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?

[cnorman18]

The answer that Faith is looking for as proof that one has read the Bible and understands it is likely this:

The basis of the Bible is God's plan of salvation. The message of the whole content of the Bible is that all humans are sinful and in need of that salvation, and that God has sent His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, to bear our sins that we may be saved through faith in Him.

Peace to Faith, but if one reads the Hebrew Scriptures without straining them through the screen of the New Testament, that is hard to see.

First, the idea of a life after death is very rarely mentioned in the OT, and when it is, the ideas concerning it are equivocal and contradictory. It is not mentioned at all in the Torah (for those who came in late, the Torah consists of the first five books of the OT, and is the most sacred and authoritative part of the Bible to Jews). The Afterlife simply isn't a major concern.

Reward and punishment is most often discussed in terms of the whole people, not individuals, and even then is about reward and punishment in this world, not the next.

The very idea of "salvation," when it appears at all, is most often in the context of literal "salvation" in this world as well; being saved from ill luck, enemies, disease and the like.

There are Messianic references in the OT, to be sure; but few, if any, apply to Jesus, and the passages that are alleged to refer to Jesus are generally talking about something else. In no case is the Messiah said to be sent to save us from our sins, to give us free entry into Heaven, or to be God incarnate. He is to be the Savior of Israel, not of individual souls, and an ordinary man. An anointed King, to be sure, but mortal and the son of human beings, not of God, and possessed of no supernatural powers or attributes.

In my humble opinion:

The basis of the Hebrew Bible is the evolving understanding of the Hebrew, later Jewish, people, of the nature of their God and their relationship to Him; but it is far from being presented in chronological or any other discernible order, and is really unintelligible without reference to the tradition of interpretation and commentary that has accompanied it and expanded upon it from the beginning. It was written by and primarily addressed to Jews, though the lessons and principles taught there are freely available to anyone.

What the message of the whole content of the OT is, I decline to say. There are many such messages. Love and reverence for God, to be sure; but there is also an overwhelming concern for justice, which specifically includes assistance to the poor and lonely.

There is no word for "charity" in Hebrew; the word we use is tzedakah, which translates literally as "justice." That the fortunate should give of their substance--their time, their money, their concern--to the less fortunate is not considered a "good deed" worthy of praise and adulation, but a basic duty, required of all. Even the very poor are required to give tzedakah to those who are even poorer than they.

Besides justice, there is also an enormous concern for human freedom, and for the dignity and essential equality of all. Even kings are subject to the rules of justice and ethics.

These principles are hard to see on the surface of the Bible, with its wars of extermination, gross injustices, and apparent condoning of slavery, racism, and the subjugation of women; they are drawn from the tradition, which makes no bones about correcting the superficial view that says because these things are reported in the Bible, God must approve of them.

No one knows or understands God entirely, but we feel we know and understand God at least that well. Abraham said it first, to God Himself: "Far be it from You, act in this way, to slay the righteous with the wicked and treat then the same! Far be it from You! Shall the Judge of all the Earth deal unjustly?"

As far as anything addressed to individuals is concerned, ethical behavior is probably the most overwheming message of all. The proper conduct of humans toward each other, regardless of faith and nationality, and even toward animals and the environment, is a given and an imperative. It is demanded as an absolute, and for individuals at least, reward and punishment are not a factor. One is expected to be good because it is good, not because rewards and punishments are promised and threatened. Humans are not children, and the Bible demands that we be responsible for our own moral decisions on the basis of morality alone.

Such is the Jewish view. There are others, and we do not say that those views are necessarily wrong. Perhaps God does offer a "plan of salvation" for some others--or perhaps He will at least honor their sincerity, their faith, and (one hopes) their good works with the kind of Heaven they feel has been promised to them. I hope so. But for myself and my people, the way is more demanding, less clear and well-defined, and has no promise of a happy end or continuation for any individual person.

I do not present my views here as the only correct ones. No one can. The conclusion that the Bible is a hodgepodge of contradictory and often meaningless bits of alleged history, folktale, and myth is as reasonable and defensible as any other, and more so than some; I do not share it, but that's as far as I can go. I cannot prove that it is not, nor that the principles and lessons I see there are not the projections of human hopes and wishful thinking. Even if that be true, those hopes and wishes can have a positive value of their own.

In any case, anyone, with any view, who says that theirs is the only proper way to read this book (or that anyone who does not understand it as they do must clearly not have read it) is on very thin ice indeed. The value of the Bible, if it has any (and I think it does) has always been that it carries a different message for everyone who reads it, and from every one of those messages the rest of us might--I say might--have something to learn, even if it's only to think hard and critically about one's own in order to refute them.

[Cathar1950]

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.

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.

Love Faith.xx

The whole content of the Bible, depending on which and who’s Bible, does not teach a single thing.
What do you argue on the basis of its content?
There are historically many readings and interpretations of the texts as well as many diverse views within the texts.
Biblical scholars differ as do believers and to suggest that there is one teaching or story is to suggest you have failed to read it in a way that makes it relevant or understood.
Tell us your story and we can show you how you have missed much of it even if you have read it.

