Why I think atheists should not reject all religious text.

[boothj1985]

Also, Christians spend most of their time explaining why they do the exact opposite of what the bible says. And they worship the book.

That's not a good sign for someone who considers it fiction.

Do you read Harry potter for wisdom and morality teachings?

I think most atheists intend to open as many people's eyes as possible, so assuming that you do too I will offer an analogy: if you wanted a child to start eating vegetables would you start with the least liked vegetable or one that is more appealing to most people? The bible, at least in this country, is like that favorite vegetable and even though it would be possible to derive moral teachings from many other books, it would be best to use it so that you can bridge the gap between you and the Christians you intend to help. If you can show them how their favorite verses are actually just good advice for helping humanity thrive and need not be attached to an improbable deity, you're much more likely to make them take it into consideration instead of becoming defensive and shutting down.

[robvalue]

Err... Ok. I don't think that analogy is particularly valid. And as I've said, I've read plenty of the bible. Almost certainly more than most Christians. I know way more about it than them, and they refuse to back down on anything ever. So you want me to read the whole thing now?

As well as all other religious text in the world? Or just the bible?

I agree it can be viewed as an interesting document. But Christians don't worship it because it's good, they worship it because they think it's magic. So while they believe something like that, it's hard to talk sensibly about any of the text.

As it happens, I will be reading the rest of it, just not in the way Christians would expect.

I have suggested before to keep the good bits and lose the rest. I got howled at for the mere thought of dropping all that slavery and stoning stuff. So just pointing out there are a few good really obvious things amongst the misery... Dunno where that would get me. Stoned probably.

Plus, as I said, Christians don't follow the bible anyway. So what's an atheist to do?

Please don't talk as if I haven't read it, as I hav read plenty. The best thing I can say about it is its hilarious if you don't take it seriously.

[jesus_wept]

As it happens, I will be reading the rest of it, just not in the way Christians would expect.

[Alex K]

So when there's a good idea we want the Christians to adopt, we should look for something like it in their text to convince them? I'll keep it in mind

[robvalue]

Hehe true that. Careful what you wish for.

For those familiar with TBR version, that's the one I prefer. It's on YouTube. It is accurate to the original text, but misses out a few of the entirely pointless things like long lists of who begat who.

Yeah, I dunno. The point of the argument seems to be changing.

I'm more than happy to have a sensible conversation with Christians. Or anyone. (There are other religions, many of them forgotten because they were "made up".) I don't know what more I can do. But if you talk about magic and stuff, it's hard to keep it sensible.

Here is an analogy. How would you talk to an adult who keeps claiming Santa is real because he has a book about Santa? Would you study it in earnest? Would you do the same for every weirdo who presents their story of what is real?

Returning to the name of the thread, no sensible person disregards everything in a book because of some parts they don't like. So I'm not sure what more can be said.

---

I think I'm pretty compliant anyhow, I'm gonna be playing the piano at a vaguely Christian event next week. For free.

---

I am all about giving and atheist/Christian peace today. (I was just kidding about the other religions, I made them up.)

Here's the atheist bible study, The Bible Reloaded. They read a few verses each episode and give hilarious commentary. I eagerly await each new episode! If you've not watched before, you're in for a treat. I'm up to episode sixty something now. Enjoy!

http://youtu.be/ZQ8tMApaEK0

(Edited, oops wrong link)

[Exian]

It's funny that editing the bible is such a taboo idea nowadays, when, in the past, you get the sense that it was the norm. Any schmo claiming to be a descendant of Abraham made it in the damn thing. I don't even have to mention the counsel of Nicea (there was some editing involved). Just the idea that there was even a need for a counsel to unify the beliefs and canon of Christendom should speak loudly enough about how fast and loose it was played in the early years.

Speaking of early years, these schmonks were walking around, reciting memorized versions when it was an oral tradition (not that kind, Losty), so how accurate could they have been? Every few months, weeks, or days even, the story was morphed to some degree. It's almost as if those meetings meant to unify the religion ended up painting Christianity into a corner. Now, you have to keep the anti-gay stuff, the stoning stuff, infanticide, genocide, rape, traditional marriage, and arbitrary sins in the bible, or face blasphemy charges. I know in a debate, cherry picking bible thumpers are the worst, but I wouldn't mind a counsel for a permanent cherry picking of all the good stuff. Couldn't get any worse, anyhow.

