You dont have to open the bible to see its a lie
Offline I see so many atheist debating the contents of the bible. But do we really have to open it to see its bull. No we don't. Why, because of the basic questions anyone would ask about any book that might come across your desk.
1. What kind of book is it?
2. Why was it written?
3. Who wrote it?
There are many more but we only need the first one.
To believers it is the absolute truth and not subject to any change. To me, a person who has never been introduced to any religion other then personal academic curiosity, its is any odd concept in itself. I mean, I have been told to read a lot of books, but never has a biology teacher dropped a book on my desk and said this is the absolute truth, and is never subject to change. If a teacher told me this, I would instantly know they were full of crap and a liar. To me this is the most damming peace of evidence against most religions.
I would also like to note that not all religions make absolute claims. For example Tibetan Buddhism does not.
Well, when I talk to religious leaders, one thing I always ask them is: What would you do if a fundamental tenet of your religion was definitively disproved by science? And, at least in the West, and especially among fundamentalist religions, the tendency is to say, "Science couldn't possibly," or, "My religion is an absolute truth, and if science gets different answers, too bad for science." The Dalai Lama's answer was: "If science found a serious error in Tibetan Buddhism, of course we would change Tibetan Buddhism." So I tried to push him on this issue. Suppose it was something basic? Suppose, for instance, it was reincarnation? And the Dalai Lama said to me, "If science can disprove reincarnation, Tibetan Buddhism would abandon reincarnation." And then he said, "But it's going to be mighty hard to disprove reincarnation."
- Login to post comments
Let's change this up a bit. What if I told you that your memories, no matter how insignificant they are, are meaningless to society as a whole, or better yet, your own existence. Would you agree with me or not? Sure, your memories of growing up are "neat" but not important. I hope you'd have the brains to remind me that no matter how small a memory may be, that your memories exist to help you survive. Not a single, minor memory you possess is "neat" but not useful. All of them are necessary for you to analyze and interpret information. Perhaps your bias here does not allow you to understand, indeed comprehend, on any level beyond your ignorance here, that history is societies memory. The past functions as a means for us to interpret ourselves and our society so that we don't repeat the same mistakes that our ancestors did. Every bit, every tiny morsel that you think is "boring" or "neat" is a part of that analysis. It is a part of the bigger, overall picture. I'm sorry you may not find history interesting or that you find the Bible to be useless but this is why I'm the historian and you're the guy ignorantly thinking that the Bible is not helpful. If anything, your ignorance is hurtful to society and the same reason why Christians so ignorant ignore their own Bible and take it for granted is the very same reason you do as well. And every other person who assumes or takes any part of history for granted. Why not just fire all historians and archaeologists - after all it's the past anyway, right? It's not important.
And no, the Library of Alexandria does not yield us any information because Christians burnt the damned library to the ground - leaving no manuscript evidence at all. There is a site at Oxyrhnchus but the site has not yielded many new finds being that it was a trash heap for papyri, left to decompose for ages. We did find a library at Pompeii, but most of the works appear to be fragments from texts we already have, many Stoic works. With the exception of very few new finds, we do not have an extensive library from antiquity because Christians did not feel the need to copy them down, and the extant manuscripts disintegrated or were destroyed by fire, or whatever other hapless events may have become them. Our knowledge from the past is very limited because of what we do not have. There is a reason why archeology is so important to studies in antiquity - because we do not have a lot of manuscript data to interpret history from. Any introduction to ancient literature will more than show the problems mentioned above. What we do have in terms of manuscripts, many of them are untranslated because of their incredibly fragile state. Any new manuscripts from Pompeii are charred and brittle that they will crumble away if not carefully handled. The only way to read the texts is to scan them with a specific type of radiation, like an x-ray machine, by which a computer attempts to read. However this is tedious and slow going.
There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of works that we written in antiquity that we do not have. There is only ONE complete Greek trilogy that we contain, and we know there were dozens of trilogies that were written. Who do we have? We have Aeschylus's' Oresteia trilogy, and in fact there was a fourth book that we do not possess - the final stage of a poets four work compendia (most classical poets wrote four works; a comedy, a tragedy, an epic and a satire). Speaking of Aristotle and Plato (you ignorantly assume Socrates added something to literature, when in fact he never wrote anything) we know they wrote quite a large amount of literature, but of Aristotle we are missing several works, and Plato we are missing more than half of the works that he supposedly wrote and have attestation to by contemporaries such as Aristophanes. But then again, we are also missing works by Aristophanes.
