A Former Atheist

[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.