The Bible

73 posts / 0 new
Last post
Chris's picture
The Bible

While I have seen other posts relating to the Bible (is it even capitalized?), I just must say that it is the hardest book to read, maybe just most boring, among the loads of books that I do have. I am trying, determined, to see what all the fuss is about anyway. From blind acceptance as a child, I have read lots of opinions. THE GOD DELUSION really showed how I really felt. It was, in its own way, about me. Someone posted somewhere to not read books on atheism. Yet, I find, that I see arguments against religion/the Bible, that I had not thought of before. Eureka moments happen quite a lot. Should you read this, let me know if you got through the book. A fair reason to "take the Lord's name in vain" if I ever saw one.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Nyarlathotep's picture
I've read a large portion (I

I've read a large portion (I did skip some dry parts, like most of Numbers).

Pitar's picture
I took it in doses only to

I took it in doses only to have my Dumbass Theists gag reflex triggered too many times. What I did do was read it through the archeological record of events that contrasted the bible's version of history. (Oh, why would anyone capitalize a story that doesn't deserve the respect?) There are many holes in the archeological record that cannot be answered with hard evidence. The bible fills in those holes...somehow. I think to understand the bible one has to have a working knowledge of the archeological record of actual events, people, places (general history of man) as well a good knowledge of the known myths throughout. Then, the bible will be a much better read and not as disjointed and surreal.

D_Trimijopulos's picture
“I think to understand the

“I think to understand the bible one has to have a working knowledge of the archeological record of actual events, people, places (general history of man) as well a good knowledge of the known myths throughout. Then, the bible will be a much better read and not as disjointed and surreal.”

That is the most reasonable and unbiased comment I ever read on the Bible (capitalized as an ancient text. As we use to capitalize “The ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts”). I would like to add that some stories in the Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible) were written to be understood only with the help of the Oral Torah, i.e. the explanations that the writers entrusted to those conveying the Oral Torah orally from generation to generation.
These stories, of course, do not include any of the theological tales such as the creation of the universe or the Adam – Eve story.

As very wisely was said above, the knowledge of the general history of man is required in order for the ancient texts to be understood. In the Egyptian mortuary literature, for example, a judgment of living people is described and the God of the Hebrew Bible is presented as a judge of living people (he was to judge the people at Sodom before killing them). From Egyptian royal decrees we learn that in Egypt, at least up to approximately 2000 BCE, so much new citizens as slaves were produced in human breeding grounds and that they were judged on reaching a certain age in order to assign to them their identities (some were considered sub-human creatures and were exterminated right after their judgment).
How can it be decided what is part of human history and what is fiction if human history is not known?

Shane Shaw's picture
I've read it (KJV) several

I've read it (KJV) several times cover to cover, and anyone who could believe in that book literally, or use it as a moral compass after reading it, has some serious mental deficiencies. I think that everyone should take the time to read it, in full, because if more people did so, there would be a lot more of us atheists, or, at least there would be more people questioning the validity of The Sun Book. (holy bible)

Nyarlathotep's picture
It is no accident that when

It is no accident that when the church ran the western world, it was illegal to own a bible; after all: if you have one, you might read it!

Travis Hedglin's picture
Can't have the laity reading

Can't have the laity reading it, better make owning it a crime, and owning a translated version a crime punishable by death!

ThePragmatic's picture
Unfortunately, the

Unfortunately, they overestimated the critical thinking of the average individual.
Now that it's allowed to own and read, people still just accept it, because they want it to be true, they need it to be true. Indoctrination has done it's job...

D_Trimijopulos's picture
“Unfortunately, they

“Unfortunately, they overestimated the critical thinking of the average individual”

That is true, but I would like to amend your statement a little bit:

“Unfortunately, the critical thinking of the average agnostic has been overestimated”
I explain myself, making it clear that I am referring only to the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible:

Since the time the Tanakh was written it was made clear that for certain stories, which obviously were no figments of theological imagination, an interpretation was necessary in order to be understood. That interpretation consists of what was known as the Oral Torah which later was also written down and comprised the Talmud.
In other words, the writers of the Tanakh wrote their stories and the code for understanding them they entrusted to some persons in order to convey it to the next generations.
So, one way or the other some interpreting is required and those taking advantage of the Tanakh, i.e. Christians and Muslims, they just provide the interpretation suiting their purposes.

