An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 17 Votes - 3.88 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-12-2013, 12:02 PM
RE: An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
(20-12-2013 10:37 PM)Alla Wrote:  
(20-12-2013 08:57 PM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  To clarify, for those who want to know, the 'good' white dude lol, in the book of mormon is Nephi. His descendants are us white boys. His brother's tribe (it's been nearly 20 years since I read this shit, I'm a little hazy) I think but will double check at some point was Levi I think. Anyway, Levi's tribe had accepted the word of God but then rejected it. They were 'marked' as black as punishment so the 'tribes' could tell each other apart. ... In the latter part of the 20th century, the mormons have incrementally softened the message about this and recently made a full u turn but at the original time of the 'revelation' it was divisive in reinforcing white supremacy and justifying slavery.
WOW! You forgot EVERYTHING.Smile
but that is OK with me.

Whoa. Check your facts mate Smile

I'll just play the 'can I help you' lick!!!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2013, 12:26 PM
RE: An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
(04-04-2011 02:35 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  6:4 "There were giants in the earth in those days"

Actually Goliath, the warrior that fought King David (Solomon's father) was a giant. He told his men that anyone who is brave enough to kill Goliath can marry his daughter (and logically speaking, he'd marry a princess and become a prince), but no one dared to even touch Goliath. Then King David himself killed the giant Goliath, and couldn't claim his reward because that would be incest.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2013, 12:51 PM
RE: An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
(24-12-2013 12:26 PM)Khalid Al Eisa Wrote:  
(04-04-2011 02:35 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  6:4 "There were giants in the earth in those days"

Actually Goliath, the warrior that fought King David (Solomon's father) was a giant. He told his men that anyone who is brave enough to kill Goliath can marry his daughter (and logically speaking, he'd marry a princess and become a prince), but no one dared to even touch Goliath. Then King David himself killed the giant Goliath, and couldn't claim his reward because that would be incest.

According to the Christian Bible (and by your username you might be using the Quran I guess ) David was at that time a servant of King Saul, who had promised *his* daughter in marriage to the one who took out Goliath. War by marriage contract... bit of a different approach in those days Tongue

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
25-12-2013, 12:16 AM
RE: An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
I have to add the links to the book so people don't have to dig through the thread to find it.

Dum dee dum, don't mind me.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?u...rian+shuty

or look for it on Barnes and Nobles or in the iBookstore.

Thanks!

And Merry Christmas!

[Image: dead-santa_2424538k.jpg]

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2013, 01:29 PM
RE: An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
Hey, check out this alternative atheist christmas message i just came across, pretty good - http://thechroniclesofhope.com/2013/12/a...s-message/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2014, 04:14 PM
Video RE: An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
Sorry I am late to the party but I would like to add some personal comments.

(04-04-2011 02:35 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  1:16 "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."

-The moon is not a light, it is a reflection of the sun's light. This is the first of many examples that suggest that God's omnipotence seems to be limited to the knowledge of the demographics and time period of when the Bible was written. Strange.

From peoples perspectives at that time God was still omnipotent because he created the sun, moon, and universe, etc. A basic interpretation of this reading drives that point home for the readers. A basic interpretation of the reading today can yield something like this:

God created the sun and moon. Check. This is a statement that makes sense with the God hypothesis.

The literal interpretation is blatantly false because the moon is not a light. God's omnipotence then is limited to the view of those people at that time in history. The view of God's omnipotence is not limited today because a theist can just adapt his beliefs to on scientific findings. God can still be considered omnipotent, its just at the time the people that passed down the story from generation to generation explained what they have observed in the most logical way they could. I don't think any Theist would claim that God dictated everything word for word to these authors. And no rational atheist should really believe that either. More accurately people passed on the creation story from first hand accounts (Adam and Eve) and those accounts found there way to Moses who did not know that the moon was not a light. Why didn't God tell him the right answers A) it was not relevant to the general message and B) God doesn't tell Christians today all the right answers, its obviously not in his nature to do so. You could argue that since he does not tell Christians all the right answers and make them billionaires then that is exist that God does not exist. In doing so you would be subjecting and omnipotent God to narrow human views of what God should tell people and what he shouldn't tell people. In conclusion, your point in bringing this up does not show that God doesn't show that God dictated the wrong thing and is therefore not omniscient it only illustrates the fact that humans are not omniscient. If there is a God and he did directly dictate to people we should leave his word choose out of it.

