Can I first get a straight answer to a simple question?
I think the question is clear enough: Do atheists accept the Bible and/or the word of God? I think we can use our rational thinking and give a simple answer: Yes, they do. or No, they don’t.
Simple question? I still don’t understand what you’re asking.
I don’t believe in God. I don’t believe there is such a thing as divinely inspired writing. How could there be, since there is no divine to inspire it?
Is that what you’re getting at?
Three people have said they don’t understand what you’re asking. So no, it’s not clear at all. It makes absolutely no sense.
Accept it as what? I accept it as having been written by humans. Period. Like any and all literature.
Your question is a confusing one, because it seems to have a really obvious, straightforward answer (i.e. ‘no’), which is making people suspect that a ‘gotcha’ is waiting in the wings, or that your question might have hidden subtlety.
Do atheists accept that the Bible exists? Yes.
Do atheists accept that God wrote it? Generally, no.
Do atheists accept that the Bible may contain some interesting content? Some do, some don’t.
I take it then it is not a matter of faith. That is, your rejection of the idea of divinely inspired writings logically derives from the fact that you don’t believe in God. Assuming we are both trying to understand things rationally, can we agree on the bolded statement in this post?
Is this going to be the one where atheists, not being omniscient, can’t ever be completely sure that the Bible isn’t the Word of God? I mean, are we going to have to do the Burden of Proof talk?
Thank you for your clarifications and straightforward answers. Thank you indeed.
And yet, I’m surprised at such reluctance from people who (a) are not afraid to boldly assert their position, (b) show the confidence of owners of logic-based knowledge, and (c) do not hesitate to argue for the superiority of standpoint. I mean, a logical person should be willing to analyze different points of view with equal openness and rigor, shouldn’t they?
What? No. I don’t believe in God and I don’t think the Bible is the word of God or there is such thing as divinely inspired writings. There is no conspiracy here. I support the use of rational thinking. Atheists explicitly or implicitly claim they make use of logic not faith in building and supporting their point of view and I would like to see them happily apply reasoning when it comes to analyzing their own position too. So, an atheist defines himself as one who rejects God/gods/deities. Or they lack belief in God/gods/deities. As people who resort to rational thinking rather than faith, shouldn’t atheists agree that the logical consequence of the way they define themselves is that an atheist also rejects the Bible or any so-called word of God?
The reluctance is, I am fairly sure, based on confusion about the way you presented the question, not the actual content of it.
I mean, imagine if you asked a bunch of zoologists this question:
“I have asked many zoologists this question, but never gotten a straight answer; Do zoologists accept that unicorns exist?”
The audience is going to be thinking:
“Well, the answer is obviously ‘no’, but wait, he says he’s never received a straight answer! There must be some subtle angle to the question. Is he asking whether we accept that unicorns exists as a concept? Or that they exist in art and literature? Is he going to wait for us to give an absolute, definitive ‘no’, then wheel out one exceptional case of some crazy zoologist who does believe in unicorns?..”
I think so, but you seem to be expressing surprise about it, which is throwing everyone way off balance.
Thank you again.
Can we agree then that, if we use rational thinking, the rejection/lack of belief in God/gods/deities leads to logical inferences that can be included in a comprehensive definition, which can be applied to all atheists? Or can rational thinking and logical inferences only be applied when referring to God followers?
I guess… but there will probably be be weird exceptions because atheism doesn’t have a governing body that dictates how and what atheists should be thinking. Atheism is (as I understand it) not defined by what people do, it’s defined by what they don’t.
I’m not at all sure why you’re making this so complex.
Seconded.
Atheists don’t believe in the existence of things called gods.
They don’t believe because they haven’t seen any compelling evidence that gods exist.
Since they don’t believe that gods exist, they also do not believe that things created by gods exist.
They therefore do not believe that books created by gods exist.
These aren’t complicated or obscure facets of atheism. I find it literally incredible that you have been doing this for years and have been unable to get these simple answers.
Logically, no. At best, you could infer a list of characteristics that might be expected of that subset of atheists who were both logical and rational (neither of which are necessarily implied by a lack of belief in a deity). Even then, I’m not sure what the point would be, since – as has been pointed out – it ought to be possible to infer any of those characteristics on an ad hoc basis, given the definition of atheism.
Leaving aside your questionable use of the words “resort” and “admit”, I think it should be made explicit that while an atheist would, logically, also lack belief in divinely inspired writing, it is only the concept of it being “divinely inspired” that he would need to reject, not necessarily the writings themselves. He’s entirely free to value any particular “holy book” for other reasons – he may respect it as a cultural influence, or admire the poetry of its language, or even agree with and follow many or all of its ethical and moral precepts.
I hope that isn’t confusing.
What are the odds of Mr and Mrs Jones’ son Socratic choosing this line of work?
Funny! I think I typo’d his name and it is actually “Socrates R. Jones.”
I’m going to attempt to fairly paraphrase and simplify this.
Does lack of belief in deities lead logically to a definition of atheists?
Lack of belief in deities IS the definition of an atheist. Your question seems to contain a tautology.
Well, that changes everything. Mods?
What is so earth shaking here? Philosophers have given up trying to prove the existence of God. Just about every religious person accepts that faith in God must be taken on faith. The Bible was written by humans. So what else is new?