And now we come to the agnostics!
The agnostics, in this board and in every other board I happen to have participated, accuse the Tanakh without having bothered to study the context (context = the older ancient texts which provide the necessary code) in order to understand it.
Conclusion: critical thinking of agnostics zero!

ThePragmatic's picture
Sorry, but all I got from

Sorry, but all I got from that was the same as all your other posts:

"Yada, yada, blah, blah, I'm the only real atheist, because I redefine it the way I want it, and to me you are worthless idiots, I'm right and everyone else is wrong, yada, yada, blah, blah."

D_Trimijopulos's picture
The post is about the Bible,

The post is about the Bible, and what is your offer in the discussion of this subject? Yada, yada, blahda bladha.

I have knowledge of the subject, I have an opinion, and so I have something to say while your “yada, blahda” just confirms your typical ignorance as an agnostic.

Nyarlathotep's picture
well for what it is worth,

well for what it is worth, for once he didn't call you an idiot, or drop a self promoting link...

D_Trimijopulos's picture
I never call people idiots

I never call people idiots because I only insult idiotic theological theories such as agnosticism.
So, you either cite my words calling someone an idiot, or apologize.

As for the links I provide, they are not self promoting. To promote myself to what? They are educational, aiming to wake agnostics up. :-D

ThePragmatic's picture
As if you would deserve an

As if you would deserve an apology?! Your shameless "I know everything and you don't know jack shit"-attitude and self promoting is disgusting. Your redefining of terms and raising yourself on a pedestal is ridiculous.

Now, if you put on your tin foil reading hat and take a closer look at my post, you'll see that I didn't cite you. I said "all I got from that was...", implying that I am reading between the lines.

D_Trimijopulos's picture
"Now, if you put on your tin

"Now, if you put on your tin foil reading hat and take a closer look at my post, you'll see that I didn't cite you. I said "all I got from that was...", implying that I am reading between the lines."

No! You wrote: “Sorry, but all I got from that was the same as all your other posts”. You were addressing whom?

"Your shameless "I know everything and you don't know jack shit"-attitude and self promoting is disgusting."

There are 15 articles there, proof that I KNOW what your prophets of agnosticism do not know and so I deserve the attitude. ;-)

"Your redefining of terms and raising yourself on a pedestal is ridiculous"

Probably you are right; I, however, regard ridiculous your monumental ignorance.
So, this topic is about the Bible. State your opinion of the Bible showing that you have the required knowledge to take part in a discussion about the Bible.

ThePragmatic's picture
Well it is obviously

Well, if you don't understand what "reading between the lines" mean, then I'm sorry for you. I'm not going to waste time trying to explain it to you.

It is obviously pointless to point out to you that you are acting like a real a**hole, since you don't seem to care and actually seem proud of it: "I deserve the attitude. ;-)"

I have no idea what you twisted comments like "your prophets of agnosticism" is actually supposed to mean. Perhaps your trying to make a joke while trying to make a point? Anyway, your comments about atheism and agnosticism has no bearing whatsoever, since you seem to redefine the words to your liking. (You know, like creationists do).

Your right, the topic is the Bible. However, you answered to my post, so I answered to yours, trying to get you to understand how tiresome your endless ranting is. You seem just as close minded and stubborn as the worst of creationists. But your ego seems to be immune to any form of feedback.
A good recipe for success. *Note: sarcasm*

D_Trimijopulos's picture
“I have no idea what you

“I have no idea what you twisted comments like "your prophets of agnosticism" is actually supposed to mean. Perhaps your trying to make a joke while trying to make a point?”

I make a point without joking. Agnostics repeat the axioms invented by Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens & Co. in the manner theists repeat the usual theological nonsense. They have no opinion or view of their own, just like theists do not have them.
So, what is the difference between Dawkins and the prophets of theism?

“Anyway, your comments about atheism and agnosticism has no bearing whatsoever, since you seem to redefine the words to your liking. (You know, like creationists do).”

I am an atheist who despises agnostics and who regards agnosticism as the main enemy of atheism, and you expect me to pay any attention to your obsession with definitions?

“Your right, the topic is the Bible. However, you answered to my post, so I answered to yours, trying to get you to understand how tiresome your endless ranting is. You seem just as close minded and stubborn as the worst of creationists. But your ego seems to be immune to any form of feedback.”

You are right too. That is what I am!
Can you also admit that you are completely ignorant in religious matters, or present some indication of your knowledge, some work of your own maybe?

