A critical thinking challenge

[Foxaèr]

Theists are always stating how we atheists need to read the bible, or better understand it according to how they personally view and interpret it, notwithstanding that most of us atheists have already read it critically and interpreted it accordingly.

The challenge I propose is for the theist to choose an oration from Robert Green Ingersoll, to read it, and to provide a detailed post in regard to what the theist has learned from reading the article.

Here are several religiously related articles by the famous orator:

About the Holy Bible:
https://infidels.org/library/historical/...bible.html

The Devil:
https://infidels.org/library/historical/...devil.html

Truth:
https://infidels.org/library/historical/...truth.html

Why I Am Agnostic:
https://infidels.org/library/historical/...ostic.html

The articles can be found here:
https://infidels.org/library/historical/...ingersoll/

If the theist wants, s/he can choose a separate religious-related article than the four I have have provided above.

A note: you may need to type "yes" in the required field before you can access the site. Then simply refer back to this thread for the links since it doesn't seem to redirect to the article.

[Drich]

Theists are always stating how we atheists need to read the bible, or better understand it according to how they personally view and interpret it, notwithstanding that most of us atheists have already read it critically and interpreted it accordingly.

The challenge I propose is for the theist to choose an oration from Robert Green Ingersoll, to read it, and to provide a detailed post in regard to what the theist has learned from reading the article.

Here are several religiously related articles by the famous orator:

this is not true. after 20+ years I find that 90% of atheists are funkie christians who were too lazy to actually read the bible for themselves. however most were religious and feel this translates into reading the bible as most don't mind a 1/2 assed effort to repersent a whole.

Those who have do so in a critical manor meaning they do so as a way to criticize and not learn. The skeptic anodated bible is a good example of how atheist read the bible. This is not reading anything. this is hypercriticism.

About the Holy Bible:
https://infidels.org/library/historical/...bible.html

this link has nothng to do with the bible

The Devil:
https://infidels.org/library/historical/...devil.html

this link has nothing to do with the devil

Truth:
https://infidels.org/library/historical/...truth.html

Truth is the intellectual wealth of the world.

In truth, "truth has nothing to do with intellect. truth simply reflects an accurate narration of what is.

What is true can often extend beyond the reach of "the intellectual wealth of the world."

This mind set, is the difference between someone who say, has full belief in a system like science and someone who questions everything and holds on to what is good -1thess 5:21

[Foxaèr]

If I was grading you on this assignment, Drich, you would be receiving a failing grade.

Could you perhaps choose one of the articles, read it thoroughly, and then critique it with critical thought?

A one liner saying "this article has nothing to do with the bible" isn't going to cut it. Please, attempt at actual participation.

[Mister Agenda]

Theists are always stating how we atheists need to read the bible, or better understand it according to how they personally view and interpret it, notwithstanding that most of us atheists have already read it critically and interpreted it accordingly.

The challenge I propose is for the theist to choose an oration from Robert Green Ingersoll, to read it, and to provide a detailed post in regard to what the theist has learned from reading the article.

Here are several religiously related articles by the famous orator:

this is not true. after 20+ years I find that 90% of atheists are funkie christians who were too lazy to actually read the bible for themselves. however most were religious and feel this translates into reading the bible as most don't mind a 1/2 assed effort to repersent a whole.

Read it cover-to-cover twice, some parts (like Genesis and the Gospels) more times than I know. I think after 20+ years you're still pulling your estimates concerning the atheists you've interacted with directly from your ass.

[Succubus]

About the Holy Bible:
https://infidels.org/library/historical/...bible.html

this link has nothng to do with the bible

Yes it does, If you had followed Kit's very simple instructions you would have found this:

Somebody ought to tell the truth about the Bible. The preachers dare not, because they would be driven from their pulpits. Professors in colleges dare not, because they would lose their salaries. Politicians dare not. They would be defeated. Editors dare not. They would lose subscribers. Merchants dare not, because they might lose customers. Men of fashion dare not, fearing that they would lose caste. Even clerks dare not, because they might be discharged. And so I thought I would do it myself...

[Drich]

If I was grading you on this assignment, Drich, you would be receiving a failing grade.  

Could you perhaps choose one of the articles, read it thoroughly, and then critique it with critical thought?

A one liner saying "this article has nothing to do with the bible" isn't going to cut it.  Please, attempt at actual participation.

Only one article came up your links are broken. your links lead to pages with 10 other links none of which have anything to do with the topic you wrote about.

That said you are the one that failed, because you failed to take what I had to say inconsideration with everything else written on the subject of "truth."

The only thing I corrected was the first definition of truth. when I did this it made the rest of the article ring true. Then I simply applied what the article intended to say about religion and applied it to none religious people.

