atheists - read the bible, talmud, or quran?

[NenarTronian]

Hey all. I'm new to these threads but not to sciforums. Anyway, i consider myself a strict atheist. I like the secular humanism and transhumanism philosophies too.

Lately i've been reading the Old Testament. Just a little here and there at night.

I started reading it for literary purposes actually. Alot of sci-fi has to do with religion, or has Biblical references. So i started reading so I could better understand my scifi reading.

But i've been thinking to myself, am i really looking for something by reading the Bible? Unconsciously maybe? I'm not sure. I've been baptized a catholic, my dad's a non-church going catholic believer, my mom's indifferent.

I'm not one of those types of atheists who deny the existance of a god. I just think, i don't have any evidence for one. I try to lead a good life with morals, and i don't think i need religion to do that.

Do any of you self-proclaimed atheists find yourselves unintentionally looking for "something" out there?

 

[Voodoo Child]

Sure, why shouldn't atheists have the same psychological needs as the theist? The difference is that the atheist is prepared to acknowledge that a) this is a psychological need b) have presence of will, stuborness, pride or W ever TF not to live in a fool's paradise.

Personally, I thought the bible was pretty shit, basically a bunch of rules, myths and begotting. Better is the Gita, better than the Tao Te Ching and the writings of Confucius. Satanist's bible is also pretty interesting.
As atheists we don't have to accept the whole thing. We can snip what we like and hurl the rest away. We can acknowledge the wisdom of Jesus', Confucius and Isocrate's(to name a few) golden rule, whilst simultaneously use the pages of Leviticus to wipe our ass. The God Squad has no such luxury, they have to take it all: even the evil and contradictory stuff.

There was a quote on someone's sig

<blockquote>"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."</blockquote>

edit to add: it was Aristotle

 

[Jenyar]

Question to John Crossan: Now when Matthew and Luke effectively tack on a new ending, are they just writing pure fiction, or are they relying on some kind of oral tradition that's going around the movement?

I don't invoke oral tradition where I have no evidence for it. Oral tradition is the cunning and marvelous explanation of anything we don't understand. As far as I can see, Matthew is creating the appropriate ending, the almost predictable ending for Matthew's gospel. So does Luke. So does John. They had to be conscious of exactly what they were doing ... that Matthew was saying to himself, "I have to conclude this gospel. I'm talking about something that happens, say in the year 30, but I have to bring my gospel up to the year 85. Now, what's the last climactic statement of Jesus? Where do I locate it and what does he say and to whom?" And all of that, each gospel writer does differently and they had to be conscious that they were creating. Now, they do not create it simply as a pure fiction. They create it as an appropriate summary climax to their gospel....

The death of Jesus