Saw this in another thread:
, and I was wondering if “People that are atheists because they never touched a Bible” is an actual thing, so I created this poll.
Read it front to back several times, five different versions.
I’m ineligible to vote in this poll, but I don’t think that’s what the poster meant.
Of course, I don’t have the context of the quote, but it seems to me that he is putting “atheists” and “those who have never touched a Bible” in separate categories.
I certainly didn’t get any implications from that quote that anyone is an atheist because they have never touched a Bible.
As a child, I read only the parts that agreed with the priestly hierarchy.
As an adult, I have found that most parts don’t support that at all.
I’ve read the bible, cover to cover, several times. And I have read several versions, though slightly less vigorously. They are what managed to convince me that they do not describe or provide evidence for any sort of divine beings or creations.
He certainly implied that an atheist would not know what a “good samaritan” was, were it not part of our culture.
Ah, gotcha.
Read it all the way through in my youth. Even “Numbers”, and no one should have to do that.
I voted “skimmed.” Which isn’t really accurate, but I thought the best choice. Baptized catholic, attended catechism classes thru grade school, confirmed, required to attend church regularly until moved out of the house for college. So I never really “studied” the bible, but I definitely “touched” them, and read/heard various parts over and over.
I can recall the exact time I became convinced of the reason of atheism. Somewhere around 4th-6th grade in catechism class. I even recall the lay teacher’s name - Mrs Beers. One day she was going on about heaven and who gets to go, and it just struck me as ridiculous that millions/billions of fine upstanding Indians and Chinese couldn’t go to heaven, no matter how nice they were. The rest of the blocks soon fell as well.
As an adult who reads a lot, I periodically considered reading the thing cover-to-cover - just out of interest of familiarity with an “original source” of such social import. But I never felt it was worth the time and commitment. Too many other things I’d rather read.
Lately we’ve periodically purged our bookshelves of deadwood. The last 2 times I’ve suggested we toss our remaining bibles (2, I think.) Wife prefers to hang on to them as reference materials.
Read as much of the bible as one going 12 years to Catholic school would. In other words: not much, generally the same few parts over and over. The bible was not a primary source for religion class - catechisms early on, religion textbooks later, philosophy and theology texts in high school.
I’ve skimmed it a bunch and read it through once. I have no desire to do that again.
Only when I was forced to do so for Sunday school, up until the age of maybe 12 or 13.
However, I do know the story of the good Samaritan, not because I read it, but because I was told it in that same Sunday school. My suspicion is that more people learn those kinds of stories (also e.g. the prodigal son, and other “object lesson” stories) by being told them rather than by reading them. Or by reading them in popularized versions rather than in the original (i.e. bible).
Two versions for me, once each. That was plenty.
Read more than 50% of it, so I cannot claimed “read” nor did I “skim”.
I’ve never read the bible, but I’ve read what others have written about the book. It is not a genre I enjoy reading (historical fiction) and happily I was never forced to read it or learn about it.
I do know how to find Ezekiel 23:20, and usually underline or highlight that part in hotel bibles.
I chose other.
Atheist, I wouldn’t say I’ve read the Bible front-to-back like a novel, but I’ve definitely done more than just skim it, and have a passing familiarity with most of it.
I’ve never sat down and read the bible cover-to-cover, but I’ve read almost all of it at one time or another, so I voted “read it”.
I’m pretty sure he didn’t mean to imply anyone was an atheist BECAUSE they hadn’t read the bible. I took the statement to mean that people who don’t believe the bible and/or haven’t read the bible still know the gist of the story of the good Samaritan, because that story (and many other Bible stories) has become part of our broader culture. And I’m inclined to agree with him.
Being a Christian and rostered laity I don’t qualify for the poll but I went “other”.
You said "and I was wondering if “People that are atheists because they never touched a Bible” " and my reading of DrDeth is different. I don’t get that he thinks they are atheist because they never touched a bible but more they were raised in a tradition that was without that particular book. FWIW most atheists I know have come out of at least semi-religious backgrounds or families. Some were in a more agnostic sense and may not have had a firm Biblical experience but I can’t think of one who has ever said “never saw one, never opened one”. I am sure such a person exists and has probably already responded here ----- and you ask an interesting question. But I wonder if the question needs more refinement maybe?
I’m an [del]atheist[/del] non-Christian because I touched a bible. I read the thing, listened to the church talkers, and decided my reading comprehension was so poor I didn’t have what it took to be a Christian–it was like I’d read an entirely different book.
I said “never touched” because it closest. I have actually read the first few pages.
I picked “other,” meaning that I’ve read most of the famous bits and lots of the less-famous ones at one time or another, and I’m fairly familiar with the contents and would consider myself Bible-literate. However, that doesn’t mean I’ve read, say, the Book of Numbers, or Zephaniah.