Jerome Da Gnome wrote:That's the thing, the argument's premise is based upon something not in evidence.
I guess once someone has used an argument for their position for such a long period of time, emotionally they can not give up said argument regardless new information.
Presumably you're trying to make a bogus reference to atheists supposedly using contradictions in the bible as a justification for atheism?
I don't think
any atheists I know would consider their lack of belief in gods threatened in the slightest by the bible somehow having been less-badly-written.
Now, I dare say some
Christians may find the fact that the bible was badly written, poorly edited and contains inconsistencies tends to make them question assumptions they may have had of its 'divine perfection', and that may lead to some diminution in their faith.
But then that is largely a consequence of their having been miseducated into believing it is perfect and inspired by the One True God.
Realising it is not merely imperfect but that it is, in fact
far worse in terms of consistency than almost anything which would qualify as a competent work of either fiction or history can have an understandably negative impact on a believer's faith, yet despite what some people may wish to pretend, there is no symmetric flipside to that with regard to atheists.
In the
rational world, there's no particular reason to expect in advance that a supposed divine work should necessarily be especially poorly-written.
Were the Bible or any similar religious tome to [miraculously] come up to the standard of a typical competent modern novel or history book, that wouldn't be any 'evidence' for a god existing, it would simply be evidence of some amount of past human competence in writing or editing a book, which would hardly be an earth-shattering conclusion.
From an atheist's point of view, all manner of believers in one or more brand of religion seem to believe in books written by humans clearly no more informed than one would expect from humans of their time.
That one
particular book is badly-written is of no real relevance to the issue of gods existing from the persepctive of someone who lacks the belief they do exist.
Given the clear incompatibilities between various brands, flavours and sects of religion, most such brands are clearly incorrect regarding many if not all of their claims regarding divinities, and to have one particular book show its expected origins in flawed human imagination is essentially a non-story.
The relevance of the flaws only really relates to pointing out to the subset of Christians who haven't yet realised or who are in denial that the claim of biblical perfection they may have been fed is simply untrue.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
by 
