Most atheists have never read the bible

[McCulloch]

Most atheists have never read the bible and so I believe that if they had, the basics would be the same. Clearly they do not speak as if they have this knowledge.

I throw down the gauntlet. Faith has made a positive claim. Either back up this claim with evidence or withdraw it.

On a less confrontational note, do atheists reject religion and God because they are ignorant of religion as many staunch religionists claim?

[InTheFlesh]

From those I spoke to
most are usually familiar with the stories in the bible
but they lack spiritual understanding.

You take what you want from the bible.
If you don't believe in it,
you spend time looking for things that appear to contradict.
If you believe,
you can see how those things that appear to contradict
fit perfectly together when you have understanding.

[bernee51]

From those I spoke to
most are usually familiar with the stories in the bible
but they lack spiritual understanding.

IOW they do not beleive as you do.

You take what you want from the bible.
If you don't believe in it,
you spend time looking for things that appear to contradict.
If you believe,
you can see how those things that appear to contradict
fit perfectly together when you have understanding.

IOW if you believe what the bible says it makes sense, if you do not believe then it does not.

And this is the supposed 'word of god'?

[InTheFlesh]

IOW?
In One Word?

"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe"

[bernee51]

IOW?
In One Word?

In other words.

"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe"

IOW in order to recieve the 'word of god' you must first believe it is the 'word of god'.

Typical Christian cirularity.

[McCulloch]

Most atheists have never read the bible and so I believe that if they had, the basics would be the same. Clearly they do not speak as if they have this knowledge.

I throw down the gauntlet. Faith has made a positive claim. Either back up this claim with evidence or withdraw it.

On a less confrontational note, do atheists reject religion and God because they are ignorant of religion as many staunch religionists claim?

It is a fact that they do not show any knowledge of having read the bible in their posts.

Please cite specific examples. I believe that many of these cases are not a lack of familiarity with the Bible but a lack of belief in what the biblical writers had to say.

What is the basis for the bible and what does the whole contents of the bible actually teach. If they have read it then that can answer these questions which all bible scholars can answer. It must not be taked from a site they must answer the question this way we will know if they have read it.

When I had less knowledge of the Bible, I thought that I could answer this question. But the more I got to know the actual texts of the Bible, rather than what Christian theologians and apologists say about the Bible, the less I am convinced that there is a unifying theme to this untidy collection of holy writings.

[JoeyKnothead]

What is the basis for the bible and what does the whole contents of the bible actually teach. If they have read it then that can answer these questions which all bible scholars can answer. It must not be taked from a site they must answer the question this way we will know if they have read it.......

So take up your Gaunlet and lets do the numbers as they reply....We will see how much they know as we go along.

A book so full of contradiction is hardly one where there can be agreement on the 'whole contents' and what it 'teaches'. This is why there are so many factions within Christianity. There are some who believe the Catholics are not Christians.

Case in point...A sister in law goes to a Lutheran church. They move to Raleigh, NC, within a stones throw of a Lutheran church, but drive halfway across Raleigh to go to a different church. When I asked about this she said, "They don't worship like I was raised". So I asked her if she had changed to some other sect, like Baptist or something, "No".

I find your assumption one of religious superiority, and wrong. Wrong just like when theist will seek to ban a book, never having read it word for word, nor understanding it is a 'fairy tale' (Harry Potter, any other books come to mind?).

I have moral objections to reading the Bible because when I have tried the oppression, the misogyny, the hatred, the genocide, the infanticide within it compels me to stop before I become further corrupted by its message. Sure, there are many, many good words and deeds and such in the Bible. I just can't wrap my head around its too many misdeeds.
[/quote]

[Fallibleone]

Why on earth do you not just retract your statement, faith? If you think we can all lie about having read the Bible, you can think that we've all lied about not having googled the answer to your question. What you have done in your post above is not take up the gauntlet, but prance around it. McCulloch asked you for EVIDENCE to back up your statement. Are these the tactics which one must resort to in order to maintain ones beliefs?

I for one won't play this game.

[Confused]

Most atheists have never read the bible and so I believe that if they had, the basics would be the same. Clearly they do not speak as if they have this knowledge.

I throw down the gauntlet. Faith has made a positive claim. Either back up this claim with evidence or withdraw it.

On a less confrontational note, do atheists reject religion and God because they are ignorant of religion as many staunch religionists claim?

It is a fact that they do not show any knowledge of having read the bible in their posts. The evidence shows this to be case that they cannot have read the bible if they cannot argue on the basis of it's contents. So let us see who has the read the bible.

