My question in return would be why do you assume that atheists think the bible, or any other religious text for that matter, is a waste of time? Religions essentially came about as a way of explaining the world around us before the advent of science, and subsequently were used to control the behaviour of the population in which that religion was most prevalent. Worth noting that the 3 most dominant religions, Judaism, Islam and Christianity (The Ibrahamic religions) are all subsets of the same religion, worship the same god (With different prophets), and fundamentally follow the same rules.
To that end, all religious doctrine has parts that are still relevant and useful today, but for the most part, these amount to little more than the same rules we apply in law in our societies. Religions also have a habit of contradicting themselves, so the bible says 'thou shalt not kill', but it also says you should kill non-believers if they refuse to convert, that you should kill gay people, unmarried mothers, etc etc.
If you move beyond the basic part whereby atheists look at the spiritual aspect of religion, and reject it because it's unproven (and unprovable), and in most if not all cases, regard it as a ridiculous fantasy, it comes down to the purpose of religion.
My point being that in my view, religion no longer has any relevance or purpose in a modern society.
The bible is what is called "Faction” A fictional story set in a factual time and place. Thus the time, place and real historical characters are all correct but the fictional characters and stories are not!
There is not one single mention of Jesus in the entire Roman record - that is right - not one! At the same time as he was supposed to have been around there were a number of Jews claiming to be the messiah - all of whom are well recorded!
There is not a single contemporary record from any source and even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!
He was supposed to have been a huge problem to the Romans and produced wonderful miracles but still not one contemporary record?
Even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!
Pilate is recorded in the Roman record as a somewhat lack luster man but no mention of a Jesus, a trial or crucifixion that would surely have been used to make him look brighter!
At best he was an amalgam of those others but almost certainly never existed!
Not one word of it is contemporary with the period and was not written until several hundred years after the period the story is set in!! How did the apostles write their books more than a hundred years after they would have been dead?
Christianity is an invention of the Italians and that is why it came from the Holy ROMAN Catholic church!
Please realize that those claims for the Old historians are worthless since they were not even born until long after everyone in the stories would have been so long dead!
Josephus AD 37 – AD 100
Tacitus AD 56 – AD 120
Suetonius - 69 – 130 AD
Pliny the Younger, 61 AD – 112 AD
Justin Martyr (Saint Justin) AD103–165 AD
Lucian - AD 120 -180 AD but he was hostile to Christianity and openly mocked it.
Pamphilius AD 240-309 AD
Eusebius AD 263 – 339 AD
Photius AD 877 – 886 AD
Thallus - But there are no actual record of him except a fragment of writing which mentions the sack of Troy [109 BC] Showing that he was clearly not alive in biblical times.
Some even try to use Seneca. 4 BCE – 65 CE but as a Stoic Philosopher he opposed religion yet made not a single mention of a Jesus or Christianity!
Even funnier is trying to claim Celsus AD ? – 177 AD Who said that Jesus was a Jew who’se mother was a poor Jewish girl whose husband, who was a carpenter, drove her away because of her adultery with a Roman soldier named Panthera. She gave birth to an illegitimate child named Jesus. In Egypt, Jesus became learned in sorcery and upon his return presented himself as a god.
The Bible is mainly a collection of myths and legends – not all related - derived from neighbouring peoples from the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean. Examples include the Babylonian creation epic Enuma Elish from which the Genesis Creation Story was probably derived, probably via the Canaanites, and the Noah story is clearly adapted from the story of Utnapishtim in the epic of Gilgamesh. Those who wrote the books of the Bible probably intended them to be taken literally, unless they said otherwise in such phrases as "And he spake many things unto them in parables" (Matthew 13:3) for example.
The command to worship one God in one way only, to the exclusion of all others, denies freedom of religion and seems originally to have been a way of uniting a people within their social structure and engendering enmity against other peoples who might compete for, or already possess, desired land and resources, and ‘justification’ for their genocide related in several places in the Bible such as Numbers 31:17-18. In the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings, genocide and regicide are shown as commands from God, who is clearly a god of war in those books.
The Bible contains massive violence, pornography (such as Ezekiel 23:19-20), slavery, inequality of gender, genocide and mass murder, and of course horror stories like the lake of fire, all condoned as being the will of God.
There are children's versions that disguise some of the stories to hide the barbarism. But I suspect that most people who have read children's versions don't read the actual Bible for themselves, so they remain protected from what the Bible actually says.
Well, I've read it and it talks in riddles and is self-contradictory and is mostly utter nonsense. All the stuff about "do as you would be done by" and "thou shalt not kill" is all common sense to any civilised person anyway. If this really is god's handbook, wouldn't it be a little more clear? It certainly shouldn't have to be interpreted by so-called scholars for us to understand.
Answers & Comments
My question in return would be why do you assume that atheists think the bible, or any other religious text for that matter, is a waste of time? Religions essentially came about as a way of explaining the world around us before the advent of science, and subsequently were used to control the behaviour of the population in which that religion was most prevalent. Worth noting that the 3 most dominant religions, Judaism, Islam and Christianity (The Ibrahamic religions) are all subsets of the same religion, worship the same god (With different prophets), and fundamentally follow the same rules.
