# Have a hard time respecting the moderately religious **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 14, 2014, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-a-hard-time-respecting-the-moderately-religious/693053 "2014-07-14T05:29:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2014, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-a-hard-time-respecting-the-moderately-religious/693053/41 "2014-07-14T11:23:53Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > 1- If the bible is not “literally” true then what possible value is it? The fact that you can’t find any value in it doesn’t mean no-one else can. > [@Robert163](#): > > 2- The fact that there is no consensus among the non-literalists is a big problem. Why on earth would you say that? As I said, I’m Jewish. Rabbis have been interpreting the bible for 25 centuries now, and I’m happy to say that no two agree. That’s part of the fun. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2014, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-a-hard-time-respecting-the-moderately-religious/693053/42 "2014-07-14T11:27:14Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > Saying that you believe proposition X is true is not the same as saying it is moral, logical, or… true. You have to establish that it is true first, then, you can try to explain it or rationalize it. Faith, by definition, is about believing that which you _cannot_ independently establish to be true. If you can’t respect that, then there is no room for discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2014, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-a-hard-time-respecting-the-moderately-religious/693053/43 "2014-07-14T11:28:18Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > 1- If the bible is not “literally” true then what possible value is it? If _The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn_ is not literally true, then what possible value is it? ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2014, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-a-hard-time-respecting-the-moderately-religious/693053/44 "2014-07-14T11:38:44Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > It was you who brought up what Christians have done in the past, burning each other at the stake and so forth. I was merely pointing out that that your understanding of this history is defective. > > It really saddens me to fellow atheists being as willfully, pig-headedly ignorant as Young Earth Creationists are. You are helping their evil cause. ☹ I was aware that the catholic church in the distant past did not want people reading the bible? How does that make the bible true, either now or then? how does that make belief in the bible, either now or then, any more reasonable? ---
**Author:** ![Grrr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grrr/32/146_2.png) [@Grrr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grrr)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2014, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-a-hard-time-respecting-the-moderately-religious/693053/45 "2014-07-14T11:41:48Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Faith, by definition, is about believing that which you _cannot_ independently establish to be true. Why would one want to do such a thing? As if this were something to aspire to? It’s basically willful ignorance and being proud of said ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2014, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-a-hard-time-respecting-the-moderately-religious/693053/46 "2014-07-14T11:41:52Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > If _The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn_ is not literally true, then what possible value is it? Entertainment value. Huckleberry Finn doesn’t set out to be the ultimate authority on morality, however. Mark Twain’s sense of ethics is better than what is in the bible though… ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2014, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-a-hard-time-respecting-the-moderately-religious/693053/47 "2014-07-14T11:49:22Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > If _The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn_ is not literally true, then what possible value is it? It’s better written than the Bible? Really, you are just inadvertently supporting **Robert163** ’s argument; you are equating the Bible with a novel, a work of fiction - the Bible is fiction of course, but admitting it to be fiction robs it of all its supposed importance. The thing is, once it’s admitted that the _entire_ Bible isn’t unquestioningly true that leads right to questioning _all_ of it; and it can’t survive skepticism very well. The fundamentalists are quite right about that if about nothing else. ---
**Author:** ![Steken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@Steken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steken)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2014, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-a-hard-time-respecting-the-moderately-religious/693053/48 "2014-07-14T11:49:44Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > what’s wrong with it? it is not consistent, sound, or logical? Would it be more “sound” and more “logical” if these people were “consistent” about a literal understanding of _all_ of the Bible - rather than some of the Bible? If so, why? How would it be “sound,” and how would it be “logical”? Speaking of consistency: Are you yourself consistent in this? Do you believe that, say, a Platonist must believe that every word Plato ever wrote is literally true - including the bit about Atlantis? That a Cartesian must believe that Descartes was 100% correct about everything he ever wrote - including that bit about how his “science” would make him live for “more than 920 years”? That a Darwinist must believe, as Darwin did, that women carry within