Questions For The Atheists Out There

[Milton Bradley]

I want to ask a few questions to the atheists out there that are familiar with the bible.


I know many of us feel that man created God, and not the other way around. I have a few simple questions pertaining to this concept, and I would like some input from the hardcore among us.


Is the seeming megalomania that God allegedly speaks with in the bible just an example of the potential for power to corrupt people, and absolute power to corrupt absolutely?


Is it possible that the authors of the books that attempt to speak for God are exposing themselves by being unable to hide the seeming psychological problems from which they suffered?


It seems to me that in attempting to write for an all seeing, all knowing, perfect Creator went to the authors head, and just the thought of that much power corrupted the thought process, and is evident in the texts they attempt to attribute to God.


I always percieved that the passages in the bible are those of somebody experiencing a major bout of megalomania, and therefore, by definition, not the words of perfect God?


Could one realistically attempt psychoanalyze passages in the bible for obvious indications of the mental health of the author?

[Jack]

The bible clearly reflects the culture and times in which it was written. God supposedly wants wives to be obedient to their husbands, his followers to stone unbelievers, etc. His values seem to match those of the Middle East 2000 years ago perfectly. It is obvious to those of us who read the bible objectively that it reflects its times and its society only, something you wouldn't expect from someone/something that lives beyond time and knows the future.

Since I don't believe that any gods exist, I can only logically conclude that the attributes applied to the god of the bible are those of the writer of any particular book in it. Paul imagines a god who supports his beliefs, a god just like himself. Moses did the same. Not once does god reveal knowledge not already known to the people of that time. He failed to educate his believers in medical knowledge that could have prevented plagues. He never predicts any invention that could have improved their lives. All he appears to be interested in is attracting more and more followers with no concrete concern for their well-being or long term happiness. He seems to be unaware of microbes, electricity, even the geography of the planet. This is all understandable if we presume a human author, while it boggles the mind if we are supposed to credit the contents of the bible to a all-knowing and loving god.

So any megalomania you might perceive in the bible should rightly be attributed to the author, the human author, of that passage. As should any sentiment regarding the suppression of women, subjugation of slaves, dietary laws and so forth. Everything in the bible, and even those texts written at the same time but voted out of the final collection, reflect the attitudes and social norms of the authors. If god had inspired the whole book in its final form, it would exhibit much more consistency in tone. Instead it reads just like the type of book it is, a collection of writings by different authors at different points in history with differing beliefs in what god is and what he wants.

None of the writings in the bible are comprehensive enough to properly psychoanalyze the authors. Their writings do reveal what they conceive a god to be; in other words, what god would be like if they themselves were god. It's understandable that people who feel oppressed and powerless would imagine a god of power and wrath. Gods were invented not just to explain the unknown but also to make those who believe in them feel better about themselves and their plight.

[Sonart]

.

Outstanding analysis, Isherwood. Hope you don't mind, I filed it away for future reference and plagiarism. :)

Quote by: Milton Bradley Is the seeming megalomania that God allegedly speaks with in the bible just an example of the potential for power to corrupt people, and absolute power to corrupt absolutely?

As you may know, I believe that human beings are gentically hardwired for spiritual belief, a sense of oneness with the universe that can be achieved through liturgic ritual and meditation... prayer. This state of oneness provides heightened access to our other instincts that we might define as a sense of morality -- how to conduct ourselves in way that insures cooperation and harmony within the social group in order to ensure survival of our species. Unfortunately man is incapable of undestanding this instict completely and thus manifests it in the only way that makes sense to us... the existance of an omniscient, supernatural authority.

So my answer is that the claim that God speaks through the Bible is simply the earnest attempt of a group of strong-minded men - leaders - to interpret what they perceive as the will of God in concrete form, and inform the rest of society what they were convinced was the truth.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Is it possible that the authors of the books that attempt to speak for God are exposing themselves by being unable to hide the seeming psychological problems from which they suffered?

That's a fairly presumptious question, don't you think?

No, I think they were simply people endowed with a heightened genetic access to their spiritual instincts who were perfectly sincere in trying to interpret their perceptions, no different than the spectrum of spiritual leaders today.

