Nobel winner slams Bible as ‘handbook of bad morals’

An anti-semite? Do tell.
Please don't bother to share it if you pulled it out from where I suspect that you did.

The only haters and bigots in this thread are you and your ilk, bielski. In fact, reading your post, I thought that you were very candidly describing yourself.

Tends to end up forming a religion if the grouping...sorry congregating is a religious function.

It eventually gets there. Unless one wants to fine tooth comb it and then we go with your version of things.

There are several independent congregational churches in my community of Eugene, Oregon that aren't affiliated with a larger religious structure and do not have a complicated creed to follow. There is a very minimal amount of asserted ideas limited to a few basic tenants. They would hardly qualify as religions unto themselves.

Because religion is a dirty word.

Religions is a dirty business!

So is being a regressive atheist.

I do believe I offended all three groups equally.

Worshiping God in groups is in the bible.

What do you want to call that? Grouping?

It is ok to assemble for a peace rally...? So is this religious? OOH, how about we all go to the super sell-your-soul-mart, is this religious? We are shopping, and we give money. Is this grouping?

It's also ok to be way off the mark.

That's why you still exist.

Hi Jubal...yes, I agree. I came from a very religious background, and have always been regarded as somewhat of a rebel...but alas, maybe it's part of my upbringing more than I realise. However, I do keep the whole thing in perspective. I also read The Prophet by Kalil Gibran at times, and I find this also serene...regards, my friend...Eden...

@Jubal: Make sure you do not confuse dogma with faith.
What offends me is people attacking a right that we have in this country.
We have the right to practice freely. That is a right!
I support the right for a gay man to marry strictly speaking on the constitution speaking on the "persuit of happiness", and I believe in the Bible.
Making a sweeping biased judgment is not a sign of fairness. But after all, perception dictates reality and overrides fact.
NOTE: @ Jubal - forgive in that I am making a blanket statement, not meaning you are biased or judging you, I am stating that allot of people just sweep all (Which is different than religion) in one mass stereotype.

@Every one: Like any sweeping generalization, it is generally wrong. I am hoping to clarify that because we believe does NOT mean that we are agreeing that blowing up a clinic or starting a crusade is EVER acceptable. I do not condone the right for any one to judge what you can and cannot do with your faith. Doing so is not in the spirit of this country. You have the right to be a:
Jew/Christian/Muslim/Atheist/"Pagan", but I cannot force an atheist to believe (nor would I try to), and I have the right to be a christian. We are ALL FREE.

@ripperzane, I have no confusion about dogma and faith. Dogma is the belief that faith affirms. They are practically inseparable. For you must have a dogma in order to have a belief.

However, there is a huge distinction between religion and spirituality. Religion is a set of rules to follow, whereas spirituality is complete freedom of belief without religion to make it conform. In spirituality the motto is "take what you like and leave the rest."

with zero proof backing such a statement that is spitting in the face of God.

I do not espouse to the Old Testament of the Bible. It does not show a loving forgiving God, but rather one that is spiteful and cruel.

Jammer, I have the proof. But you can't handle the proof.

The idea that the old testament shares that isn't something people came up with on their own. Someone said it...and so they followed. it's not at all factual and there's not a lot of backing.

Don't expect anyone to bother sharing any backing because they'll spend too long sharing what can be stated to be something less than what they thought.

Jubal---

I have a friend that does that, shares cheesy made up movie lines because he thinks they are witty....especially when I irritate him. He hopes that it'll bring levity and forgetfulness into the fray.

Maybe your reasons are similar, but I do know that what I stated previously has not been refuted in any way shape or form and as amusing as I do find movie lines that are cheesy-lee altered it's not good enough.

OK I was being Cheeky with the movie line from "A few good men", but I have watched you for two years now here on current and I know what you are all about. Its pointless to prove anything to you because you are an oppositional and defiant person who has very little to offer by way of stimulating conversation. You mostly just contradict for the sake of contradicting.

It brings to mind another saying, and this one happens to be in the bible. "Cast not your pearls before swine."

Trying to prove anyting to you is like trying to prove pigs could fly.

And what makes you any different than what you just said?

What proof have you accepted on this site and changed your view?

People who state what you state are worse culprits of what you're accusing me of.

The moment you shift your views dramatically you may prove what you're stating as worthy of being shared. Otherwise you're just stating what all do and only making it insulting because that's what you like to do.

...and that's something else jammer is good at: accusing others of using his tactics. Even if they don't.

It is one of the few debating tactics he knows - but don't tell him it never works, he might pick a better one next time!

You're too broad and therefore didn't make a point.

It's ok. You can try again if you're able to get back up from that fall.

Awesome post RFI! Hadn't seen this one, so thanks!

Did you see the Invention of Lying?

What was the point?

Because it wasn't humor.

Try it with several beers and a few less prayers

Jammer stop being such a stick in the mud! It was funny...geez don't take this stuff so personally.

Don't post it with the intent to make people take it personally.

