An atheist’s three favorite Bible stories

What do Christian fundamentalists and many atheists have in common? Both read the Bible as if it were meant to be taken literally. Here’s a better approach.

What do Christian fundamentalists and many atheists have in common? Both read the Bible as if it were meant to be taken literally, and both quote selected passages to buttress their case. Some atheists, for instance, cite biblical passages that justify stoning for heresy, blasphemy, adultery, homosexuality, working on Sabbath, worshipping graven images, and practicing sorcery.

While atheists might attack or make fun of the Bible because of biblical literalists, it is important to distinguish between the quality of a book and the behavior of its adherents. For better or worse, the Bible and the many religions it spawned have deeply influenced our culture and the world. For that reason alone, the Bible is worth reading. Although atheists rank highest in religious knowledge, atheists should try to understand why so many love the Bible even if they haven’t actually read it.

Some atheists make the same mistake as theists, treating the Bible as either all good or all bad. While it contains many boring, anachronistic, contradictory, and repetitive sections, it also has passages with rich and diverse meanings. The same can be said for Greek mythology–fictional tales that were once considered religious texts.

As a child, I enjoyed reading Aesop’s fables and biblical stories. Both have talking animals, along with moral lessons and universal truths. Leaving aside the question of which imparts better advice (though no Bible story was as consequential for me as Aesop’s “The boy who cried wolf”), at least Aesop’s stories are recognized as fables.

One of the most productive ways to read the Bible is by identifying and discussing its fables. Here are just three examples from well-known stories in Genesis, followed by my moral lessons.

1. Snake fable

God tells Adam he may eat anything in a garden but the fruit from one tree, saying he will die on the day he eats it. A snake convinces Eve that she will gain knowledge after eating the forbidden fruit. Eve eats, likes what she learns, and encourages Adam to partake. They discover many things, including sex, and God banishes Adam and Eve from the garden and tells them they need to work for a living.

My moral: God makes blind obedience the supreme virtue, assuming ignorance is bliss. God either lied or was mistaken when he said humans would die on the day they received knowledge. So don’t blindly believe, even if you pay a price for independent thought. It’s better to have freedom without a guarantee of security, than to have security without freedom.

2. Cain and Abel fable

Adam and Eve’s two sons bring offerings to God, but God gives no reason for accepting Abel’s and rejecting Cain’s. Cain gets jealous and kills Abel. When God asks Cain where Abel is, Cain responds, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” God curses Cain, who must then wander the earth, but God places a protective mark on Cain.

My moral: The first worship ceremony is followed immediately by the first murder, which shows we must not put our love and worship of a God above our love for human beings. Cain belatedly learns that humans should look out for one another, making each of us our brother and sister’s keeper. God recognizes his culpability in the first murder and puts a mark on Cain as a sign to those he meets that they must not do to Cain what Cain did to Abel.

3. Binding of Isaac fable

God commands Abraham to kill his son Isaac. Abraham acquiesces, but God stops Abraham as he lifts his knife, and provides a lamb to take Isaac’s place.

My moral: God tests Abraham, who fails the test. Nobody should commit an atrocity, no matter who makes the request. It is better to do good than to have faith.

Atheists almost never put the character “God” in a good light, and God’s behavior is particularly egregious in Genesis. But God learns from some of his early mistakes and improves, as pointed out in Robert Wright’s The Evolution of God. There are hundreds of biblical fables, and atheists might find some in which to “praise God.” Such praise would show that atheists don’t hate God any more than they hate Zeus.

A biblical fables book could stimulate conversation for atheists and theists of any age. An atheist’s insights would be different from those of either liberal or conservative religionists. But if we start with the assumption that the Bible is an important book, this common bond might help atheists articulate their differences more effectively with at least some theists. And I think such enhanced communication would be a worthwhile experience for all participants.

Herb Silverman
Written by

  • zengardener0

    I cannot speak for other, but this is how I deal with the bible.

    If it is literally true, then God is a Monster that has been manipulating the laws of physics to deceive us into thinking the world is billions of years old and we evolved from single celled organisms. This is all a big test to see if we believe this one particular story, that besides it’s current popularity, is indistinguishable from many others.

    If it has been corrupted or altered by humans, then we should suspect every part of it. There is no way to decide what must be true because scholars have shown that is has changed a great deal from one copy to another and there are many iterations that we know are lost.