Quote by: Milton Bradley It seems to me that in attempting to write for an all seeing, all knowing, perfect Creator went to the authors head, and just the thought of that much power corrupted the thought process, and is evident in the texts they attempt to attribute to God.

Entirely possible, I suppose. Most human alpha types -- leaders -- have a fairly inflated sense of themselves and a confidence that they're right. Ambition and willfulness can certainly be corrupted.

Quote by: Milton Bradley I always percieved that the passages in the bible are those of somebody experiencing a major bout of megalomania, and therefore, by definition, not the words of perfect God?

Combine the sense that you understand the will of an all powerful, omnipotent being with one's own, human self-confidence and strong will, and yeah, I suspect you arrive at the definition of megalomania. And since I don't believe in an all powerful, omnipotent being, then yeah, the Bible is rife with the dilllusions of megalomania among it's authors.

Quote by: Milton Bradley ]Could one realistically attempt psychoanalyze passages in the bible for obvious indications of the mental health of the author?

You thinking of doing it? Yes, I suppose one could realistically do that. Whether is serves any positive purpose is another question. I have no desire to undermine anyone's spiritual beliefs... I just want them not to try to impose theirs on me or anyone else.

.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Sonart You thinking of doing it? Yes, I suppose one could realistically do that. Whether is serves any positive purpose is another question. I have no desire to undermine anyone's spiritual beliefs... I just want them not to try to impose theirs on me or anyone else.

If one could prove phychosis from the words attributed to God, one could concluse that God was not perfect, and therefore not God, but the writings of men. ( Who lie! )


Even if the believer still chose to place faith in that particular God, it strengthens the case that it may be misplaced faith.

[samsara15]

What is an atheist? Do you mean non-Christians? Unbelievers? There are a million different varieties of 'atheists'. Some of them even believe in in God. I do. But not your Christian definition of God. Or that of any ogranized religion. An undefined God. Guess what? The ancient Egyptians believed Amun was an unknowable God. The Hidden One, they termed Amun, one whom all other Gods were mrely aspects thereof. And managed to build a very powerful, dominating priesthood off that belief. Aren't people amazing?

Perhaps the Bible was written by lunatics, but isn't most religion drvien by lunacy? Aren't we a crazy species of animal!?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: samsara15 What is an atheist? Do you mean non-Christians? Unbelievers? There are a million different varieties of 'atheists'. Some of them even believe in in God. I do. But not your Christian definition of God. Or that of any ogranized religion. An undefined God. Guess what? The ancient Egyptians believed Amun was an unknowable God. The Hidden One, they termed Amun, one whom all other Gods were mrely aspects thereof. And managed to build a very powerful, dominating priesthood off that belief. Aren't people amazing? Perhaps the Bible was written by lunatics, but isn't most religion drvien by lunacy? Aren't we a crazy species of animal!?

You're right, I should have solicited advice from the rabid anti-christians, rather than asking atheists, but, ah well.


You ask a few rather interesting questions there as well.

[Jack]

There are a million different varieties of 'atheists'.

Very good point, samsara15. There isn't a comprehensive body of non-belief among atheists, no articles of non-faith. Another point against atheism being considered a religion. We're way too disorganized. :)

[Sonart]

.

--"I believe in God, only I spell it Nature." -- Frank Lloyd Wright

I think it's fair to define an atheist as someone who does not believe in an omnipotent, supernatural "being"... an intelligent creator who communicates with humans.

I guess Samasrra's point is that you've focused on the Bible, but we could be asking these same questions about the Torah, the Qu'ran or any scriptures claiming to be God's personal pamphleteering.

.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Sonart . --"I believe in God, only I spell it Nature." -- Frank Lloyd Wright I think it's fair to define an atheist as someone who does not believe in an omnipotent, supernatural "being"... an intelligent creator who communicates with humans. I guess Samasrra's point is that you've focused on the Bible, but we could be asking these same questions about the Torah, the Qu'ran or any scriptures claiming to be God's personal pamphleteering. .

Indeed, it could be extrapolated out to any of Judeo Christain, and Muslim faiths. All in good time my man.


I did intentionally focus on the bible because there is the book I am most familiar with.


Thanks for the replies gents/ladies.