[realthinker]

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?

I've read the bible cover to cover, two different versions, numerous times. I've read several texts pertaining to the history of the bible, the Catholic Catechism, and other religious or religion related texts. I read more about religion than my incredibly conservative Catholic parents.

The more I read of it and about it, and about what others think of it, the more I cannot believe that anyone is serious about what it says.

I am by no means a biblical scholar. I don't quote the bible and I don't argue points related to it. I don't think it's that important. My ideas regarding religion are about religion, as a social and human phenomenon, not about the bible and whether Christianity is genuine and true.

[Invisible Pink Unicorn]

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
- Matthew (ch. VII, v. 16-20)

What have the fruits of the bible been?

[Cephus]

I've read the bible cover to cover, two different versions, numerous times. I've read several texts pertaining to the history of the bible, the Catholic Catechism, and other religious or religion related texts. I read more about religion than my incredibly conservative Catholic parents.

Just looking at the bookshelf right next to me, I've got four translations of the Bible as well as The Teachings of Buddha, Mankind's Search for God by the Watchtower and Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures by Mary Baker Eddy. That's just what I have within arm's reach and only if you don't count the creationist books.

The more I read of it and about it, and about what others think of it, the more I cannot believe that anyone is serious about what it says.

I think that's a common reaction. The more I know about religion, the more incredulous I am that anyone, even the most gullible, uneducated mouth-breather, can buy into this nonsense. It's like watching someone bash themselves on the head with a hammer, your mouth just hangs open because words to describe the action fail you.

[nygreenguy]

I think that's a common reaction. The more I know about religion, the more incredulous I am that anyone, even the most gullible, uneducated mouth-breather, can buy into this nonsense. It's like watching someone bash themselves on the head with a hammer, your mouth just hangs open because words to describe the action fail you.

This is a little harsh!

I was once a believer, but I dont think this is any way made me the person you described above. We all have different experiences, this is what makes us unique. These experiences shape our beliefs in many, many ways. Sure, some people are just totally stubborn and are, indeed, moronic, however not everyone is.

We need to take into consideration others experiences and that people react differently to many different things. Not everyone will respond right away to a rational argument. This is no reason for us to give up in despair and call them stupid. Perhaps it is us atheists who simply need to refine our argument!

[MrWhy]

It is not necessary to read much of the Bible to evaluate the claim that it's the revelation of a god. There must be some clear precise information in scripture that only a god could know. Otherwise the revelation premise is false, and all scriptures are human creations.

It is difficult to grow up in the USA without some exposure to scripture, especially if you lived in the Bible belt. You are not likely to get much exposure to refined skeptical opinions. If there's a shortage of education, it's not in the atheist camp.

[InTheFlesh]

cnorman18 wrote:

There are Messianic references in the OT, to be sure; but few, if any, apply to Jesus, and the passages that are alleged to refer to Jesus are generally talking about something else. In no case is the Messiah said to be sent to save us from our sins, to give us free entry into Heaven, or to be God incarnate. He is to be the Savior of Israel, not of individual souls, and an ordinary man. An anointed King, to be sure, but mortal and the son of human beings, not of God, and possessed of no supernatural powers or attributes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father:
there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

[cnorman18]

cnorman18 wrote:

There are Messianic references in the OT, to be sure; but few, if any, apply to Jesus, and the passages that are alleged to refer to Jesus are generally talking about something else. In no case is the Messiah said to be sent to save us from our sins, to give us free entry into Heaven, or to be God incarnate. He is to be the Savior of Israel, not of individual souls, and an ordinary man. An anointed King, to be sure, but mortal and the son of human beings, not of God, and possessed of no supernatural powers or attributes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father:
there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Is there a reason why you think quoting the New Testament to a Jew would be persuasive?

This forum is for debate. That was preaching. It's neither appreciated nor taken seriously here.

Peace to you, and have a nice day.

[Cephus]

I was once a believer, but I dont think this is any way made me the person you described above. We all have different experiences, this is what makes us unique. These experiences shape our beliefs in many, many ways. Sure, some people are just totally stubborn and are, indeed, moronic, however not everyone is.

I was a believer too and frankly, when I think back on that time in my life, I'm ashamed of myself. I believed wholeheartedly, but in retrospect, I cannot imagine how I could have ever been so intellectually dishonest and lacking in integrity that I would have fallen for such ridiculous ideas.

We need to take into consideration others experiences and that people react differently to many different things. Not everyone will respond right away to a rational argument. This is no reason for us to give up in despair and call them stupid. Perhaps it is us atheists who simply need to refine our argument!

It really has nothing to do with how someone comes to hold bad beliefs, but in the fact that they do hold bad beliefs at all. You can find all sorts of people who are racist for many, many different reasons, but none of the reasons excuse the belief. Absolutely none of the reasons are a valid justification to be racist.