    Furthermore, One must accept the morality of the bible as right, without question, and abandon any hope of making one’s own decision about morals or making an ethical choice, or one can judge the passages for one’s self and make one’s own choices about what is a moral tale and which tale is abhorrent. But if the latter is the case, one does not need the bible at all. One could just as easily read Shakespeare, Tolkien, or Lovecraft and choose different characters to admire or vilify.

    Either the Bible is literally true and our morality is irrelevant, and to gain heaven one must submit wholly, or the bible is a mirror that one can look into and admire the good seen there and try to overcome the bad.

    Any book or story or even comic, movie, or TV show is just as useful.

  • Carstonio

    I’ve read that Jewish theologians view the Sacrifice of Isaac as a test not of obedience but of credulity, and Silverman’s reading is similar to the latter. Apparently on a meta level, the meaning was that the Israelites’ god was different from the deities of nearby child-sacrificing cultures.

    I still find the god’s behavior in the story repusive – it’s wrong to put Abraham in that position even as a test. If I were Abraham, I hope I would have the courage to say, “How dare you demand that I choose between pleasing you and protecting my son’s life. Take my life if you’re so thirsty for blood, but I won’t kill my own child.”

    Silverman is exactly right that there’s nothing wrong with reading the Bible like Aesop’s fables or Greek myths and drawing one’s own lessons from the text. Obviously that means giving up the idea that the book is authoritative or that the god in the story is an unquestioned moral authority. Morality isn’t about authority in the first place – it’s about whether one’s actions help or harm others.

  • Carstonio

    I’ve read that Jewish theologians view the Sacrifice of Isaac story as a test of credulity, not obedience, and that’s similar to Silverman’s interpretation. Apparently the neighboring cultures of the time did practice child sacrifices, and the story was meant to illustrate the difference.

    Still, the story is repulsive because no one should be forced into that type of situation, even as a test.. Abraham had every reason to fear the wrath of his god if he didn’t go through with the demand. If I were Abraham, I hope I would have the courage to call the god a monster, daring the being to take my own life instead.

    Silverman is exactly right that the Bible does have the same teaching value as Aesop or the Greek myths. Of course, this would mean giving up the belief that the Bible is authoritative, or that the god in the book is an unquestioned moral authority. But then morality isn’t about authority in the first place – it’s about whether one’s actions help or harm others.

  • CCNL

    Why this atheist does not like the bible:

    Only for the new visitors to this blog-

    Recognizing the flaws, follies and frauds in the foundations of Islam, Judaism and Christianity, the “bowers”, kneelers” and “pew peasants” are converging these religions into some simple rules of life. No koran, bible, clerics, nuns, monks, imams, evangelicals, ayatollahs, rabbis, professors of religion or priests needed or desired.

    Ditto for houses of “worthless worship” aka mosques, churches, basilicas, cathedrals, temples and synagogues.

  • WmarkW

    Favorite biblical fable: When the people of Sodom want to gay-rape the visitors to Lot’s house, he offers them his virgin daughters instead. Moral: God shares the values of the demographic that writes his holy books.

    Like the Quran, which communicates God’s eternal final message to all mankind in the language and culture of seventh-century Arabia.

  • macnietspingal1

    Sorry the Bible is about YHWH. Not about any old god or lord. You want lord then think about Andrew Loyd-Webber. YHWH is atheism. A protest against human sacrifice to any old god. YHWH is Common Sense.
    Now think about it. Males can reproduce forever but females can’t. That’s what I learn from my friends in the Bible. YHWH says don’t destroy buildings in lands you conquer and install your own Constitution USA-style, but reuse those beautiful buildings.Sometimess though you have to destroy them if they are ugly. Take Michal and bringing The Torah (Sura 3:3 says Allah approves the Torah too) in the David march. Right now we could resurrect Michal because of the 19th amendment and she would lead the march into the Dome of the Rock with Bikini and Gun, Shofar and Drum and place the Trope Trainer Booth aka Ark of the Covenant inside the Dome of the Rock and also a replica of the Arch of Titus aka 7Branch Torah Menorah. The Dome of the Rock is a lovely building. The inscriptions can remind us of how lucky we are to have the Bible. Don’t forget if Jesus comes back he better be circumcised. YHWH is a protest about the word “god”. That’s what the 19th Amendment has done for this USA Anglo-Jewess. The Bible contains all sorts of POV’s. We simply are in reality recycling them.

