What do Atheists believe the Bible as?

[Cinjin]

It all makes sense!!!111! Praise the LAWD!

...Lawd - another word I didn't get credit for on the vocabulary test Void posted!


NICE!

[DaveD]

What do Atheists believe the Bible as? Insufficiently absorbent.

[BethK]

Time and time again, I hear that the Bible is wrong and a tool to brainwash. Me, being a Christian, don't fully understand the atheist's position. What do you believe about the Bible? Was it created for brainwashing people? Or was it created by people who truly believed that they were influenced by a god when there is none?

I personally believe that it is the word of God, and it's the only word of God we can base Christianity on.

Actually, the book you call "The Bible" is not one book - it's a collection of books selected by a committee called "The Council of Nicea" which met in 325 CE, and selected which of the assorted writings of Judeasm and Christianity were to be included, which not, and which were said to be "heretical". Furthermore, Protestant Bibles took out several of these books and labeled them "apocryphal".

So, the books of the Bible were written for a number of reasons - some political, some pseudo-historical, some relating to actual historical events such as Macabees (Macabean revolt - which also is described in Roman literature) although the books of Macabees have been taken out of Protestant Bibles as apocryphal... and Roman Catholic Bibles only have the first 2 chapters of Macabees, while Orthodox Bibles contain all four. Some of the people who wrote the books wrote them to control masses, some no doubt wrote them for spiritual reasons as they understood spirituality at the time, some are Law books outlining Laws for a group of people to live by, some are songs and poetry, and on and on.

Which Bible do you consider to be "The Word of God", and why do you consider those books, and no others, to be the "Word of God"? Are the Orthodox reading things which are not the "Words of God" and considering it to be so? Are the Protestants refusing to listen to some words of God? Are the Roman Catholics somewhere in the middle? How about the Gnostic and Coptic scriptures? Are they the words of God, or are they counterfeits?

Why did the Council of Nicea select the books they did and not others? Well, it's rather complicated. For one thing, they had to get rid of writings that were being read, and forbid their reading by members of the Church of Rome, which had by then taken over the Roman government, and keep them from reading literature from competing Christian Churches, such as the Gnostics, Coptic, Arian... groups which were called "heresies" and made illegal. So, in the style of modern dictatorships, they forbid reading books sympathetic with other viewpoints. Some were altered or portions left out as apocryphal, such as part of the Book of Daniel.

Discovery of the Nag Hamadi Library gets rid of some of the objections to some of these so-called "apocryphal" books, since there are now early manuscripts available, and copies of them are available to the common person... translations or in their original scripts and language.

Even in the early days of Christianity, Christians were not "known by their love", but rather by their strife.

[DeistPaladin]

Thanks guys, I appreciate the compliments but I actually have hope for Carlisle's mind. Call me an optimist but most freethinkers I know are ex-Christians or ex-whatever. Additionally, there's something I really respect about Carlisle:

He actually asked a question about what we think.

This puts him way ahead of other theists who pretend to know what we think. They spout different cliches like we're "angry at God" or "too proud to serve" or "obviously hurt by other believers." This one actually asked a question. Questions are the road to rational thinking. Maybe he intended it as a ploy to lead into some trilemma argument. Sure, he's also referenced some pseudo-history or false-evidence for the Bible's claims but it's a start.

Also, I want to draw attention to a misstatement I made which I've now edited to correct. I meant to say that the alternative to "Word of God" is NOT just "some guy made it all up one day." It's been fixed. Now to continue:

3. Triumph of Imagination
While I don't think anyone created either Judaism or Christianity overnight in a cynical ploy to control people, I do think ideas got added over time. I've witnessed this very process in some believers I know.

The Bible actually tells us little about what Heaven will be like but that doesn't stop believers from filling in the blanks. One Christian I knew had elaborate ideas, like you would have to apologize to those you wronged before you'd be let into Heaven. When I asked him for chapter and verse, he naturally couldn't tell me. Yet, he seemed to sincerely believe what he was saying about what Heaven would be like and doing it with conviction. You may disagree with him or his way of thinking about spiritual issues but it happens all the time. It sounds good to us and so that's a good enough reason for some people to believe it. It's a logical fallacy called appeal to consequences. We want something to be true and so we convince ourselves of it.

