Just watched the video here: http://www.thinkatheist.com/video/mainstream-media-telling-the
Where he talks about focusing on one passage of the bible as opposed to another, it got me thinking. As I do with just about every argument/disagreement I think of, I thought about what responses I've heard, read, or have personally been given. I've found that the main response to any question taking it's base in "Why don't you follow the entire bible?" is that some parts aren't as important as others, or that they aren't relevant nowadays.
I thought, "Ok, there's some kind of basis there..." and I then tried to find the main thing wrong with this retort. I'm sure this isn't anything that I've solely come up with, but I found that a discussion could go somewhat like this, leaving the believer questioning their blind faith:
I'll stick with the anti-same-sex marriage debate for simplicity, but the basis behind this argument is universal.
-Skeptic:In Leviticus 11:12, the KJV of the bible says "Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that [shall be] an abomination unto you." Why do they not preach on Sundays about not eating Shrimp, Clam, Oyster, Lobster, and Crab? Why is there no "Red Lobster Amendment" banning any and all consumption of sea creatures that have neither fins nor scales?
-Believer: That's not the same. Some of God's Word is more important than other.
-Skeptic: Ok, going with your answer: Why is it even in the bible, if it's not important and yields no merit?
I can't think of a response for this that would hold any ground at all, which isn't surprising.
IF there was a response though, the skeptic could counter with something along the lines of:
Why not just take it out of the bible then?
-Believer: Because it's the Word of God.
-Skeptic: The word of god that you yourself just told me isn't important?
-Believer: lol idk
Anyways, that just came to my head as I watched that video. I'm sure it could be polished quite a bit, but I just wanted to get it out there before I completely forgot about it. Maybe somebody will stumble across it and find it useful.
I'd love to hear some possible responses you may have heard (or even can come up with yourself) to something similar though, as I'd like to build my debate/discussion skills.
That is the reason we have theist even today, because theism is a discusion of interpretation of what is written in the bible. Like it was forbidden to translate the bible for catholics so they sat down one day and realised that they should translate the bible in other languages which is contradictory to what they have been saying for past 2000 years. So reading theist's text would give you the best idea how they struggle with this problem, because who are we (atheists) to do this for them when they are already cherrypicking, being selective and hiding behind 'interpretation' stories and fully aware of it.
To sum it up, it's not my job.
It all boils down to moderation, if you look into bible to much, even if you are atheist you will become a theist by definition because you are a bible scholar. Is this what atheist should do? But on the other hand if atheist is completely avoiding the issue, then how can he call himself an atheist? So, moderation, just like with alcohol (and this is an old story, I didn't pick it up yesterday from watching Family Guy 'cuz they aren't the first ones to say it, South Park did it, probably the Simpsons did it and so on).