  • leibowde84

    Proof that man wrote the Bible, not God or the Holy Spirit … assuming, of course, that they aren’t ignorant:

    Earth is not Flat:
    Matthew 4:8
    Again the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.

    (4) pi does not = 3.
    1 Kings 7:23
    He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim . . . It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.

  • jdpetric

    This is not proof, that the Bible was wasn’t inspired by God by use of his Holy Spirit on men, but rather the wrong conclusion and a misuse of Scripture.

    Matthew 4:8 does not specifically say in detail how the various worldly kingdoms or governments were displayed to Jesus. The assumption made above is that these kingdom were laid out on a flat earth or platter and wrongly conclude that the Bible made an error that the earth is flat.

    1Kings 7:23 again is a misuse of and misapplication of Scripture. Had the above poster read 1King 7: 1-2, and 21-23, he or she would have discerned that what is being described is not the sea or oceans of the earth but rather a description of the Temple and the Temple rather large a cast or poured wash basin referred to a “sea” because of the large quantity of water it could contain.

  • nkri401

    If a Christian way of life approach is a good one, what difference should it make if it was or was not inspired of “real” Holy Spirit as opposed to a regular inspiration.

    Now what part of the Bible you choose to live your life of course matters more to me.
    If you follow pray in the closet and judge not, we can be great neighbors.
    If you follow this or that should be abomination and throw the stone at a slightest provocation, I would prefer to be as far away as possible.

  • nkri401

    If a Christian way of life approach is a good one, what difference should it make if it was or was not inspired of “real” Holy Spirit as opposed to a regular inspiration.

    Now what part of the Bible you choose to live your life by, of course, matters more to me.
    If you follow pray in the closet and judge not, we can be great neighbors.
    If you follow this or that should be abomination and throw the stone at a slightest provocation, I would prefer to be as far away as possible.

  • jdpetric

    “If a Christian way of life approach is a good one, what difference should it make if it was or was not inspired of “real” Holy Spirit as opposed to a regular inspiration.”

    Would not the difference be that the Bible carries more weight as not only a guide to live by but a realistic source of hope for the future in God’s Kingdom Government to come as a source of relief from corrupt human governance being inspired of God by use of His Holy Spirit, then just the utterances of mere men ?

    The Bible does not say “judge people”, humans can not read hearts or see an individuals future. Having said that, it does however indicate what life style, what individual conduct and what an individual needs to do to gain the promise of life on a paradise earth (Psalms 37:10-11, Matthew 5:5, 2Peter 3:13, Revelation 21:4) and what conduct and life style if practiced continually by individuals will not gain life, and from that we can determine right from wrong, life or the malediction.

  • nkri401

    What’s interesting is that when the canon Bible was codified, the people were barbaric enough to think that this story has a merit as the word of God.

  • nkri401

    jd,

    “Would not the difference…”

    No, it would not; it does not make any difference to me even if the Bible is written by the Holy Spirit. I live fairly honest life and I’ll continue to do so. Indeed, I do like to see more just world, but not sure what God is waiting for to bring more just world, so I’m not holding breath.

    Nor do I see any upside for going to Heaven and listening to harp music for the eternity.

    I gather that you do and sincerely, I think that is a good thing. If you think the same for me, we are there.

    Peace.

  • jdpetric

    No, my hope is to live forever on a paradise earth not heaven.

    That it makes no difference to you is your choice as it is everyone’s. When you posed the question it was in reference to a “Christian way of life” no other indication. It does however make of a more credible difference being God’s inspired Word rather than just the word of men to others, carrying more weight.

    And peace to you too brother.

  • bgood

    Israel in Hebrew is called Eretz Yisrael. The word eretz or land (of Israel) is rooted from the Hebrew word rutz meaning run (revolve). Therefore it was clear to the anchient Hebrews that the earth revolved (around the sun).

  • bgood

    The written Torah of the Jews otherwise known to gentiles as “old” testament is accompanied by a code of Jewish law today explaining in detail the way of life a Jew should lead in accordance to same Torah proscriptions.. In addition there is oral law Talmud first put into writingt about the time of the destruction of the Second temple of Israel and completed a few hundred years afterwards.