Now imagine this Christian I knew had lived 2000 years ago and had his own following. He might have been one of the authors of the Bible. Would it have been a lie? Depends on how you call it. If one lies to oneself and becomes convinced of their own lie, is it still a lie or is it more like a delusion? And contrary to Christian assertions, one doesn't need to be so divorced from reality as to be talking to the trees in order to come up with minor delusional beliefs about abstract or spiritual matters and believe them with conviction.

4. The fuzzy line between fiction and "true story"
The line between a known work of fiction and a tale people think really happened is much less distinct than you might think. We see this sort of thing happen today with the "glurge" stories that circulate by email. Someone writes a story, even labeling it as "fiction" and before long there are people who think it really happened and circulate the story as a real event. And we live in an era where false stories can be easily debunked by an internet or snopes search. Imagine how it was in a more superstitious time when reliable information was harder to come by.

Other times, a work of fiction will be intended as a "parable". Jesus is said to have used them all the time to convey his teachings. Some of the stories about him are claimed to be parables by Christians. For example, did Jesus really curse the fig tree, not knowing that figs weren't in season? Some Christians I have debated with will tell me, "Well, of course that didn't really happen. It's a parable where the fig tree represents the Jewish people." If that's the case, is it possible that many stories about Jesus were parables and later taken to be literal events? Could the whole story be a parable? There were some early Christians who had no belief in a literal flesh-and-blood Jesus. Echoes of this early conflict in Christianity are found in the very epistles of John. See 1John 4:1-3 and 2John 1:7.

It's important to emphasize that parables aren't lies. Parables are stories that teach a spiritual message. It's quite possible that parables can later be taught as literal history by later generations of believers.

5. Embellishment
Some stories are embellished or distorted over time. Hollywood does this quite often with historical events. Some people will go see a movie and think they're getting a history lesson. Some movies are fairly accurate. Others take liberties. And some are so awful they might as well have made up fictional characters than try to portray it as history.

Other times, history is distorted to suit an agenda. It's a cynical observation that "winners write the history books." Often, victors in a war will seek to portray their side of the story and depict their foes as villains. Did the Romans really persecute the Christians with such fervor in the first century? Or did a triumphant church seek to create a heroic history of martyrdom and a belief that prevailed in spite of oppression and atrocity?

Some folklore may be based on real characters but who knows what the real story was. Was there a real King Arthur or Robin Hood? If so, how closely did the real events relate to the folklore? It is for this reason, this known tendency for oral tradition to be embellished, that historians take such stories with a grain of salt. Was there a real King David? Did he have a glorious empire with millions of soldiers at his command? Unlikely. The only evidence uncovered for this empire said to extend all the way to the Euphrates river is a stone that mentions the "House of David". There may or may not have been a real David but it's unlikely he commanded a great empire that nobody noticed. How about Jesus? Did he really bring back the dead on three separate occasions, heal the sick, cast out demons and yet nobody outside his group of followers ever noticed? Any possibility that some stories got added as time went on?

In fact, we do know of stories about Jesus that got added as time went on. His "let those without sin cast the first stone" story was added somewhere around the 3rd century. The last chapter of Mark had a substantial portion added later, detailing the resurrection.

Still other times, nostalgia will quickly modify history. Washington was barely in his grave before folktales were invented about him, like the cherry tree incident. Reagan is worshiped by the radical right in this country, despite the fact that he raised taxes, met with his enemies and "cut and ran" in Lebanon. Any candidate who behaved like Reagan or proposed doing some of the things he did would be completely unelectable in a Republican primary. And all these legends about his were created easily in the lifetimes of those who would have known him!

Elvis is another great example. How many sightings were there decades after he'd died? You're telling me it would have been impossible for a resurrection myth to come about in a far more superstitious time?

