Atheists...?

Question

Why do atheists insist on using straw man arguments about Scripture that is taken out of the context in which it was written.

On the same note, why do you try to disprove the Christian faith with questions such as "A talking snake? How can you believe in that? Proof that God doesn't exist!"

That question is equivalent to a Christian stating "If we evolved from Monkeys then how come there are still Monkeys left?" to which many atheists rant about the stupidity of Christians. Do you not see how reciprocal the problem is?

So, here is my question, if you understand the futility of a lot of questions that Christians ask, why ask the same questions of us?

Answer 1

this is the big hit against atheists. then where did monkeys come from? amoebas. then where did amoebas come from? two giant rocks hitting each other. where did the rocks come from? the sun. where did the sun come from? uhhh...I don't know. see, people can't understand why evolution is false. if there was an origin of all things, what is it. the answer is...God!!!

Answer 2

I can't follow your logic. We share a common ancestor with monkeys. Other living fossils still exist such as sharks, the have been here for a very long time. Cats, leopards, lions, tigers exist, they share a common ancestor as well. We evolved yet still retain much of the genetic code of our ancestors, When you are frightened, the hair on your neck stands up like other mammals our ancestors tried to look larger that way. We retain tail bones, appendix. Your dog has a dew claw from when its ancestor has an opposable thumb like a raccoon. The skeletons of dolphins show fingers where flippers exist from when they were terrestrial. The fossil record and genetic data support evolution as well That is real evidence. Now the bible, taken in the whole or though snippets like talking snakes and donkeys, god wrestling and eating with a man. God is omnipotent yet Adam hid from "him" in the garden. If parts of the bible are indeed false then the bible in its entirety cannot be the word of god. IF the book is the inspired word of god it still should be accurate. If the stories within are metaphors then you can't rely on the accuracy of the bible since then it is written metaphorically, This is where believing is illogical where the premises of the belief are based on that which has no validity yet then you substitute faith for reason when you can't make sense of your religious text. If it were the word of god it would be flawless. It is not, The bible is replete with historical error and error of fact There was no mythical flood and feeding dinosaurs and millions of species from the globe on an ark is implausable and impossible. The earth is not flat and the rain doesn't fall from windows in the sky. God would have know that.This is where believing becomes abject stupidity. Why worship that which CAN'T be the word of god BECAUSE it is fallacious.

Answer 3

Atheists don't typically fall on straw man arguments, many atheists attack every single aspect of Christianity, from it's inception which was bastardized from eastern mysticism through it's crass re-interpretation of a Jewish war god and on to it's again bastardized Savior. These aren't straw men, they are arguably problems with the christian faith that aren't discussed often enough. Christianity is a faith, it's not a science and it's pretty easy to pull apart logically, as are many things in the world however the god of Christianity resides in gaps, and there are only a few gaps in scientific understanding that people will be able to fill with the word god for much longer. I have a lot less problem with a talking snake than I do with a man dying for the sins of a non existent couple who started the human race round about the same time we had actually domesticated dogs.

Answer 4

Some of the most popular Christian arguments involve scripture that has been taken out of context, or scripture which they simply don't understand, or scripture which is contradicted by more scripture elsewhere which is conveniently ignored.

I understand the meat of your question, and I do see a tremendous amount of atheists here exhibiting the same kind of behavior that they abhor in Christians - not just the style of questions asked, but also simply the attitude of superiority. Of course, a lot of atheists probably got this way due to being hounded by Christians about their beliefs.

People tend to respond to others in like kind. So, if an atheist feels preached at by Christians, or tires of being asked the same ridiculous questions, they'll become more and more intolerant of Christianity, and more apt to display the same kind of behavior themselves. Sometimes it's just easier than constantly trying to remain the better person in a discussion.

Answer 5

Perhaps part of it is reciprocal. When one makes silly arguments and pokes fun, so does the next. The problem is that there is a chicken and egg issue going on now. Nobody knows which was the first to make stupid arguments. (I'll reseve my own opinion to myself)

In any event, neither side is capable of providing any reasonable level of proof to their claims. Atheists want verifiable proof of a God before they would choose to exist, and Christians don't have any such to offer. Christians want atheists to prove their position, but do not accept as proof the fact that a God is not necessary for what we see in nature. And so it goes.

Answer 6

Actually there is a big difference. Evolution has never stated that we came from monkeys and the clade structure of the evolutionary tree allows other species to exist. Our common ancestor that we share with the monkeys is extinct, unfortunately.

The Bible does claim that we are made of mud, that snake can talk, that donkeys talk, that every beast on the earth was on the Ark, that creation happened in 6 days 6,000 years ago.
The equivalent question to the Xian monkey question is "If God made us out of mud, Then how come there is still mud around?"

