The Atheist Book Club discussion

There are many reasons for not reading the Bible; most of them valid and all of them understandable. It is boring, confusing, biased, tedious, and aggravatingly repetitive. That said; the Bible still remains the internationally best-known and all-time best-selling book ever published.

Some believe it is the word of God and that the various human authors were divinely inspired. Others believe that it is a compilation of ancient legends and myths derived from tales told around the camp fire by early humans during prehistoric times. Still others believe the Bible is nothing more than superstitious nonsense utilized by certain religions to keep their members in line.

I really don't care what you believe. It is none of my business, or anyone else's for that matter. As someone once wrote in a famous book: "Judge not; lest ye be judged."

I happen to be an Atheist, who has read the Bible from cover to cover more than once. Some may ask why I, a non-believer, would want to read the entire Bible. They should be asking why so many believers do not.

Whether or not you choose to embrace or reject the contents of the Bible is your prerogative; however, you should at least know what it is that you are embracing or rejecting.

When I was doing my illustration degree, Penguin brought out an edition of the Bible in which each 'book' was printed as a separate paperback. The aim was to treat the individual books as works of literature and each volume had a beautiful moody black and white cover, and an introduction by a contemporary novelist. (Will Self did one... can't remember any of the others). Our challenge was to provide alternate covers. The good thing about this was you did have to approach it freshly. I got The Book of John, The Book of Luke (I think) and the Book of Job. What struck me was the very different literary styles between the Gospels. One was full of metaphors and references to light (or the lack of it) which was very interesting. I think if you approach the Bible on this level you will get far more out of it than treating it as the Word of God, which it clearly is not, although some of it is quite beautifully written.

Roddy wrote: "When I was doing my illustration degree, Penguin brought out an edition of the Bible in which each 'book' was printed as a separate paperback. The aim was to treat the individual books as works of ..."

A very interesting approach, Roddy.

I like your theory that more readers would appreciate the Bible's literary value, if they followed your advice to see it for what it is, instead of what they wish it were.

"Judge not, lest ye be judged" is descriptive of the dilemma of discussion, that fire produces heat. The Golden Rule is a clamp on discussion.

I'm pretty sure that people get the gist of what's in the bible and don't have to read the whole thing from cover to cover to know that it's not for them.

"Oh that one would hear me! behold, my desire is, that the Almighty would answer me, and that mine adversary had written a book." Job 31:35

Kasia wrote: "I'm pretty sure that people get the gist of what's in the bible and don't have to read the whole thing from cover to cover to know that it's not for them."

Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived. - Isaac Asimov

^ ha, good one! :)

I think I could be converted simply after reading my favorite Mark Twain quote about God lol -

“A God who could make good children as easily a bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it; who gave is angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body; who mouths justice, and invented hell--mouths mercy, and invented hell--mouths Golden Rules and forgiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell; who mouths morals to other people, and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites his poor abused slave to worship him!”
― Mark Twain, The Mysterious Stranger

Most people who read the Bible are not scholars and are simply reading interpretations of translations. What they are generally reading is far from what the actual words and meanings were originally. And that gets no one any more informed or educated. It only spreads more confusion.

BTW, I am Roman Piso. I am an expert in ancient language, ancient texts and religion, with my specialty in the are of the New Testament texts and the creation of Christianity. Many people, including so-called scholars, do not know the Christianity was created during a time of war and even as a part of that war.

I teach people the importance of being able to study these ancient texts properly, and how to do it. I even wrote a book exposing the entirely New Testament for what it is in terms of what each part actually refers to, down to the smallest detail. That book was 'The Annotated New Testament'.

In The Annotated New Testament, I examined the New Testament texts as literature with consideration to its references to people, places, events and all else. As far as I know, I am the first and only person to have ever "reverse-engineered" or deconstruct, the entirely New Testament down to even each individual letter used.

I found and exposed a vast array of literary devices that were used in the creation of the New Testament. I actually have written more than 37 books on the subject of ancient history and religion. Unfortunately, many of them were destroyed by a fanatic. I managed to save what I could, including my book 'Piso Christ'.