Whatever Jammer, whatever. Reasoning with you is a slippery slope indeed.

Reasoning with Jammer is impossible, because his has been turned off!

Guess you can go on the stalker list.

You begged for it.

Nothing you said is mentioned in the Bible.

Therefore my statement still stands.

Jammer...have you read the Bible? More specifically...have you read the Old Testament? You are really going to stand on 'the Bible has never been proven wrong'?

Jammer, for someone hellbent on assuring everyone that us hateful atheists haven't a clue of what's in the bible you sure aren't all that well read in it yourself.

Joshua 10:12-13
Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou Moon in the valley of Aijalon." And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.

1 Chronicles 16:30
tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.

Matthew 4:8
Again, the devil took him (Jesus) to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them;

Psalms 103:12
as far as the east is from the west, so far does he remove our transgressions from us.

Revelation 7:1
After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth holding back the four winds of the earth, that no wind might blow on the earth or sea or against any tree.

1 Samuel 2:8
He raises up the poor from the dust; he lifts the needy from the ash heap, to make them sit with princes and inherit a seat of honor. For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and on them he has set the world.

Job 38:4-6
Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements -- surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone?

Job 37:18
Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a molten mirror?

Mark 9:17-25
A man in the crowd answered, "Teacher, I brought you my son, who is possessed by a spirit that has robbed him of speech. Whenever it seizes him, it throws him to the ground. He foams at the mouth, gnashes his teeth and becomes rigid. I asked your disciples to drive out the spirit, but they could not."... When Jesus saw that a crowd was running to the scene, he rebuked the evil spirit. "you deaf and mute spirit," he said, "I command you, come out of him and never enter him again." The spirit shrieked, convulsed him violently and came out.

But don't take my word for it...

And?

That proves what? That you can pull from a website to quote scriptures?

I am going to stand by it's never been proven wrong because even with two poorly constructed answers it still hasn't been proven wrong.

Jammer, you are a piece of work!

The man just quoted to you the exact places where your statement was proven wrong, and you STILL presume to say he's wrong?

Go back and read the bible, maybe some of that stone age thinking will enlighten you!

@rwahrens, isn't he a piece of work!

We are all a piece of work.

It's time to get over it and move on.

Oh and quoting scripture is nothing without stating why you're using it. In this case...misusing it.

Okay Jammer you do understand that atheists aren't one big group right? We don't all go out to eat together or anything (although I'm available, call me!). Besides many atheists don't like 'atheist' they much prefer 'anti-theist'.

Since I still keep hope alive for Thor and Odin I can't even say that I'm an anti-theist. Sigh.

You do understand that there are some that actually are reasonable and that you're not part of that group, right?

Humans are the same be it now or 2,000 years ago. The only difference is technology. Humans don't change as dramatically as one thinks....socially it's the same or Shakespeare would be so outdated.

It would help the readability of your posts if you would use some punctuation and line breaks.

Paragraphs are wonderful inventions!

Two points. Number one, I fail to see how Shakespeare is comparable to the Bible in age, and therefore, fail to see how that is a fair comparison as to the supposed static state of the human condition. Number two, I don't think my compostion affects my message, so comments on the lack of paragraphs is not relevent.

I didn't SAY it affects your message. My point is that your message is harder to read and understand if one uses no paragraphs to format it better.

You know, separate different thoughts or points? It just makes it easier for your readers to understand your thoughts.

People that post long diatribes without some formatting often get ignored, as people get tired of trying to figure out what you are saying as the thoughts runtogetherandyouhavetofigureoutwhattheyaresaying.

The ancient greeks used to write like that, and while it is a bit extreme to use the no spaces between words as an example here, does it get the point across?

I didn't compare the two.

You did.

While you did not explicity compare the two, you used the relevence of the works of Shakespeare as a measure of how little humans have change. That is not a valid argument if you hope to legitimize the relevence of the Holy Bible, as it is a much older set of documents. Shakespeare's works may indeed be relevent to the human condition, but that doesn't necessarily prove humans haven't changed since the time the books of the Bible were written, unless you mean to say the Bible was written during Shakespeare's time, and I know that's not your point.

And to say I compared the two is inaccurate and bizarre, to say the least. I merely expanded on the subject you brought up about the relevence of written works which post date the Bible. Had you not brought the works of Shakespeare into the argument, I would never have mentioned them.

Finally, I ask why it bothers you so when others disagree with you. I also would like to know if you plan on making any relevent, logical arguments throughout the course of this post.

How are humans different than thousand years ago? Was there murder?
Was there war?
Was there love?
Was there cheating?
Was there leaders?
Were there followers?
Were there workers?
Were there popular people?
Was there violence?
Was there hate?
Was there anger?
Was there failure?
Was there drama?
Was there innovation?
Was there entertainment?

Do tell how they were so different than how we are now aside from technology and language how are they socially different?