Answer 7

I am an agnostic, myself, but I'm not here to knock Christians or Muslims or Hindus or whatever. That said, I for this type of point, I would like to include atheists as a religion. I only say that because I think that criticism of another's faith for conversion (and I would say that an atheist trying to degrade your belief in your God qualifies as conversion) falls in the realm of aggressive evangelism, and I take issue with that. I don't mind a discussion of religion or spirituality, but I don't like it pressed on me. Advertising your faith is one thing, being pushy is another. After all, isn't the best way to 'sell' (I mean no disrespect) your religion or school of though is to be a shining example, yes?

So, I contend that aggressive, rhetorical argument (low-level religious aggression/war) on such a basis (or any, really)is very small-minded, and makes one a really lousy example of their particular school of spiritual thought. I respect other people's faiths, until they become disrespectful of mine, mainly because I think that most - if not all - religions can provide a very positive element to a human being's life. I'm just not willing to fight about the differences. However, as an agnostic, I don't think we can really prove any particular version of God, here in the world. Arguably, life itself provides enough proof for the faithful.

Answer 8

I've never questioned the belie in a talking snake. How a malicious and wrathful God (who proves himself to be just that) can be loving, I question. I have been on questions for awhile (this is an new incarnation) and I have yet to hear anything as weak as an argument about a talking snake. I'm not saying that it hasn't happened or wouldn't but it is far less often than the stupid monkey question or Pascal's wager.

Answer 9

I don't.

On the other hand, I am perfectly willing to explain the bible to those who have never read it. To take examples from several recent questions:

One can take all the verses in the bible that refer to abortion and discover that the bible considers it a property crime (as opposed to a serious crime like cursing your father or mother which would get you death). It's not out of context, it's the entire biblical context.

One could take all the verses in the bible which discuss rape and discover that a woman who is raped might have to marry the rapist or be killed along with the rapist. It's not out of context, it too is the entire biblical context.

One can take all the verses in the bible which refer to prayer. There are a number which in context have Jesus saying that whatever you pray for will be done. Here it is the christians who pick and choose and pull out of context verses which hint that god gives you what you need.

If you are willing to declare that the bible is not totally literal, that some parts can be rejected by modern society, let us know. If you believe that the bible is the literal word of god then don't attack us just because you don't like the entire bible.

Answer 10

Fundamentalist always use the "out of context" argument whenever someone points out a flaw in the Bible. It does not make any sense to say that the parts are wrong but the whole thing is right. Or is the Bible so irreducibly complex that none of the parts makes sense by themselves?

Answer 11

I don't recall ever hearing any atheists make a statment like if you believe in talking snakes then there is proof that god does not exist. The belief in talking snakes proves you are a gulible moron but it does not prove there is no god. You can believe anything that you want to in this life, but that is in no way proof that a god is there. I can't prove that there is no god, but we can see with simple logic that the probility of one existing the way that christians or muslims of jews or hindus or any religion explain it is VERY VERY VERY VERY low, in fact it is so improbable that to not believe it is most likley the best way to go.Just looking at the logical mistakes that are contained in all "holy texts" would make the case for any rational person to reject the entire idea. Yet we have a very large portion of the world buying into very contrived ways of thinking. When the vast majority of the worlds population have been imprinted with the idea that it is better to rely on "faith" rather than reason and logical thought then it is understandable why we have so many people making bad arguments for their belief in a god and shrugging off logic. Take a look at quantum mechanics and then take a look at Zen, they are very close in their understanding of reality and these arguments are very logical to say the least and they are not religions and they don't ask their students to rely on "faith". They point out their findings thrue logic and reason and they dont subscribe to dogmatic "laws". I really don't care what a person wants to base their life on . If they want to go thrue life living an aparent lie is fine with me. The problem I have with it is when they try to put it upon me to believe the same thing and then use it to start wars, opress people they don't like and make political policy and try to controll the schools and the medical professions all becouse of their sacred books that are full of logical mistakes and outright fear based mind controll, then they are doing a horrible evil to the world. People have morals without having to rely on a made up system of fear to do good in the world and we would all be much better off with religion being kept in the privite lives of the people who buy into them. We should not have public officals who profess any religious belief at all and religion should not be allowed into the public policy period. Religion is a very dangerous thing becouse it is used in very dangerous ways.
The very sad thing about it is that we as humans will never shed this terrible instituition. It will be the death of us all. We are not going to go to a hell, we are not going to go to a heaven we are just going to cease to exist if this is let to go on. I for one feel it is high time to rise up against religion in very large numbers and put it away before it puts us away. The world depends on it.