The best thing to use against Christians is the Bible itself. So many of them (not generalising here, I think those who are know they are) are hypocritical cherry pickers who choose precisely the bits that enhance their worldview, even if to distort it more and give justification and validation to their bigoted beliefs.
I found this one on why there shouldn't be public prayers in secular institutions (since secular law isn't good enough for them):
'And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.' (Matthew 6:6-6)
Any other good passages and good reasons for atheists to read the Bible?
How can anyone make an intelligent informed decision on whether they believe those teachings or not unless they read the religious books.
Same goes for believers, how do they know that Christianity for example is better than Islam or Buddhism if they do not know what those other faiths are teaching.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on July 08, 2011, 09:55:51 PM
Any other good passages and good reasons for atheists to read the Bible?
Because it feels good when you stop?
Quote from: Crow on July 09, 2011, 03:54:53 AM
How can anyone make an intelligent informed decision on whether they believe those teachings or not unless they read the religious books.
Agreed. Though speaking for myself I'm not looking for any religion because of salvation (or what people think gives them that). Christian theology in particular doesn't interest me beyond the stories, and if the book wasn't the centre of an entire religion, with the problems it offers (which is what I'll focus on here) then it would be like reading another mythology book, which are interesting. Ancient bigoted opinions aren't so bad when people don't have them anymore.
QuoteSame goes for believers, how do they know that Christianity for example is better than Islam or Buddhism if they do not know what those other faiths are teaching.
I guess if they try Christianity and feel it 'fits' well into their worldview, that's one thing which might make looking to other religions and philosophies unnecessary. Though I think in some cases people might not know if a certain religion is actually doing them good, it might just be all they've ever known *shrug*.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on July 09, 2011, 06:18:13 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on July 08, 2011, 09:55:51 PM
Any other good passages and good reasons for atheists to read the Bible?
Because it feels good when you stop?
Heh ;D
Not me, I still fume for a few minutes after prolonged exposure to certain opinions.
Because - whether we like it or not - the bible has had a huge influence on our language and literature and one misses so much if one doesn't get all the allusions to biblical language and stories. For this reason, given my interest in Germanic etymology and linguistic history, I keep a Luther bible and a vulgate as well as the KJV. Also a concordance.
Also the language of the KJV and the Prayer Book is beautiful. Yes, I know, we find it beautiful because it has so long been the model of good English, so it's a bootstrap thing. Nevertheless I get pleasure from reading it.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on July 08, 2011, 09:55:51 PM
The best thing to use against Christians is the Bible itself. So many of them (not generalising here, I think those who are know they are) are hypocritical cherry pickers who choose precisely the bits that enhance their worldview, even if to distort it more and give justification and validation to their bigoted beliefs.
I found this one on why there shouldn't be public prayers in secular institutions (since secular law isn't good enough for them):
'And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.' (Matthew 6:6-6)
Your entire quote, SP, sums up a conversation I had with many of my fellow coworkers a couple years ago in our break room. They all know I'm an atheist. But I'm not the only one. There was one other that was vocal enough that everyone knew he was an atheist and there are a couple others that are but won't get caught up in an argument.
Well, one day one of the newer guys (at the time and a west Texas Baptist) thought it would be funny to pull my chain a bit. Knowing that everyone's attention would be on me, including the other atheists in the room, I had to come up with something substantive in reply. I can't remember what he said exactly, but it had something to do with the Christmas party prayer and how I didn't bow my head.
So I came up with the Matthew quote and then chided him specifically (and the rest generally) for being hypocrites and then further for cherry picking to suit their needs. And then to top it off before anyone could reply asked a (rhetorical) question of how anyone one of them could be what they claim to be without reading the manual.
It got real quiet. I smiled a lot.
The sadly ironic ending of this story is not more than a month ago, Mr. West Texas quit the church he and his wife had been going to for the last couple years because everyone in the church were......you guessed it.....hypocrites! He's now looking for a church to suit his cherrypicking needs and the rest of the other believers are still sheeple. His wife still goes to that church because it's where her family goes.
Quote from: Crow on July 09, 2011, 03:54:53 AM
How can anyone make an intelligent informed decision on whether they believe those teachings or not unless they read the religious books.
Considering that the supernatural is not experienced in modern times in any verifiable way nor by my own perceptions then there is no way a religious text would convince me that it happened in the past. That's how someone could know they don't believe in something without having to read the whole book....I certainly am not going to waste my time reading through every religious text ever written just to make sure I don't believe in them.
I did read the bible when I was a Christian and that's why I'm not one anymore.