I'll just name a few major social changes off the top of my head. Before you argue semantics, I realize "social changes" and "social differences" aren't entirely, 100% the same. I offer you changes as a way of illustrating that we are indeed different than humans "thousand years ago" as you so eloquently put it.
The spread of democracy. The sexual revolution. The rise and fall of a number of governmental systems (ie. communism, socialism, facism) which have left their mark on the social landscape. The widespread rise of recognition of basic human rights. Civil rights, specifically here in the United States. The feminist revolution. The Gay rights movement. The Women's Suffrage movement (worldwide, not only in the United States.
All these changes set us apart from our counterparts thousands of years ago. Remember that when the Bible was put together, women didn't have the right to vote, own property, or, in some cases, leave the house. Slavery was actually accepted, and premarital sex was punishable by death. The developed world, while still riddled with its own problems, has left behind the barbaric practices outlined in much of the Bible.
Granted, I'm sure you'll not be satisfied with this explanation, as it's not convenient for you since it opposes your own, I'll leave the above points of social change for you to ponder.

I know those changes. I do love history.

Greece had it's own gay persons in powerful positions. They had sex with men and boys. It was not an open as in people discussed it....but it was known that it was going on. Almost like pages and Congressmen. Think that was the first time they did it?

There was no voting in the bible. People were anointed. Also there were women prophets. Women treated highly they were not given massive responsibilities because that was what the men were used for. It was a form of not only respect but of love because they could worry about other things than what the men had to worry about. They were naturally care givers...as in they have the ability to show emotion and care for more than most men. Not always the case---but it is mostly the case.

When Jesus was resurrected he went to who? The 12 men he spoke to constantly the last 3 years of his service? No. He went to women and told them to tell the 12 that he had returned. When he went to the well a woman (from a different nationality that Jews did not speak to) was getting water and he spoke to her with respect and care.

As for the slaves they were not the same as slaves in Civil War or any other time.

You go onto debt now you're slaves to the people you owe. Same kind of slave. The only difference was that those slaves in the bible were treated so much better and cared for or the master would suffer the consequences.

Those changes you mention didn't alter the way people have been cheating in work or in relationships. How they manipulate people. Gossiping. Hate speech. Anger. Love. None of that changed. Just because the camera angle can switch in mid scene doesn't mean what is going on is any different than before. You just see it from a different position.

Wow, what a great way to say absolutely nothing while taking up so much space. I really would like to believe you researched your answer prior to making it, as that would make me all the more amused, as you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. I don't doubt a few of your facts, but your ability to interpret those facts and draw a conclusion is roughly the level of a five year old. You also manage to contradict your point about slavery in three sentences, which is impressive, as well as sad.

You also manage to completely ignore the point of the debate, which is the relevance of the Bible in the modern age. You manage to paint a picture of Biblical times (be it somewhat inaccurate) and used a few of the points I had previously mentioned, but arrived at no real conclusions based on them.

Simply restating your point, again with no arguments, and pulling some pseudo facts about the bible which don't support it, is not the appropriate way to perform public discourse. I would look up debate and argument as a discipline, and do some research, then come back.

You did nothing but attack and didn't refute what you found wrong.

Could be because you're afraid.

Glad you can make paragraphs. Didn't bother me, but since you're into being snide, I think I'll join in and do it too.

Thank you for proving the quote true.

It proves nothing.
There is no satan.
It's another ridiculous fairy tale for simpletons who need to put a human face on everything their fevered imaginations and a lifetime of indoctrination can conjure.
Like Santa Claus and Easter bunny stories for children

Do you know why atheist don't exist?

God doesn't believe in them.

Did you learn that talking point in evangelical Sunday school this week?

I don't go to Sunday school.

Got any more lies you believe? You see to be sharing them a lot.

RFI I do believer you pissed Jammer off by accusing him of attending Sunday School. Nothing to be ashamed of Jammer.

If lying is your game, you two play very well.

The greatest trick the god ever pulled was convincing the world he does

At least be better than the quote you're stealing from.

Were he real, (for those who don't quote pop culture movies) "the devil's cleverest trick is to persuade you that" his voice was the word of god.

But the pop culture movie quoted the quote.

And twisting it doesn't make it wrong. You're still using it as it was intended.

I apologize for the original potshot. The quote is technically worded unlike either of us have stated as the original piece was french. Primary translations worded the phrase many different ways. Yet the original text of "Mes chers frères, n'oubliez jamais, quand vous entendrez vanter le progrès des lumières, que la plus belle des ruses du diable est de vous persuader qu'il n'existe pas!" does not lend itself well to literal translation (most beautiful ruse?)

Nobel Prize winner must not have read that book.

...why can't the Nobel Prize go to someone who takes in children from disadvantaged homes, feeds them, and educates them...so many out there who are not known around the world who deserve this award...sigh...clunk...I fell out of bed...dreamin' again...reminds me re: BS abounds when we give an honorary doctorate to a hollywood actor...

Yeah, why does it have to be an award that looks for publicity.

Quite right - morons and imbeciles such as Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Max Plank, et al! LOL!

Morons like Jimmy Carter, Arafat, and Al Gore.