ThePragmatic's picture
It seems to me that you have

It seems to me that you have already made up your mind about every question you ask concerning religion. You're don't seem the slightest bit interested in anyone else's view.
So the real question then becomes, why are you writing in these forums, why are you asking questions you don't want anyone else's view on?
To me it just seems you are here to promote yourself and to generally get off on acting superior and obnoxious.

"I am an atheist who despises agnostics and who regards agnosticism as the main enemy of atheism, and you expect me to pay any attention to your obsession with definitions?"

I'm not really that obsessed with definitions. But when debating, one is forced to have a consensus on definitions on the key words. Theists use the tactic of redefining words all the time, and it is just counterproductive and tiresome. If you make your own definitions on such words, do you expect anyone else to pay any attention to your posts?

"Can you also admit that you are completely ignorant in religious matters"

I am the first to say that I am ignorant, stupid and makes mistakes.
I don't know much at all about what you have been ranting on about the context of the bible. One doesn't need to spend 20 years trying to decipher ancient texts to realize that the bible is written by men and based on many other earlier texts and myths. One doesn't have to have published one's own work to have insight in religious matters. (Note: You seem to (re)define "religious matters" only to what you know/believe in terms of the bible and what the bible is based upon. That seems rather ignorant, don't you think?)
Anyone can publish work. But why are you continuously trying to promote your work yourself? Maybe people see little value in it, if you don't even care about the definition of the words you use.

D_Trimijopulos's picture
“So the real question then

“So the real question then becomes, why are you writing in these forums, why are you asking questions you don't want anyone else's view on?”

I am asking for your views (I mean the agnostics in general) but when, for example, it is about the Hebrew Bible the only thing I get is that it was written by primitive goat herders. So how can I respect your views?
It is like my posting in a forum of physicist and mathematicians, without having the slightest knowledge of the subject, and complaining for their conduct towards me, the ignorant.

“To me it just seems you are here to promote yourself and to generally get off on acting superior and obnoxious.”

No, I am here to convert agnostics into atheists but I cannot do it diplomatically. :-)

“If you make your own definitions on such words, do you expect anyone else to pay any attention to your posts?”

I expect no prejudiced, non dogmatic persons, as atheists are supposed to be, to pay attention to the justification provided, because I never claim anything without sufficient support (my work, the links provided).

“One doesn't need to spend 20 years trying to decipher ancient texts to realize that the bible is written by men and based on many other earlier texts and myths. One doesn't have to have published one's own work to have insight in religious matters.”

Unfortunately, one has to do all that if one does not want to be a sucker, victim so much of the Church as of the academy.
So, let me give you the picture as seen by someone who spent more than 20 years deciphering ancient texts.

We learn, from royal instructions and decrees of the Old Kingdom period of the Egyptian civilization, that during late third millennium BCE the Egyptian rulers were operating human breeding grounds where so much fresh citizens as slaves were produced.
The women used were abducted foreign women, not of the appearance of the Egyptian lords who were mating with them. The male hybrid offspring were then examined (judged) at a certain age and those not in the image of the fathering lords were exterminated. The female half-breeds remained in the grounds to do what their mothers had been doing.
While these conditions prevailed in real life, the priesthood had the whole set transferred to an imaginary life after death where people were judged dead but continued to act as they did in real life after their judgment: working, eating and having sex. In this way the concepts of soul, immortality and Otherworld were created and were then spread to the West through the ancient Greek philosophers who went to study theology in Egypt.

Egyptologists mistranslate the mortuary literature of the Egyptians but they do their best in modifying texts when it comes to translating the official documents which constitute evidence of the existence of the human breeding grounds. A king, for example, left written instructions for his son and successor on how to treat the judging magistrates (whom he regarded too strict, killing more hybrid youths than they should) and an Egyptologist, from the Heidelberg University, informs his reader that the king was instructing his son to supervise the work of the “divine committee that passes judgment on the deceased”.

Apart from the texts there is archaeological evidence too: an ancient Egyptian village of the fifth millennium different from the other villages of the area (sedentary but with soil no good for cultivation and with no sign of any social ranking) where hundreds of graves of only women and children were found.