Quote from: Whitney on July 09, 2011, 07:06:34 PM
I did read the bible when I was a Christian and that's why I'm not one anymore.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fatheistforums.org%2Fimages%2Fstar.gif&hash=ca5608166dd0162ac9fe85130fc1143477bae280)(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fattachments.emergencyoffice.com.au%2Fproducts%2Fimages_small%2F7027.png&hash=dd575f7747b84b7a6097781fc0a6e05658f985b5)(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fatheistforums.org%2Fimages%2Fstar.gif&hash=ca5608166dd0162ac9fe85130fc1143477bae280)
Quote from: OldGit on July 09, 2011, 09:34:34 AM
Because - whether we like it or not - the bible has had a huge influence on our language and literature and one misses so much if one doesn't get all the allusions to biblical language and stories. For this reason, given my interest in Germanic etymology and linguistic history, I keep a Luther bible and a vulgate as well as the KJV. Also a concordance.
Also the language of the KJV and the Prayer Book is beautiful. Yes, I know, we find it beautiful because it has so long been the model of good English, so it's a bootstrap thing. Nevertheless I get pleasure from reading it.
With this I agree. I have a KJV and read parts of it. What struck me as interesting was the language not the actual content.
Quote from: Gawen on July 09, 2011, 11:37:32 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on July 08, 2011, 09:55:51 PM
The best thing to use against Christians is the Bible itself. So many of them (not generalising here, I think those who are know they are) are hypocritical cherry pickers who choose precisely the bits that enhance their worldview, even if to distort it more and give justification and validation to their bigoted beliefs.
I found this one on why there shouldn't be public prayers in secular institutions (since secular law isn't good enough for them):
'And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.' (Matthew 6:6-6)
Your entire quote, SP, sums up a conversation I had with many of my fellow coworkers a couple years ago in our break room. They all know I'm an atheist. But I'm not the only one. There was one other that was vocal enough that everyone knew he was an atheist and there are a couple others that are but won't get caught up in an argument.
Well, one day one of the newer guys (at the time and a west Texas Baptist) thought it would be funny to pull my chain a bit. Knowing that everyone's attention would be on me, including the other atheists in the room, I had to come up with something substantive in reply. I can't remember what he said exactly, but it had something to do with the Christmas party prayer and how I didn't bow my head.
So I came up with the Matthew quote and then chided him specifically (and the rest generally) for being hypocrites and then further for cherry picking to suit their needs. And then to top it off before anyone could reply asked a (rhetorical) question of how anyone one of them could be what they claim to be without reading the manual.
It got real quiet. I smiled a lot.
The sadly ironic ending of this story is not more than a month ago, Mr. West Texas quit the church he and his wife had been going to for the last couple years because everyone in the church were......you guessed it.....hypocrites! He's now looking for a church to suit his cherrypicking needs and the rest of the other believers are still sheeple. His wife still goes to that church because it's where her family goes.
That's exactly the kinds of situations I was thinking about when starting this thread. ;D The issue of public prayer is frowned upon by their own bible and yet they fervently fight against secularism and the right to not have to partake in prayers of any religion.
Quote from: Whitney on July 09, 2011, 07:06:34 PM
Quote from: Crow on July 09, 2011, 03:54:53 AM
How can anyone make an intelligent informed decision on whether they believe those teachings or not unless they read the religious books.
Considering that the supernatural is not experienced in modern times in any verifiable way nor by my own perceptions then there is no way a religious text would convince me that it happened in the past. That's how someone could know they don't believe in something without having to read the whole book....I certainly am not going to waste my time reading through every religious text ever written just to make sure I don't believe in them.
I did read the bible when I was a Christian and that's why I'm not one anymore.
I think it's a little ironic and especially convenient that the loads of supernatural miracles (not restricted to Christianity) happened 2000+ years ago and were experienced by illerterate goatherders. If there was someone claiming to be and do what Jesus did today, they would probably be locked in an asylum.
I read parts of the bible when I was a Catholic, but honestly I now find it so boring. There are so many other books out there that deserve reading, I can't bring myself to read a useless book. Yes, as literary history it has merit, but so does Shakespeare and I avoid him like the plague.
I don't have any deep knowledge on the bible, but from what I gather it isn't even that good in the literary sense, at least not at the level of Shakespeare. It lacks cohesion, has accumulated mistakes but at the same time is composed of a few deep truths about human nature and the stuff that makes timeless universal stories (I think this is what people find appealing about the stories and mistake it for Truth).
The KJV did influence the English language, but it's not a literary masterpiece.
I read the first few pages and "it was good", nah, just kidding. It seemed pretty childish, very mythlike. Explaining why a woman has pain during child birth, why a snake slithers...