If you really want to get at the truth about the creation of Christianity, then you should take some time and effort to do so correctly. BTW, I have a blog here in Goodreads, and a few groups (such as The Roman Creation Of Christianity), to help people learn more about the truth about the creation of Christianity.

Here is an article that I wrote to give people a better idea of how it was that Christianity came to be. Knowing this as I and as others do who know the subject to this much higher degree also realize how the truth about it also changes the context in which we must now study and view ancient texts & history itself. All was being tightly controlled by royalty.

http://arriuspisocreatedchristianity....

PS: And don't be fooled by misinformation being put out on the web by those who don't want you to learn about this. Most of them have turned out to be Christians disguising themselves or posing as Freethinkers.

Roman wrote: "Most people who read the Bible are not scholars and are simply reading interpretations of translations. What they are generally reading is far from what the actual words and meanings were originall..."

Love your post, I enjoyed reading your site last night and I'm continuing today :)

The Bible is absurd, it is unintentionally funny.

and everyone should read the atheist version of the Pentateuch The Newer, More English Version - funny and informative.

I'm in the process of reading the Bible. I'm up to Joshua. It's a hard, long, tedious slog.

As literature alone, the Bible is indispensable.

Throw the Bible and the Koran in the garbage or at least a remote book shelve in the dark side of the library. From my Pot Stories and Humanist Essays I categorically list the following evils that have plagued humanity since our earliest beginnings. Most of it stems from anthropocentrism, denying that we're just another animal and that the universe is indifferent to us.

Here's the list. I'd be glad to debate any or all of these Biblical gifts that have plaqued mankind.

To wit:

“The Bible and Koran condone and then encourage the worst aspects of human behavior:  war, slavery, necrophilia, cruelty to animals, abuse of the Earth itself, anthropocentrism, suicide, starvation, racism, dichotomous thinking, nepotism, xenophobia, child abuse, misogyny, blind faith, hadephobia, genocide, sexism, child sacrifice (especially filicide considered redemptive), capital punishment, homophobia, denial of reality, self-flagellation, torture, human sacrifice, symbolic cannibalism, and other insults to reason.  The result has been to corrupt, distort and pervert the worldview of all who stubbornly cling to these primitive superstitions and have faith in the dictates and promises of professional clerics.” 
 

Personally I am glad I read the Bible because I started reading it as a Christian and by the end I wasn't.

Most people receive their religion culturally rather than scripturally. If more people actually realised what the "good" book says in its entirety (including slavery, the legitimisation of rape, might makes right, baby slaughter) perhaps more people would reject it?

For those that believe, the Bible (and the Qu'ran) are Rorschach drawings where they can pick out the shapes of their own prejudices and beliefs and lend them "scriptural authority".

However, the Church of the Dark Ages/Middle Ages knew that "familiarity breeds contempt", which is why they fought to keep the language of the Bible in Latin, so that only those with an agenda (the priests) got to pick the excerpts they needed to press that agenda.

In a similar manner, most modern Churches use "Bible Study" which is kind of "guided Rorschachism", where the priest or pastor picks a specific message then shows their followers how to justify that message with scripture. Of course this can be highly effective just as when you see the optical illusion that can be two different objects. When you are told it is one object repeatedly, it becomes harder to make the mental adjustment that allows you to see the other image.

Small wonder why modern conservative Christians focus so much outrage on abortion and homosexuality while ideas like helping the poor and turning the other cheek are downplayed.

So yes. Everyone should have a chance to read the Bible, unguided, unfiltered. As long as they are reminded, it's just another book...

I quite agree. I've been saying that a long time. I never pictured (pardon the pun) it as a Rorschach test but I know you can read into almost any story and come up with the verses that suit your agenda.

One of my essays, "Ten Reasons Not To Believe" in my book deals with this. The Holy Scriptures are chock full of misconceptions, spurious reasoning, and downright lies. You can use the Bible to justify anything.

Did you read my list of evils in Pandora's Box? Pick an evil. I'm not familiar enough to quote verses on each item, but I'd bet I could if I set my mind to it. How about self-flagellation? I'd bet I can find plenty of stuff suggesting it's a good idea and pleasing to God.