The main, and essentially the only, theme of the Egyptian mortuary literature (Pyramid Texts, Coffin Texts and the Book of the Dead) is the judgment of the men by the gods. It becomes obvious to the reader of the texts that the ancient Egyptians suffered from some sort of compulsive preoccupation with the judgment and that the judgment idea was as old as the idea of the existence of the gods (Horus was accused of impurity and had to be judged).
The various topics of the story of the gods, as it is found in all the other Near Eastern texts (cuneiform tablets), fits perfectly to a scenario based on the human breeding grounds (the fathering lords are called “Wild Bulls”, the mothers “Wild Cows” and the creation of humans was realized by a number of women called “Mother-wombs”).

From the Egyptian texts we also learn that the rapist lords became heavenly gods when it was said that they climbed a ladder each and went to live in the sky (ejected from the land by their rebellious slaves). The “ascension” of the gods to the sky is dated roughly at 15,000 years ago because that is also approximately the age of the Egyptian priesthood and the age of the oldest “temple” known (Gobekli Tepe); plus the fact that the North American Indians, who lived isolated by approximately the same time, knew of the “existence” of heavenly beings.

We are therefore to conclude that the social system of the human breeding grounds had been operating for an unbelievably long period of time and that the same was the base and the origin of religion and of the stories of the creation of humans (which theologians later expanded to include the creation of the universe).

Dawkins’ theory (actually Thomson’s theory) about the origins of religion is entirely wrong but only due to the conduct of the Egyptologists. If the scholars in the various fields of knowledge were aware of the inhuman social system of the ancient Near East, most probably our knowledge of the origins of religion would have been more accurate and complete long time ago.

Once the existence of the human breeding grounds with the accompanying judgment site and execution ground is confirmed officially, the myths and legends will automatically be proven to be faded reports of actual events and all the theological concepts will be shown for what they are: a great hoax taken seriously.

The Hebrew Bible, as I wrote above, was written in code to be understood only by those possessing the information contained in the Oral Torah. Knowing, however, the history of the pre-history of humanity one is able to understand the meaning of some of the stories of the Hebrew Bible that seem absurd and even ridiculous (the incest event for example) or why the God is presented as not knowing whether the people at Sodom were sinners and intended to know by passing a judgment of living people.

The deception for which science and academy are responsible is far more worse than the common conspiracy theorist could ever imagine.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Dimitrios - "I expect no

Dimitrios - "I expect no prejudiced, non dogmatic persons, as atheists are supposed to be..."

Weird, that page is missing from my atheist manual. I bet one of those "traitors to atheism" tore it out...

Nyarlathotep's picture
Dimitrios - "The deception

Dimitrios - "The deception for which science and academy are responsible is far more worse than the common conspiracy theorist could ever imagine."

Again, you will note that Dimitrios is not suggesting that the experts in the field are wrong. He is saying that thousands of people are taking part in a giant, multi-generational conspiracy to deceive the world about some ancient writings; that most people could care less about...

D_Trimijopulos's picture
“Again, you will note that

“Again, you will note that Dimitrios is not suggesting that the experts in the field are wrong. He is saying that thousands of people are taking part in a giant, multi-generational conspiracy to deceive the world…”

Right! They are not wrong; they intentionally mistranslate ancient texts but they are not thousands of people. They are even less than a hundred: the translators of the Egyptian hieroglyphs who first and foremost deceive the scholars whose field is anthropology, archaeology, sociology, religion, history and whatever field of knowledge has to do with humans and their distant past.

“…about some ancient writings; that most people could care less about...”

You surely are among those people; the rest, who care, they just do not appreciate the label of “Sucker”. :-)

Nyarlathotep's picture
Dimitrios - "they

Dimitrios - "they intentionally mistranslate ancient texts but they are not thousands of people. They are even less than a hundred: the translators of the Egyptian hieroglyphs who first and foremost deceive the scholars whose field is anthropology, archaeology, sociology, religion, history and whatever field of knowledge has to do with humans and their distant past."
---------------------------------------------------------
Oh so now this nefarious band is operating for over 100 years (multi-generational, check!)

Has fooled all the modern Egyptologists (and there are 1000's of them, at the very least) who clearly don't ever check people's previous results; even though turning over the applecart is the best way to make a name for yourself (involves 1000's of people, check!).

Only you have figured this out but can't get your 'ground breaking' material publish in a peer reviewed journal because of the conspiracy (delusions of grandeur, check!)

D_Trimijopulos's picture
“Has fooled all the modern

“Has fooled all the modern Egyptologists (and there are 1000's of them, at the very least) who clearly don't ever check people's previous results; even though turning over the applecart is the best way to make a name for yourself (involves 1000's of people, check!).”