  • AGuyCommenting

    Sorry, I’m having trouble with that one, bgood. Here it is Thursday, meaning Thor’s day, meaning it’s clear that Americans…. ?????? In other words, it’s a leap to go from eretz to rutz to run to revolve to motion of the globe to saying ancient Hebrews wanted to stick their knowledge of the earth’s movement around the sun into its name.

  • itsthedax

    Its also the Hebrew creation myth, and foundational legend.

  • myjunk81

    Are those the only two choices?

  • nkri401

    bgood,

    goodone! LOL

  • CCNL

    Now moving to the 21st century:

    As per National Geographic’s Genographic project:
    https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/

    ” DNA studies suggest that all humans today descend from a group of African ancestors who about 60,000 years ago began a remarkable journey. Follow the journey from them to you as written in your genes”.

    “Adam” is the common male ancestor of every living man. He lived in Africa some 60,000 years ago, which means that all humans lived in Africa at least at that time.

    Unlike his Biblical namesake, this Adam was not the only man alive in his era. Rather, he is unique because his descendents are the only ones to survive.

    It is important to note that Adam does not literally represent the first human. He is the coalescence point of all the genetic diversity.”

    For your $199 and a DNA swab:

    “Included in the markers we will test for is a subset that scientists have recently determined to be from our hominid cousins, Neanderthals and the newly discovered Denis vans, who split from our lineage around 500,000 years ago. As modern humans were first migrating out of Africa more than 60,000 years ago, Neanderthals and Denisovans were still alive and well in Eurasia. It seems that our ancestors met, leaving a small genetic trace of these ancient relatives in our DNA. With Geno 2.0, you will learn if you have any Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA in your genome.”

    o More details from National Geographic’s Genographic project: https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/

    “Our species is an African one: Africa is where we first evolved, and where we have spent the majority of our time on Earth. The earliest fossils of recognizably modern Homo sapiens appear in the fossil record at Omo Kibish in Ethiopia, around 200,000 years ago. Although earlier fossils may be found over the coming years, this is our best understanding of when and approximately where we originated.

    Continued below:

  • CCNL

    According to the genetic and paleontological record, we only started to leave Africa between 60,000 and 70,000 years ago. What set this in motion is uncertain, but we think it has something to do with major climatic shifts that were happening around that time—a sudden cooling in the Earth’s climate driven by the onset of one of the worst parts of the last Ice Age. This cold snap would have made life difficult for our African ancestors, and the genetic evidence points to a sharp reduction in population size around this time. In fact, the human population likely dropped to fewer than 10,000. We were holding on by a thread.

    Once the climate started to improve, after 70,000 years ago, we came back from this near-extinction event. The population expanded, and some intrepid explorers ventured beyond Africa. The earliest people to colonize the Eurasian landmass likely did so across the Bab-al-Mandab Strait separating present-day Yemen from Djibouti. These early beachcombers expanded rapidly along the coast to India, and reached Southeast Asia and Australia by 50,000 years ago. The first great foray of our species beyond Africa had led us all the way across the globe.”

  • bgood

    If one would bet whether fable or not the odds would be 50-50.

    So if it turns out it’s not fable then believing winner takes it all and inherits heaven in next world.

    If it turns out it’s fable then you are headed nowhere and get nothing anyway.

    I’ll stick to being believer wager, thank you.

  • Tender Hooligan

    bgood. We read books to increase our knowledge and understanding of the world. An educated person reads and evaluates. The bible is of interest, because it is part of social and anthropological history. Some parts make beautiful prose, some parts are of historical interest, some make good allegorical points. However there are many pars which are clearly impossible to accept, and some that are downright nasty, such as those cited by the article. Obviously there are others, where the god figure incites his followers to genocide.
    What is interesting is why people take it to be the truth, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. That’s what makes it interesting to me. I think we should read other points of view, and I think all fundamentalist religious people should read “The God Delusion” with an open mind too, to see where we are coming from.

  • Tender Hooligan

    Pascal’s wager eh?
    The thing is, given all the evidence, the odds are certainly not 50:50.
    The true atheist has integrity,as we know we actually have nothing to lose, and everything to gain, as we enjoy the only life we have to the full, rather than putting everything into the pipe dream of a highly improbable afterlife.

  • bgood

    EIther one has FAITH or not. You want a paid-up in advance mortgage, not me. That there’s no proof doesn’t mean that millions of witnesses back then were all lying.