What you dumb asses are too foolish to understand is that "we" people are all the same. meaning if you can point out a failing on one side of a closed minded argument you can bet your ass the same 'type of fool' can be found on your side of the argument. That is what I was pointing out here. Your article writer (ironically while describing the truth) does not understand the core principle of it. he list the primary defination of 'truth' as the total sum of what is known by man. This definition allows closed minded people (just like  the "god works in mysterious ways" on our side of the arguement) hide behind a "god  wins" answer. Meaning for those seeking the truth on your side of the argument runs into an unknown or unknowable they can take the 'best guess' of man and pretend that that guess is the same as truth. when you say "truth"= the best guess of man it fills in all the knowns and or unknowables of science and gives the weak minded self assurance that by backing the "science pony" they are on the side of truth.

My little 2 paragraph argument should have exposed that lie for anyone looking for the truth. Actually it should have exposed everything when I redefined what truth actually is. My definition leaves the pot holes in science and identifies unknowns in science as unknowns.

Do you understand now? or do I need to connect some more dots?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The thread title is much too vague, as ALL critical thinking is a challenge for theists. 

Boru

[Angrboda]

Theists are always stating how we atheists need to read the bible, or better understand it according to how they personally view and interpret it, notwithstanding that most of us atheists have already read it critically and interpreted it accordingly.

The challenge I propose is for the theist to choose an oration from Robert Green Ingersoll, to read it, and to provide a detailed post in regard to what the theist has learned from reading the article.

Here are several religiously related articles by the famous orator:

this is not true. after 20+ years I find that 90% of atheists are funkie christians who were too lazy to actually read the bible for themselves. however most were religious and feel this translates into reading the bible as most don't mind a 1/2 assed effort to repersent a whole.

Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons are among the highest-scoring groups on a new survey of religious knowledge, outperforming evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants and Catholics on questions about the core teachings, history and leading figures of major world religions.

Pew Research Center | U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey

[Drich]

this is not true. after 20+ years I find that 90% of atheists are funkie christians who were too lazy to actually read the bible for themselves. however most were religious and feel this translates into reading the bible as most don't mind a 1/2 assed effort to repersent a whole.

Read it cover-to-cover twice, some parts (like Genesis and the Gospels) more times than I know. I think after 20+ years you're still pulling your estimates concerning the atheists you've interacted with directly from your ass.

then what is the book of Romans about?

fyi none of these: https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+...e&ie=UTF-8

tell us what the book is about. there are origins purpose studies and a commentaries but none of them tell you what the bottom line reason the book was written...

Surly after 2 whole times through the bible you'd be able to figure out what the book of romans is all about. (all you need is a one or two word answer)

I've read the bible through incrementally a study or piece at a time for 20+ years (close to 25 years) and I can't claim the knowledge the atheists on this website pretend to have with their read throughs... maybe that is the problem while I am looking into the hebrew and koine greek greater atheist minds can just extrapolate all the bibles meaning from a simple reading.  And all the brilliant threads like why does God hate women... they are there to trip us up rather than represent what they know of god.

Seriously... If you read the bible cover to cover, and pretend/think that means anything your wrong. The bible is a book set not set in any order other than what made sense at the time it was compiled. before it was compiled it was seperated into 4 groups. the moral law/God's law. Social law/what it meant to be an OT jew, Prophecy and the writings which included history and psalms. When the NT came you had the gospels and the epistoles and that's it. each epistle had a theme or lesson to be taught. So rather than arrange the bible by subject (which would lend it to be read from front to back in order) the bible is somewhat haphazardly arranged chronologically. With the beginning in the front and the end of everything n the rear. and in between we have books arranged in the order the 3rd century people thought they would have appeared.

[Anomalocaris]

Theists are always stating how we atheists need to read the bible, or better understand it according to how they personally view and interpret it, notwithstanding that most of us atheists have already read it critically and interpreted it accordingly.

The challenge I propose is for the theist to choose an oration from Robert Green Ingersoll, to read it, and to provide a detailed post in regard to what the theist has learned from reading the article.

Here are several religiously related articles by the famous orator:

this is not true. after 20+ years I find that 90% of atheists are funkie christians who were too lazy to actually read the bible for themselves. however most were religious and feel this translates into reading the bible as most don't mind a 1/2 assed effort to repersent a whole.

Those who have do so in a critical manor meaning they do so as a way to criticize and not learn. The skeptic anodated bible is a good example of how atheist read the bible. This is not reading anything. this is hypercriticism.

About the Holy Bible:
https://infidels.org/library/historical/...bible.html

this link has nothng to do with the bible

The Devil:
https://infidels.org/library/historical/...devil.html

this link has nothing to do with the devil

Truth:
https://infidels.org/library/historical/...truth.html

Truth is the intellectual wealth of the world.

In truth, "truth has nothing to do with intellect. truth simply reflects an accurate narration of what is.

What is true can often extend beyond the reach of "the intellectual wealth of the world."

This mind set, is the difference between someone who say, has full belief in a system like science and someone who questions everything and holds on to what is good -1thess 5:21

Those who graduate from crayon coloring books to calculus are not crayon coloring book flunkies.