But it doesn't matter anyway, right? These are just "neat" things that you could probably care less about. You suggest that Plato and Aristotle have contributed the most to Western society. You are right. But how much of them have you read? Have you made it through Aristotle's Rhetoric, or his Poetics, or any of the works that he wrote on grammar and writing? Probably not. And was it the fact that they wrote things that makes them so important, is it the works themselves or peoples interpretation of these works that has made them so important? What makes you an authority, at least more so than I am, to lay claim to what is important and what isn't? Everything is important. Get over your bias here, because in the world of history, just because it is a holy book, it does not take away from its significance. Almost every dig site in Palestine, what we know of that region historically, is specifically because of the Bible's existence. Without the Bible, we would not know nearly as much as we do about that region. It is not so much because the Bible is telling us accurate history, but specifically because archaeologists dug in Palestine to find out if it really was historically accurate. Without it, there would be no interest in Palestinian history or Jewish history on the scale there is today. The cradle of civilization would be nearly unknown to us.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
Here is a link from Richard Carrier on the importance of History and why everything is vital to society: The Function of the Historian in Society
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
I'd agree with you as far as society, on a macroscopic scale, is concerned. As far as my own lie is concerned, my memories are an important survival tool. But you already go into this...
How pretentious.
There are two problems here:
1) You're presenting an absolute. All history is always something that can be learned from for our future benefit (presented largely in a metaphorical sense, like all memories are always beneficial for my growth).
2) You've already acknowledged that the Bible does not represent real history. The fact that Jewish culture percieved it that way is largely irrelevent, and - in fact - most evidently has only been harmful to them.
You're analogous argument fails like a tower of cards in the wind on these two principles alone. My memories are only good to me if they are accurate memories that I can use to survive in my environment with. If tomorrow I blew a few neurons and 'remembered' that the best way to fulfill hunger cravings was to light myself on fire, my memory would no longer serve as a vital survival tool.
[So, how has the Bible held-up as a psuedo-historical document / survival tool for the Jews? Last I checked, they were still engaged in a centuries-old conflict with the Muslims over a worthless tract of desert in the middle east as a result of their 'memory', wasting countless lives and resources.
That's a rather tragic irony. The Bible is now one of the few sources for stories from throughout antiquity, because Christians had a tendancy to BBQ anything else.
That's a stupid line of reasoning. Socrates hugely influenced Plato (being, y'know, his teacher and all that) and, through Plato, also left influence in Aristotle. Arguing that he didn't contribute because he didn't actually write is like arguing that Helen Keller didn't contribute to communication because she couldn't hear.
Also, I wasn't aware we were missing so much. So, yeah, I guess I'm wrong. This 'You are so teh ignorant!' bullshit can get fucked, though.
You'd be right. I read mostly fiction. Homer's work I have read in their entirety, because it is so rich in imagery and it really captures my imagination. I understand that Socrates, Plato and Aristotle are huge influences in western culture because there is plenty of evidence and literature on the subject matter that I've consulted.
And, just FYI, yes - I do consider Western society to simply be a "neat thing". I think it's a wonderful, promising, "neat thing", but not something cosmically significant (in my opinion). Do you have your own opinion on it, or are you content to simply sit back and reference antiquital society with so much mythical posturing, criticizing anyone who might try to weigh-in on the subject while offering very little yourself?
I'd argue that it's the demonstratable success of their application that has made them important.
I'm not. I'm simply stating my opinion.
This is hardly any different from any other apologist argument. "Because I can attribute X to this benefit, X must be a worthwhile investment in time/energy." I'll go ahead and argue, then, that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is an essential piece of modern astromony, the Loch Ness Monster is an essential part of modern marine biology and that Solanum is an essential part of modern medicine, because just about every piece of exploration and achievement these fields stride through I can go ahead and arbitrarily assign to trying to prove or disprove any of these modern myths.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Where's the ancient Bible times humor ? I'm way ignorant. Seems even our fortunate ancients were, ummm, well for the most part "generally miserable" ? Getting a grip on what it was like to live in those times has always mostly depressed me ..... Sure there was laughter and play, but the over all picture I get is well, a bummer, what a drag ? .....
Atheism Books.
This is particuarly true of 'internet theists' like Jason Gastrich... the guy has an 'online ministry', yet he concedes he's never read the entire bible...
that doesn't stop him from asserting that critics must read the 'entire bible', of course....
