Atheists and the Bible

[rickyderocher]

Obliviously, atheists aren't going to be too keen on the Bible, but most of the atheists arguments against the Bible are pretty weak.

One of the things they mostly do is try present themselves as more moral than God. Usually they focus on the Old Testament and try to turn God into a monster "God killed people, promoted genocide, is this really a loving God, blah, blah, blah..."

First off, that is a really weak argument against the existence of God. As pretty much their argument is that: "I don't agree with God's morals and so God is a monster and this not my picture of what God should be - so therefore God does not exist."

So it's like some one saying:
"I don't agree with Obama's policies - so therefore Obama doesn't exist."

Just because you don't agree with someone or something - doesn't mean that they don't exist. Obama exists (unfortunately ).

Another thing they point out and gripe about is some of the actions of people in the Bible - IE Lot's incestuous relationship with his daughters. But obviously The Bible is simply recording what happened - it does not mean that God approved of every person's actions. God did not obviously approve of David's adultery - but it is still in the Bible because that is what David did. It is like writing a book on facts of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln and then someone saying that we support assassinating presidents - no we don't - we are just recording the facts of what happened in history. So just because they are gross sins mentioned in the Bible does not mean that God is some kind of sicko - unfortunately some people are sickos - and God felt to record their actions in His Word. Usually the sins recorded in the Bible serve as a warning to us - these people sinned and look what happened to them - don't do what they did - or the same thing could happen to you.

[John Chrysostom]

Your counter argument about not liking something doesn't mean it doesn't exist is weak too. I could likewise claim that simply because we don't like the Greek gods doesn't mean they don't exist. I highly doubt you will ever find an atheist who claims that not liking something means it doesn't exist. What I said and believed when I was not a Christian was that I did not want to obey or worship a god who killed people and let babies die, it is obviously more complicated and nuanced than that but that was the general idea.

But what is the point of this monulage? Polemics rarely promte real discussion or change.

[rickyderocher]

I highly doubt you will ever find an atheist who claims that not liking something means it doesn't exist.

Not in those words. But there argument is still pretty much "I don't like the way God is presented in the Bible - so if even if there is a God - then he is not like the God of the Bible."

[John Chrysostom]

Christians make the same argument when we refuse to recognize the Greek gods because we don't think they are the real God. We are not arguing against God in general but against the myths of Greece

[jelly]

I've always thought an atheist's argument for the none-existence of a God is just as foolish as a Christian's argument for the existence of a God. The only group of people that don't sound ridiculous are the agnostics.

[Kait]

In general, I find atheists are in one of two camps. They either don't believe in God because they don't like the Christian version of him and they think Christianity kind of sucks.


Or they don't believe in God because there is no physical, scientific or measurable way to prove his existence.

Both of which are pretty valid reasons to me, but I agree with the user above me...agnostics are the most reasonable because they realize you can't prove one way or the other. I am kind of a theistic agnostic in that way.

[Marc.]

Honestly, I believe the strongest arguments that I have found are a few of the contradictions in the Bible, although someone more intelligent than me could likely explain them. (I have read several articles both pointing out contradictions, and explaining that the said contradictions are not necessarily real contradictions).
Also, absolutely no Scientific evidence supporting the Bible? Just read articles on this site: http://www.icr.org They have countless scientific articles about science agreeing with the Bible. Honestly, the creationist view never changes, but the theory of evolution and natural creation (opposed to supernatural) is always changing to fight the arguments made by creationist scientists. http://www.icr.org/articles/view/524/302/ <-- This is one of my favorite articles. It is not necessarily trying to prove Creation right, but rather it is showing how ridiculously flimsy the Evolutionist argument is, using the words of professional and respected evolutionists. There are also various places in the Bible that line up historically and scientifically with the real world. I'm sure everyone has heard of the Nebuchadnezzar ruins? (Not the official name, but I'm no scientist, or historian) The ruins of Jericho? Tyre, (I seriously hope that's the right city, or else I'm gonna look like an idiot) which God said would be laid flat, and then Alexander the Great and the Greeks completely destroyed it? Also, a less known one, the Bible was the first source to talk about the Hittites, so people cast them off as a fairy tale. They are now today accepted as a real race due to discoveries, the first to use iron weapons, they were. The Bible was also the first source to state that the earth was round (this is what inspired Columbus) and that the stars were innumerable, which as crazy as it sounds, most people thought that you could count the stars a really really long time ago. I know I didn't really post any back-up for these claims, but that's because it's late, and I'm lazy, but I will definitely look everything up in the Bible and online if you don't want to take my word for it. I would also encourage people to usually not take people's word for it, and research what they claim. Like Whit always says, "But don't take my word for it, see for yourself".

