why is the atheist obsessed with the Bible

Actually, I did a quantitative study of deconversion stories. From that sample, simply reading the Bible has deconverted more Christians than anything else has.

QFT.I find it amazing that some Americans are so ignorant of their history as to totally misunderstand the driving purpose and reason for the way that the USA was setup in the first place.I think archaeologist does not want to know the real reason that the USA is secular, because it might just make his head implode. The very idea that the self-same evangelicals who ultimately spawned him wanted to escape a non-secular christian country!But to be more on-topic, the atheist isn't "obsessed" with the bible. Many of them became atheist (or agnostic) without reading the bible at all (although many have read parts). There are, however, those who have actually read the bible and, with new eyes not blinded by faith, start to see...problems with it.It's stance on women, on human rights, on punishment, on laws and prohibitions. Its wildly inaccurate nature (this one for those who daydream of it being "infallible" in the scientific or historic sense), its fanciful nature (talking snakes and donkeys! people wandering around in the desert and having their heart cut out!), its lack of internal consistency (did Judas die by hanging? or did his guts explode? did he waste the silver or spend it? or save it? was jesus born 4BCE or 1CE?).the atheist can actually read the bible (and indeed, many former xtians have read the bible, and reading it lead to their apostasy) and take a horrified look at this wanton self-deception of the majority of people who make laws around it, celebrate it and proclaim it to be the last word in truth, forever.Those atheists aren't obsessed with the bible but aghast about it. Almost every single one is saying "but, but...haven't you actually READ it? Can't you see what's up with it?"

Hindu creationism does not require legislation. If you really know about it then you will find that that it does not need any such support. Its that scenitific.In India schools are supposed/required to teach SCEINCE, not religious/theological "creation". In Indian academia, there is NO such debate.Edited by RCS, : No reason given.

I have been using this website for a few years. This is the first time I ever heard anyone boldly say that this website is the property of ATHIESTS.If this is true, please tell me where I MISSED this ownership matter in the Rules or Explanations of the purpose of EVCFORUM. I would simply like to know has this matter of ATHEIST's ownership of the website ever been clearly stated in any invitation for people to post here.So "Bible Study" really should be "Athiest's Bible Study" perhaps ?I mean where did I miss the open and plain declaration that EVCFORUM belongs to atheists ? Not that I ever assumed that it was a Christian website mind you. But no atheists ever said to e "This is OUR website".

As a matter of fact, Percy/Admin owns this site and its contents. He is, from what I can see/hear/remember, either a deist or an atheist.
As an aside, I've been here less than a year and I'm aware of the fact simply through reading what other people say to and about others and what those people say about themselves. Which, leads me to wonder whether you actually read the posts and understand the content, or just skim through them.Secondly, crash's remark was directed at one specific theist who basically joined to abuse and proselytise. It was in response to that theist's claim that atheists attack Christians and particularly the Bible, so Christians were justified in attacking atheists/atheism in return, that .By "our" website I believe crash referred as much to the set of reasonable people as to atheists and/or nonChristians.
It may also mean the people who come here to debate respectfully and with intent to discuss the issues, as opposed to those who come here to abuse and proselytise (as that theist did).I note also that you have previously quoted somebody without considering the mood or context of that message. Perhaps reading in context is something you should learn how to do? But it's not intended for just atheists. It's intended for every member without distinction as to religious preference to discuss Biblical theology, either in support of other discussions and themes, or in support and criticism and comparison of the Bible as a holy text and with other holy texts.Such an extreme relabelling would somewhat defy the point; atheists aren't particularly known for caring what's in the Bible (knowing what's in it is another matter entirely).

He's a Deist.

I don't think CF is saying that this webiste is the athiests'. He saying that Arch came here with the accusation and they are defending. The OP paints the picture as if they are clicking around looking for victims. But the OP is the one who pursued it, not the other way around.