Where is the evidence to support your "fact" here? What criteria do you suggest would be objective enough to show knowledge? Cutting and pasting passage after passage of scripture taken out of context to be shown to "support" whatever we want? If we are to quote scripture, it should be done wholly in context as to what the scripture is referring to or we do the writings of God a great injustice not to mention we further degrade the faith of Christianity.

Now, should we take a poll as to who all here has read the bible? Both atheists, theists, and those in between? I can't think of a single person here who hasn't read it. I can think of a few who are so arrogant in their interpretation of it to make entirely pompous statements that anyone who doesn't interpret it as they do are just ignorant or can't have really read it. But I can't think of anyone offhand who hasn't read it, studied it, and memorized much of it. The beautiful thing about the bible is that there is always some new way of seeing old passages in new contexts to make the interpretations that much more relevant to the individuals life. However, that is INTERPRETATIVE. It is not the end all meaning of any given passage.

What is the basis for the bible and what does the whole contents of the bible actually teach. If they have read it then that can answer these questions which all bible scholars can answer. It must not be taked from a site they must answer the question this way we will know if they have read it.......

The basis is nothing more than a passage to the teachings of God and the history of His creation. The whole content teaches absolutely nothing. Only in the individual teachings can anything be learned. If you know of some overall teaching that the entire content of the bible teaches, please, do enlighten me. As for biblical scholars, I find few that are in agreement as to what one interpretation means over the other. I don't think we were ever intended to understand scripture from a bunch of scholars or preachers. We were meant to learn and understand it from our own study. Not from the sermons of others. If God hadn't intended this, then I fail to see why He would ever hold someone accountable who believed the radical teachings of some of the charismatic sociopaths who have used religion as a tool against mankind and against God for that matter.

In short faith, what you believe, what you read, what you learn from scripture should be what YOU learn from searching for answers from God and the book He provided us with. Not from what a scholar, preacher, parent, or any other person dictates you should learn.

So take up your Gaunlet and lets do the numbers as they reply....We will see how much they know as we go along.

While I would generally agree here, I would have to say I am more than skeptical about what you think the numbers will represent? Individual knowledge, or only knowledge that agrees with YOUR views? Are you open minded enough to accept that while many of us have read the bible (theists, non-theists, atheists, etc...), our understanding of it may not be the same as yours. If such is the case, does that mean we haven't read it or we don't understand what we have read?

[Zzyzx]

.

Why on earth do you not just retract your statement, faith? If you think we can all lie about having read the Bible, you can think that we've all lied about not having googled the answer to your question.

It is apparently better to accuse all “infidels� of lying than to acknowledge an obvious error.

What you have done in your post above is not take up the gauntlet, but prance around it.

“Prancing around� issues and questions is a VERY common tactic by those who argue “lost causes� (those whose major premises are indefensible). Most religionists who attempt to debate are forced to “prance� because honest answers to questions make obvious the lack of reason and evidence in their “arguments�.

For instance, a sincere question is, “Is there any evidence that a ‘resurrection’ actually occurred as claimed (without recourse to religious promotional literature, hearsay and testimonials by involved people)?

The honest answer is, “No�.

I have asked that question numerous times (including in current threads) – to encourage the prancing. Watch Goose prance currently. It is creative BUT it demonstrates unwillingness to honestly and openly answer questions (some of which regard fundamentals of Christian beliefs)

McCulloch asked you for EVIDENCE to back up your statement.

There is no evidence, but that seems very difficult for religionists to recognize and acknowledge.

Are these the tactics which one must resort to in order to maintain ones beliefs?

Dishonest and dishonorable tactics appear to be necessary for many when attempting to “defend the faith� in public debate. Evidence and reasoning are NOT on the side of theism in discussion or debate. To “win points for god� it is common to use emotion, unsubstantiated claims and disreputable tactics (while attempting to claim moral high ground).

[nygreenguy]

Jehovah's Witnesses place everything they do in the bible.

They believe that the Old Testament was meant to be a back story for what was to come. It was the build up to the birth of Jesus. It let everyone know the "why" of Jesus.

The new testament was the "meat and potatoes" of the religion. It gave us the bulk of our "morals" and "rules". It showed the path to the afterlife.

Every single meeting we have required intensive reading and studying of the bible. So, needless to say, I have not only read it, but have deconstructed and studied it.

That itself, is what helped lead me to my deconversion. This was supposed to be an infallible book, yet was filled with many errors. As a christian, I always found ways to "get around" these inconsistencies. Now, looking back I realize how personally dishonest this was. I was simply lying to myself.

So yes, I, an atheist, have read the bible. Just because I disagree with it doesnt mean I dont understand it, what its supposed to mean, havent received the "holy spirit", etc...