Why An Atheist SHOULD Read The Bible

[ThinkAnarchy]

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.

[xSilverPhinx]

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...

[ThinkAnarchy]

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.

[Stevil]

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.

[ThinkAnarchy]

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.

[Stevil]

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.

[The Magic Pudding]

Gay 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.

[Tank]

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.

[xSilverPhinx]

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

[Medusa]

Reading the bible cover to cover is the quickest way to becoming an Atheist.

just sayin.

[fester30]

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.

[xSilverPhinx]

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.

[Stevil]

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.

[Shy]

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.

[Medusa]

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.