What do Atheists believe the Bible as?

[Ace Otana]

Evidence for the plagues: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scien...tists.html

You notice that the link there agrees with what I've said earlier? It states that they were caused by natural events. People back then claim god was responsible, because they knew nothing of the natural world.

Now addressing the hypothesis that Moses claimed to predict things he didn't. Just because Nostradamus predicted something after the event doesn't automatically mean that every other person did just the same.

You have evidence to suggest otherwise?

There is the testimonies from all of Jesus' disciples that he rose from the dead.

Name one.

Here, watch this...
A pink rabbit rose from the dead. It floated up into the sky, just ask the dozen witnesses that was there. You see the problem? Who are these witnesses? You're just taking my word for it, I'm lying to you and you've just bought it. See?
It's no different from where someone claims jebus rose from the dead.

Additionally, what evidence are you supposed to expect from a person who rose from the dead?

A physical event always leaves evidence, no matter how small. Besides, that's your problem. The burden of proof is on you.

Furthermore, there is evidence that Jesus existed are the hundreds of scriptures within Jesus' existence that were written. These scriptures cannot have been inspired by some book a government pushed into the faces of people to believe, as some would think.

The lord of the rings story, even the design of middle earth's map came from a single mind. A dozen superstitious nut jobs obsessed with a crazy man claiming to be a god can lead to many fictional stories.

[Faith No More]

"They claimed jebus rose from the dead, where's the evidence? There is none, just people's word for it, who are themselves highly superstitious."
There is the testimonies from all of Jesus' disciples that he rose from the dead. Additionally, what evidence are you supposed to expect from a person who rose from the dead? Furthermore, there is evidence that Jesus existed are the hundreds of scriptures within Jesus' existence that were written. These scriptures cannot have been inspired by some book a government pushed into the faces of people to believe, as some would think. Additionally, only educated people could write 2000yrs ago.

None of the testimonies of Jesus have been proven to be first hand, therefore they are all hearsay and not evidence. As for what evidence would I expect. I would expect that if Jesus had done the things he reportedly did, he would be in nearly every major civilization's writings and we would find some sort of proof of him outside of the bible.

[DaveD]

Additionally, only educated people could write 2000yrs ago.

This is, of course, something of a tautology. Only people who could write, could write!
However, your intent when typing that nonsense, is almost certainly wrong, and people were far more literate at that time and in that place than you suppose.

[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.

[Minimalist]

These scriptures cannot have been inspired by some book a government pushed into the faces of people to believe, as some would think.

The understanding of history is weak with this one.

[TheCarlisle]

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.

[Darwinian]

If you'd wanted a reasonable response then it might have been a good idea to make a reasonable post. This is, as far as I can tell, gibberish.

Sorry, but there it is..

[TheCarlisle]

If you'd wanted a reasonable response then it might have been a good idea to make a reasonable post. This is, as far as I can tell, gibberish.

Sorry, but there it is..

No offence taken. But you have to say what is gibberish...

[Faith No More]

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.

But if our eternal soul rests on these beliefs, isn't he being derelict by not pushing his belief down our throats? After all, what's the inconvenience of having some know-it-all deity telling you how to live compared to burning in hell forever? God's attitude of letting us choose is wholly inconsistent with what he does with us as a result of these beliefs.

[reverendjeremiah]

Cool signature Ace.. Im a major Trekie as well.