them much of “the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower stage of civilization”? > [@Robert163](#): > > as in, i believe in some type of higher power but not any type of religion… Why on Earth not, if they feel strongly attached to a certain religion? ---
**Author:** ![Steken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@Steken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steken)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2014, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-a-hard-time-respecting-the-moderately-religious/693053/49 "2014-07-14T11:54:28Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > The thing is, once it’s admitted that the _entire_ Bible isn’t unquestioningly true that leads right to questioning _all_ of it; and it can’t survive skepticism very well. The fundamentalists are quite right about that if about nothing else. Wrong again. The Bible is remarkably adept at surviving skepticism, allegorical interpretation and all the rest of it. As [this](http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/2014/07/atheists_the_origin_of_the_species_by_nick_spencer_reviewed.html) article points out, in the third century, Origen of Alexandria - one of the fathers of the church, mind you - wrote like so: > [@](#): > > To what person of intelligence, I ask, will the account seem logically consistent that says there was a “first day” and a “second” and “third,” in which also “evening” and “morning” are named, without a sun, without a moon, and without stars, and even in the case of the first day without a heaven (Gen. 1:5-13)? …. Surely, I think no one doubts that these statements are made by Scripture in the form of a type by which they point toward certain mysteries. Almost two millennia later, Christianity lives on. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2014, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-a-hard-time-respecting-the-moderately-religious/693053/50 "2014-07-14T12:15:39Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Really, you are just inadvertently supporting **Robert163** ’s argument; you are equating the Bible with a novel, a work of fiction - the Bible is fiction of course, but admitting it to be fiction robs it of all its supposed importance. Huck Finn is fiction, but it describes things which were true to the experience of Samuel Clemens and many other people of his generation. Was there an individual named Huckleberry Finn? No. Were blacks enslaved and abused in the antebellum South? Yes. The point is, it’s not necessary for every single word of a given work to be literally true for it to be a worthwhile source of wisdom. I, personally, am an atheist and I do not in any sense believe in the supernatural events described in the Bible, but I nonetheless find that it contains certain teachings that are important and good to live by - that all men are equal and no one is inherently better than anyone else by virtue of birth, that the best way to improve your life is to help improve the lives of others who have less than you do, that wealth is no fount of virtue in and of itself, that he who would condemn others should first look and see whether he himself is worthy of condemnation, and that the power to understand and forgive those who have wronged you is more worthy of respect than the power to avenge yourself against them. I do not think less of any person who has faith in the divine aspects of the Bible if that faith leads them to be a better person and subscribe to those teachings. ---
**Author:** ![tim-n-va](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim-n-va/32/3001_2.png) [@tim-n-va](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim-n-va)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2014, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-a-hard-time-respecting-the-moderately-religious/693053/51 "2014-07-14T12:33:31Z")
Assuming an all powerful god, it is possible that he told one group to not eat pork, another to not drink coffee, etc. The many paths isn’t a problem. When I explained things to my two year old son, I used simplified things and gave different answers than I would have given when he was twelve, twenty-one or thirty. At the time the bible was being written (dictated by god), there would have been no frame of reference to a big bang or evolution. Sure you can argue that god should have dictated an updated version but you can also argue that god is leting us figure it out. That said, I am an atheist. I just find the “inconsistency means no god” as weak as the “science can’t explain this so there must be a god”. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2014, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-a-hard-time-respecting-the-moderately-religious/693053/52 "2014-07-14T12:53:05Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Huck Finn is fiction, but it describes things which were true to the experience of Samuel Clemens and many other people of his generation. Was there an individual named Huckleberry Finn? No. Were blacks enslaved and abused in the antebellum South? Yes. The point is, it’s not necessary for every single word of a given work to be literally true for it to be a worthwhile source of wisdom. The Bible however is not a “worthwhile source of wisdom”; it’s the collected myths and teachings of people ~2000 years ago who were by modern standards barbarous and almost completely ignorant. It can’t stand on its own merits. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2014, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-a-hard-time-respecting-the-moderately-religious/693053/53 "2014-07-14T13:00:18Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > The Bible however is not a “worthwhile source of wisdom”; it’s the collected myths and teachings of people ~2000 years ago who were by modern standards barbarous and almost completely ignorant. It can’t stand on its own merits. Would you say that about any work of ficction written 2000 years ago, or were the Jews _particularly_ barbarous and ignorant? