- Aug 4, 2009
- 281,505
- 143,615
- 2,615
No. Reading to confirm not believing is the bias. And totally unnecessary and a waste of time.Is not believing what you read a bias?It all depends on their motivation. If they are reading it in context for meaning, that's one thing. If they are reading it to confirm their bias, then why bother at all.The answer - to all of these questions, I think - would be it depends upon their motivation for reading the Books of the Bible. It would also depend upon how one defines enjoyment. After all... sadists enjoy tearing the wings off of live flies, right? Not saying atheists are sadists but if they are reading these accounts to make themselves feel superior for their own enjoyment, then the answer for all of the questions except the last one is no.Are atheist allowed to enjoy the Bible?
Can atheist dig deeper into one of the bigger influences of English/American development?
Can atheists study and/or practice the ethics taught by Christ in the gospels?
Can atheists gain inspiration from the colorful and powerful stories of the Bible?
or do atheists have an obligation to hate the Bible?
Ding is slippery as pond algae
I used to say they should read it first so they wouldn't look so stupid in discussions about it, but it turns out I was wrong; they're so screwed up it just makes them dumber and more ridiculous. My bad.
No one should ever read the Bible expecting to be convinced God exists.
I was taught the Bible as though it were a fact. Even as a young child I was able to conclude it is more of a morality tale.
You talk of bias, are you able to look at the Bible as possibly not true or are you afraid of what might happen to you?