I went back to the explanation of the website, and it quite honestly admits that the sponsors favor Evolution. Nothing was said about Atheism. So you have been using the forum for a year. I have about 2900 plus posts out there. And for you to inform me that I don't read or understand what others write doesn't exactly give me the best indication of your own comprehension.Sure, at times, in the heat of these "tag team" verbel wrestling matches, sometimes one gets posters mixed up, as in any very active discussion forum.Don't tell me I have some basic problem with reading and understanding what others wrote.I am liable to take your comment as just an indication that you don't like what I write. Firstly, I notice a lot of people come forward to explain what crash meant. Crash hasn't said a word about it yet. Its nice to have a little help from your friends.Secondly, "our website" was his choice of words. That sounds pretty clear to me.I just asked if that is so, where is it stated. Atheist's can of course have their own website like anybody else.Don't you think the words "you came to our website" indicates the "our" there refers to atheists ? Would the average reasonable reader not interpret it that way, while you're telling me about my reading comprehension ?He did not say "our discussion". He did not say "our thread". He said "our WEBSITE" [my emphasis]. I understand he was responding.Christians like me are unrepentedly evangelistic. Some people react to the announcement of what we think should be the "good news". That is why a militant response is sometimes had, from people who don't want to be told they need to hear this good news.I could elaborate. But that is good enough for now. Well, I guess if that is what he meant, he can now come forth and say "Yes, yes, that's right". I told people here years ago in essence - I am into helping people believe the Bible. Some people are into teaching people how to DISBELIEVE the Bible. I am into teaching people how to BELIEVE the Bible.And mind you, I don't mind atheists coming forward and saying "This is a public website. But its owners are atheists" if I can also say "Fine, I am here to teach someone how to believe the Bible."I think that is a fair up front declaration of our standing. I notice that you disregard 2900 plus posts of a poster here twice as long as yourself and presume to instruct them condescendingly how to participate. That is what I always thought. So it is reasonable that I was curious about the phrase from an atheist "our website".Now let me ask you a question. Do you always go back to the beginning of every thread and read every single post in that thread before you come in for a comment ? That has not been noticed by me. One thing I DO agree with. Many modern day atheists do seem very concerned with what is in the Bible.I have seen them strain out a gnat about how many horses Solomon had or who was REALLY a Roman official when Herod was king.I have seen atheists for YEARS strain out tiny little details in the Bible to choke on.Nice try though. I'll be watching you Nij.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The self righteous pomposity continues. Need to hear?
How would you react if I told you you needed to hear what I had to say about religion and atheism? How would you feel if an Islamic person came up to you and told you you needed to hear the good news about the Quran that he had? How about a Hindi or a Hare Krishna? How would you react?You have no idea how offensive you are do you? Judgment is about all you have. I do not think many, if any, of the atheists( you seem to bunch all nonfundie's into that group) are trying to teach people how not to DISBELIEVE the bible. Instead they are trying to get people to defend their beliefs.Especially when there are condescending, pompous, self righteous people like yourself, that espouse a desire to legally institute the beliefs of their particular sect.Why should people that have beliefs different from yours be forced to follow them? Do you advocate the institution of biblical law, a christian sharia?Atheists must be obsessed by the bible because the fundies and dominionists want to make their interpretation of the bible the law of the land.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

The point was made earlier in the thread that the Bible - or more particularly your interpretation of the Bible - is what tends to drive people away from Christianity and God. I spend most of my time in Bible Study trying to help people understand that the Bible doesn't have to be as ugly as fundies paint it.

---

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

Some people will be turned away from God because of the word of God.Is that statment acknowledgement that all my interpretations are infallible ? No, it is not. But I expect that some people will turn away, at least temporarily from God, because of something they hear from the Bible.If a popularity contest is what you out to win, then perhaps you don't want to help people understand the Bible. I think I do a better job at that then you do. There is also a certain "ugliness" to the twisted, warped, darkened logic of the modernist.There is a hidious ugliness to handling of the Bible by atheist / agnostic hell bent on erecting a refuge around his conscience. It can be an unbelievably ugly spectacle.