1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"

-Our? Just how many gods are there?

[/quote]

The use of "our" is referring to the trinity, a popular Christian belief that is widespread throughout the major denominations. This belief may seem illogical but this is were it started, though it manifested itself into doctrine much later. Such a belief only makes sense under the context of assumptions that God is a higher being and because of his omnipotence is not limited logical or rational states. God, by definition, is mysterious and such beliefs fit into the popular beliefs about God. To argue that the existence of God is utterly false because the trinity functions in ways that are not observable and therefore irrational humans is like saying Galileo's idea of a round world is completely and utterly false because a round one is (directly) not observable (from an observers perspective in that time period). The difference here is that science has discovered a a round earth but not the trinity. However, the basic lessons to learn from Galileo is that even seemingly irrational ideas, by popular belief, can turn into truths. Thus the lack of scientific evidence for a trinity will not and should not discourage Christians or theists in general from believing in the existence of God. How many times have scientists run into a road block with discoveries then later on found and explanation that would have seemed illogical decades before? Unlike scientific questions I don't think you can really ever discover the trinity but through a brief look at history, personal experience, and faith. If atheists let an illogical idea (on paper) scare them away they will never be able to figure out if its true for themselves. You cannot find information to be true if you are not willing to go through the process of observing/experiencing it. The common Christian belief is that you can experience the Holy Spirit (1 part) through accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior (2 part). If you don't believe in God (3 part), however, you can never prove to yourself that the Holy Spirit is real and Jesus was really who he claimed to be. In other words one should not refute the existence of God because of one verse in the Bible suggests an illogical idea that can in theory be observed personally through said belief in God. If people are still confused I am basically saying that, since an observation of the trinity can only come about because of peoples belief in God, the illogical nature of the trinity is not enough for atheist to simply dismiss the trinity (and then deem God even more illogical then too) because it would be an impossible for atheists to experience two parts of the trinity without the third. The trinity does complicated the nature of the Christian God and I guess you could say God is that much more unbelievable because of it (how can something be 3 things but one at the same time) but that "complication" is at least partially synthesized with biblical thought and can be experienced through a belief in God. In any matter the idea of a trinity does not really complicate the philosophical idea of a higher being creating the earth it only complicates the nature of that being.



(04-04-2011 02:35 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  2:2 "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made."
-even though they say that God only "rested" to set an example of how would should rest on the 7th day, couldn't the Bible just say "rest on Sunday" ??(question mark)? It clearly says God rested, which means that this all-powerful being was worn out from all those valleys and hills and Wyoming and platypuses.

Saying God rested on the 7th day means the same thing then if they said on Saturday ( Jews celebrate the sabbath on Saturday). The Sabbath is an establish Jewish tradition. So while the early peoples of the pre ten commandments practiced it the command to practice it came in exodus much much later when the ten commandments were made. All I am trying to say is that it was a good habit to practice but not but not a law until the ten commandments. Since Genesis is pre Exodus it follows that the Sabbath was not as important then. Moses who wrote Genesis and Exodus either wanted to stick with oral traditions and show there progression over time or he just did not want to modify a general statement for a specific (which btw stories flows better if you are not dropping specific detail all of the time). Why was God tired? I don't know, but resting doesn't always mean you are tired. I am on winter break from college now and I rest/chill in my room a lot. Not because I am tired but because I don't have much to do at the moment. Besides like you said, God may have rested to set an example to humans to do the same. Not to mention that "rested" could easily be human interpretation for "stopped creating". If you are trying to illustrate that God is not omnipotent find a better case (which there are) then this.


That's all I have for now. I have comments if you are interested but did not see anything you brought up as groundbreaking. Thanks for your time and I apologize for any offense my post my have given you as that was not my intention. Smile My purpose is not to prove God(s) exist(s) but to help people eliminate arguments that will just be logically shot down by religious fundamentalists you get into discussions with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-01-2014, 02:10 AM
RE: An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
(07-01-2014 04:14 PM)RomanNose Wrote:  That's all I have for now. I have comments if you are interested but did not see anything you brought up as groundbreaking. Thanks for your time and I apologize for any offense my post my have given you as that was not my intention. Smile My purpose is not to prove God(s) exist(s) but to help people eliminate arguments that will just be logically shot down by religious fundamentalists you get into discussions with.

