A Former Atheist

[robvalue]

When we talk about "what God does" we are assuming for the sake of argument that your claims are true, that the God of the bible exists. We then show what the consequences of that are, such as God endorsing and regulating slavery rather than simply demanding it stop like he did with other stuff.

It is a standard logical argument. To say it's invalid because we don't believe the premise is irrelevant. It's a form of reductio ad absurdum. We're saying how do you explain the consequences of your belief? And it seems by the same way most Christians do, by making massive excuses and allowances for what it says.

You say it's a factual historical account. It's not, as has been scientifically demonstrated time and again, but let's assume that's what it is meant to be for the moment. The point at which facts being recorded in a book about history start to become absolutely ridiculous and actually impossible to verify is when they start making supernatural/fantastical claims. All we have to "verify" them is the witnesses' own argument from ignorance or assertion about them and their causation.

Why do you believe all the magical stuff in the bible, but discard all the magical stuff in every other religious text? Except for special pleading, how can you justify this?

I assume you do believe the magical stuff. If you don't, that's cool, but I don't see how you get to Yahweh, or any god, without doing so.

I get the feeling there is more to your story, but I may be wrong. I imagine you have always been immersed in Christian mythology even if you weren't indoctrinated, most of us have been. This gives rather an internal bias to believe one set of fantastical claims over another. Again, correct me if I am wrong.

[abaris]

To me it seems odd to adopt the strict militant opposition to the ideology of a thousands year old book while simultaneously expressing amusement at it's authority.   

First, in most cases it isn't militant opposition, but the fact that the pieces don't add up which led us to atheism. As you said, this book was compiled some time between the bronze age and the iron age by a tribal society of half nomadic desert dwellers. The content presents itself accordingly. The original thought probably was to provide a set of rules to a lawless society. And to do some gorilla style breast pounding on the side. The fact that people still follow it to the letter is somewhere between amusing and appaling. It gets appaling when the people following it, have some kind of influence on society at large.

Apologies, if I presumed, you to be comfortable withe the trinity and all the woo included. Your post was somehow misleading. But if you don't follow the woo, what is left aside from some ancient set of laws and a collection of campfire tales?

[Edwardo Piet]

I don't get it. Isn't the Bible one of the least convincing books of all time? It should be called the Holey Babble, it's full of holes and babbles.

The Secret by Rhonda Byrne is also extremely unconvincing. I was genuinely convinced by it though. But then I was also genuinely very acutely mentally ill at the time.

[Aoi Magi]

Ok, thanks for reminding me that atheism doesn't always imply rational thought as I understand it. To help me better understand you please tell me:

1) You are saying that the bible is pretty much a historical record (after a bit of cherry-picking) which depicts the morality and culture of the people of that time period, right? So why couldn't the people themselves have written these laws and records? Why would they need divine intervention/inspiration to do so? Or to put it another way, why do you think that the bible was divinely inspired?

2) What fact or record in the bible do you believe in that proves the existance of anything supernatural?

3) Do you believe 'Adam' or the 'first human' just popped up on earth? If yes, then when? at what point in time? Also do you believe in the concept of original sin?

4) What convinced you of the authenticity of the biblical flood?

[Theoretical Skeptic]

Sounds like a neat way to eat your cake and have it, too.

Atheists seem to be obsessed with the supernatural. God doesn't necessarily imply the supernatural, it implies might or veneration. Moses, Jesus, Tammuz, and the Judges of Israel were called gods and were men and women. Mortal. 

It allowed them to be beaten to within an inch of their lives.  It allowed them to be bought and sold as property.


You're not the first theist here to defend Biblical slavery. It's sad how many of you believers have lost your moral compass simply because you must defend this inane book at any cost.

I'm not defending slavery. I'm pointing out that slavery existed during the times of the Bible, it differs from more recent versions of slavery and it was invented by men, not gods. In doing so I most certainly am not condoning slavery, but rather, suggesting there are more insidious forms of slavery we are all subjected to today. 

You just watch -- you will be a pretzel in a few days, once the members here sink their teeth into your moral turpitude.  You actually think it's okay to own another human being. What sort of asshole are you?

A typical asshole, I suppose, but I don't think it is okay by any means to own another human being. 

And you've come to this opinion how? Have you spoken with him recently? Are you his majordomo? Press secretary?

I don't need to speak directly to him, it was all written down long before I got here.

No. It's because I don't have any faith.

Everyone has faith. You need to be more specific in referencing what it is you have no faith in. 

I don't care what you think your god thinks. You are no authority on your god, in the eyes of any other human beside yourself.

In a sense I agree with the latter part of this statement. Accurate knowledge about God and the Bible is a personal responsibility - ultimately, but we are having a discussion here. You state your position and I state mine. Beyond that I don't expect you to be concerned about my opinions on the subject. But you, to a greater or lesser extent, like most posters here, seem pretty concerned with beliefs on God and religion.

 

I have a 17-year-old son with whom I celebrate Christmas, not as a celebration of the birth of a fictional god, but in honor of the idea "peace on Earth, good will towards men".

The point is, you most likely instilled in your young son some materialistic fantasy based upon mythology, customs and tradition that you knew wasn't true but presented as truth to your impressionable child in order to mislead, and control him and yet you have a big problem with anyone else incorporating these alleged tenets. Atheism is hypocritical, nonsensical, uninformed antiquated polemic pontification. Social and political frustration primarily expressed poorly by failed Christians with a Utopian quasi scientific ideology equally uninformed and hinged upon the failed metaphysical experiment of evolution. And you, I suspect, think that is original and clever. It isn't, so why not be more tolerant of other people's paradigm? 