Just silly stories to explain things that people didn't know the answers to.
It gets quite sexist early on, with Eve being Adam's play thing and the one that corrupts him and that men are there to worship god and women are then to support the man.
And it gets unjust and horrid with all women for eternity to pay with pain because Eve ate a fruit.
I couldn't take anymore of this crap. It really is soul destroying stuff.
Quote from: Stevil on July 11, 2011, 11:13:53 AM
I read the first few pages and "it was good", nah, just kidding. It seemed pretty childish, very mythlike. Explaining why a woman has pain during child birth, why a snake slithers...
Just silly stories to explain things that people didn't know the answers to.
It gets quite sexist early on, with Eve being Adam's play thing and the one that corrupts him and that men are there to worship god and women are then to support the man.
And it gets unjust and horrid with all women for eternity to pay with pain because Eve ate a fruit.
I couldn't take anymore of this crap. It really is soul destroying stuff.
Your post just made me think of this.
In religion class, they were telling us about the evils of contraceptives, and he used the bible passage regarding the dude who pulled out and came on the floor, resulting in god striking at least one of them down. Those were our absence lessons. I think both the man and the woman died however.
Quote from: Stevil on July 11, 2011, 11:13:53 AM
I read the first few pages and "it was good", nah, just kidding. It seemed pretty childish, very mythlike. Explaining why a woman has pain during child birth, why a snake slithers...
Just silly stories to explain things that people didn't know the answers to.
It gets quite sexist early on, with Eve being Adam's play thing and the one that corrupts him and that men are there to worship god and women are then to support the man.
And it gets unjust and horrid with all women for eternity to pay with pain because Eve ate a fruit.
I couldn't take anymore of this crap. It really is soul destroying stuff.
I think the worst thing about it is that a book that primitive survived to this day and is still being used to justify what I consider to be immorality or plain harmful ignorance. Maybe a few decades back most people stopped using stories such as that of Eve to justify sexism along with other passages that say that basically validate the thought that women are inferior for those who think that was, but these days other minorities such as homosexuality and even atheism and other religions are taking the full brunt instead.
Cherry picking on one hand is good when compared to the scenario of a
full follower of the scripture. Can you imagine what a person who literally followed every word would be like and how long they would stay out of jail? But on the other hand it gives people with bigoted opinions justification.
Definitely one to be taken in small doses...
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on July 11, 2011, 11:39:47 AM
I think the worst thing about it is that a book that primitive survived to this day and is still being used to justify what I consider to be immorality or plain harmful ignorance. Maybe a few decades back most people stopped using stories such as that of Eve to justify sexism along with other passages that say that basically validate the thought that women are inferior for those who think that was, but these days other minorities such as homosexuality and even atheism and other religions are taking th full brunt instead.
Cherry picking on one hand is good when compared to the scenario of a full follower of the scripture. Can you imagine what a person who literally followed every word would be like and how long they would stay out of jail? But on the other hand it gives people with bigoted opinions justification.
Definitely one to be taken in small doses...
I agree with you, however, ancient stories have a lot of value. The fact is, people put way to much weight into the bible. They view the bible as the word of god, whereas they view The Iliad as the word of Homer. They have the latter correct.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on July 11, 2011, 11:28:06 AM
In religion class, they were telling us about the evils of contraceptives, and he used the bible passage regarding the dude who pulled out and came on the floor, resulting in god striking at least one of them down. Those were our absence lessons. I think both the man and the woman died however.
That's horrid and bloody funny at the same time. I mean really, do people believe this stuff?
I was discussing with some Catholics on a forum recently, some are all for the right to bear guns by highly against condoms and contraceptives.
They were talking about how contraceptives leads to more frequent casual sex which leads to more pregnancies and more abortions and they think of abortions as murder.
So, they have a point there. I don't know if statistically they are right or wrong, but yeah, contraceptives can fail.
But then when I ask them why they are against gay sex, because of course it isn't going to lead to abortions, all I get is that it is a sin, two actually, sex out of wedlock and gay sex.
Quote from: Stevil on July 11, 2011, 11:54:43 AM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on July 11, 2011, 11:28:06 AM
In religion class, they were telling us about the evils of contraceptives, and he used the bible passage regarding the dude who pulled out and came on the floor, resulting in god striking at least one of them down. Those were our absence lessons. I think both the man and the woman died however.
That's horrid and bloody funny at the same time. I mean really, do people believe this stuff?
I was discussing with some Catholics on a forum recently, some are all for the right to bear guns by highly against condoms and contraceptives.
