Do all atheists disagree with the Bible morally, scientifically, theologically and historically?

Question

If so, why? If not, what do you disagree about the Bible and why?

Sorry. I meant theologically as in how the Bible represents God, that is if God exists.

Answer 1

Morally: the ethical principles it describes are immoral, totally unrealistic (i.e. phony), uninteresting (not unique), and above all, self-contradictory. The Old Testament prescribes capital punishment for petty crimes, sanctions wholesale slaughter of entire populations, encourages eye-for-an-eye "justice". These are all evil practices, as far as I'm concerned. The God dictating these laws isn't worthy of the time of day much less worship. Now in the new testament we meet Jesus who tells us to "turn the other cheek". Not only is this the polar opposite of the Old Testament teachings, but it is utterly impossible to live by. In essence, we are to make it clear to everyone else that we willingly accept being taken advantage of. The only logical conclusion of such behavior in the real world is passive suicide. Those who claim to live up to this ethic are liars and can be dismissed out-of-hand. Now, the much-lauded golden rule crops up in almost every major world religion's teachings. Christians do NOT have exclusive claim to universally-employed ethical principles, as much as they would like to think so.

Scientifically: There is much in the bible that simply defies anything we understand to be possible. People can not float up into the sky; it's a violation of gravity. Seas do not make way for pedestrians at the behest of their leader; again, a violation of gravity. People can not spontaneously turn into salt, of any kind; the only alchemy possible is radioactivity, and this only matters for a few isotopes, not many of which are in our bodies. The length of a person's hair has no effect on their muscular strength. People can not be revitalized after being dead for 3 days. Parthenogenesis in humans has not been seen. A man cannot survive inside of a whale. Burning plants do not communicate with humans (or vice versa). Etc.

Theologically: I'm not sure how to disagree with a text theologically. I don't know of any objective standard you can use to compare what's right and what's wrong about a probably-imaginary entity.
EDIT:
As to your question details: I do dislike the multitude of gods the Bible puts forward as a single God.

Historically: I'm not familiar enough with the Bible's literary history to critique some of its history, but there are a few points that are simply untrue. There is no possibility, given what we know today (which is quite a bit more than they knew even 400 years ago, much less in the times of the first scribes), for the whole of the universe and life itself to have been created in 6 literal days. We also know that all life evolved from a single ancestor, in literal conflict with the biblical account of creation. In any case, I think the origins of the bible are too shrouded in mystery to take as anything other than an anthology of ancient literature, propagandized, disseminated, enforced, and repeatedly revised by a lineage of self-interested men.

Answer 2

morally no, i think the whole thing "what would jesus do" is a good way of living, i think all of us could use a role model to look up to, to be better people, more selfless, and less self absorbed. scientifically... theres a book out there called ancient mysteries, and seems to prove scientifically some events that are stated in the bible... not exactly how the bible says it happens, like these things happened by the grace of god. theologically, why are you asking an athiest about if we think god wrote the bible, of course we don't, nor are we afraid to go to hell, because there is no hell. and historically, no i think a lot of the dates are a little off, like when jesus was actually born wasn't on christmas, christmas is actually a pagan tradition, mimicing the winter solstice

Answer 3

Well, there are a lot of different books in the Bible. I agree with some of them some of the time.

Morally I think the Sermon on the Mount was ahead of its time, but I think the slavery endorsed in the Bible is not moral. Scientifically, I think pi is about 3, but not exactly 3, as it says in the Bible. Historically I agree that Egypt probably existed, but I don't think God killed all the Egyptian first-born children.

Answer 4

there is no way I could answer all of those in depth so I am going to answer simply.

Yes I disagree with the bible morally. I think there are too many scriptures of hate and people like to skip over them, but they are there none the less.
Um, is there any scientific thing to learn from the bible? No
If I agreed with the theology then I would be christian.
Though some of the bible is historically accurate, it is not a reliable testimony of what happened. It is to be expected that a book written at a particular time would include current events. No matter what though there is no way to know if it was inspired by god and that is what it all comes down to.