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I agree. I'd also add that most supporters of the bible are 1) ahistorical when it comes to how the bible came to be and 2) simply not fluent with it's content. As I told you in a recent discussion, one of my fellow interns is a theology student, and she had no idea that there was no historical corroboration of "Jesus". Yet, presumably, she's spent a good deal of her life 'studying' the bible.....
Unreal. Imagine if 'experts' in other fields approach their subject in the same way.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
That's a minority position among historians, though.
This is only a problem to someone who want to treat the Bible as a factual narrative.
If historians were this dumb then we wouldn't have barely any history.
When historians use a historical document, it's not about taking the speaker at it's word.
The fact they have is that someone wrote it, and from that fact they can deduce quite a lot.
I think you're making the blind assumption that the Bible has always been treated the way that Christian fundamentalists treat it.
I'm no expert but I've seen that when you take passages in their historical context it's a lot more interesting.
One example is Job.
From what I've heard, Satan in that story is actually one of God's angels - his prosecutor in bringing the guilty to pay for sins.
That is, he works for God rather than being the sword enemy/fallen angel/devil.
Christians gloss over a lot of the Bible in their attempt to make it fit under their theology.
Are you accusing historians of being innacurate?
Or are you trying to say that because the Bible doesn't directly narrate facts that it's worthless?
The latter.
'Worthless' is perhaps too strong a word, and in retrospect, my analogy was a little extreme. Given the fictional nature of the literature, I don't see how it can 'enrich' our understanding of the past (aside from the obvvious 'Well, by reading this, we can understand that the Jews just made-up whatever they wanted to about what they didn't understand instead of exploring it.'), and I don't think it makes an Earth-shuddering contribution to modern literature (in the same way that, say, Homer's work does. Or the convention work of some greek philosophers, who literally 'built' the mechanics of writing.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Your idea of history seems a bit similar to Hume.
Hume decided that most documentation was worthless because it merely presented an opinion from the time, and would quite possibly be devoid of all fact. It could not be trusted. However, Hume's view was later decided to be a bit narrow. A more modern view of history linked it much more closely with psychology and socialogy.
Yes, this document likely doesn't give an accurate narrative. However, that doesn't mean you can't deduce a whole lot from it.
I'm sure you've heard the phrase "Well that says a lot about you!"
With historical documents, the value isn't limited by whether the words accurately speak the truth.
We can make deductions from what they say.
E.g. Phrases like "Oh my God" clearly have a religious etymology and opinions of the author and habits/actions he criticises gives us insight into what used to happen back in the times.
I remember when I discovered deuteronomy while flicking through the Bible in a religious class.
I pointed out some of the laws it had written in there.
(The Bible is often seen as boring to kids, but it's a goldmine to smutty teenagers looking for cheap laughs - especially as it's the word of God here!)
As soon as I read out the laws against having sex with animals, someone else pointed out that they'd only have to tell people to follow such laws if they were breaking them!
We learned some quite interesting things about the culture of ancient people!
Seriously though, some of the most interesting things about history is the culture of the time, where our roots are and what we have evolved from.
Even if these myths and legends don't tell us the facts about the time, they tell us a huge amount about the people who wrote them and read them and what people like to write and read at the time. I personally find it fascinating.
And even the one about men having sex with their own mothers, etc. Makes me laugh thinking of God saying "Thou shalt not be a motherfucker." Or "Yo, motherfucker, and I mean that literally, knock that shit off!"
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
There is more to it than that. The fact that the Hebrew Bible represents traditions dating to the Persian period tells us that the Hebrews were participating in schools, some becoming scholars, under the rule of the Persians. And since so many pseudepigrapha exist, and many canonical books were written in Greek, throughout the Hellenistic age, it can be determined that Jews also were educated in the Diaspora and in Palestine in Greek gymnasiums. This is very important, because it shows the level of (1) Hellenism, (2) cultural assimilation on the part of the Jews, (3) acceptance of various Semitic cultures by the Greeks (for these cultures to become Greeks), (4) how assimilated individual Jews became (to the point of leading Roman legions against their own Kin.
But again the usefulness doesn't stop there. The books of the Bible are not just "made up" as Brown would have us believe. There is obvious borrowing taking place. And this also shows us quite a bit. Who the Jews borrowed from and why they borrowed from it is just as important as what they are writing. It shows us that Jews during the period took a liking to certain texts. Why? That is an important question in understanding the Jews in antiquity. And also important, why did the Jews copy some things, and alter them as well? What did they alter exactly and what significance can that show us? Why did the Jews fancy themselves as kin to the Greeks, in the way that the Romans thought of themselves as kin to the Trojans? These questions are very important, not only for historians, but literary critics.
