is there a contradiction in the arguments of "non believers"....?

Question

when it is pointed out that men wrote the bible to interpret god, but that "fallacious" interpretation is still so often used to point out how "hateful" god is. if it is a false documentation, then either, argue that it is false on all counts including what most non believers would refer to as a horrid and "humanistic" interpretation, or allow that perhaps the god that is ridiculed by atheists in the bible is a misrepresented god.
in other words, i hear folks say god is a myth written about by men. ok fine. god is vindictive within the text of scripture, ok fine, i will listen to that. But, to argue that men wrote it, which makes it "suspect," and then to argue against god using the same "suspect" material "begs the question" every bit as much as the "faith" that i see mocked daily.
opinions?

how, yoda, do you know what my opinion is regarding the existence of god?
atheists and christians alike, dismiss questions that challenge there arguments with half hearted rhetoric and assumption, why is the challenger always on the other team?
that is a sad lack of observation.

their...not there...sorry

Answer 1

We aren't arguing. Unlike bible thumpers, those who don't believe aren't trying to convert everyone within a 100 mile radius. We are stating our opinion.

Answer 2

Oh, I'm not quite one of the people that do that. I do point out that the Bible was written by men but I don't go on about how God is vindictive, etc. and how that's one of the reasons I'm a non-believer. I'm agnostic so I I'm open to the possibility of a God but I don't look at the Bible as an infallible record (obviously). Men make mistakes and/or lie so I feel the Bible would have mistakes/lies woven in even if this Christian God does exist somehow. It's possible that one of the 'mistakes' is that he is not a vindictive God and that men wrote that part in to scare people into believing in him. The idea of God being vindictive is NOT the reason I'm a non-believer. I'm not one of those people that say, 'Why would I believe in a God that lets innocent children die..." IF there is a God, then things happen for a good reason. BUT, the Bible is something else entirely. It's just a book. If I were to have a relationship with a God, I'd have one without a book written by men who I can't trust.

Answer 3

I think that people often miscommunicate the word "god." Not necessarily misinterpret nor mistake, but what they mean isn't necessarily what they've written. Everyone does that.

I suspect that when non-believers are both pointing out that the bible is written by men and that god is "hateful," what they mean is that the bible is written by men and the god they've transcribed is a hateful one. It's sort of a "those scriptures come from men, not god, so it's a man's word, not a god's word; besides, men say the bible's god is loving and kind, but look at how hateful the bible's god actually is." At least that's what I mean when I deal with both my disbelief in the bible and with interpretation of the bible.

Answer 4

That's a rather convoluted question you have there ;-)

Let's see:

1. Assuming the bible is written by men, and is fallacious on all counts, yes, it is possible that a god exists who is not described in the bible.

2. Assuming the bible is written by inspiration from God, and represents an accurate account of God's relationship with men, then one must ask what kind of god would do the things reported in the bible.

I don't see a contradiction. Rather, I see two different lines of questioning: one that assumes the bible does not describe god, and one that does.

Either assumption is valid for the sake of argument/questions.

The first assumption clearly demonstrates a belief that no god could be as immature and petulant as the one described in the bible. The second assumption clearly demonstrates a belief that if such a god exists, it is unworthy of the worship given it by humans.

Actually, you've given me the inspiration for a question. Thanks.

Answer 5

The only proof of a god is the bible. The people who point out the flaws, flubs, falacies, and misrepresentations of the bible are just punching holes in that particular form of evidence. If you want to show them that a god exists, then offer them some other proof than the bible. Don't point out the window and say that the world is all the proof that is needed. There are many of other ways that the world could have came about and there is evidence to back those up. Come up with evidence that proves a supernatural existance. Faith healers could easily do the job but submitting to rigorous scientific testing. If they could show that they can heal with prayer and touch on a regular and consistent basis then that would be a form of evidence outside of the bible.

Answer 6

I guess the question is, if you do not believe the bible is the "word of god" then what is? Feel free to substitute your particular scripture for bible and the statement still stands.

I don't believe in god. I believe the bible was written by men who did and they recorded what they believed god was and what they believed god did. Some religions have added to these writings but they haven't replace them.

Thus I use their beliefs to question their worship of their god. I don't believe that god flooded the Earth and killed almost everybody, that god wiped out the firstborn of Egypt, that he stopped the sun so that more people in Jericho could be killed, but they do and, believing that, I question why they would worship such a deity.

If the christians want to rewrite the bible and say that the new work defines their god then I will study that work. It has been tried - for example, Jefferson rewrote the gospels - but it never seems to be accepted by any major sect. So, for now, we are left with the bible. A book of myths but one that christians believe.

Answer 7

These are actually two separate arguments.

The first is that gods are created by man, intsead of man being created by god. This argument states that in order to explain and justify the world around them, man created a god or gods and attributed to them powers over some or all elements of the natural and supernatural world. Along with those powers, men also gave their diety(s) personality traits, likes, dislikes, etc, in order to establish and justify rules used to govern the people by. That is why god may be sexist, hateful to a neighboring group of people, prone to destroying things via natural disaster, etc.

The second argument is one used to battle the christian idea of an all-loving god. It simply points out the fallacy of stating that god is all knowing, loving, merciful, and powerful. It does not acknowledge that god is real, it simply states that the argument of this god having the afore mentioned qualities is contradictory to the actions displayed within the bible itself.

Answer 8

You're just manipulating things. Its most certainly written by man. How divinely inspired is debatable. If it is written by various anonymous men, how can it be fit for worship? If its accuracy is in question, once again, how can it be fit for worship? Whether or not it is a misrepresentation, it is the basis of two world religions and misguidance for hundreds of millions. So its either time for reformation, or dispersal. The reason that the scripture is called into question is because claims of fraudulent divine inspiration are ignored. So then you move on to the next issue. EX: Let's consider it IS inspired by God accurately. Either way it doesn't add up.

Answer 9

To say that God is cruel or hateful is not an argument against his existence. Hitler was cruel, but he still existed.
Also, one of the claims about the inaccuracy of the bible relates to the agendas of those who wrote, edited and translated it. At no point was it in those people's interests to make God seem evil, so one would assume that parts of the bible which do make God seem evil were not added by those people. Someone expressing a view they dislike is immediately more believable than someone expressing a view that they like.

Answer 10

Dude... what's with all the quotation marks?

Atheists do not ridicule god, though many do ridicule belief in god. If someone says that there may be a god, but they just don't find the Christian depiction of god to be believable, then they are not atheist, they are agnostic (or have a faith other than Christianity).

Answer 11

i wager i'm having worry with this "regulation", because it type of feels to be so inflexible and constrained as to ward off the reality in a lot of situations. as an celebration, an action, theory or target might want to be both unfavourable and sensible mutually - (fool savant). it really relies upon on your attitude and stipulations. i comprehend that is juvenile, yet this question jogs my memory of the e book "The Phantom Tollbooth". Do you remember the "shortest tall guy contained in the international", who might want to also be the "tallest short guy"? everyone is complicated, and so is existence. in case you initiate to throw faith or ethics into the blend, each little thing will develop right into a lot less sparkling. probable, quantum mechanics is sensible only as a type to describe what's suggested - yet the remark determines the proper result. by some skill, dissimilar human beings have determined that type might want to be prolonged to existence and reality, that signifies that human beings will stay as a lot as your expectancies, and reality will be determined through your unfavourable or sensible questioning. all of us comprehend that this isn't totally real.