be refuted. I would like hear convincing reasons why you believe your specific religions holy book is true. If you don't know for sure yours is true, why does it take precedence over the other holy books and even non-holy books?

[Brieze]

You took GY!BE's name in vain!

/derailing

[Genericguy]

You took GY!BE's name in vain!

/derailing

Nice catch! Didnt think anyone would catch that. Continue here http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=4763.1050 if need be...

[The Magic Pudding]

My holy book "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" is better than other holy books and its betterness is self evident so I shouldn't have to justify it.

It has a cool robot (my hero) in it, robots in Abrahamic books = 0.
The author has his name on it, no one disputes he did it, I've seen him talking about it.
It makes more sense than other holy books.
It comes in four conveniently sized books and uses a readable layout and font, bible doesn't.
My book has inspired much better TV and movie adaptations than other dumb holy books.
My book has a consistent style throughout and isn't as self contradictory as others.
My book evokes mirth, others do guilt, righteous violence and repression.

[Genericguy]

My holy book "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" is better than other holy books and its betterness is self evident so I shouldn't have to justify it.

It has a cool robot (my hero) in it, robots in Abrahamic books = 0.
The author has his name on it, no one disputes he did it, I've seen him talking about it.
It makes more sense than other holy books.
It comes in four conveniently sized books and uses a readable layout and font, bible doesn't.
My book has inspired much better TV and movie adaptations than other dumb holy books.
My book has a consistent style throughout and isn't as self contradictory as others.
My book evokes mirth, others do guilt, righteous violence and repression.

Don't forget your holy book has an answer to THE ultimate question.

[Tank]

My holy book "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" is better than other holy books and its betterness is self evident so I shouldn't have to justify it.

It has a cool robot (my hero) in it, robots in Abrahamic books = 0.
The author has his name on it, no one disputes he did it, I've seen him talking about it.
It makes more sense than other holy books.
It comes in four conveniently sized books and uses a readable layout and font, bible doesn't.
My book has inspired much better TV and movie adaptations than other dumb holy books.
My book has a consistent style throughout and isn't as self contradictory as others.
My book evokes mirth, others do guilt, righteous violence and repression.

Don't forget your holy book has an answer to THE ultimate question.

But not the question! Grrrrrr!

[Too Few Lions]

You took GY!BE's name in vain!

/derailing

Nice catch! Didnt think anyone would catch that. Continue here http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=4763.1050 if need be...

I've got the film at home that the band took their name from, but I haven't got round to watching it yet

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0261555/

[Guardian85]

The closest I get to religion is music. Holy book not required.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

To answer the OP, I don't take the Bible as absolute truth.  There are parts of it that I think are historical, but that inquiry requires historical analysis and looking at each part separately instead of as part of a whole. The Bible is a collection of 66 books, each with its own style and background, so it's not a one-size-fits-all analysis.

Generally, I take the basic facts about Jesus found in the writings of Paul to be historical, for reasons I have expressed elsewhere.  What brings it home to me, however, is personal subjective experience.  I would say that my faith is based more on religious experience than on the Bible, per se.

[Genericguy]

What brings it home to me, however, is personal subjective experience.  I would say that my faith is based more on religious experience than on the Bible, per se.

Religious experiences happen in other relions as well. It's not limited to Christianity. Thats one of the reasons I wanted to talk specifically about holy books.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

What brings it home to me, however, is personal subjective experience.  I would say that my faith is based more on religious experience than on the Bible, per se.

Religious experiences happen in other relions as well. It's not limited to Christianity. Thats one of the reasons I wanted to talk specifically about holy books.

Well, I've indicated that I think the basic outline of Jesus' life as presented by Paul is historical. That's why I accept it.  Comparing Paul's writings with the Qur'an, for example, while I think Mohammed was historical, there is nothing in the book itself that tells me that the recitations are actually from Allah, as opposed to Muhammad's own mind.  Regarding the Book of Mormon, I consider that to basically be a novel by Joseph Smith, with very little, if anything, connected to actual history.  The Baghavagita, as a story about Krishna, has very few points that can be connected to literal history, IMO.  So of the main holy books, it's the historical element of the life of Jesus, including his crucifixion/resurrection, that give it the edge over the others.  That, coupled with my own religious experiences regarding Jesus, creates faith in me and makes me a Christian.  That's it in a nutshell.

[fester30]

What brings it home to me, however, is personal subjective experience.  I would say that my faith is based more on religious experience than on the Bible, per se.

Religious experiences happen in other relions as well. It's not limited to Christianity. Thats one of the reasons I wanted to talk specifically about holy books.

Well, I've indicated that I think the basic outline of Jesus' life as presented by Paul is historical. That's why I accept it.  Comparing Paul's writings with the Qur'an, for example, while I think Mohammed was historical, there is nothing in the book itself that tells me that the recitations are actually from Allah, as opposed to Muhammad's own mind.  Regarding the Book of Mormon, I consider that to basically be a novel by Joseph Smith, with very little, if anything, connected to actual history.  The Baghavagita, as a story about Krishna, has very few points that can be connected to literal history, IMO.  So of the main holy books, it's the historical element of the life of Jesus, including his crucifixion/resurrection, that give it the edge over the others.  That, coupled with my own religious experiences regarding Jesus, creates faith in me and makes me a Christian.  That's it in a nutshell.

But there were no contemporary records of Jesus or his trial or execution, despite a Roman government that kept detail trial records.  There is nothing specifically historical about the life of Jesus.  I could have sworn that I read somewhere that Paul never met Jesus.  Paul's letters do not tell the life story of Jesus, but are instead instructions to the churches.  There is, in other words, slim to no historical element to the life of Jesus, or his crucifixion/resurrection.

My input here is that I was a Christian for 33 years.  I've been atheist for a year, so it's all very fresh to me.  The holy book I used to cherish was only special to me because I hadn't read enough of it.  I decided to read it while I was deployed for six months, and that's what started my doubt.  The more I read, the more it looked like the recent religious movements I made fun of, such as Scientology.  I realized that it was quite ridiculous to me.  So in other words, I only believed my holy book was true because I had only read a very small portion of it, and preachers can be quite convincing when your parents raise you in a religious tradition.

[MadBomr101]

One of the rewards of atheism is no holy books or other relegious paraphenalia to confuse the mind and compel one to believe in fairytales.