To that end, all religious doctrine has parts that are still relevant and useful today, but for the most part, these amount to little more than the same rules we apply in law in our societies. Religions also have a habit of contradicting themselves, so the bible says 'thou shalt not kill', but it also says you should kill non-believers if they refuse to convert, that you should kill gay people, unmarried mothers, etc etc.
If you move beyond the basic part whereby atheists look at the spiritual aspect of religion, and reject it because it's unproven (and unprovable), and in most if not all cases, regard it as a ridiculous fantasy, it comes down to the purpose of religion.
My point being that in my view, religion no longer has any relevance or purpose in a modern society.
The bible is not a complete waste of time. It contains some moral stories in it that can teach people one or two about life.
But this doesn't mean take it literally and follow it. Treat the bible like the Aesop's Fables.
Atheists, why do you think that the bible is a complete waste of time?
Not true! Not a COMPLETE waste of time! Some bits of the Big Bumper Book of Biblical BoIIocks are good for a wry chuckle!
The bible not a complete waste of time.
The bible just isn't useful if you're looking for ethics, history, or science.
But it's useful if you're studying religion, or literature (a huge amount of English literature contains references to biblical stories).
It is a waste of time, because even without reading the bible, it is clear that the concept of gods is false. Gods exist only in stories.
Reading the bible (and/or other holy books) does not make gods real.
The bible is what is called "Faction” A fictional story set in a factual time and place. Thus the time, place and real historical characters are all correct but the fictional characters and stories are not!
There is not one single mention of Jesus in the entire Roman record - that is right - not one! At the same time as he was supposed to have been around there were a number of Jews claiming to be the messiah - all of whom are well recorded!
There is not a single contemporary record from any source and even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!
He was supposed to have been a huge problem to the Romans and produced wonderful miracles but still not one contemporary record?
Even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!
Pilate is recorded in the Roman record as a somewhat lack luster man but no mention of a Jesus, a trial or crucifixion that would surely have been used to make him look brighter!
At best he was an amalgam of those others but almost certainly never existed!
Not one word of it is contemporary with the period and was not written until several hundred years after the period the story is set in!! How did the apostles write their books more than a hundred years after they would have been dead?
Christianity is an invention of the Italians and that is why it came from the Holy ROMAN Catholic church!
Please realize that those claims for the Old historians are worthless since they were not even born until long after everyone in the stories would have been so long dead!
Josephus AD 37 – AD 100
Tacitus AD 56 – AD 120
Suetonius - 69 – 130 AD
Pliny the Younger, 61 AD – 112 AD
Justin Martyr (Saint Justin) AD103–165 AD
Lucian - AD 120 -180 AD but he was hostile to Christianity and openly mocked it.
Pamphilius AD 240-309 AD
Eusebius AD 263 – 339 AD
Photius AD 877 – 886 AD
Thallus - But there are no actual record of him except a fragment of writing which mentions the sack of Troy [109 BC] Showing that he was clearly not alive in biblical times.
Some even try to use Seneca. 4 BCE – 65 CE but as a Stoic Philosopher he opposed religion yet made not a single mention of a Jesus or Christianity!
Even funnier is trying to claim Celsus AD ? – 177 AD Who said that Jesus was a Jew who’se mother was a poor Jewish girl whose husband, who was a carpenter, drove her away because of her adultery with a Roman soldier named Panthera. She gave birth to an illegitimate child named Jesus. In Egypt, Jesus became learned in sorcery and upon his return presented himself as a god.
It's not a waste of time, it's a valuable insight into the life details, regulations, myths and superstitions of a primitive ancient society.
I actually find it interesting.
The Bible is mainly a collection of myths and legends – not all related - derived from neighbouring peoples from the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean. Examples include the Babylonian creation epic Enuma Elish from which the Genesis Creation Story was probably derived, probably via the Canaanites, and the Noah story is clearly adapted from the story of Utnapishtim in the epic of Gilgamesh. Those who wrote the books of the Bible probably intended them to be taken literally, unless they said otherwise in such phrases as "And he spake many things unto them in parables" (Matthew 13:3) for example.
The command to worship one God in one way only, to the exclusion of all others, denies freedom of religion and seems originally to have been a way of uniting a people within their social structure and engendering enmity against other peoples who might compete for, or already possess, desired land and resources, and ‘justification’ for their genocide related in several places in the Bible such as Numbers 31:17-18. In the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings, genocide and regicide are shown as commands from God, who is clearly a god of war in those books.
The Bible contains massive violence, pornography (such as Ezekiel 23:19-20), slavery, inequality of gender, genocide and mass murder, and of course horror stories like the lake of fire, all condoned as being the will of God.
There are children's versions that disguise some of the stories to hide the barbarism. But I suspect that most people who have read children's versions don't read the actual Bible for themselves, so they remain protected from what the Bible actually says.
Well, I've read it and it talks in riddles and is self-contradictory and is mostly utter nonsense. All the stuff about "do as you would be done by" and "thou shalt not kill" is all common sense to any civilised person anyway. If this really is god's handbook, wouldn't it be a little more clear? It certainly shouldn't have to be interpreted by so-called scholars for us to understand.
Because we don't need a book to tell us right from wrong. We know that by instinct.
It was written thousands of years ago. What relevance could it have today?