And the Jews obviously practiced additional types of writing styles different from the Greeks. Despite what Brown would suggest (again, through ignorance of the process as opposed to knowledge of it), the Jews did not entirely rely on Greek schools but apparently had scholars skilled in Hebrew and Aramaic teaching classes and acting as private Jewish schools throughout the Diaspora (as is attested to by the Dead Sea Scrolls). This is also important for formulated the various types of writing styles and implements in antiquity. And what about the fact that somebody, somewhere, had the brilliant idea of translating the Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek, as part of the necessity of Jews who no longer spoke Hebrew or Aramaic but Greek (because they were Hellenized which we know from literature and inscriptions) and then thought to create a story explaining, through literary models both Jewish and Greek, the means by which the decision was made to translate the text!
Again, regardless of what contrary points have been made, it is obvious that the Bible represented the role of Homer in the middle ages throughout scholarship and school systems, as a model for education and learning. The Latin version was to the civilizations of the Middle Ages what Homer was to the Greeks and Romans of late antiquity. Literature had in fact been affected by the use of the Bible in place of Homer as can be seen by reading Dante. (And he isn't the only one) All one has to do is look at the works of literature that came from Nag Hammadi to see the influence of the Bible on the works created by the Gnostics throughout late antiquity and the Middle Ages.
The Bible is an important part of history, and can still tell us a lot, regardless of whether it is fictional or not. Nobody should remove any classical epic, or collection of epics, and again I cannot help but feel the bias of Brown here, and can't help but wonder if his judgment of the Bible stems from problems with Christianity. The two are linked and conjoined, yes. But the Hebrew Bible existed long before Christianity, and the traditions are important to determine. Just as the traditions of Paul are important to determine. If it could be shown Paul pulled a lot of his ideas from Euripides, would that be worth while to interpreting Pauline thought? When Dennis MacDonald showed fully the Gospel of Mark utilized Homeric epic to formulate plot narrative is that not important? Just claiming something is fiction is easy to do, effortless, and intellectually lazy. Proving it, well that is something entirely different. Finding out why a culture created their own history, borrowing from the very traditions they were ridiculing, that is vital to understanding ancient cultures they interacted with and the culture itself. Nothing is "worthless" or "unimportant". The works of literary composition did not begin nor end with the Greeks. (One could say they originated first in Sumer around 3,000 BCE, long before Homer was ever written, long before the presocratics like Heraclitus) The Greeks do not claim patents on literary traditions, and they are not the sole providers of ancient literature. In fact the Jews are a part of both of these traditions, and a lot can be written about their culture and heritage by reading the Bible, learning what they had to say, and comparing them to the past.
Once more, I would state that this could obviously come down to difference of opinion. Brown is more than entitled to ignore the Bible and suggest that to him, the Bible is not worth much. But Brown mistakes his own boredom with the texts as meaning they are entirely worthless to society all together. This is dishonest at best, irrational at worst. Clearly the Bible is beneficial to the study of the Jewish culture and history, just as the Epic of Gilgamesh is important to the study of Babylonian history. They are clearly fiction, and understood to be fiction today, and to the original readers perhaps as well. But their creativity inspired whole cultures to do things, think things and feel things, and this is worth something. It is worth our attention. At the very least, it is worth knowing how these atrocities committed in the names of the fictional entities ruling over these legends and myths were so widely accepted so we do not fall into the trap of continuing to commit them. It is the ignorance perhaps of most of society to ignore that which they find boring and personally useless, and because of this failure the texts are taken for granted and ignored and more ignorance spreads, and people die because of it.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
Well duh!
A great read as always.
Btw, when you referred to Brown, was that Dan Brown and his Da Vinci Code theories?
No, that was Mr. Brown from this thread.
Ah, I see.
Very well, I concede the point. The Bible is the most awesome piece of literature ever concieved by man. It represents the exclusive observational window from which to view the ancient world, and a worthwhile model of the Earth's geological history. Whatever social turmoil, death and ignorance rips through the modern world as a result of it's lofting is of no significance next to it's intrinsic historical value.
And it's a good thing, otherwise we'd have all sorts of fucking problems with political leaders and fundamentalist organizations taking it literally.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
It's not the Bible that's to blame for that.