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2014, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-a-hard-time-respecting-the-moderately-religious/693053/54 "2014-07-14T13:04:58Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Would you say that about any work of ficction written 2000 years ago, or were the Jews _particularly_ barbarous and ignorant? Anything written at the time, fictional or not. We’ve advanced a great deal in 2000 years. The Romans were what passed for “civilized” at the time, and I wouldn’t look to them for moral leadership any more than I’d look to the Bible. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2014, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-a-hard-time-respecting-the-moderately-religious/693053/55 "2014-07-14T13:06:29Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Anything written at the time, fictional or not. We’ve advanced a great deal in 2000 years. The Romans were what passed for “civilized” at the time, and I wouldn’t look to them for moral leadership any more than I’d look to the Bible. So you’d say that studying Homer or Virgil is basically pointless? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2014, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-a-hard-time-respecting-the-moderately-religious/693053/56 "2014-07-14T13:07:50Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > So you’d say that studying Homer or Virgil is basically pointless? If you’re looking for advice on how to live your life, yes. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2014, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-a-hard-time-respecting-the-moderately-religious/693053/57 "2014-07-14T13:13:10Z")
That’s not the sole purpose of literature. ---
**Author:** ![not\_what\_you\_d\_expect](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_what_you_d_expect/32/3246_2.png) [@not\_what\_you\_d\_expect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_what_you_d_expect)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2014, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-a-hard-time-respecting-the-moderately-religious/693053/59 "2014-07-14T13:19:03Z")
I don’t think studying the bible is a waste of time, but studying something is different from being religious about something. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2014, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-a-hard-time-respecting-the-moderately-religious/693053/61 "2014-07-14T14:09:37Z")
I’m sorry that the OP has a hard time respecting me, but I don’t find much merit to his arguments. When Jesus walked the earth, he didn’t say “read the book”. He told his disciples how to live. Some things in the Bible are important, such as the divinity of Jesus and the resurrection. Some things not in the Bible are important, such as the Trinity. Some things in the Bible are mere allegories. No rational person believes in the flood and that Noah built an ark to house two of every species. No rational person believes the story of Jonah or that of Job. But they’re useful in that they illustrate points, just as the fables of the hare and the tortoise or the grasshopper and the ant serve their purpose. I personally find that approach to be more logical and satisfying than the mindless approach that one must believe every word in the Bible is literally true. A biblical story can be simultaneously divinely inspired and not historic truth. I don’t think it is inconsistent or illogical to recognize that oral traditions passed on for centuries and then written down to be subsequently translated are not always to be taken literally. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2014, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-a-hard-time-respecting-the-moderately-religious/693053/62 "2014-07-14T14:33:04Z")
I’ve been saying this for years now, but I wish atheists would drop this type of complaint. It’s wrong, shows no ability to prioritize, and it’s not going to work. The message it sends is that atheists are knowitall jerks who look down on religious people. If you go up to someone who is moderately religious and say “You have to believe all of this stuff or none of it!” they are _not_ going to side with you. Partly because you’re making a stupid claim: of course they can believe just some of it. Everybody picks and chooses. Some people are just unwilling to be honest about it. If a moderately religious person is willing to be your ally on some issues, whether they’re social or whatever else, you would be wise to work with that person. You may have noticed there are a lot of religious fanatics out there; we need all the allies we can get. > [@Robert163](#): > > Like, you have enough common sense or intelligence to recognize that the world is not 10,000 years old or that stories of talking snakes and talking donkeys are myths, as well as Noah’s Ark and other stories, but you somehow still think there is only one god, the christian god, and you must believe in him or go to hell. There’s nothing in the Bible about the world being 10,000 years old. The typical number for Christians is 6,000, and that’s a matter of Biblical interpretation. There’s also no reason you can’t believe in a god and also believe that either humans told a flawed version of his messages or that he told some stories through metaphors and parables. I mean, Jesus says the same thing, so that’s a pretty defensible position. > [@](#): > > Why even bother to be religious if you are just going to make up your own version of the religion? People have been making up religions for thousands of years. Why quit now? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-a-hard-time-respecting-the-moderately-religious/693053.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/have-a-hard-time-respecting-the-moderately-religious/693053.md?page=4)