That sir, is a ... um ... mistake (putting it politely).Too often I CANNOT EVEN GET to the exceedingly positive things in the Bible because I have to spend so much time debunk twistings and warped diatribes.Many people here don't WANT to hear about the encredible salvation of Christ.Since when did I get chance to elaborate on the encredible bright side of God's word ?"We want to hear about Cain's wife, where did she come from?
We want to hear about whether the whole globe was flooded or not.
We want to hear about a flat earth so we can all get our jollies and laugh at the Bible.
We want to hear about the politics of the Religious Right. Defend that !
We want to hear about 6000 year old universe.
We want to hear about the "mistakes" of Jesus.
We want to hear about how terrible Paul was to invent Christianity.
etc. etc. etc etc. "You want to hear about all this stuff you start thread after thread about. You want to remain forever on a superfiscial level. You rarely LET someone like me get beyond this same old, same old standard skeptic topic mill.If I TRIED to start a thread with ONLY a positive atmosphere, you wouldn't let me do it. And the very next time I try and you come in to drag the discussion down into the superfiscial, I'll show you.Stay Tuned.Look Theodoric, contrary to what some of you might believe about some Christians, we were not all brought up in Sunday School all out lives. I can recall boldly making wisecracks against Christians in highschool. I can recall many debates I had with a particlar "fundy" in college.God had MERCY on me. In a nanosecond, like a laser beam of clear light, it mercifully occured to me one day "He's a Person. God is a living Person."Mock on.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Yes, that's right. The only problem is that you never get to tell us about the wonderful things in bible. Obviously, since we don't believe, we simply haven't heard it yet. All you need to do is start a thread about the "exceedingly positive" things in the bible and we'll all fall into lock step behind you, marching off to war with the cross of Jesus going on before.Has it ever occurred to you that we in fact have heard it all and simply find it unconvincing? I for one will acknowledge absolutely that there are some wonderful things in the bible. Were it not so, it wouldn't be so widely accepted. But some positive things things that can also be found in many other religions and non-religious systems of ethics are hardly sufficient to convince us of the value of the rest of the nonsense.In any event, by all means, share your "exceedingly positive" things from the bible. I daresay most of us will agree there are "exceedingly positive" things in the bible. But be prepared to explain why we can't simply take the "exceedingly positive" things to heart and ignore the rest. For example, the crap you shovel about gay marriage.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

Let me describe one to you. For a number of years before my provider abruptly left the web-hosting business, I had a creation/evolution site. Its main theme, where I repeated clearly so that there could be no doubt, was that Christians should not use the false claims of "creation science", but rather they should use truthful claims and statements if they choose to oppose evolution. The only real mention of the Bible that I had on my site was this:

quote:

---

Book of Job 13:7-12 (King James Version):

7. Will ye speak wickedly for God? and talk deceitfully for him?
   
8. Will ye accept his person? will ye contend for God?
   
9. Is it good that he should search you out? or as one man mocketh another, do ye [so] mock him?
   
10. He will surely reprove you, if ye do secretly accept persons.
    
11. Shall not his excellency make you afraid? and his dread fall upon you?
    
12. Your remembrances [are] like unto ashes, your bodies to bodies of clay.
    

​

The same passages as quoted from the Living Bible:

"Must you go on 'speaking for God' when He never once has said the things that you are putting in His mouth?
Does God want your help if you are going to twist the truth for Him?
Be careful that He doesn't find out what you are doing! Or do you think you can fool God as well as men?
No, you will be in serious trouble with Him if you use lies to try to help Him out.
Doesn't His majesty strike terror to your heart? How can you do this thing?
These tremendous statements you have made have about as much value as ashes. Your defense of God is as fragile as a clay vase!"

---

I received several extremely hateful emails from Christians thoroughly incensed at my calls for truthfulness, all of them viciously denouncing me for "hating God and the Bible" and assuring me of eternal damnation. I would respond to each one, reitering my call for upholding the truth and truthfulness and asking them to point out specifically where and how I had expressed the hatred for God and the Bible that they accused me of. No replies to my responses, since almost all of them were run-by flamers. The few replies I did get were equally as vicious as the first and still accused me of hating God and the Bible, and when I responded to this as well, there was no reply from the "good Christians".Yes, there was much ugliness there, but it was entirely from the Christian camp.Back to the original question that had started this exchange. This forum is here for all of us, atheist, Christian, anything else alike, for discussion. archaeology, the originator of this topic, would never engage in discussion, but rather would just rant on, making unfounded accusations and preaching to us. This forum is for discussion, not for preaching. That would not disallow forwarding the message that you would desire to preach, but you would need to do it through discussion, which would include entertaining questions about your message and responding constructively to those questions, as well as hearing comments and critiques and responding to those. None of which archae would do.Instead, archae was almost exactly like those "good Christian" run-by flamers who took almost everything said as expressing extreme hatred towards God and the Bible or as a campaign to teach atheism. Except that he was sticking around a lot longer than those run-by flamers would.

I see. thanks.