Why do people see 556 pages of material, address one or two on the first page, and then assume my entire premise has crumbled?

And again like all others who have argued against me, you have used your personal interpretation to counter my personal interpretation, which is kind of the point of the entire critique - the message of the Bible is poorly constructed, horribly conveyed, and often bigoted and immoral when deciphered, leading people to guesswork and semantics.

It was not meant to be "groundbreaking" because the source material was on par with a pamphlet for surviving a zombie apocalypse. It was like reviewing a book on Clifford the Big Red Dog - fiction and nonsense can only breed offhand humor and mockery.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Buddy Christ's post
10-01-2014, 03:18 AM
RE: An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
(10-01-2014 02:10 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  
(07-01-2014 04:14 PM)RomanNose Wrote:  That's all I have for now. I have comments if you are interested but did not see anything you brought up as groundbreaking. Thanks for your time and I apologize for any offense my post my have given you as that was not my intention. Smile My purpose is not to prove God(s) exist(s) but to help people eliminate arguments that will just be logically shot down by religious fundamentalists you get into discussions with.

Why do people see 556 pages of material, address one or two on the first page, and then assume my entire premise has crumbled?

And again like all others who have argued against me, you have used your personal interpretation to counter my personal interpretation, which is kind of the point of the entire critique - the message of the Bible is poorly constructed, horribly conveyed, and often bigoted and immoral when deciphered, leading people to guesswork and semantics.

It was not meant to be "groundbreaking" because the source material was on par with a pamphlet for surviving a zombie apocalypse. It was like reviewing a book on Clifford the Big Red Dog - fiction and nonsense can only breed offhand humor and mockery.

You can always tell the trolls because of this thread. They are just pulled here like a magnet.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-01-2014, 09:22 PM
RE: An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
(10-01-2014 02:10 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  It was like reviewing a book on Clifford the Big Red Dog - fiction and nonsense can only breed offhand humor and mockery.

There is a big difference between reading fiction and reading the Bible, The Book of Mormon, or the Koran. If I am reading a book, let's say Star wars, I read it with the understanding that it is fiction. The caveat is that you cannot prove the non existence of something you claim doesn't exist. So for example I could not prove that Wookies in Star Wars do not exist. Now, in theory, you can look at probabilities (that are based on evidence you have gathered) to judge whether or not you deem something to be true. Obviously you cannot calculate exact probabilities but you can be fairly certain things using logic and evidence. Now did George Lucas every come out and try and argue that the things he was talking about were in dead hardcore facts. No not really, the most logical explanation is that he just used his imagination and made it up. There is some evidence that life could exist on other planets but not enough to conclude that Wookies do indeed exist (or even big red dogs).

The religious books are a different animal in general and let me explain why using the Bible as an example. First, the authors of the books insist that they are not writing fantasy for fun. In other words the principles they talk about, the history they record, and the God they believe are very real to them. That's not enough evidence at all for a person to conclude that God exists with great certainty. The authors of the Bible stand in contrast to George Lucas or Norman Bridwell because they do believe they are reporting real information. Second the Bible has important implications about how you should live your life. I can go into more detail if you like but what I am really getting at is that the existence of a God actually matters, at an individual level, unlike the existence of Wookies or Big Red Dogs. Therefore, one really has to be careful how they dismiss important arguments because one could actually cheat themselves out of something beneficial if they truly believed every witty hyperbole that came to mind.

Now you say that the whole point was to illustrate that the Bible is subject to personal interpretation and is therefore not really valid. That would be a really great argument if you could show that important biblical concepts, that are evidence for the existence of God, are subject to interpretation. If you can convince a Christian that such things are subject to interpretation then you are probably through 60% of the de-conversion process.

On a side note: Have you read the entire Bible? I mean I wouldn't be surprised if you have because you make some very definitive statements: "....the message of the Bible is poorly constructed, horribly conveyed, and often bigoted and immoral when deciphered, leading people to guesswork and semantics." Otherwise that would be like writing a book report on Tolkien's Hobbit after you finished the first 4 chapters.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-01-2014, 05:35 AM
RE: An atheist's critique of the Bible (Book and eBook now available)
(12-01-2014 09:22 PM)RomanNose Wrote:  That would be a really great argument if you could show that important biblical concepts, that are evidence for the existence of God, are subject to interpretation.
Care to cite an example of such a 'biblical concept'? Consider

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: