Faid

Just checking, dave, just checking... And, also, giving you a post you can afford not to ignore.

militant agnostic

Man, I have really bad tendancy to chime in on these things after there have a about a billion posts.

To answer your question dave the answer is no... but. I have probably taken in alot of it just from reading these forums for a considerable amount of time.

To tell the truth I think that I am beggining to wonder just how profitable it would be for me to really dive into the field at this point. After getting to know enough of the arguments regarding things like whether Paul was thinking of a heavenly Jesus or a earthly one, how soon were the earliest texts regarding the alleged events of the New Testament written after they supposedly happened, what are the dynamics of the transmission of oral traditions in Iron Age Judea and how fast do stories change and diversify, etc, etc I feel a little to tired of it to shoot for that level of textual memorizing and degrees in Biblical Higher Criticism that I think you are talking about. An analogy to how I feel would be like being introduced to holocaust denial as a historical view point when all you have is a high school understanding of WWII and then reading a seemingly innumerable amount forum debates between people who have spent years or often decades studying the entire field of holocaust related history, psychology, and social theory debate the deniers.

Sure I'm not an expert, but I sure as hell know enough from reading these forums to tell that the Christians on these pages are not winning the debates. Moreover, the reason for this is not because the restrictions of the debate format is interfering with their ability comunicate their reasoning or evidence, or because they are technically right but they don't know enough about their position to defend it properly. Their simply wrong. I could say the same about their views of philosophy and values as well to some degree.

I am certain I will eventually come back to all of this when I finish my degrees in biology and social sciences. I will need to if I want to persue the social and political goals I find worth while. Until then I will be a regular reader to these forums and probably delve into books by Robert M. Price or Earl Doherty and the likes by reading what I can understand and do simple reference reading for without blasting myself with piles of historical gobldygook.

Prester John

I tried to read it from start to finish (during my born again phase) but found it quite boring tbh. needs a damn good edit. not what i'd expect from a divine being, more like what i'd expect from poor bronze age mythology.....

rfmwinnie

I really don't get the bolded part -- the bible was used to continue slavery long after it should have ended in the US. What did the bible have to do with Britain's goverment? Divine right of kings? Getting divorced to get a son a la Henry the VIII? Am I missing something? Oh and there is no democracy in the bible! I'd know this as JWs are not allowed to vote and I can give you lots of scriptural reasons for that! In fact, early christians didn't get involved in goverment at all -- that includes bible writers so this really doesn't make sense to me!

And when you read the Quran let me know. I'll reread it at the same time and we can compare notes. I enjoy reading lots of different religious literature.

Donnmathan

Read the Bible a few times before I turned 18. It got me curious about Sumerian and Babylonian mythology, and I thankfully followed up. I have since read most of the "holy" books of the middle east, Europe, India, and those that remain from Central America. On the science side, Darwin, Dawkins, Campbell, and many more. All of that landed me where I am now - an eclectic pagan, with a healthy respect for science and the scientific method. Though I'm no atheist, I have no faith left in organized religion, at all. Too cold.

Donnmathan

Why are you relating "Origin of Species" directly to atheism? A more accurate parallel would be biologists reading "Origin", which I would hope would be most.

Joan of Bark

This thought struck me after I read the Bible:

Why would an omnipotent God even need a book? It's such an inefficient means of transmitting information (as the 1000+ theist sects and all the books written about it show). He should just transmit the information directly to our brains, thereby eliminating the need for writers, scribes, translations, printing presses, distributors and the destruction of forests (doesn't God care about the environmental damage caused by those billion copies of his word?)

Oh, God, you really aren't the sharpest tool in the shed, are you?

mung bean

Shit. That's a good point. :notworthy:

Lucretius

Didn't you know the sole reason for God "inventing " trees was so that they could be cut down and made into copies of "His" Bible ?

Condraz23

Perhaps, but until the publication of Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species", most atheists had no idea about the origin of life. The establishment of evolution within the scientific community also invalidated the Christian God.

Sure, the two are not the same, and it is possible for an atheist to question the theory of evolution and for a theist to accept evolution. However, most atheists tend to be evolutionists and most theists tend to be creationists.