Other than alternative religious texts as examples, you can use Aristotle's philosophy that was used by Scholastics in the Medieval Ages.
Galileo's contradiction of Aristotle was what got him arrested by the inquisition.
Aristotle's work is fantastic stuff, but assholes were capable of abusing it to a horrific effect.
That's why Rook made the point that we should focus the attack not on the Bible but the dishonest people who abuse it.
I think this is an important point that can't be brought up enough. The style, tone, and delivery in ancient legend present a context that's usually confusing for the modern reader at first. We have "fiction" and "non-fiction" sections of the bookstore, and it's relatively rare for authors to blur the lines. So we, with our Enlightenment-era respect for categorization, become confused when ancient writers have their literal and figurative space connected. One more reason why ancient literature is "important".
Aristotle bored people then! But those couple of times he was right were duesies.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Well it's a minority position among Theologians. Maybe that's what you mean. For historians, not having corroborating contemporary sources, and not having anything better than passing mention in secondary sources is very weak in terms of evidence. I wasn't aware of that situation either before joining the site and then checking it out myself.
But again, Rook's point: we're comparing two types of history.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
So the Bible is the text used as a teaching and psuedo-historical mechanism, and actively advocates murder, sacrifice, slavery, racial discrimination, etc... but it's not to blame.
Of course! It all makes absolute sense to me now.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Baby, don't be that way!
C'mon, he's not saying that. There's no way to "take back" whatever damage the material has done. It's important because it's a record of a semi-literary style. People presenting it as the "Word of God" are more to blame for whatever damage you may feel the book has justified. In the absence of the book, I'm sure people would have found another way to be horrible to each other, just like they have been for thousands of years. That doesn't make it a record of historical significance.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Saying the Bible has caused atrocities is like saying Fahrenheit 451 caused Bush to get elected. In some degree, that is exactly what the fundies say (The book has some special powers because it is God's word...so holding it to evil will do amazing things! etc...) The Bible is a collection of very important books. That doesn't mean it is the most important collection of literature ever written (it's sort of a bitch move to suggest that was what I was saying, but I like you so it's cool) but it is important. Will said it quite well though.
On that topic though, that one theist was right. Jesus not existing is a minority position. But then again, at one point in time scholars thought that the Old Testament patriarchs had existed historically as well. If those scholars were alive today they'd be eating their hats. Just because some less critical historians are afraid to let go of presuppositions and continue taking things for granted in no way limits or hinders arguments against them. This is one of those things.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
One would expect that it would be a minority position considering the scholarship usually associated with the bible makes the assumption of Jesus' existence as either a matter of belief, or of convenience. With the former, a straightforward assumption, and for the latter, the same way we believe that Catullus' lover actually existed, even though there's no direct evidence. Reasonable enough. But if you were to throw the evidence to the more historically-minded, I think you'd find yourself in the majority quickly.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Come on, I put forward a specific argument in that post why not!
Most books could be used in the same way.
I even used Aristotle's philosophy as an example - the Scholastics used Aristotle's as a religious doctrine and burned alive heretics who challenged it.
Plato's facist ideas in his Republic have often been cited as influencing some of the facist characteristics of Christianity.
The Euthyphro argument showed how Socrates had to deal with fundies who worshipped the classical Greek gods like Zeus etc.
The point being, many great books can be abused this way, so there is good reason to blame the assholes who abuse them rather than the books themselves.
All I am saying is that people should ask some basic question before putting any worth or credibility into any book. If people asks these basic questions then the answer should be obvious. This is not restricted to the bible, but should apply to any book.
I have read both the new and old testaments. But we must ask questions about the books we read. There are millions out there and we can only read some many. I read them because a lot of others hand and that is often an indication of something interesting or worth wile. But unfortunately popularity isn't always a good indicator.
I understand. But here is the issue; the study of the Bible has become very specialized. The reason for this is obvious on the surface. The books that make up the Bible were not originally written in English, so the only people who can translate the text are specialists to begin with. But with translation comes hermeneutics (unfortunately) and interpretations based on faith-based translations by faith-funded translators (which is sadly the case with many versions of the Bible). So, now you need specialists to explain variations of the texts, and more frustratingly, explain the reasons why there are variations. And you also need specialists to explain the past, the contemporary age of the books of the Bible and why certain things exist in the Bible that the so-called postmodern world does not understand or appreciate. Etc...
