The worst things that have ever been written

[Word]

"pics or it didn't happen"

[Lucifer]

If the bible was truly one of the worst things ever written in that sense, it wouldn't have kept us busy for so many centuries - regardless if you're religious or not. In other words, as long as atheists criticize us for "cherry-picking", it can't be that bad (and again, I also don't think Dawkins is that bad, either).

On the other hand, the fact that you have to cherry pick from the bible to avoid being a total shit means it can't be that GOOD either.

[Phytotron]

If the bible was truly one of the worst things ever written...it wouldn't have kept us busy for so many centuries....

Argumentum ad antiquitatem. Other religions are older, and therefore better and more correct than Christianity. Simple. Logic.

I should have specified the thread and said you're supposed to post or link an analysis of a text whose style is so bad it's halfway entertaining, instead of just saying "this and that book/author is bad"

Oh. So, you want people to find other "articles" (to the extent that garbage can be described as such) like the one you posted? Er. I'll point out that this scrub's "article" mostly consists of quotations from the Esquire article—indeed, splitting and counting in Text Editor, there's twice as much material from the Esquire article, which is horrible form. And his "analysis" nothing more than peppering it with a few shitty, banal and snide comments pointing at what he just quoted. "[R]iiiiiiiidiculous," "hahahahahahahahahaha, "yowzer, "monumental **** up," and "laughing as they shovelled [sic] this tripe" don't qualify as anything approaching analysis. That's to say nothing of the horrific and despicable use of an incident of anti-gay rape and torture as a comedic line.

So, massive irony, no analysis present.



So, here's this, which doesn't contain the irony of the article you posted, but quotes some actual reviews that gave a deserving clobbering to a truly awfully written book: Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged': What the critics had to say in 1957.



Anyway, I stand by my first statement, as I originally understood the topic. The purpose of Newspeak is not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Internet Culture, but to make all other modes of thought impossible.



(Also, while it's fashionable among some to bash Shakespeare, the writing isn't really all that bad. A clod of wayward marl!)

[Word]

Argumentum ad antiquitatem. Other religions are older, and therefore better and more correct than Christianity. Simple. Logic.

How is that? I didn't imply that the bible was the best religious book and somehow superior. I just stated that it's quite old and still causes controversies, and few books have their own religion or cult. In that sense, I wouldn't even call Scientology's manifesto a horrible example of literature.

[Jonathan]

How is that different from, say, tobacco? Whatever keeps people busy…

Really, what makes it good?

[Word]

Well, it's pointless to answer that since you just want to screw up your nose about things you don't get if you read it like something that has been written in our time. If it's an 'addictive' book, and inspired lots of different interpretations and influenced Western life, philosophy and politics, moral values - our whole culture - in both positive and negative respect, it can't simply be as dumb as you'd like it to be, because you don't believe in a god to begin with. The difference between tobacco and religion is that it's arguable whether a healthy kind of faith (and a reading of the bible that tries to keep all the factors necessary for a correct interpretation in mind) does any harm to society. Of course, for you that is already an oxymoron. I'm well aware that some fundamentalists take the Old Testament as a historic accounts of the events that took place before the rise of the first human civilizations. Do you hate the American constitution and your Founding Fathers because there are "Second Amendment"-freaks? Same for the whole age of enlightenment and figures like Robespierre. Your premise is that we're simplifying the issue.

[Jonathan]

Influence is just that: influence. Again, how does that imply goodness?

Why don't we worship the wheel? Hasn't it done much good for us? Hell, it's still entirely relevant. I don't have to point out what people ostensibly thought of it a few millennia ago to convince anyone of that. How is a book special if it needs your 'correct' and 'healthy' interpretation?

I hope the American bit wasn't directed at me. Well, the difference is that I don't have to undermine any doctrine to disagree with part of 'my' constitution. I don't need a ridiculous 'gun-free interpretation' just to uphold the whole thing. I can freely point out that some parts suck, and perhaps get them changed if enough people agree. Not quite like a 'divine', now-immutable book that has justified many crimes over much of the world for millennia, and is still taken seriously well past its prime. The best I could do is spawn a sect that might convince a few people willing to stray from their original doctrine. Not that it justifies everything else that is wrong, but it's understandable that the Bible gets more flak.

Note to self: wait awhile before replying to a fresh post by Word. This time my connection dropped out during the edit storm, but next time it might not.

[Word]

The wheel didn't die for our sins and was invented by us. It doesn't illustrate how our earthly sufferings aren't in vain. It didn't conquer death.

How is a book special if it needs your 'correct' and 'healthy' interpretation?

We're stuck here. You're twisting what I'm asking you (because I said your question is pointless): How is your constitution bad because people can misinterprete it? Obviously one thing isn't related to the other. I didn't claim the bible is good because I interprete it in a proper way, but one will find that the bible is inherently good if he's able to do so, same for the American constitution.

I can freely point out that some parts suck, and perhaps get them changed if enough people agree. Not quite like a 'divine', now-immutable book that has justified many crimes over much of the world for millennia, and is still taken seriously well past its prime. The best I could do is spawn a sect that might convince a few people willing to stray from their original doctrine.