Rich wrote: "Did you read my list of evils in Pandora's Box? Pick an evil. I'm not familiar enough to quote verses on each item, but I'd bet I could if I set my mind to it. How about self-flagellation?"

I am not sure I read that actually. Sounds interesting if I had time!

Self-flagellation is actually quite easy though. God is good. Therefore to be good you need to be like god. God incarnated himself as Jesus with the deliberate mission to be tormented and die in order to earn forgiveness for sins. Therefore if god deliberately puts himself into a position to get tortured in order to earn forgiveness from himself for others then surely that is the example Christians should follow?

Exactly. Don't you feel sorry for those Filipino cross bearers at Easter time? We don't have to ask, "Where'd they get it from."

Update: While researching a different reply I came across one of the definitive passages that actually supports self-flagellation in the clearest manner I can see....

Matthew 5:29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

What if the poor seminarian keeps getting a woody? I wonder if anybody ever asked that in Bible class.

Since wars have been fought and people killed in cold blood over the interpretation of words and phrases in the Bible (and Quran), everyone should have some knowledge of what the books contain, for instance they serve as historical evidence of how morality changes over time and how people read-in false meanings, or don't really think beyond the accepted interpretation.

Take the Christmas story. As a literary work it is so full of basic plot holes as to lack any credibility (supposedly it was Joseph's home village - yet they slept in a stable - for two weeks - with villagers not sharing in the local shepherd's tale - and then these rich folk came by unnoticed, and all the babies are killed...), but rational people still behave as if the 'star' might have happened and look for scientific evidence.

Rich wrote: "What if the poor seminarian keeps getting a woody? I wonder if anybody ever asked that in Bible class."

That would be license for any male teenager who is a "true Christian to not make it to adulthood without castration I guess.

I don't agree with corporal or capital punishment but I can think of a few Catholic priests who may have benefited from voluntarily executing their faith more fully...

I think though one does not have to read far in the Bible to discover the horrors of the "Good Book". My initial eye opener was Genesis 19:1-8. Ironically the part that is held up as an example of homosexual depravity actually shows more about the evil of the book.

Genesis 19 "1 Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground. 2 And he said, “Here now, my lords, please turn in to your servant’s house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way.”

And they said, “No, but we will spend the night in the open square.”

3 But he insisted strongly; so they turned in to him and entered his house. Then he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.

4 Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. 5 And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally.”

6 So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him, 7 and said, “Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly! 8 See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof.”

So Lot (described in 2 Peter 2:7 as "righteous") did not oppose the evil of rape, but instead advocated heterosexual rape of his own daughters over the rape of his male guests. That to me is clearly despicable. (Noting however that he does not say homosexuality is wrong, he is just against the gang violating the hospitality of his house offered his guests).

The entire Bible is filled with this crazy stuff. Just sick. I've always wondered how it got to play such an important role in people's lives.

Etymology is a hobby of mine. How's this for an Abbot and Costello Vaudeville comedy routine?

"Hi Lou. Listen I just wrote a new book."

"What's the name of it?"

"Book"

"I know it's a book. What's it called."

"The Book."

"Yes."

"Yes what, what's the name of it?"

"The book." And on and on it goes, 'til the book becomes the widest selling book in the history of mankind.

What a wonderful discussion this is.
I first read the Bible from cover to cover as a devout teenager -- it shocked me and opened my mind to many years of searching. The next time I read the Bible I was a skeptic and the last time I read it as an Atheist with a very different purpose.
My fascination has been the role of the Bible in influencing decisions of governments and of the political influences in the writing, compilation, and redacting of the books -- especially Genesis which also intrigues because of its structure, beginning with Abraham. It, of course, a highly sexist and in many ways a miserable book, but I do not read it for spiritual advice any more than I would expect to find spiritual advice in Mantel's "Wolf Hall."
The Bible is, arguably, the most powerful set of books ever written as well as the most quoted. That is a good enough reason for me to want to have some knowledge of it.

Correen wrote: "The Bible is, arguably, the most powerful set of books ever written as well as the most quoted. That is a good enough reason for me to want to have some knowledge of it. "

I would disagree that it is one of the most powerful books. Versatile, yes, but powerful? No. The power of the Bible is imbued from the authoritarianism of it's adherents, the fact that it is broadly quoted makes it perhaps influential, but that influence is tempered by the fact that the Bible is often quoted on both sides of any ethical disagreement that adherents have.