They were talking about how contraceptives leads to more frequent casual sex which leads to more pregnancies and more abortions and they think of abortions as murder.
So, they have a point there. I don't know if statistically they are right or wrong, but yeah, contraceptives can fail.
But then when I ask them why they are against gay sex, because of course it isn't going to lead to abortions, all I get is that it is a sin, two actually, sex out of wedlock and gay sex.
I agree it's a bit funny now that I'm detached from it all.
For the hell of it, let me pose the believers argument for them. Keep in mind I'm not homophobic, this is purely for fun, so please, no one get offended. Gay sex, is in and of itself a contraceptive. It prevents the possibility of life, hence it being immoral, decedent, and wrong. The only exception being, a married religious folk cheating on his wife with another man. In that case we shall look the other way because he still maintains the potential to procreate with his wife.
EDIT: Yes, people truly believe these things, granted my above post is not exactly conducive with all of religion. It's more in regards to the catholic and mostly non-catholic secs I've either dealt with or read about in the news.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on July 11, 2011, 12:01:42 PM
For the hell of it, let me pose the believers argument for them. Keep in mind I'm not homophobic, this is purely for fun, so please, no one get offended. Gay sex, is in and of itself a contraceptive. It prevents the possibility of life, hence it being immoral, decedent, and wrong. The only exception being, a married religious folk cheating on his wife with another man. In that case we shall look the other way because he still maintains the potential to procreate with his wife.
EDIT: Yes, people truly believe these things, granted my above post is not exactly conducive with all of religion. It's more in regards to the catholic and mostly non-catholic secs I've either dealt with or read about in the news.
They didn't take that tack with me, that gay sex is a contraceptive, probably because they previously said that contraceptives lead to abortion.
They talk about gay sex being a sin, against nature and disordered.
But of course all of these things are purley conceptual. There is no concise irrefutable definition of what is nature or what is order.
I posed to them that it is not for them to judge and that judgement is god's domain. but that didn't fly with them, Some said they wouldn't allow Gay people to stay in their bed and breakfasts, or appartments or be school teachers or marry or adopt children, that they should be refused a public church funeral service despite being Cathoic.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on July 11, 2011, 12:01:42 PMGay sex, is in and of itself a contraceptive. It prevents the possibility of life,
One day last week I heard two news stories from India, the first involved those accepting sterilisation being rewarded with a lottery ticket. The second was a government official giving an anti gay rant.
I have been reading this thread with interest. I think that if one wants to debate the details of a particular institutionalised superstition with a proponent of that superstition one should know as much as one can about that particular superstition. However I don't feel it necessary to read the 'owners manual' of a particular institutionalised superstition to dismiss it as a valid world view if the 'owners manual' posits the existence of a god(s). The existence of god(s) has yet to be proved in any reasonable and objective way. Thus any world view based on the presumption of the existence of god(s) is fatally flawed.
I have read bits of the bible and had bits read to me in church when I was a kid and also in school in assembly and in RE lessons. It didn't hang together then and I see no reason to expect it to be any better now. So I see no point in reading it again now as I have no wish to debate the 'truth' value of the Christian world view as it is a world view based on the presumed existence of a god.
Quote from: Tank on July 11, 2011, 01:44:09 PM
I have been reading this thread with interest. I think that if one wants to debate the details of a particular institutionalised superstition with a proponent of that superstition one should know as much as one can about that particular superstition. However I don't feel it necessary to read the 'owners manual' of a particular institutionalised superstition to dismiss it as a valid world view if the 'owners manual' posits the existence of a god(s). The existence of god(s) has yet to be proved in any reasonable and objective way. Thus any world view based on the presumption of the existence of god(s) is fatally flawed.
I have read bits of the bible and had bits read to me in church when I was a kid and also in school in assembly and in RE lessons. It didn't hang together then and I see no reason to expect it to be any better now. So I see no point in reading it again now as I have no wish to debate the 'truth' value of the Christian world view as it is a world view based on the presumed existence of a god.
Well I think that debating the truth value based on the bible really is futile, but I think that it is wise to know your enemy (not generalising to all Christians, especially since there are many ways they read the same scriptures). Fight fire with fire and use examples such as those contained within their own book to argue against what they do, such is the case with trying to keep public prayer at the expense of others.
I was reading about a boy who had been treated badly by his community and even family after he sent a letter to a teacher at his school in Louisiana only to have that teacher unethically divulge not only his name to others but what he had requested based on the US Constitution. It pissed me off.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/05/standard_small_town_saga.php (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/05/standard_small_town_saga.php)
Reading the bible cover to cover is the quickest way to becoming an Atheist.
just sayin.