Answer 5

I believe the Bible to be a work of fiction with some correct facts, sort of like Paul Bunyan stories. There was probably a guy named Jesus that existed but, he didn't do the things that the book said he did.Morally for every good lesson in the Bible there is a bad one, Christians forget all the stuff about stoning and sacrifices, and if it doesn't actually teach hate it does teach intolerance,which leads to hate.Scientifically there is no proof anything in it is true.Historically some of the names, places and events did happen near that time, but this is also true of many fictional novels. It is not uncommon for writers to use real places and events in a novel to bring realisim to a ficitional storyline.

Answer 6

i could say it has, scientificly that is thoroughly fallacious on maximum of tiers that there isint adequate time. Creationism maintains to be junk and with none admire whilst evolution is shown scientific certainty. you would be stunning. the worldwide substitute into not stopped so as that the Jews ought to win a conflict. traditionally the bible makes up lots of issues, floods, wandering deserts, nativity, census, killing of the innocents all which at the instant are not backed via technology. definite, distinctive the Bible is made up. it rather is in step with another tale. Even morally hasn't the bible been chanced on desiring with its coaching on the thank you to handle and beat your slaves. i don't comprehend approximately this. There are some very unusual issues in the Bible. So what do you think of, Christians will come out with their often used lies that the bible hasn't been shown incorrect, that archeologists count on it and that all and sundry scientists think of its real. i used to be a Christian Pastor and now i've got not got faith in the Bible or any Church which helps it. All of that's rumour from their pastors and utter lies. What say you? As I pronounced, i've got not got faith in the Bible and any Pastor which does not see the themes with it rather is a fool. Your answer:what's your source? share the web content you referenced on your examine and supply credit.

Answer 7

I'm not a moralist, so I don't disagree morally. There isn't any science in the Bible, so I don't disagree scientifically. I'm not a theologian, being an atheist, so I don't disagree theologically. As for history, I'm sure that a few of the events in the Bible actually happened, it can't be ALL lies.

Answer 8

I think the Bible has some good stories in it -- the Good Samaritan comes to mind -- which are of great value. But as far as being the "word of God" or anything, the Bible holds no more weight with me than does the Qur'an, the Satanic Bible, the Book of Mormon, or any other religious text. I think one can find passages of value in any religious text...but that doesn't mean that the text is, on the whole, "true".

Answer 9

People don't get their morals from the Bible because "good", moral people throw out a lot of the morals in the Bible (like it being pleasing to God to stone to death a disobedient two year old).
Science in the Bible? When have you heard of leprosy being healed by the blood of a lamb being smeared behind your left ear in modern science? Or that rabbits chew cud? Or that a bat is a bird? Or that insects have four legs?
Anything that says something to the equivalent of "Because God said so," I throw out. I'm not even sure why you brought theology into a question for atheists.
Historically, I throw a lot out, because 90% of it is hearsay of 60+ years.

Answer 10

Disagree with the Bible??

That's like disagreeing with a library because you don't like the books written by Robert Ludlum.

The Bible is a collection of 66 different books, some history, some poetry, some songs, some letters, as well as the rules of an ancient religion . . . written over the span of thousands of years. Problems arise when people can't tell one from another, and confuse them into each other.

Problems arise when you try to take a rule written for and by a certain group of people, and apply it to your life today (taking your disobedient child to the gates of the city to stone him, for example).

People tend to focus on the words in the Bible, and miss the message behind the story. The creation story of Genesis 1 and 2, for example, are poetry, the message is that God is powerful, neither of which is a history lesson.

Adam and Eve is a metaphor -- not literal history. It's poetic parable -- not the literal story of two people, for example.

The Bible is a fantastic collection of stories written by, about, and for the followers of the God of Abraham, and the followers of Christ.

It seems like in many cases, you're not "disagreeing" with the Bible, as much as you're unhappy with other people's misunderstanding of what the Bible is . . . you're allowing their mistake to feed your own mistake.

To "disagree with the Bible morally, scientifically, theologically and historically," is to be as simple-minded as the people who mistakenly think the Bible is "true."

That's not what the anthology called the Bible is.

Godspeed.