It almost seems like atheists don't want to believe in God. Do you just simply not want to believe in God because you don't want to give up your own free will?
ADMIN EDIT: Mercedes has left ThinkAtheist.com on her own accord. This discussion will remain, however do not expect a response from the author.
Gallup's Mirror I didn't use the word faith in that above comment so I guess I don't know what your are trying to inject into my words.
Are you seriously saying the words faith and belief cannot be used interchangeably in a religious context? That I injected some new meaning into the word faith that you don't comprehend? Please, Mercedes. I don't believe you're that obtuse so kindly stop pretending to be.
If you genuinely ARE that dull-witted then change the "faith" in my sentences above to the word you did use: belief. It doesn't change the meaning appreciably. Belief is only necessary when you DON'T have proof.
I don't need to believe 2 + 2 = 4 or have faith that 2 + 2 = 4 because I have proof that it is.
Most people here are telling me im crazy instead of answering my question.
I have no control over what others do on this site. For my part I have answered your question.
I thought I was welcome here. that's what you all said before. I sure don't feel it now. I was just asking a question. The Bible has lots of proof in it.
What is not welcome, Mercedes, is what you're doing above. You say the Bible is proof. We tell you it is not, and more importantly we tell you why it is not. To continue the conversation you would need to address those responses. Instead, you ignore those responses and repeat yourself. Essentially:
You: The Bible proves God exists!
You: The Bible is historically accurate!
Me: Even if it is that does not prove that God exists.
(No Response. But later in the same thread:)
You: The Bible proves God exists!
What good is it to ask a question if you're unwilling to accept the answer?
It's not meant to be read literally and its almost like you guys think it should.
Not atheists, Mercedes. We don't think that at all. I myself find the Bible is more suitable as emergency roadside toilet paper than as reading material, literal or otherwise.
In the US most evangelical Christians say the Bible should be read literally and they are the largest religious group. If you see us putting this sort of slant on the Bible it's because we're referring generally to them: a (perhaps THE) religious mainstream of the US. Stick around long enough and you'll see they don't have an exclusive around here.
some parts are figuative or mataphoric, some are historical, but im no bible scholar so I have to rely on what i'm taught. why is that bad?
If what you were taught is untrue or faulty-- and it surely is-- then it's unreliable, so you should not rely on it. That is why.
Actually, the bible, in and of itself is proof that god does NOT exist. If an all powerful being existed that wants (and actually requires) me to belief in it, then it would show itself to me. It would not require me to "open my heart" because it is supposedly immeasurably more powerful than I am. It would give me the opportunity to accept or reject it's teachings, and if I rejected, then torment for eternity it is (although, since I would not be able to learn from that torment, because, according to xians, it is always "eternal", that just proves god is petty and vindictive, not traits of an "all-loving" god). But punishing people for not believing when he specifically withheld the proof required to believe in him is just, dare I say it - EVIL.
Because if it's not literal, it will be taught as anyone wants to interpret it. This means people will always be interpreting it wrong. God said that if you twist his words he'll be pissed. I don't think he offered a free pass if it was a mistake. Who decides what parts are Literal, what is figurative and what is metaphoric?
Reworded: If Harry Potter were fake we wouldn't have The Sorcerer's Stone. That is proof. His lightening scar resolved the others so all we need to do is believe in him.
Oh heres a fun meme!
If <blank> were fake, we wouldn't have <blank>
I'll start: If Superman were fake, we wouldn't have Superman Comics!
Better yet - we wouldn't have Kryptonite, and we do, it's one of the elements, look it up!
Premise 1 Kryptonite is real.
Premise 2 Superman is affected by Kryptonite.
Premise 3 Superman is real.
Quod erat demonstrandum
Hollywood made a movie, it must be real. :)
The bible contains hundreds of contradictions, inconsistencies, logical fallacies and flat out lies. If the bible if proof of a god, it is proof of a really incompetent god.
In other words, the bible is of no use whatsoever in proving either god's or jesus' existence. And since jesus' existence (even as a delusional religious nutcase, let alone the "actual" son of a deity) is in serious question, you can't use his existence as proof of the god you claim that he claimed to follow.
If god were fake we wouldn't have the bible? Ok, if Ra were fake we wouldn't have the writings of RA.
Belle, That's also a bad comparison. God is not fake.