JGL53

I've read the KJV Bible - twice - once at age 13 and again at age 16.

Are you calling me a liar?

Smullyan-esque

Did you actually read this thread, Roger? It appears you have missed some of the important themes. To help you out, let me summarize two that I am particularly fond of:

1) Is it reasonable to conclude that the holy book of your own religion is unique if you do not read the holy books of other religions?
2) What is the nature of scientific integrity?

------------------------------
By the way, 'second-hand rhetoric' is quite a nice turn of phrase. It has that Zing! factor that really makes an emotional point. But what do you mean by it, exactly? Does it refer to the fact that certain points get made again and again, without substantive response? Or is it referring to arguments that are originially made by one person being repeated by other people? Could you be talking about cut-and-paste from other web sites?

The first seems like something that isn't a flaw with the arguer, but with the respondent. The second might be somewhat objectionable, as it amounts to "me, too!"-ism. The third would be tantamount to plagiarism, so I would understand your objection.

Were any of my ideas correct? Or did you mean something else entirely?

mfaber

Aside from the fact that the above is a fallacious argument (appeal to numbers/popularity) as has been noted, let's not forget the fact that the Bible has had HUNDREDS OF YEARS to build up it's numbers as the "best-selling book". To compare numbers accrued over hundreds of years to those accrued over a decade say is neither a fair nor valid comparison IMO:

• One thing to NOT FORGET here is that the Bible has been in print for hundreds of years, so the fact that there HAVE been so many sold is not a big surprise since countries populated by Christians have been large and in charge of what could and has been published.
• The fact is that suppose the Bible came out NOW as opposed to having a 1600 year head-start (books in the first Bible not agreed upon til 400 years after the alleged death of the alleged Jesus) with all the indoctrination and/or censorship of other POVs that has so aided it's supremacy? What would happen, IOW, would the Bible still rank as the "best-seller"?
  • If one restricts the time period as beginning with the appearance of the Gutenberg press in 1440 which made mass printings possible in the Western world, the Bible has had a 560 year head-start to beef up the numbers?
  • Guess what the first book printed was by the Gutenberg press? You, got it, the Bible!
  So the Bible was off and running from the get-go.

Now let's do a comparison to the HP series and see just how the Bible stacks up. I think the following says it all, considering that Harry Potter (HP) books have outstripped tha Bible in sales NOW, i.e., the number of Bibles sold versus the number of Harry Potter books sold over the past 10 years. From this article:

If one compares the current track record of the Bible (last 10 years) to the Harry Potter series (over the 10 years HP has been in existence) then the Bible takes a back seat to HP to the tune of over 75 million copies.

One other thing to remember is that a lot of Bibles sold have simply been handed out to various captive audiences by missionaries. I consider people who come to them [missionaries] for help or have them simply invade their lives under the cover of providing assistance to be a captive audience and have Bibles and other prosyletizing gimmicks foist on them in addition to any food, medicine, etc. that these people really might need. I find this to be quite despicable (help used as a lure/cover/excuse for conversion attempts). These people didn't want them to begin with, but the "numbers" of Bibles "handed out" go into the pot of numbers for the Bible as "best seller" anyway.

Oh and BTW, dave, I have read the Bible through twice (as a teenager and an adult) That is not counting the fact that my parents started early with the indocrination

• I listened for hours to a reading of the Bible (books for the blind) because access to things like TV were heavily restricted (only got 1 hour per day, parentally-approved)
• went to church regularly (got medals for my attendance record and my ability to memorize verses)
• listened to still more records made especially for kids that concentrated what I call the "adventure, daring-do" stories of the Bible, e.g., David and Goliath, Samson (great sound effects when he brought the temple down on the Philistines!), etc.
• spent part of many of my childhood summers in Christian summer camps

The above is a very short list of the indoctrination tools used on me and my siblings. However, reading the Bible (really reading what it ACTUALLY says, not what apologists/prelates/preachers say "it says") was the final thing that resulted in my complete and total abandonment of Christianity.

