The Case Against God

Seems to be the season for all the atheists and agnostics coming out of the woodwork to vex all you God-fearin’ folks, so here I go:

  1. We hold the entity known as God to be responsible, directly or indirectly, for the document known as the Bible. Directly, in that He is felt by some to have literally dictated it and is thus responsible for its literal content. Indirectly, in that He is felt by others to have infused its human writers with some mystical and inexplicable access to His thoughts. Very few, if any, believers in the entity known as God feel that He has no connection at all with the document known as the Bible, or that it is conceived of or written purely through human inventiveness–indeed to believe that “God” and the “writers of the document known as the Bible” are entirely discrete entities is practically to be an atheist or an agnostic.

  2. We hold that the Bible is filled with self-contradictions, a-historical information, logical problems, some of which are acknowledged by believers in the document known as the Bible and the entity known as God.

  3. We hold that these self-contradictions, a-historical information, logical problems, etc. are often rationalized by believers who feel the entity known as God to be perfect as due to human error (by those believers who find His responsiblility for the document known as the Bible to be indirect) or as a deliberate mystery on His part (by those believers who find His responsiblility for the document known as the Bible to be direct).

BUT

  1. since believers often fill their days and nights with attempts to persuade us non-believers of His existence, and

  2. since ambiguities in a document shall not benefit the drafter of the document, and

  3. since He is either the drafter of said document, or

  4. the inspirer of the document who has had almost 2000 years to clarify His meaning for the benefit of non-believers, but

  5. has not done so,

  6. we petition the court to declare God to be absent from the face of the earth, and

  7. allow us to get on with our fucking lives without another syllable about conversion, God, the Bible, or other related matters.

We can stop right there. Your thread title implies a case against the existence of (a) God. But you immediately confuse the concept of God with a particular interpretation of God. It’s like saying there are no melons because you say you can prove there is no such thing as a canteloupe.

Weirdly enough, I agree with magellan01 on this. Belief in God does not require a belief that the Bible has any divine authority and proving human error in the bible could not possibly disprove God anyway. At best, it disproves Biblical inerrancy, but God can still theoretically exist with an errant Bible or no Bible.

I’m an avowed atheist, but I don’t get what the goal of your rant is, Pseudo. I don’t see a debate here. You lay out what I can only presume to be a mock charge, but it’s a bit muddy and a little too presumptive. Perhaps you’re attempting to be humorous.

Elucidate please.

Upon motion of magellan and Dio, this thread is dismissed without prejudice.

pseudotron to pay reasonable attorney’s fees.

Could we file a motion to change the name in the indictment, God to God<Bible>? In the West this is the alias this supposed deity usually travels under. Other deities, such as God<Koran>, aka Allah, and God<Krishna, etc.> would require slightly different indictments.

How about just changing it to “The case against a divine Jesus”?

Yep. Me, too. Atheist, and confused about this thread.

Yep, that’s right. Us believers here on the SDMB, that’s all we ever do. Day and night, we’re always starting out own threads and hijacking others’, trying to persuade you non-believers of God’s existence.

Especially all of us who claim that the Bible was dictated word for word by God.

Now that you’ve pointed out to us that there might be some, well, controversial points in the Bible, we’ll go away and leave you alone.

Nah. I could do that back when I believed in God and the Bible. The real Bible, not that spurious sequel. :dubious:

I’d think it would make more sense as “The Case Against the Christian God”.

Man, you guys are quick. I say “the entity known as God” and, sure enough, you catch me up right there. “Who is this ‘God’ of whom you speak, Pseudo? We all have no idear whut you’re talking about!! Could you define this character for us? Maybe you mean x and maybe you mean y…why, we’re just so Goshdarn confused by the concept of ‘God’.”

Thanks for playing.

I mean, you’ve got a confusing document there, and most of you believe God is the author, so I’m proposing (see point 6) that if you claim the infallible God is the author, then its shortcomings (and you know what I mean there too) invalidate his being perfect, which invalidates his essential quality.

For those who don’t claim he’s the author (see point 7), he’s had two millennia to clarify the position he was trying to state the first time. BZZZZZZ! Time’s up on that one. Two millennia plus one omnipotent being= more than enough time to make the Bible clear to us atheists and agnostics.

Game over, is what I’m saying. Next?

What? Contradictions in the Bible?

Elucidator, it’s coming to me out of the fog…Schrodinger’s Cant…right?

So, what you’re saying is that you’d like us to rewrite the Bible so that atheists and agnostics will be okay with what it says?

I don’t want to speak for all of us atheists and agnostics, but I’d be open to embracing the concept of a Lord Almighty, or a King Jesus, or a First Cause or whatever you’re peddling, if you didn’t try to persuade me on the basis of a error-riddled text as authored or inspired by an unerring God.

I think that’s just a raw tactical error on your part. This God of yours can do anything He likes, but he can’t copyedit his text? Sounds fishy to me.

And moreover, why would God make Shakespeare such a better writer? :stuck_out_tongue:

What “I’m” peddling? A tactial error on “my” part?

Sounds to me like someone’s generalizing…

Looks like Christians don’t have a monopoly on persecution complexes after all.

There’s no such thing as democracy either. I looked at a lot of those countries that emphatically stated that they were democracies: the German Democratic Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Democratic Republic of Korea, and many others. There’s an obvious disconnect between the forms of government they actually utilize and this “democracy” that they espouse, so clearly democracy is not any good for anything since those lousy governments are the best that democracy’s ideals can inspire.

[/allegory]

Look, some experience was sufficiently common to be given names and yet sufficiently profound and rare to inspire awe and be considered special. You don’t have to know everything about it to understand that that’s the kind of thing that can make societal leadership nervous, so should it come as a surprise that the general tendency has been to take some representation of it, squeeze the life from it, take it to the taxidermist, and prop the stuffed and mounted corpse of it in a prominent place where you can say “it” is on the social leadership’s side? Where, any time the actual experience moves some people, you can point to the taxidermist-version and say “this is doing it right, yonder blaspheming heathens are uttering wrong phrases and not observing proper sacraments and are therefore doing anti-‘it’ things”? Where you can co-opt some of the energy of it when it moves people, saying “oh, so nice and so good that you are into ‘it’, we’re all about ‘it’, come over here where ‘it’ is happening”?

(Of course you run the risk of attracting lots of idealistic visionary people to the organized corpse-version and then OOPS the dang thing starts to come back to life…but as long as you can keep a bureaucratic structure and some moldy oldies in charge to stomp out such sparks, you can usually disillusion them and they’ll leave)