You are criticizing papers that you have not read!
What does that make you? Do you know?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Dimitrios - "You are

Dimitrios - "You are criticizing papers that you have not read!"

actually I did read what I believe was the first one you linked...

You know the one where you said something like 'the only word that means soul is the word ba". Which wildly contradicts every other document I've ever read on the matter. But yeah, that folds in nicely to your conspiracy theory. They have gotten to everyone but you!

D_Trimijopulos's picture
“You know the one where you

“You know the one where you said something like 'the only word that means soul is the word ba". Which wildly contradicts every other document I've ever read on the matter.”

Which of the other documents you have read offered examples of passages from the various periods of the Egyptian history presenting the original texts with word for word translation?
_No one, because they dare not translate word for word.

You live in a dominated by religion planet. Do not ever forget that.

As regards my articles, there is sound information for you there. If you do not like to read them it is OK with me, but do not continue with that conspiracy libel without indicating what is wrong or made up in my writings.

Mitch's picture
What about agnosticism do you

What about agnosticism do you despise?

D_Trimijopulos's picture
“What about agnosticism do

“What about agnosticism do you despise?”

The fact that it is a cunning theological theory demanding an impossible level of proof for the non-existence of God, guaranteeing thus his undisputed existence.
It is a theory that poisons the minds of the freethinkers.

Agnostics would tell their kids that they do not know whether God exists instead of informing them that the God idea is a hoax, a dirty, bloody joke.

Travis Hedglin's picture
Basically you despise that

Basically you despise that they aren't willing to claim absolute certainty.

D_Trimijopulos's picture
"Basically you despise that

"Basically you despise that they aren't willing to claim absolute certainty."

I despise their not understanding that they became the victims of theology and sophistry. There is no God. There is only the idea of God and an idea can be an absolutely idiotic one or an absolute lie or an absolute hoax.

Now, as regards you, I read in a comment of yours that you are here to exercise your arguing dexterity and that you do not care much about atheism. I had suspected something similar from our exchange when you were invoking one logical fallacy after the other without caring much about the sense of the conversation.
So, forgive me for being rude, but do not expect another response from me.

Travis Hedglin's picture
"I despise their not

"I despise their not understanding that they became the victims of theology and sophistry."

Because they aren't willing to claim absolute certainty?

"There is no God."

That, my good sir, is what we call a claim. Now that you have made said claim, I will expect you to provide scientific evidence to support said claim, not fallacious appeals to origin or personal incredulity. I shall await your answer with oh so baited breath.

"There is only the idea of God and an idea can be an absolutely idiotic one or an absolute lie or an absolute hoax."

An idea can also be unknown, unfalsifiable, or completely arguable. I know a guy who considers the sun a god, and though I may disagree about his use of the term god, I sure as hell do not deny the existence of the sun.

"Now, as regards you, I read in a comment of yours that you are here to exercise your arguing dexterity and that you do not care much about atheism."

This is the funny thing about it, it isn't that I don't care about atheism, I am just not so dogmatically and stubbornly tied to it that I would be immune from either reason or substantive evidence to the contrary. That is the main division between the two of us, you are so loud and proud about you gnostic atheistic anti-theism that you view everyone with a different perspective as beneath you, while the rest of us make the attempt to not to restrict our thinking inside a single box of perspective. We actually make an attempt to make our perceptions match with reality, rather than the other way around, so we actually learn and understand concepts such as the problem of hard solipsism and epistemology. You don't really give a shit about such things, and would rather push your own agenda and conspiracy theory than even attempt to deal or grapple with anything other than if the Egyptians and Babylonians could find their asses with both hands and a torch.

"I had suspected something similar from our exchange when you were invoking one logical fallacy after the other without caring much about the sense of the conversation."

What the hell are you talking about? You invoked the fallacies by using them, I just pointed them out, and the entire sense of what you were trying to talk about was one giant genetic fallacy. As was pointed out to you then, and remains true now, an idea or arguments origins matters not to whether it is either valid or true. Your attempt to poison the well fails on multiple levels, and you have done little here but illuminate your own ignorance and lack of reason.

"So, forgive me for being rude, but do not expect another response from me."

This is actually one of the least rude things you have actually said in your time here, as short and tragic as it has been, and I don't really care if you decide to never respond to me again. Do as you wish, there is no rule that demands you respond or post at all.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.