Basically, what it comes down to, is that basic questions are hard to apply to a book full of so many specialist needs. Who would even know, from a layman's perspective, where to begin with "basics" when "basics" are understanding the fundamentals of Koine Greek and Semitic languages? This may be an extreme example, but this illustrates another problem. If you have only read the English translation of the Bible (any English translation) you're already getting mistakes, inadequate interpretations and worse yet, you're not reading it in a way which the ancient audiences would have. This is because, again, the translation between languages means that a lot of original meaning was lost (and because of the translation, English brings in a lot of new meaning has to be added which never existed in the original languages to begin with). To be fair, as well, this is true for any ancient manuscript translated into English.
But again, that is the point I'm really making. When you make the statement "the Bible is a lie" what you are doing is in effect ignoring a lot of key factors that make ancient literature...well, ancient literature. I get your meaning, but to me, the statement comes across a little naive and perhaps a little resentful. I can't say I'm not guilty of so many negative feelings myself. When I deconverted, I was very aggressive towards the Bible, and that was one of the reasons why I befriended Dennis McKinsey. It was one of the reasons why I was searching out contradictions and compiled Dennis' list into a more readable, shorter version. But I do not view the Bible the same way anymore - which is definitely, I think, a part of my own rational growth (not to say you or Mr. Brown are not ration, you both clearly are - and I really do respect Mr. Brown, I just do not respect his comments in this thread). I have come to appreciate it, and the more I get into the history and interpretative aspects of it, I have become quite fond of it.
To be clear, I do not agree with what the Bible claims are facts. I do not accept the principals it lays out, and obviously it is not "fact". But these problems are found in a great deal of ancient literature. Even in what we would call "Histories" there are stories of crazy happenings, ghost stories, demons, God things, etc... And some of these texts historians really go crazy about when it comes to "accuracy" (although they admit readily that they are not nearly as reliable as modern historians and archeology). Yet, they are still respected, and for good reason (as I explained above).
I get the layman's perspective on the Bible, especially an atheist who really resents or otherwise find the Bible boring. But I do not appreciate them. Perhaps this is a little of my bias towards the importance of every piece of evidence. Anyway, I'm ranting. I apologize.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
Y'know what, Rook? You're right (and this time, I'll say that without all the dripping sarcasm).
I tend to get into a similar position to yourself when it comes to Mein Kampf, and arguing that barring the book is both unhelpful and stupid, since much can be gleaned from what Adolf wrote in it. My 'beef' with the Bible is likely no different than the semitic community's 'beef' with Mein Kampf or swastikas; they symbolize a suppressive and disgusting force in the world, and we mistakenly attribute the qualities of one to the other.
Gah. Whatever. I do still think it's a boring read. For what it's worth, I apologize about being dickheaded in here.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Indeed. I can accept that the majority of the world finds it boring. That is why I always feel special when a theist comes to my part time job to buy a Bible. I know right away they're not going to read it. They'll get it for their Bible Study, which will short change them and feed them small bits and pieces of this book or that. I recall that when I was dating this Christian (who at the time I didn't realize was a fundamentalist) who was going to Kutztown U., she actually asked me (who she knew was an atheist) to do her Comparative Religion homework, which was answering a worksheet on specific parts of the Old Testament. All she had to do was read a chapter and answer questions.
I appreciate what you had to say. Thank you for being honest.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
Heh heh. I went to Kutztown for my BS in Psych. There are a lot of fundies there - they even have (at least they did then and probably still do) a Christian dorm - called "Christopher House." I hated the idea if my tuition money was going to that. There was also a nutcase pastor always handing out buybulls and pamphlets. He and his followers had a big rally against evolution - the professor I had for astronomy was an atheist who spoke against them/made fun of them - they challenged him to a debate - these guys made asses of themselves handing out ads for the debate - with a guy dressed in a monkey costume. When the debate came he totally PWNED them! Unfortunately - I am not making this up - the Biology professor I had as a freshman sucked ass as a professor - she was a Christian and didn't believe in evolution! Who the fuck let her teach Biology? If she teaches it, it ought to be somewhere like Liberty University, certainly not a state University!
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Dude, even if you were wrong there was no way you were being a dickhead.
Rook doesn't want us to bow down to his superior historical knowledge.
It would've been a shallow discourse if you'd just followed his position from the beginning rather than challenge and force him to argue in defense.
High five for being proud of being proved wrong, Dawkins style!!
(Well, technically it was his teacher that was proud to be proved wrong, but Dawkins only tells that story because he would be too!!)