Far more powerful books have been written because instead of enabling an authority they defied an authority, and did so in a consistent manner. Books that instead of being ethical Rorschach diagrams are books that contain reason, logic and above all insight.

Gary, you have to consider it powerful in terms of what the Bible has done to humanity. Here's a list of some of the evils the Bible has promulgated.

Taken from "Pot Stories and Humanist Essays"

“The Bible and Koran condone and then encourage the worst aspects of human behavior:  war, slavery, necrophilia, cruelty to animals, abuse of the Earth itself, anthropocentrism, suicide, starvation, racism, dichotomous thinking, nepotism, xenophobia, child abuse, misogyny, blind faith, hadephobia, genocide, sexism, child sacrifice (especially filicide considered redemptive), capital punishment, homophobia, denial of reality, self-flagellation, torture, human sacrifice, symbolic cannibalism, and other insults to reason.  The result has been to corrupt, distort and pervert the worldview of all who stubbornly cling to these primitive superstitions and have faith in the dictates and promises of professional clerics.” 

Point out any of these sick conditions and I'll give either historical or Biblical examples. Want to start with slavery? Do you think it would have been the scourge of humanity, and still is, if the Bible had at least denounced it?

http://www.amazon.com/Stories-Humanis...
 

I think you mistake my point. There are for a start plenty of things that the bible does denounce and those things (good, bad and neutral) are still prevalent today. The "power" apparently wielded by the Bible is actually wielded by the authority around it. This is the very reason that for the majority of the time the Bible was actually withheld from public consumption by the expense of copying, widespread illiteracy and the deliberate keeping of scripture in a language inaccessible to the common person.

This is also why the Bible was specifically edited and books and scripture omitted to serve the authority of the Church.

The Bible contains lines that specifically ban murder, yet that has not stopped the jails of the world containing Christian murderers. The Bible also contains strong language condemning adultery, none of that has been effected by it's condemnation. Why would slavery?

The point is that the Bible is used as a tool to legitimise an authoritative claim. This means that the power is the authority not the scripture. Just like how today self-proclaimed Christians will skip over lines about caring for poverty, not committing adultery, prohibiting mixed fabrics, and yet focus on the things that they personally find distasteful, like women usurping the authority of men, or homosexuality.

Hence, the Bible itself is not a powerful work, as the book exerts very little influence over the causes that it is called on to support or oppose compared to the efforts of those that cherry pick their desired nuance from within its pages.

The Overbearing Father

Bears shit within
bounds, and the Vatican
all over the place.

Hi evryone, I don't believe I've posted much in this group. I scanned some of the discussion posts and found this thread. I just wanted to make a few points. They are list by message number and name, instead of replying individual like I would normally do.

1. Jim, I have also read the Bible cover to cover a number of times - at least once as both a believer and as an atheist. However, I do not think it is necessary or sufficient to read the bible to be an atheist. All I think is necesary is that one can have this belief (atheism) is to be justified beyond a reasonable doubt, such as to convict in a crimanal case (at least in the US). Nor is it sufficient because there is evidence to consider that is not in the bible. I do agree that it would be beneficial to a Bible believer (both Jewish and Christian) and mutatis mutandis to other revealed texts like the Koran.

10. Roman, True. We don't have anything near to the original texts. And when you take into consideration evidence outside the Bible (New Testament), There is very little, if not, no support of the most everything in it (the Bible). The text's that do speak on the issue of Christianity can be shown to be currupted. Maybe not all, but the ones I am familar with. Richard Carrier provides a nice deconstruction of some of these texts. I might add that some biblical scholars believe that attempting to gain historical insight from the Bible is useless and should be given up.

14. J, Super tedious.

16. [deleter user], As literature, I could easily do without the Bible.

19. Rich, It's called cherry picking. And people do it with a whole lot of texts, not just the Bible.

22. Gary, That passage would only apply if you were whipping a part of the body that made the offensive action.

“All I think is necessary is that one can have this belief (atheism)”

First of all, atheism is not a belief. It's a disbelief. Christianity or Islam is a belief.