[whoracle]

"They know that it is human nature to take up causes whereby a man may oppress his neighbor, no matter how unjustly. ... Hence they have had no trouble in finding men who would preach the damnability and heresy of the new doctrine from the very pulpit..." [Galileo Galilei, 1615]

Might I preface with my own egotistical statement: Religion keeps only the weak minded and is contingent upon their need for guidance. Anyone who has actually *read* the Bible cover to cover (and does not just blindly jump around from chapter to chapter to read one passage at a time for an intended meaning being given out by someone behind a pulpit) and still professes its truth….well…I must admit that I question either your memory or your agenda. This post refers to the christian bible, and I’ll not yet refer to the asian texts which existed long before it with stunning similarity
Please also note that my questions are not hanging there for answers, just for thought.
This post will be two fold, and I apologize for the length.

The OT was written nearly 2k years before the advent of printing. The few copies which did exist, not surprisingly were kept by those who had vested interest. Interests which might have prompted self serving changes and whose ignorance might well have led to mistakes.
The written Hebrew was composed entirely of consonants, so that anything akin to accuracy would be impossible. Test this for yourself by writing a sentence and leaving out the vowels. It will take far more inspiration to read such a text than to write it.
The books composing the OT were not divided into chapters or verses, and no system of punctuation was known. The strict *rules* many devouts attest to in the composition of the bible (specific numbers of words and letters for each chapter/page etc.) were used in its translation, not its initial manuscript.
No dictionary existed among the jews for their language at the time of is writing and for this reason the accurate meaning was not preserved. The OT was not printed until 1488, before then it existed only in manuscript and was constantly exposed to erasures and additions. The fact that language is continually changing that words are constantly dying and others being born; that the same word has a variety of meanings during its life, shows how hard it is to preserve the original ideas that might have been expressed in the scriptures, for thousands of years, without dictionaries, without the art of printing, and without the light of contemporaneous literature. Marks and points to denote vowels were invented probably about the seventh century after Christ. Whether these vowels were put in the proper places or not is still an open question.
The most learned of the Hebrew language now readily admit that there are at least 100k errors in the text. It is not even known for certain who wrote any of the books of the OT. Most scholars now believe that Moses did not Pentateuch; now many say that Ezra gave the Pentateuch to the Jews. Whether either of them found or originated it is really unknown. Whatever there was of the OT was lost from the time of Moses until the days of Josiah, and it is likely that nothing resembling the bible existed in any permanent form among the jews until a few hundred yrs before christ.
Side note: Esther and the Song of Solomon, both books of the bible, mention neither god nor reference any supreme being or duty to religion. Other books, not now in existence, are referred to in the Old Testament as of equal authority, such as the books of Jasher, Nathan, Ahijah, Iddo, Jehu, Sayings of the Seers. Perhaps we will never no why they were eliminated or who was responsible, but my money is their having too much whimsy and not enough brimstone.
In the twentieth chapter of Exodus we find the first account of the giving of Ten Commandments. In the thirty-fourth chapter another account is given. These two accounts could never have been written by the same person. Read these two accounts and you will be forced to admit that one of them cannot be true. So there are two histories of the creation, of the flood, and of the manner in which Saul became king.

[whoracle]