[robvalue]

For sure. I mean, since it's meant to be the word of God or something, I'd be a bit worried about the lack of original texts. Saying stuff many years after the original writing is "close enough" may be fine for general history, but this is a bit different. Since one change of one word could lead to thousands of people dying in the future.

Yeah, slice away, take out all the shit you have to keep tip toeing round. I'm not going to complain.

[The Grand Nudger]

I wonder if anyone has looked into the possible problem of the repel-effect in which a person who doesn't want to follow false teachings accidentally becomes contrary to many good teachings that are contained within the religious text of a religion. I mainly speak of Christianity because it is what I have most knowledge of but from what I've heard of some other religions I think this may be relevant to them also. Wisdom such as treating others the way you want to be treated are pretty obvious but there are many subtle bits of wisdom that are often forgotten if not frequently reviewed. Not only are these neglected by someone who discards the entire religious text but that person may also be subconsciously driven to rebel against almost everything in the book in order to distance themselves as far as they can from it. I can some up the problem with a quote my mother often said; "don't throw out the baby with the bath water".

I'm unimpressed with the "good teachings" of religious texts. "Be good to each other -because god-" is just garbage. I have many alternatives with are secular and will not fall-the-fuck-apart at the level of justification. I'm particularly unimpressed with the bible, both OT and NT. So I'll pass, but thanks.

As stories I like them, as cliff notes for life they're abysmal.

(sub-consciously driven to rebel...false teachings...what church did you escape from? What about all the wisdom of faiths other than the christian one that boil down to "christianity is full of shit", or is there some approved list of wisdom to which you're referring- and who sat down and hammered that out?)

[Whateverist]

I wonder if anyone has looked into the possible problem of the repel-effect in which a person who doesn't want to follow false teachings accidentally becomes contrary to many good teachings that are contained within the religious text of a religion. I mainly speak of Christianity because it is what I have most knowledge of but from what I've heard of some other religions I think this may be relevant to them also. Wisdom such as treating others the way you want to be treated are pretty obvious but there are many subtle bits of wisdom that are often forgotten if not frequently reviewed. Not only are these neglected by someone who discards the entire religious text but that person may also be subconsciously driven to rebel against almost everything in the book in order to distance themselves as far as they can from it. I can some up the problem with a quote my mother often said; "don't throw out the baby with the bath water".

The best system can't guarantee a person won't be a lout. But the right person can read something of value into almost any system.

Personally I don't go in for religious texts nor do I seek a system to direct my life. I prefer to make it up as I go, but not because I have such a high opinion of myself.

It is more because I recognize the buck stops with me. Before I could choose a system I would have to have the means to make that choice. But if I have the wherewithal to make such a choice I can probably just make all the little decisions that arise on a case by case basis rather than consulting any system for an over arching answer.

[Aoi Magi]

I wonder if anyone has looked into the possible problem of the repel-effect in which a person who doesn't want to follow false teachings accidentally becomes contrary to many good teachings that are contained within the religious text of a religion.

What are "good teachings"? How does one determine what is good and bad? Think about it for a bit!

Religion claims ALL of it's teachings are good, but we all know that is not the case. But how do we, or you, know that? All of us, including you, use our own judgement and morality to determine what is good, from our perspective. What this means is, if we have to decide on things by ourselves, even if we are presented with a "good teaching", if we cannot agree with it, we will discard it as bad, and similarly if we can find a bad teaching beneficial, we might end up seeing it as a good teaching.

So what happens when you try to find "good teachings" from a book filled with bad ones? You'll end up eventually mistaking some good teachings as bad and bad ones as good. And since the percentage of bad teachings is much higher than good ones, the probability of mistaking a bad teaching as good is also quite high. So why take that chance, when you don't even need those ideas in the first place? After all, in your everyday life you'd always rely on your own knowledge and moral compass rather than what a religious book might have to say about that situation.


Now, there's another thing you need to understand, atheists are NOT trying to become an authority on morality, nor are they trying to lead the flock. Actually, atheism has nothing to do with morality, it's just a neutral position for a particular type of claim. Atheists also do not hold any responsibility towards teaching religious people how to cherry-pick their own books, or need to compromise on their beliefs just to get along with someone.