The book didn't justify these crimes, the people used it. Many people tend to dislike a law when it prevents them from doing something criminal, yet are the first to defend it when they're the victims.

Concerning "the parts that suck", see the link from earlier.

[Z-Man]

Wouldn't it be nicer to edit your posts before you submit them the first time?
(Just messing with you if you are indeed editing)

[Word]

Wouldn't it be nicer to edit your posts before you submit them the first time?
(Just messing with you if you are indeed editing)

I already had an answer, then misread and thought Jonathan wanted that I give him time, so I deleted it and added the placeholder message, then deleted it again and filled in my answer, then fixed spelling mistakes and typos.

Well, perhaps I'm going to answer the next posts later, I need to do my learning for the next weeks.

[Jonathan]

The wheel didn't die for our sins and was invented by us. It doesn't illustrate how our earthly sufferings aren't in vain. It didn't conquer death.

Is it a bad thing that we recognize that?

How is a book special if it needs your 'correct' and 'healthy' interpretation?

We're stuck here. You're twisting what I'm asking you (because I said your question is pointless): How is your constitution bad because people can misinterprete it? Obviously one thing isn't related to the other. I didn't claim the bible is good because I interprete it in a proper way, but one will find that the bible is inherently good if he's able to do so, same for the American constitution.

Let me put it less subtly: it's not my constitution. Regardless, as I have just pointed out, it isn't very comparable to a widespread religious text. You should know that the constitution didn't die for our sins, for one thing.

The book didn't justify these crimes, the people used it.

Is this like the argument that basically makes good and evil synonymous with God and Satan, respectively?

Many people tend to dislike a law when it prevents them from doing something criminal, yet are the first to defend it when they're the victims.

We should strike a good balance there, and we can because we recognize laws are written by imperfect people and can be changed.

Concerning "the parts that suck", see the link from earlier.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to make of that. Since I don't want to meticulously deconstruct the whole piece, let me jump straight to the point that God is 'improbable'. There are basically two kinds of God that are often debated: the deistic God that was somehow involved but that we can't detect, and the theistic God that did/does all sorts of things for us.

The deistic God is unfalsifiable, in the same realm as the invisible pink unicorn and anything else we can make up. Yeah, just maybe uncountable elves pull on all bodies to act out gravity. Perhaps magnetism, too, but most sects believe gnomes are responsible for that. It could just be and you can't disprove it! The theistic God is taken care of by reductio ad absurdum. But, somehow, people confound these two and often use the deistic argument to show that we can't disprove the theistic God, whatever God is then even supposed to mean to them.

[Word]

You should know that the constitution didn't die for our sins, for one thing.

I know that, I was comparing the wheel to the purpose of Jesus and that he, God, came to Earth as a human, didn't punish Judas, and hesitantly accepted his crucifixion, which is what the New Testament is about. I made the mistake to think that this is obvious. Even if there's nothing close to a messiah in the American constitution, you can still see modern day patriots trying to win debates by claiming what the founding fathers, or George Washington himself, would have done to react to today's problems and how they fought for independence (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness instead of temporary wealth and political power, for example).

Is this like the argument that basically makes good and evil synonymous with God and Satan, respectively?

No, why would you think that? I'm saying that people are responsible for what they do to themselves. If they claim God wanted them to commit a horrible crime, that's most likely not what God wants, but they're free to say it. And of course that gives you an opportunity to blame religion as a whole. Ridiculous argument. Not that I'm going to spam you with bible quotes now, but did it ever occur to you that sacrifices play such a huge role in both the Old and New Testament, both voluntary and involuntary ones, yet sacrifices aren't part of the average Christian mass?

We should strike a good balance there, and we can because we recognize laws are written by imperfect people and can be changed.

There's no question that people's worldview changed radically in the last two thousand years, and so did the laws. Which brings us to the next point...

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to make of that [...]

What matters more to this debate (than your two deity concepts), IMO, is that you and most atheists apparently refuse to accept the bible as what it is - a product of a completely different culture and time and thus apply modern standards to it. You'd probably love to destroy the whole thing regardless of its importance, just because you don't believe in God and lost the ability to fully decode all the allusions in the book. Instead, you go on and on how bad the book is because a fraction of it is describing an angry God, or because there are fundamentalists, or because there are plenty of criminals and lunatics that used it to justify a crime. What if, in 2000 years, someone murders some random person and claims Richard Dawkins said he should do so? You don't judge the book by itself, you don't care about the long process in which it was written and collected, and you don't take the content and context seriously to begin with (which you should regardless if you believe in a god or not). Because that's what you're supposed to do if you're going to rate to any other book.

[Monkey]

...while it's fashionable among some to bash Shakespeare, the writing isn't really all that bad.

I agree, if I'm being honest, that the writing isn't really all that bad. What I hate is that people (especially English teachers) read far too much into it and made me study it for countless hours during my youth.

[Word]

My opinion about Shakespeare was basically the same until I saw one of his plays (The merry wives of Windsor) being performed in the Globe Theatre, during a class trip.

[Acidico]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3w2MTXBebg
^
Speaking of Shakespeare, this is a pretty humorous video in my opinion . It's not deeply intellectual comedy by any means, but hopefully you'll get a chuckle or two out of it haha.