  • bgood

    p.s google archaelolgical discoveries in the holyland.

  • Tender Hooligan

    I don’t think people can be lying if they can’t possibly know the truth. It’s not as if any of those millions of people have come back to tell us how great the afterlife is.
    Incidentally, my mother is obsessed with archeological discoveries in the Holy Land, and I’ve had it force fed to me from an early age. My father was an RE teacher. Our house was full of religious texts. Maybe that’s why I realised from the age of 8 that no one religion was better or worse than any others, and none of them made any logical sense to me, although I have retained an objective interest.

  • bgood

    I meant those who stood at Mt. Sinai when and where the Ten Commandments were given.

  • Tender Hooligan

    I teach psychology (among other things) which is why I am interested in the religious mindset, both from an academic, and a personal point of view. At the moment the students are studying the problems with eye witness testimonies. (See Loftus and Palmer for the famous studies). I can’t even begin to get started on the problems with supposed eyewitness testimonies where nothing is recorded, and the timeframe is completely prohibitive. They can’t be classed as eye witness testimonies, but as apocryphal stories.

  • nkri401

    “2. Adam and Eve didn’t discover sex, God had already told them to multiply and fill the earth. ”

    My understanding is they discovered orgasm.

  • AGuyCommenting

    Thank you, bgood, for the link. I watched the entire lecture. It was very entertaining, but I found some severe flaws in the speaker’s logic. How the records of the events in the Torah were kept and compiled would help me better support my opinion. I’ll search that out.

    In any case, the quest for info is always good, so thanks again.

    The speaker in your presented video examines and has strong negative opinions about religions he does not believe in, so what’s your problem with an atheist doing the same?

    And: No, bgood, not Pascal’s wager!

  • h5r2

    bgood: Your quoting a rabbi as if that ends the discussion misses Silverman’s point. Rather than just receiving knowledge from a so-called authority, how about having a real discussion with someone who doesn’t believe what you do about the authority of the Bible?

  • bgood

    aguy, I have no problem, understand that it’s the writing of one I consulted.

  • bgood

    h5 it’s a discussion when somebody renders differing opinion from atheist author writing publicly here isn’t it?

  • bgood

    It was all expressed and handed down by father to son for centuries and recorded in bible.

    Today a person can hardly find this or that personal document but you want it all on a silver platter?

    Agains it’s faith not proof that is at the heart of the matter.

  • bgood

    It’s the real world guys, not fable lving happily after.

  • SODDI

    The bible is just a non-issue. It’s just a book, very important for some people, for people like me useful only for getting crossword puzzle clues.

    The people who believe in that bible are where the true ugliness lies. The people who believe that the paternalistic paeolithic tribal marching orders written down in that book gives them the right to subjugate others.

  • SimonTemplar

    Thank you for your honesty. Your statement backs up something I have said many times; most atheists do not actually READ the Bible.

    This calls into questions surveys I’ve read which suggest that atheists are more knowledgable with regard to “religion” than theists. Over and over again I see comments by atheists on this site which betray the fact that those making the comments have not actually read the Bible. They seem to be merely parroting what others have said ABOUT the Bible. So I must wander what these surveys actually count as “knowledge.”

    I also think it is odd that those who would tout themselves as enlightened and intellectual, who likely enjoy reading other important works of literature, choose to avoid the one work of literature that has affected the world more than any other.

    To your second comment, do you believe that if we completely took the Bible out of the picture, or the people who believe in the Bible, that the remaining people groups of the world would suddenly STOP trying to subjugate each other? That seems like a rather naive position, one which ignores most of human history.

  • bgood

    You presuppose that they subjagate when they don’t.. Libel and slandering them doesn’t clean you.

  • SimonTemplar

    Many a blog has been written attempting to synthesize the various religious beliefs in the world. It always sounds so nice and convincing when presented as a clean synthesis of ideological evolution, a shared group of beliefs passed from culture to culture.

    Then one actually looks into the the facts behind these religions and beliefs and traditions and cultures and one sees that the timelines don’t align as they should for them to actually be borrowing in the manner suggested and the beliefs themselves are not actually so similar as they look from the dizzying heights of an ivory tower.

    The more one does the hard research for themselves, the less likely they are to be fooled by such popular modern myths and legends about Christianity borrowing from other, earlier religious traditions.