6. Interpolation and Pseudo-Epigraphy
These are terms you may not be familiar with. The first is alterations to a text, either by copyist error or by deliberate changes. The second is presenting a work under a more famous prophet's name. Both were quite common in ancient times and represent serious problems for those who would say scripture is inerrant. It's estimated that half of Paul's epistles found in the NT are actually "authentic". A theologian who wanted to advance his religious ideas would sometimes "discover" a letter that was said to be written by a more famous and now dead religious leader that agreed. There's also an issue of how reliable are these letters? Paul was the primary prophet of Marcionite Christianity. This was an early faction that rejected Judaism and taught that Jesus was a higher god, separate from and superior to the Jewish god. So how is it that his letters would seem to reject the Marcionite view of Jesus?

7. Just plain old deception
I have discussed the many ways that mythology can be formed over time without the intent to deceive. I have barely even touched on how political powers might find it useful to alter sacred beliefs to suit their own agenda. The Christian religion was adopted by Constantine who saw it a useful method to control and centralize the empire. Coincidentally, the Bible admonishes us to obey our kings (Romans 13:1-2) and for slaves to obey their masters (numerous passages). Search the Bible in vein for any references to "inalienable rights" or praise of freedom. The Bible instead discusses our obligations to obey without question, not just priests but political leaders as well. It seems that God always wants the same things the guy at the pulpit wants.

I hope this has given you a good start at understanding why we are skeptical about the claims of ancient scriptures. It may help to also reflect on what you think of the scriptures of other religions and the claims about their gods. As you understand why you reject them, you understand how we see yours.

[Minimalist]

Even in the early days of Christianity, Christians were not "known by their love", but rather by their strife.

Absolutely, Beth. As quoted by the xtian writer, Origen, the second century Greco-Roman writer Celsus said, c 180 AD:

"Christians, needless to say, utterly detest one another; they slander each other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse, and cannot come to any sort of agreement in their teaching. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own with deceitful nonsense...".

[Epimethean]

Nothing like two millennia of being spot-on accurate. The bible, on the other hand, was never engineered to remain up to date. It is a socio-cultural boat anchor.

[MilesTailsPrower]

Time and time again, I hear that the Bible is wrong and a tool to brainwash. Me, being a Christian, don't fully understand the atheist's position.

Well it seems like it's still working eh?

[DeistPaladin]

So is he still here or a hit and run?

[TheCarlisle]

Absolutely, Beth. As quoted by the xtian writer, Origen, the second century Greco-Roman writer Celsus said, c 180 AD:

"Christians, needless to say, utterly detest one another; they slander each other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse, and cannot come to any sort of agreement in their teaching. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own with deceitful nonsense...".

Now how do you know that this text wasn't written to counter the alleged delusions of Christianity, other than there is no evidence to support the hypothesis of a government trying to delude people.
"It is a socio-cultural boat anchor." - That's an opinion, not a fact.
"So is he still here or a hit and run?" - I'm still here. I just have to attend to things that aren't virtual

Evidence that the Jews were in Egypt, they were enemies in the eyes of Egypt: http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm - Take your time to read it.
They were enslaved because they had repetitively claimed they had a God greater then any of the Egyptians. Last night, I couldn't find the evidence for an exodus, but I did find evidence (or lack of it) to conclude that there was no uprising by the slaves (no weapons found, only dead firstborn which is explained by the confirmed plagues) and they weren't freed by the Egyptians willingly - after all, they were enemies at the time. The only other scenario is that they left through an exodus as described by the Bible.

[thebigfudge]

They were enslaved because they had repetitively claimed they had a God greater then any of the Egyptians. Last night, I couldn't find the evidence for an exodus, but I did find evidence (or lack of it) to conclude that there was no uprising by the slaves (no weapons found, only dead firstborn which is explained by the confirmed plagues) and they weren't freed by the Egyptians willingly - after all, they were enemies at the time. The only other scenario is that they left through an exodus as described by the Bible.

Can you share this trinket of evidence with us. the death of the firstborn