[jelly]

Also, absolutely no Scientific evidence supporting the Bible? Just read articles on this site: http://www.icr.org They have countless scientific articles about science agreeing with the Bible.

I don't think anyone was saying there was no scientific evidence to support the historical accuracy of the Bible, only that there is no objective evidence to prove the existence of a God.

Honestly, the creationist view never changes, but the theory of evolution and natural creation (opposed to supernatural) is always changing to fight the arguments made by creationist scientists.

Which creationist view are you referring to? I've heard several different arguments concerning dates, etc. Also, I'm afraid you have it backwards. The scientific community, for the most part, doesn't claim to be anything else besides a measurable standard for objective truth. It's often the church, unfortunately, that seems so intent on fighting the scientific arguments made by those without a religious bias.

[Marc.]

Which creationist view are you referring to? I've heard several different arguments concerning dates, etc. Also, I'm afraid you have it backwards. The scientific community, for the most part, doesn't claim to be anything else besides a measurable standard for objective truth. It's often the church, unfortunately, that seems so intent on fighting the scientific arguments made by those without a religious bias.

Actually . . . That makes sense. Reading my post now it makes me look really bias. Which, I guess I am. I suppose if someone were able to present me with reasonable evidence in support of evolution than I'd be able to look at it with a more open mind. But seeing as how no one has actually been able to do that for me, or I have failed to find any, I just can't look at it as a serious argument. Then again, that's just me. It may even be my inability to accept that there is a possibility that the Bible is not true, which has caused there to be very little evolutionist arguments/evidence that has fazed my certainty of the creationist belief.
I've never been good at debating serious matters.

[Sherlock]

I guess part of what we have to let go of is the idea that accepting tenants of evolution is tantamount to denying the Bible, God or Christianity. It all comes down to how we read the Scriptures, and I think some people assign the 7-day/24 hour Creation story a literal, almost dogmatic position, and others consider it as an important part of Scripture, but open to the idea that those particular chapters in Genesis may not have been written literally.

Either way you can have two differing views, but my point is that not all evolutionists are foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Christian scientists, nor is the study of evolution intrinsically linked to the acceptance of an atheist perspective or a rejection of God.

[Marc.]

Oh, I know that most evolutionists aren't vehemently trying to prove Creation wrong (there are plenty of creationists obsessed with proving Evolution wrong), the one thing that I've noticed on both sides of the argument is that when approaching an experiment, they bring their views on the matter with them, rather than remaining objective, which is what science should be (Note: Views and previous evidence gathered are not the same thing. You should probably take into account previous experiments done on the matter). Of course, I'm contradicting my first post in this topic, which sounded really defensive, but hey, I learned in the past two days . You shouldn't be trying to prove one view or the other, but examining the evidence and simply recording the conclusions at the end of your experiment/whatever-else-a-scientific-analysis-can-be-called. Whether it agrees with your views on the matter or not. Science isn't meant as a tool to prove your view, but a way to discover truth through observation. What you choose to believe beyond recordable results is not a scientific conclusion, but a personal conclusion from the scientific conclusion. If that makes sense. This is quickly straying away form the topic of Atheists and the Bible. As it isn't even really about the Bible anymore. So, on topic!
Atheists . . . Uh. Well I know many of them appreciate the Bible as both a significant literary milestone in history, and a source of many important morals today. Some just spend their life hating it, though. So . . . yeah. Uh. On topic . . . stuff.