It is now generally admitted that Genesis must have been written by two persons, and the parts written by each can be separated, and when separated they are found to contradict each other in many important particulars. In Genesis are two contradictory stories of creation. In Genesis 1:20 & 21, "every living creature" is brought forth from the waters, including every winged fowl." But in 2:19 God brings forth "every beast of the field and every fowl of the air" from dry ground.
In Genesis 1:2, earth comes into existence on the first day, completely underwater. Only by the 3rd day were waters of the deep collected, and dry land formed. But in Genesis 2:4, 5, & 6, earth on the first day was dry land, unwatered.
The first story has trees made on the 3rd day and man formed 3 days later (1:12-13 and 26-31). In the second version man was made before trees (2:7, 9). If chapter 1 is true, then fowls were created before man. If chapter 2 is true, then they were created after man.
Version one teaches man was created after all beasts. The second is clear, Adam was created before beasts. (1:25,27 versus 2:7,19).
In version one, man and woman are created simultaneously (1:27) while in version two (2:7,20-22), man and woman are separate acts of creation.
It is also admitted that copyists made changes not only verbal changes, but pieced out fragments; that the speeches of Elihu in the book of Job were all interpolated, and that most of the prophecies were made by persons whose names we have never known.
The manuscripts of the Old Testament were not alike, and the Greek version differed from the Hebrew, and there was no absolutely received text of the Old Testament until after the commencement of the Christian era.
The Alexandrian version, or what is known as the Septuagint, translated by seventy learned Jews, assisted by "miraculous power," about two hundred years before Christ, could not have been translated from the Hebrew text that we now have. The differences can only be accounted for by supposing that they had a different Hebrew text. The first Latin Bible originated in Africa, but no one has ever found out which Latin manuscript was the original. Many were produced, and all differed from each other. These Latin versions were compared with each other and with the Hebrew, and a new Latin version was made in the fifth century. Besides these there were Egyptian, Ethiopic, Armenian, and several others, all differing from each other as well as from all others in the world.
It was not until the fourteenth century that the Bible was translated into German, and not until the fifteenth that Bibles were printed in the principal languages of Europe. Of these Bibles there were several kinds -- Luther's, the Dort, King James's, Genevan, French, besides the Danish and Swedish. Most of these differed from each other, and the earliest fragment of the Bible in the "Saxon" language known to exist was written sometime in the seventh century. The first Bible was printed in England in 1538. In 1560 the first English Bible was printed that was divided into verses. Under Henry VIII. the Bible was revised; again under Queen Elizabeth, and once again under King James, This last was published in 1611, and is the one now in general use.
If a revelation from God was actually necessary to the happiness of man here and to his salvation hereafter, it is not easy to see why such revelation was not given to all the nations of the earth. Why were the millions of Asia, Egypt, and what are now the Americas left in darkness? Why wasn’t a written, or better yet, a printed revelation given to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden? And why were the Jews themselves without a Bible until the days of Ezra the scribe? Why did God make men and leave them in darkness -- a darkness that he knew would fill the world with want and crime, and crowd with damned souls the dungeons of hell? Were the Jews the only people who needed a revelation? Was it that he had no time to waste with other nations, and gave the Bible to the Jews so other nations might learn of his existence and his will though them? If he wished other nations to be informed, and revealed himself to but one, why did he not choose a people that mingled with others? Why did he give the message to those who had no commerce, who were obscure and unknown, and who regarded other nations with the hatred born of bigotry and weakness? If it was of such vast importance for man to know that there is a God, why did not God make himself known? This fact could have been revealed by an infinite being instantly to all, and there certainly was no necessity of telling it alone to the Jews, and allowing millions for thousands of years to die in utter ignorance.
Why did God allow, and why does he still allow, a vast majority of his children to remain in ignorance of his will?
If the Bible is the foundation of all civilization, of all just ideas of right and wrong, of our duties to God and each other, why did God not give to each nation at least one copy to start with? He must have known that no nation could get along successfully without a Bible, and he also knew that man could not make one for himself. Why, then, were not the books furnished?
Anyone who knows anything of constitutions and laws know how impossible it is to use words that will convey the same ideas to all. The best statesmen, the profoundest lawyers, differ as widely about the real meaning of treaties and statutes as do theologians about the Bible. When the differences of lawyers are left to courts, and the courts give written decisions, the lawyers will again differ as to the real meaning of the opinions. Probably no two lawyers in the United States understand our Constitution alike. To allow a few men to tell what the Constitution means, and to hang for treason all who refuse to accept the opinions of these few men, would accomplish in politics what most churches have asked for in religion.

If that does not attest to megalomania, I don't know what does.
....and I didn't even MENTION tithing

[Boetie]

I read Isherwood's post above. Not all God's are alike. There are many pagan God's that do not make use of man as a secretary.

The reason for the holy bible of the Christian, Muslim, and Jews is purely political. The writings are in need of interpretation says the pope, rabbi and mullahs and guess who gets to interpret the book. Interpretation is political.

The Gnostic God doesn't write or speak. Hence no Gnostic Holy Book.

Getting back to the three main religion, back in those days it was a theocracy at best. Separation of Church and State wasn't a fashionable thing amongst the three main religions back then.

