I would like to say I am an Atheist. But as far as I know, there is no term for someone who actually hates religion. But being merely a disbeliever, that is close enough. Unfortunately, there is the condition of man to consider. There is both a practical and an altruistic aspect to Human social interaction. In the form of religion, the altruistic aspect has far too often been turned against people. I tried to fix this. I wrote a free e-book called "Our Holy Hell: The Causes, The Solutions." It can be found by just entering the title into a web browser. Though I'm not asking you to read it. Even though in my opinion it is the most important book of its kind ever written, I only mention to prove my point.
Which is that despite the validity of the things in it, remarkably few people seem to be interested. This brings me back to the condition of man. It would seem that most people don't really care what happens. As long as it happens to someone else. Which is a condition that I'm sure even many Atheists are probably guilty of. I know it must feel pretty good to know that you have your crap together more than a believer. But there is a good chance that even many Atheists prefer to be lied to when it comes right down to it. There is a step beyond to be taken. Though with most people unwilling or unable to accept just rational Atheism, what chance can Humanity have.
Being educated doesn't mean you have to have a degree. I never finished college, and I educate myself constantly. No thanks to reading your book.
I didn't want you to read my book anyway. You may know why. Also, you say you skimmed through it. But you can't do that and get any real sense of it. As you may have figured out, I am trying to make sense out of bullshit in the bible as I find it. There is nothing linear about it. I will make a point in one spot. But when the same type of thing comes up again, I most often make a completely different argument about that particular topic. You also make an argument about semantics and interpretation. But the bible says what it says. I can interpret it as well as the next person. Probably better than most, apparently.
But where your criticism really falls flat is where you say I take things out of context. I paid special attention to avoid that as much as possible with the bible's constant gibberish. As you may have noticed from the quotes from the bible that I copied, I most often copied down more of the script than was necessary to make my point without it appearing I had taken something out of context. Also, you may not believe this, but I made a superhuman effort to be as completely honest in what I've written as is humanly possible. I can't say of course that my book is perfect in other aspects. But you have to at least admit that it is light years ahead of the bible. If for no other reason than that I have thousands of years of hindsight to draw upon that the bible's writers had no knowledge of. If you are as concerned with truth as I am, actually read the book before you criticize it.
It might be a help to write down the place where something appears that you don't agree with. That way, when the subject comes up again elsewhere in the bible, you can write down the position of my reply to that topic there. Then you can look up all of my replies on a certain topic in a semi-linear fashion and put the bible's views to bed for good. Such as the many things I have to say against slavery throughout the book. Maybe you just coped an attitude against my book because of the varied and scattered things I have to say about overpopulation in it. The bible may support overpopulation, but Orientals embody it. Could that have something to do with your attitude against somebody who is just trying to keep the world from being destroyed? That is if it isn't already too late.
Aron, I'll ignore your subtly racist quip there at the end (if the Chinese embodied overpopulation, then the government wouldn't have limited the number of children a family could have until human rights activists called for the elimination of that practice).
When you say your book is light years ahead of the Bible, I have to ask: in what context? Factually, the Bible contains none, but neither does your book. What the Bible is, though, is a collection of short stories meant to tell a story and give a lesson in morality; some far outdated, and some still applicable in a modern world. And it does this at least somewhat entertainingly if read in the right state of mind.
You seem to have high confidence (arrogance?) in your interpretation ability. But what about your ability of sorting out priorities? Because I have to say this: reading 200 pages of a line by line rebuttal of the Bible makes as much sense as someone picking out incongruencies from a Harry Potter novel and taking the fiction book literally. You seem to confuse atheism with some anti-theist dogma and you feel we all have to live by some kind of neo-liberal political ideology that you assume is based in science. And that's my biggest complaint of your book is that it doesn't address the issue of atheism at all. Many atheists have learned to move on with their lives. You told Ruth Anthony-Gardner that she needed to read this book the most, but I can honestly say that this book will have no value for her.
In my opinion, although you keep accusing other people of being enslaved by the Bible, you're its #1 victim. You spent all this time trying to refute it -- to what end? The world isn't being "destroyed", come on, I'm going to assume you're a little old to be a drama queen. What your book fails to explain is how you arrived at the conclusion of the is-ought problem; in other words, why should we value the things you value? Why should we be altruistic? I'm not saying we shouldn't, but where do you derive your ethics that you want all of us to follow?
I find it ironic that you feel a moral imperative to "save" religious people, despite being freed from religious moral imperatives. But do not mistake your brand of atheism for all of atheism. A Hedonist, for example, would rather let the Christians believe what they want to some extent that it maximizes pleasure amongst the overall population. An Existentialist couldn't care less, and an Objectivist would probably consider your time wasted and morally wrong to try to influence other people without benefit to yourself. I could go on and on, but long story short, I'm not interested in your book because it doesn't answer any questions for me.