What amuses me to no end is the stupidity of some Christians in the complelely unwarranted ASSumption that atheists are atheists because they have never read the Bible. It's as though they think (or would like to believe) that the Bible is some kind of magic talisman that when touched or especially read, is capable of instantly converting the "heathen". In a way that is true, but the conversion is actually one of deconversion when one actually reads that often inaccurate, bloodthirsty, badly written, violent tome, word-for-word. If the author of this mess is your God, Dave, then the very last thing I ever would want is to be in the company of such an Entity, afflicted with massive personality defects that dwarf those of the most heinous serial killer, as the despicable Creature so graphically described in the Bible for ~~~gasp~~ an eternity. I am reminded of the line "Heaven for climate, but Hell for company"

mfaber (gladiatrix):devil1:

Faid

I'm bored to check... Has dave explained what the point of his question was yet?

mung bean

Nope, but I'm sure you can guess. Needless to say he's been disappointed.

Chidori

Yes, I have. I read the entire thing, and when I closed the book for the final time, I was an atheist.

butswana

I read it twice cover to cover between the ages of 12 and 16. It beat the snot out of the incessant droning of people giving thier 'talks' in church.

My mom caught some shit from people because I was reading during the church services. When she told them it was okay because I was reading the bible they went nuts.

Since I was reading cover to cover with no one to tell me how to interpret what I was reading Satan would be the one to guide me, thus poisoning my interpretation of it.

That wasn't an issue because I never believed a word of it any way. It was quite revealing to get the unsanitized non-sunday school version though.

Hex

We went through this with Larsguy some time back. It absolutely -does not- represent an accurate version of archaeological history ...

Right. Unless you're living in the Bronze/Iron Age Levant's tribal society ...



And, for the record, I've read it cover to cover. My great-grandparents had nightly readings (which I, the young guy with good eyes had to read), my Uncle was a Baptist preacher, and my Mom taught Sunday school. There was no escape ...

As an archaeologist, using critical logic skill and the data at hand, there is very little believable in the whole book. Logical inconsistancies, contradictions, and historical anomolies abound in the book. I can't even say it's a book of pretty poetry like the Koran.

So tell me Afdave ... What did Judges 19 do to strengthen your faith?
(And why doesn't it turn your stomach? )

Hex

Okay ... Here's a great challange for you then Afdave ...

I teach Anthropology (The Study of Mankind in all forms) and the only way to do it is in a holistic (Refers to the viewpoint that all aspects of existence are interrelated and important in understanding human variation and evolution.) manner, since cultures are systems of integrated aspects.

When I teach classes about 'religion' I can't just focus on one religion (or set of supernatural beleifs), because to do so would negate the ability to see the wide array of functions that religions can and do perform within a culture. In order to understand mankind's way of getting to their own cultural versions of 'the ultimate truth and understanding' of the world around them, you have to have a wide and varied base of knowledge to work with.

It seems that you've gone in-depth in Christianity, and that's fine. But to really put it in context, so that you can truely attempt to convince otehrs that it is the 'best' system (for example), you -have- to understand how the other systems work so that you can compare and contrast. A snippet of the Koran does Islam no justice; a single passage from the Bible, likewise, is meaningless to the message Christians want others to get from the whole of the book (Look to my 'Judges' question in a previous post for an example. Where is Christ's love in there, hmm?).

In short, if you want to convince people, you have to be able to understand where they are coming from in order to do so. To converse about religion with Muslims, you -must- understand (at some level) the Koran, for Jews the Torah (at least), for Hindus the Vedas and Upinshaads, for Buddhists the Stupas, and so on. For scientificly based atheists, you have to understand science and the scientific method.

Without this base of knowledge, all of your opinion, even if you -are- right, amounts to so much meaningless, unconvincing drivel. :huh:


So ... Did that make -any- sense? Will you please read another book - the Koran, Origin of Species, Introduction to Geology, I don't care - but please read it from cover to cover and get a basic understanding -for yourself- before you try to argue about the subject?

Thanks,

- Hex

Jobber

Are you having her read Who Wrote the Bible by Friedman?