[BritishLeftwing]

religious texts are not meant to be taken in the literal sense they are storys with metaphors and complex symbolism that is why I am an atheist all religion is is one big metaphor that plays on an ideal of a superior bean to lay down morals well.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: whoracle Anyone who knows anything of constitutions and laws know how impossible it is to use words that will convey the same ideas to all. The best statesmen, the profoundest lawyers, differ as widely about the real meaning of treaties and statutes as do theologians about the Bible. When the differences of lawyers are left to courts, and the courts give written decisions, the lawyers will again differ as to the real meaning of the opinions. Probably no two lawyers in the United States understand our Constitution alike. To allow a few men to tell what the Constitution means, and to hang for treason all who refuse to accept the opinions of these few men, would accomplish in politics what most churches have asked for in religion.

I notice how you attempted to slip in that backhanded insult, however I contest there is a significant difference. The difference bieng that in one of those scenarios you have a binding, ratified, legel contract, the other is a sales pitch.


To arbitrariliy burn people at the stake for heresy for violating "an alleged God's" law is quite different from executing treasonous criminals who violate a clearly worded contract between man, and man.


The person who volunteers for political office, takes the oath, and then violates that sacred testimony has only himself to blame for his transgression, or for taking that oath ignorant of the implications of his actions. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. ( Ironically, that is the ideal they attempt to hold me too, and those are their words, not mine.)

[Osborn F Enready]

Whoracle said: Anyone who knows anything of constitutions and laws know how impossible it is to use words that will convey the same ideas to all. The best statesmen, the profoundest lawyers, differ as widely about the real meaning of treaties and statutes as do theologians about the Bible. When the differences of lawyers are left to courts, and the courts give written decisions, the lawyers will again differ as to the real meaning of the opinions. Probably no two lawyers in the United States understand our Constitution alike. To allow a few men to tell what the Constitution means, and to hang for treason all who refuse to accept the opinions of these few men, would accomplish in politics what most churches have asked for in religion.

I say:
You forget one important thing there.

Constitutions are binding people with government, as a contract, at least in our nation.

It was written with ONE clear concise meaning. That is why they stuggled and labored over the words, arguing and debating each side to resolve what FINALLY got put to paper through diplomacy and ACTUAL DEBATE using common sense.

The Constitution has one interpretation, for a reason, as it was to eaily understood and BINDING LAW.

You can't have law that has no true meaning, or it means nothing.

The various interpretations have been spawned from the "reframers" who seek to change the system to benefit "certain groups" as opposed to ALL CITIZENS. Extremes from all ends of the spectrum have sought to "personalize" in law benefits for their personal "favorites" to secure voting blocks and ensure favorability while doing what the people don't see, much less comprehend.

They have reduced it down to a one-horse town, with two identical horses that act differently to lure in sheeple supporters based on the spin instead of the agenda they are driving.

What a shame when people won't allow everyone to be as free and equal as they themselves want to be.

Lawyers are NOT a necessity in the system, just a necessity as the system is TODAY, with acres of papers built on Stare Decisis, which does nothing but complicate simple law to the point that requires a man to hire a scholar to sift through relevancy to determine what laws to apply to a given situation.

It complicates law for no more reason than to complicate law. When law is kept to the application of rights, and victimless crimes are removed, the lens with which we view law is much simpler, equal, and just, and understandable to even the most crumudgeon of a man who is also a citizen.

Why would you give the Judge, 1 man, the opprotunity to take life based on his judgement, when you won't give twelve men the option to remove bad law, as well as take a life?

If we let bad law stand, we become but criminals ourselves.

That is why we HAVE a jury of our peers.

To insure the LAW is just, Constiutional and sound before thinking about if a crime was committed based on the law itself.

The biggest proponents of democracy, fear the democracy of 12 when they consider THEIR PET LAWS may be on the juries chopping block. What are they hiding? :rolleyes:

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready That is why we HAVE a jury of our peers. To insure the LAW is just, Constiutional and sound before thinking about if a crime was committed based on the law itself.:

Ha, like we could get a jury of our peers. It would be nice to think such a thing, but I'm not Bush, or Cheney, and I doubt I'll be afforded a ( "9/11 Commission" ) group of like minded individuals to be my jury.