You would have your book taken much more seriously if you stopped trying to present it as some overly important book and just call it "My Solutions to Problems Of The World".
You keep saying you don't want people to read your book. I don't know if that's some kind of psychology ploy, insecurity, or are you just intolerant and dismissive towards people that might challenge your beliefs that will make you troll your own thread, but an author doesn't choose his audience.
Drama queen? Really? Have you never seen the graph that shows CO2 levels sense the beginning of the industrial revolution? Can you not recognize an exponential growth when you see it? Do you have any idea what that is going to do to methane release? There are are areas in my book where I talk about the bibles anti-environmental stances. Just like slavery, child killing, imperialism, homosexuality, dishonesty and betrayal, cannibalism, absolute faith, etc. etc. etc. I guess speaking against those things doesn't mean a thing. Neither could I have anything useful to say about them. Right?
I hate to bruise you're ego. But none of you're criticisms against my book have any substantial merit. That is if they have any merit at all. Unfortunately for you, I know the significance of what I wrote. Criticizing the bible may not be a new thing. But I think the way I went about it is above par. You, Booklover, Steph, Ms. Garner and Mr. Rosenberg have been of service to me though. In so much as my original assertion that even an Atheist can be guilty of many of the same things as a true believer. Jesus, Mohammed and all of their brainwashed fanatical followers would be proud of the way you have all attacked my book. I pity you all. Please don't write me again.
"I guess speaking against those things doesn't mean a thing. Neither could I have anything useful to say about them. Right?"
That's exactly right. It's easy to say something is right or wrong; I could read that from a middle school essay. What's hard is to find substantial or compelling proof why we should think a certain way or care. Things that may seem clear cut under your moral code does not apply to others without argument. That's where your book fails: It fails to make proper argument.
You may think what you wrote is significant, but that's not the job of an author; an author most prove that significance to other people, and you have failed in spades. It's unfortunate you don't know how to take constructive criticism.
I've asked you several questions so far and you've failed to answer any of them. I will ask you another one: Do you believe in objective morality? And if so, what do you suppose imbues you with that property? I think you need to take a community college course in Critical Writing, or Philosophy. Or you can ignore my message and pity me.
But there's a quote from the Bible which applies: Let he without sin cast the first stone. As an atheist, that one line from the Bible makes more sense than anything you've said so far, and that's something you could not dare to invalidate.
Sorry, but you could not bruise my ego if you devoted your life to it.
I have limited interest in the bible. I cant see why your book is valuable if it is just another critique of the bible. Why should I care about exegesis or theological niceties?
Your chosen people reference is as much the racist stereotype of anti-semites as it is the belief of religious Jews. Only blinded religious loons and anti-semites would give it any credibility. And for Jews who were chosen for extermination by man it is particularly silly to continue in that vein. For a person to use it as a critique of a race is indicative of racism. The foundation of the state of Israel was more based on exigency than any religious anachronism.
You have not conveyed any good reason for reading your book. At least not for me. I have read more than enough similar writings.
My book is not just a critique of the bible. If somebody says something that supports things like slavery or killing girl babies, is it not a good thing to criticize those things? My book covers many topics. Though I couldn't go into them into the detail that I would have liked to. The Bible is mostly a collection of garbage. I tried to straighten it out as best I could be dividing the things that are stupid or lies from those things that are outright evil. Though if you read the preface, you would know that. As for the whole Jew thing, you can call their success a case of superiority. Unfortunately for you, I can recognize every form of warfare.
I would also like to have money to set into motion the formation of a united, Atheist and Rationalist, White Sovereign Nations.
Puke on this. A long time ago a species of bird made its way to the Galapagos islands. They eventually evolved physically to suit different ecological niches. At some point, before they changed physically, there must have been a racist component for them to separate enough to change in the way they did. "Racist" views aren't an aberration. They are the rule. It is unfortunate that Dr. Clark gave the impression that seeking money was the reason for why I wrote my book. Because it wasn't. The solutions to the world's problems was the main reason. "Racist" views are only a very small but inescapable part of it. You can choose to hide behind a wall of ignorance and not read my book. That's your choice. But if you feel the need to puke, I suggest that you look into a mirror first.
"But if you feel the need to puke, I suggest that you look into a mirror first." WOW! Aron Loyd, you are not only self-centered, but MEAN and nasty. And racist. It's people like you that make me seriously wish there was an ignore-button on here. Go away.