I have no faith. I'm unimpressed by the persistence of foolishness; people believed the sun orbited the Earth for far, far longer than people have worshipped your little deity, and you expect me to be impressed by a book that's hung around like a tumor for 1650 years? Of course there will be gullible folks who buy the carrot-and-stick routine -- yourself included.

Nonsense. They only believed in the geocentric for about 2 thousand years, only a fraction of time the Bible has been around. And, by the way, not supported by scripture as is often thought. 

[abaris]

Nonsense. They only believed in the geocentric for about 2 thousand years, only a fraction of time the Bible has been around. And, by the way, not supported by scripture as is often thought. 

Except, they took that nonsense from the bible. Joshua 10:13 to be precise. And Galileo still paid the price by being confined to his home for the rest of his life. In the 17th century.

[Alex K]

Nonsense. They only believed in the geocentric for about 2 thousand years, only a fraction of time the Bible has been around. And, by the way, not supported by scripture as is often thought. 

What do you mean, they believed it for about 2 thousand years? How old do you think humanity is?!

[Theoretical Skeptic]

When we talk about "what God does" we are assuming for the sake of argument that your claims are true, that the God of the bible exists. We then show what the consequences of that are, such as God endorsing and regulating slavery rather than simply demanding it stop like he did with other stuff.

I understand and respect the first part of that statement and disagree with the . . . intent? of the second part. I think the problem with your demonstration is that you see the Bible as a collection of nonsensical mythology designed to control or manipulate people? Your (atheists in general) conclusions don't incorporate an accurate understanding what was going on with God and man as recorded in the Bible. Jehovah God wasn't hanging around in case he needed to wave a magic wand every time mankind fucked up. That's a simplistic and inaccurate interpretation. 

It is a standard logical argument. To say it's invalid because we don't believe the premise is irrelevant. It's a form of reductio ad absurdum. We're saying how do you explain the consequences of your belief? And it seems by the same way most Christians do, by making massive excuses and allowances for what it says.

Exactly! Well said! You see the socio-political justification of a failed system which manifests itself in other forms of justice even today. But do you see the error in placing that blame on a deity that you allege doesn't exist? It doesn't matter, does it? You see? You miss the point. If Jehovah, the Creator God of the Bible exists then surely you would have no logical conclusion except for to agree to his rightful sovereignty. You wouldn't find it logical to reject that due to his interaction with mankind and his tolerance of their foolishness, especially when it was obvious that only your own destruction could result in that position. Adam. 

You say it's a factual historical account. It's not, as has been scientifically demonstrated time and again, but let's assume that's what it is meant to be for the moment. The point at which facts being recorded in a book about history start to become absolutely ridiculous and actually impossible to verify is when they start making supernatural/fantastical claims. All we have to "verify" them is the witnesses' own argument from ignorance or assertion about them and their causation.

Let's test that theory.

To say that the Bible is or isn't a factual historical account is easy enough but means very little. First of all because the unreliability of secular history, for the lack of a better term. History in general consists of a great deal of legend, myth, bias, deception, error etc. People, well, science minded skeptics, who say the Bible isn't historically significant or reliable tend not to know the Bible or history very well. They only assume history is accurate and the Bible is myth. Two of the most knowledgeable atheists I have ever had the pleasure of having discussions with were respectable history students and would never question the historical significance of the Bible. The "father of science," Sir Isaac Newton, who was also the foremost expert in ancient historical manuscripts of his time, said: "I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane [secular] history whatsoever." The same applies to the skeptical position on science, more or less. 

Why do you believe all the magical stuff in the bible, but discard all the magical stuff in every other religious text? Except for special pleading, how can you justify this?

I certainly wouldn't term it "magical stuff." More aptly the supernatural, which, much of is misunderstood by the skeptical. The soul, for example, the spirit. Some of my beliefs would be problematic to the skeptical who find the supernatural difficult to contemplate in any realistic sense. But those same people may, and I say may, find it substantially more plausible to comprehend the possibility of unknown forces of a similar nature. For example, in the possibility of other life forms of higher intelligence.

I get the feeling there is more to your story, but I may be wrong. I imagine you have always been immersed in Christian mythology even if you weren't indoctrinated, most of us have been. This gives rather an internal bias to believe one set of fantastical claims over another. Again, correct me if I am wrong.

Well . . . I was alive in the Bible belt so I wasn't totally shielded from it, I just didn't buy into it (ETA: apostate Christian misinterpretation of the Bible). I still don't most of it, since it isn't supported by scripture and mythological in origin.

[Cato]

Six pages in and no evidence provided for the existence of God, just an unsubstantiated declaration that some of The Bible is true, woefully misinterpreted by believers and is simultaneously "The most accurate and honest history of mankind ever produced". Poe or imbecile?

[rexbeccarox]

Six pages in and no evidence provided for the existence of God, just an unsubstantiated declaration that some of The Bible is true, woefully misinterpreted by believers and is simultaneously "The most accurate and honest history of mankind ever produced". Poe or imbecile?

Actually, I think the OP has spent more time telling us what atheists believe than discussing what or why he does.  In fact, OP, you have an awful lot of words to describe something of which the definition is "a lack of belief in deities".  Maybe you could enlighten us as to what it is you actually believe instead of what atheists do.