It is not important for all atheists to learn the bible. It depends on you. If you don't care about the beliefs of others and would rather just leave well enough alone, then you would not need to learn it. You can just say thanks but no thanks to theists and live your life apart from it as much as possible. Knowing the bible may help in some cases with people who are already loose in their beliefs when it comes to helping them to understand their bigotry or misconceptions are unfounded, but it won't do much good against someone set in concrete with their beliefs. Being educated in the practices and doctrines of religions can help you to make a difference in a more broad sense if you were inclined to make such a difference in the public forum. Perhaps someday after my current career I will use my knowledge of various religions and especially the bible and christian denominations to help advance equality and fairness. I would like to help take away the stigma involved with the atheist tag.
Quote from: fester30 on July 16, 2011, 07:56:19 AM
It is not important for all atheists to learn the bible. It depends on you. If you don't care about the beliefs of others and would rather just leave well enough alone, then you would not need to learn it. You can just say thanks but no thanks to theists and live your life apart from it as much as possible. Knowing the bible may help in some cases with people who are already loose in their beliefs when it comes to helping them to understand their bigotry or misconceptions are unfounded, but it won't do much good against someone set in concrete with their beliefs. Being educated in the practices and doctrines of religions can help you to make a difference in a more broad sense if you were inclined to make such a difference in the public forum. Perhaps someday after my current career I will use my knowledge of various religions and especially the bible and christian denominations to help advance equality and fairness. I would like to help take away the stigma involved with the atheist tag.
I think you may have a point here. I know for a fact that many theists
do not respect an atheist's opinion on the bible and other interpretations, which is fine I guess, if it were just a book to be kept on the shelf and not used to try an justify interfering in other people's lives.
On a Catholic forum one poster said that asking for an atheist's opinion on the bible is like asking a layperson for a medical opinion - which didn't really make any sense to me because medicine is based on science, and so expertise is obviously needed, otherwise people can risk doing real harm to others. But the bible, even when compared to philosophical treatises, self help guides and things of that sort, isn't quite up there, IMO. 2000 years ago, maybe.
Ok, well, maybe among the self-help guides it would be one of the top...
Just look at what the experts on the bible are doing, especially in areas where they have more control - which is exactly how they want it - such as Africa.
I think it is more important to understand the people and the culture of the different groups within your society.
You could read the bible and still not understand it or the people following it. There are so many groups that base their understanding from the bible but they are all different from each other. The book is to be interpreted, and each organisation interprets it differently.
I'm even finding that there is a large proportion of followers that really miss the point of their church's teachings and take an understanding that is not what the church is trying to convey.
Which seems understandable because the interpretations have got that complicated, partly because the book itself makes no sense (IMHO) and also partly because (I feel) the organisations want their flock to be confused, they want to create a dependent relationship so that people come to church each week and ask for guidance all the time. The various churches own the minds of many people who they have convinced to give up thinking for themselves and simply follow the church.
I think an Atheist could have a reasonably frank and respectful discussion with a priest, where they would come to agreement on many things (not all), but in an open discussion with many followers, both sides could easily get heated and confused by each other's stance.
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.
Here is my main beef when thinking about reading the bible. The first thing you must ask yourself is which one. Which is why it's full of garbage. I'm very iffy on reading THE word of God when you can't even figure out which word of god you are supposed to read in the first place. Doesn't sit well with me at all.
Quote from: Shy on July 29, 2011, 09:22:03 PM
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.
QuoteThere are few times I try to debate it. (I am not good at debating anyways.)
It'll come to you.
QuoteFor 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*
Quote from: Shy on July 29, 2011, 09:22:03 PM
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. ::)
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 30, 2011, 04:23:07 PM
Quote from: Shy on July 29, 2011, 09:22:03 PM
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).
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on July 30, 2011, 05:44:41 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 30, 2011, 04:23:07 PM
Quote from: Shy on July 29, 2011, 09:22:03 PM
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?
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 31, 2011, 01:54:43 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on July 30, 2011, 05:44:41 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 30, 2011, 04:23:07 PM
Quote from: Shy on July 29, 2011, 09:22:03 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Awolf26 on August 04, 2011, 05:26:30 PM
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.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 06, 2011, 05:44:37 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Awolf26 on August 06, 2011, 06:03:25 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 06, 2011, 05:44:37 PM
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.
Quote from: Whitney on August 06, 2011, 06:23:11 PM
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.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 07, 2011, 12:47:57 AM
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.
Quote from: Whitney on August 07, 2011, 12:58:54 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 07, 2011, 12:47:57 AM
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...