Steven, I'm having a hard time trying to follow you. What's does this mean, “There is very little, if not, no support of the most everything in it (the Bible).”

I can't even figure out what side of the fence you're standing on.

How about this for the sake of discussion: The Bible was written by clueless, Iron Age ignoramuses who had no concept of science, evolution, or history (except their own.) It has absolutely no relevance in the modern age.

Steven wrote: "However, I do not think it is necessary or sufficient to read the bible to be an atheist."

Not to be an atheist, however it would be good if more Christians engaged in some critical and non-directed reading of the Bible so they could become aware of the type of obvious immorality it contains which will then perhaps give some contrast to the morality that they accept without question from the Bible.

It is also, as you say, not necessary to read the Bible to be an atheist, nor the Qu'ran or any other holy scripture. However, since much of our indoctrination into religious imperatives comes from the dominant religion of our culture, it would be a good idea for the atheist in a Christian society to have read the Bible, and an atheist in a Muslim society to have read to the Qu'ran. Not only will it help them understand the reasoning and motivations of their community, it will also help them be more aware of the subtle indoctrinations and attitudes that growing up in the religiously infused society may have given them.

Steven wrote: "All I think is necesary is that one can have this belief (atheism) is to be justified beyond a reasonable doubt, such as to convict in a crimanal case (at least in the US)."

As pointed out by Rich, atheism is not a belief, it's a label for those who lack a specific belief in theology within a society that has those beliefs commonly or historically.

Therefore, there is no need to "prove" the claims of atheism, because atheism does not itself make any claims. Christians claim the Christian god and his son/messiah/fleshy vehicle exist, Muslims claim Allah exists and Mohammed is his prophet. Etc.

To compare it to your reference to the US court system. Atheism is the equivalent of the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

Except for glaring failures and injustices in the court system, one must have evidence of a wrongdoing to have occurred before the defendant is arrested and taken to court. In court the prosecution needs to show their evidence and their logic and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the wrongdoing occurred as claimed. If the evidence is insufficient then the defendant is found not guilty (not "innocent").

In the same manner logically atheism should be the default starting theological position of any truly neutral party. If the theist can then show evidence and logic to prove their specific case beyond a reasonable doubt, then that claim can be accepted.

Of course this would mean that the religion would no longer be a religion (because it no longer requires faith) it would be technically a science.


Steven wrote: "22. Gary, That passage would only apply if you were whipping a part of the body that made the offensive action. "

Interesting point, however only if you miss the entire message. The clear point is that physical harm to yourself is better than temptation to sin. "It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. " Therefore by that logic, if self flagellation is an effective measure to stop you thinking 'impure' thoughts, then that passage would appear to support the concept.

Gary - I agree that it is beneficial for atheists to read the reveal texts, if they intend to criticize it. I would also say in my case reading the Bible strengthened my atheist convictions. I did say that religious believers should read their reveal texts. Or was I unclear about this?

I do believe that atheism is a belief. It is the belief that there is/are no god/gods. Furthermore, it is more of a belief in a philosophical sense, than a religious believer's belief in god(s). I also think that religious belief in not belief at all, but faith. But, in common parlance belief is use synonymous with faith. In that sense I do not hold a belief.

As for self flagellation is concerned, I'm just being literal as some bible believers claim to be.

Oh yes, I understand about the literal. :)

However, I disagree with atheism being a belief. To "believe" in the non-existence of all gods and goddesses I'd to first define every possible definition of a god or goddess before deliberately refuting them. Including not only every concept of god that has existed (which is highly varied in scope and concept) but every concept that will exist.

Therefore to fill the definition "atheist" is to lack belief in any concept of god that they have heard the assertion of.

To define it the other way is to miss the root point. Most theists also specifically deny the existence of gods that are outside of their belief. That does not make them mostly atheist. The prefix a- means "lack of" or "absence of" not denial of.

Like the difference between 'amoral' and ' immoral'. The former is a lack of moral code, while the latter is the specific breaking of a moral code.

Religion is a barbarism.