What do Atheists believe the Bible as?

[The Grand Nudger]

I suppose I was being generous regarding your claim that the bible was the word of god....I didn't realize that you meant that the bible was the literal and inerrant word of god. If the latter is the claim that you wish to make, you're going to have to make provisions that the exodus narrative was probably just a later addition by man; not part of the original message or word of god. There's far too much evidence against it, and frankly, none for it. If you don't like the position that modern archaeology has taken on exodus, take your disagreement to the Israel Antiquities Authority my friend. It shouldn't be the job of these forum posters to essentially beg you to research the topic you yourself chose. The idea that the bible is the inerrant word of god is honestly such a radical one that I cannot imagine that you are here to learn, or debate. You would not only have to show that the bible was accurate in its descriptions and explanations of events, but accurate to every jot and tittle, every cross of the t, every dot on every i. You would also have to show evidence of the conspiracy to conceal the biblical truth from the masses. Counterfeit artifacts, forged manuscripts, and fundamentally flawed physical sciences. This is too much a task, I think, for anyone, let alone the sole voice of belief in a small sea of doubt. Even if it were accomplished, why would it then follow that there were a god? A perfect manuscript is enough of a stretch, but to add yet another layer of conjecture and improbability is beyond the pale.

All that being said, I believe your time will probably be better spent studying scripture than attempting to prove that the grass is blue and the sky is green. We're not a friendly audience to this sort of reasoning. Besides, I believe I recall you mentioning that you were only up to Deuteronomy, and I would hate to spoil the big reveal at the end (or any of the WTF moments from here to there).

I would have absolutely no problems with taking up the job of "defending the indefensible" with regards to the morality or timeline of the bible without the claim of god attached. As a primer in bronze age and early ce cultures and worldviews, the bible is brilliant. It's only when one decides that a deity is bound within that difficult issues begin to manifest themselves.

[DeistPaladin]

Calling me boy, profuse profanity, AND CAPITALIZED SENTENCES. I have no interest in a pissing contest that not only breaks forum rules, but is also senseless. I will ignore you and your posts for now.If I offended you, sorry, I had no intentions to do so.

There's some irony here, Min.

Ad hominem: Using an insult in place of an argument.

Not ad hominem: Using an insult in addition to an argument.

Ad hominem: "I'm ignoring you and your arguments because you're mean."

[Shell B]

Has anyone else noticed the trend of Creationists apologizing to atheists for "offending" them whenever they can't handle an argument? I believe I have mentioned it before. It just strikes me as wishful thinking. As in, "I hope I offended you, but I think I did not, so I will at least make it seem like I offended you by apologizing for it." I have to assure this woman in another forum that she is incapable of offending me at least once a month. If I so much as say shit, she goes "Look! You are OFFENDED! You used sweeers!."

[Ace Otana]

I'm wondering if this is another one of those "Help! I'm being oppressed!" crap.

[Minimalist]

[Ace Otana]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlBiLNN1NhQ

[Minimalist]

I know xtians who go absolutely apoplectic over that video.


Must be why I like it so much!

[platinumwolf]

---

There are so many pieces that it is hard to pin down just exactly what the motivations were for those writing it.

Let us start from the assumption that YHWH exists as described in the bible. Therefore we are as god intended us. Specifically, this means that god created us with our logic and language processing skills. Were any document to be considered divinely inspired, then it must take into consideration these factors. Also, from the stories we get the impression that YHWH is all powerful, which is an inherent assumption in the "divinely inspired" interpretation - that YHWH has the power to influence the individuals compiling and translating his book.

At this point it is not unreasonable to expect that if YHWH existed and was interested in convincing everyone that he exists, he knows and is capable of influencing the translations of the books such that their messages do not contradict themselves, and are consistent with reality. Since the bible is not internally consistent, meaning it contradicts itself regularly, and does not agree with things we have discovered about the real world, we must logically conclude that it is not, in fact, the divinely inspired word of YHWH.

This is not the final word, either. The morality set forth in the bible is ridiculously incomplete, which we would not expect from something divinely inspired (slavery? ok. equality of women? nope.). The punishments put forth in the old law are remarkably overkill (stoning for a child that is disobedient? death to people who wear clothes of different cloths?). And before you claim that the old testament was overridden by the new, it would be useful to reference Matthew 5:17:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place."