  • persiflage

    ‘Maimonides’

    LIke his contemporary St. Thomas Aquinas, was beholden to Aristotle and Plato for the use of logic and the application of logical principles in order to arrive at truth. The Pagans put their own original stamp on everything that came after…………

  • SimonTemplar

    The idea of interpreting Christianity in light of Greco/Roman thought is one of the mistakes made by the Jesus Seminar.

    Your statement that “no one that has studied the religions of the middle east…” is simply, demonstrably, evidentially, factually, historically wrong. Here are scholars who specialize in the subject and who do NOT agree with your statement:

    Craig A. Evans, Ph.D.
    Daniel B. Wallace, PH.D.
    Michael Licona, M.A., PH. D.
    Edwin M. Yamauchi, PH.D.
    Paul Copan, PH.D.

    5 for starters. I can supply more if you manage to read through all of their research.

  • persiflage

    My guess is they are all Christian apologists rather than objective religious scholars – if any of them actually attest to beliefs of the supernatural kind, the validity of their professional credentials is in grave doubt. If you would supply links to any of their work, it could prove enlightening.

    I never cited the Jesus Seminar, but I suspect their real-world objectivity as regards the supernatural content of mainstream Christianity is probably not very satisfactory for those wishing validation. For example, they found Jesus to be a fairly ordinary ‘messianic’ figure at a time when the land was full of such medicant preachers.

    And don’t forget, a true study of early Christianity involves the doctrinal evolution of the Catholic Chuch and the ongoing competition between numerous factions that hoped to control the direction of that development. This was ongoing for centuries, and hardly the stuff of quixotic revelations by way of the Holy Spirit.

    The arrival of clerical apostate Martin Luther and his Protestant Reformation arrived very late in the day…..as far as the foundations of Christianity go. The protestant reformers cherry picked what they especially liked about the Catholic Church, and threw the rest of it under the bus. Of course, the bible in it’s entirety was the center of the protestant universe.

  • SimonTemplar

    Wow, so atheists, even Muslims (Aslan) can write about Christianity but Christians can not write about it (and be consider scholarly)?

    Did it ever occur to you that scholars who are Christians may have become Christians BECAUSE of their scholarly studies?

    If I apply your logic to other disciplines, I should only read books about evolution that are written by those who DON”T believe in evolution.

    The content of your comments betrays that it is YOU who seeks out only that information which validate your preconceived notions. Wikipedia? Yes! Jesus Seminar? Yes! Aslan? Yes! Christian scholar with PHD in specified field of study making him/her an expert on the subject of early Christianity? No!

    You are wearing blinders and you don’t even realize it.

    As for supplying links, I’ve supplied you with their names. If you can Google Wikipedia and the Jesus Seminar, you can Google them. The real challenge for you will be overcoming your own fear of learning that you are wrong. If you can over come that, you may actually learn something.

  • persiflage

    ‘If I apply your logic to other disciplines, I should only read books about evolution that are written by those who DON”T believe in evolution. ‘

    Now you’re going beyond ridiculous…….evolution is based on scientific principles, and religion is based on hypthetical deities and supernatural realms – existing in ethereal realms far beyond hard evidence and relying exclusively on faith…..and seemingly driven by emotional needs. What you don’t get is the utter lack of need in non-religious folks that know a thing or two about religion.

    I have an ancient degree in comparative religions, and I’ve studied religions of all kinds for well over 40 years, and have absolutely no doubt that the superstitions of Christianity are as fictitious and imaginary as any other pantheon of deities and supernatural entities.

    Human history starts and ends with human behavior and an endless assortment of human beliefs – however interesting they may be. No matter how super-humans worlds may be viewed by believers, they are populated exclusively with creations arising from the human imagination. Of that I have no doubt whatsoever.

  • SimonTemplar

    With such a high degree in comparative religions, I would have expected you to gravitate TOWARD the scholars I listed and AWAY from Wikipedia.

  • bgood

    in general Maimonides’ main philosophical work, Guide to the Perplexed, supposedly uses Aristotelian methods to defend the Jewish faith. Regardless, Maimonides is definitely considered a rationalist – both in his approach to Jewish law and Jewish philosophy.

  • fdsfsdfds

    Herb seems to think that I (as an atheist) hate certain fictional concepts, like Zeus and god. Why would I hate something that does not exist?