There is more, certainly, delving into specific contradictions and whatnot, but the main message is that based on internal contradictions, inconsistencies with reality, our ability to reason, and the incomplete morality, the conclusion follows that the work is not divinely inspired.

As for the motivations behind the original authors, I suspect the main driving force was an attempt to record oral traditions. I don't even think that the authors were in contact with each other, but were instead writing independently of each other for much of the authorship. I think that it isn't until the third Council of Carthage that we can really conceivably have people trying to compile the texts in order to control and manipulate, at least in my thoughts. All together this means that I think of the bible as a collection of eclectic stories and which has become a tool through which people can be manipulated, due heavily to the confusion arising from the fact that the stories are from differing sources and not internally consistent.

---

There are a couple of errors in this argument. God wants us to believe in him. However, he doesn't want to push his belief down our throats. Instead, God provides the Bible as a testimony that he exists and lets us choose whether to believe it or not.

Secondly, slavery as you may know it is completely different from the one God permits. If a man is dirt poor and cannot survive on his own, he can be bought for 6 years. During that time, the master must provide for the person adequate food and a place to stay and sleep. If the slave is abused even once, they can leave the master.
According to God, everyone is equal in his judgement.
The old law was extremely rigid since God was preparing the world for the coming of Jesus Christ. An estimated 98% of people were born after Jesus Christ.
As for stoning a child:

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0Nby1F42uc A key point is made at 10:50

---

"death to people who wear clothes of different cloths?" Where did you get this?

Thirdly, can you provide an example of an inconsistency inside the Bible with quotes? I'm only on the Book of Deuteronomy.

I appreciate your reasonable response by the way.

First paragraph: You assume that god wants us to believe in him but does not wish to force belief on us. Fair enough. That does not, however, negate the fact that the bible is supposed to be his intended message. If the message is flawed, then the natural conclusion is that it does not come from a being described in the manner in which YHWH is described - all-knowing, all-powerful, etc.

Second paragraph: Your counter argument here is, in short, just saying that the times were different. Once again this does not address the point that I made which is that such institutions are present in the bible, and we would expect a higher morality from a divine being. In this day and age we recognize that it is immoral to treat other human beings as property. Would it really have been so difficult for YHWH to say "Oh, and by the way, it's not kosher to own people."? I think not.

Whether or not the old law was rigid has nothing to do with the ridiculous levels of punishments for offending god's law, nor the ludicrous rules. I did make a mistake, however. Clothes of different fabrics are against the law, but it does not specify the specific consequence for violating that rule (Lev 19:19), only that the land would spue offenders out. Is this really the sort of thing the all-mighty creator of the universe would concern himself with?

I'll provide you also with a video to view: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk

There are a whole lot of contradictions listed in it. And while you may try to excuse many of them as translation errors, I maintain that should YHWH actually exist as described, it would not be outside his abilities to influence the translators into non-contradictory wording. Ensuring his message to mankind is consistent is the absolute minimum thing that he would have to do in order to convince everyone that he existed, and yet he hasn't.

In response to your video, I can only boggle. It's there in black and white, and this fellow is essentially saying, well, it was only the worst cases, and no one ever did it. It doesn't matter that no one ever did it except that if it could be proven it would show that even when the books were written mankind had a better developed morality than this YHWH fellow.

[TheCarlisle]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlBiLNN1NhQ

I actually really like Monty Python, including that movie. It's not a blasphemy because it refers to Brian, so I'm okay with it. But what the heck does this have to do with this debate?

"It's there in black and white"
And so is many old scriptures, religious and non-religious. Take Shakespeare for example. If you read any of his plays with no knowledge of the language of old, you won't get a quarter of the entertainment value as you would have otherwise.

As for many of the cherry-picked passages in your posted video, much of them (all as I'm aware of) can be explained and elaborated on with a bit of Googling

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I know xtians who go absolutely apoplectic over that video.


Must be why I like it so much!

I do too; that's because they are humourless twats.

They don't like it much when I make the observation that given his upbringing and the class of person with whom he associated, I think it's a safe be that Jesus had a good, earthy sense of humour. Not unreasonable to suppose he enjoyed and told fart jokes.


This portrait also seem to really annoy some of the more anal retentive believers.(known in my circle as 'furniture suckers"--they are so tight arsed that as they pass by, they sometimes suck up bit of loose furniture,small domestic animals and the odd child,straight up their arse)