# Why Do Atheists Interpret the Bible Hyper-Literally **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 24, 2010, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842 "2010-09-24T02:57:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/181 "2010-09-27T18:30:37Z")
> [@redtail23](#): > > Well, yes, a “hyper-literal” argument doesn’t work against non-literalists, agreed. But pretty much everyone here is talking about using them as a reaction to theocratic literalists. > > To use another bad analogy, it’s kind of like you’re telling parents not to use “because I said so” as an answer to their kids, because that’s not generally a valid answer for the rest of the world. Yeah, no one said it was - but it IS a valid answer for your own kids, at least in some situations. > > The OP asked why atheists interpret the Bible hyper-literally. The answer is usually because they’re dealing with literalists. > > IIRC, the OP is a literalist - which is why he has experienced this technique in arguing with atheists. > > Speaking of which - I know that **Curtis LeMay** is theoretically a uber-Xian child, but I don’t generally read his threads. > > What I’m curious about is, is this typical of his threads? That he starts a new thread, posts a few replies that day, and then disappears? To my mind, a bad argument is a bad argument, even in a good cause. If the claim was "biblical literalism is demonstratably absurd because … " that would be different, but as seen in this thread, generally the argument is not so bounded. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/182 "2010-09-27T18:31:34Z")
> [@redtail23](#): > > …IIRC, the OP is a literalist - which is why he has experienced this technique in arguing with atheists. … No, he’s not a literalist. I thought so too, and looked at some of his past threads, and he’s not. He is, though, extremely conservative, thought I don’t believe he wants the term “fundamentalist” applied to him either. ---
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/183 "2010-09-27T18:34:15Z")
> [@redtail23](#): > > Speaking of which - I know that **Curtis LeMay** is theoretically a uber-Xian child, but I don’t generally read his threads. > > What I’m curious about is, is this typical of his threads? That he starts a new thread, posts a few replies that day, and then disappears? Pretty typical with a lot of them, yes. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/184 "2010-09-27T18:35:23Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > But the Church claims to have continual traceability back to the ‘standard’. That’s exactly the function of the Magisterium. > > It sort of functions like the National Institute of Standards and Technology, only setting standards for the faith. 😉 > > Of course, you and I both know that it is all a mere human elaboration of the original mythology - but these sorts of attacks will not shake it. The books were written by humans and selected by other humans and the whole process is overseen by humans - but all, at least according to them, animated by the divine will. The Magisterium is there to guide believers in determining what in the scriptures and sacred traditions is truly the essence of the divine and what is merely human error. Sure they do. And the literalists claim a perfect Bible, and the radio station in my example claims the right time. NIST sets the standard, using a well documented means, but also checks it against reality, and adjusts it every so often by adding or subtracting a second - no Reformation required! I admire your attempt to put yourself in the shoes of the theists, but you can’t seem to bend your mind around to providing a good explanation of how they choose what to believe and what not to believe, except through edict. That statement is a compliment, by the way. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/185 "2010-09-27T21:13:46Z")
> [@Sage Rat](#): > > Your evidence tends to be rather wacky, it should be noted. So you’re saying that my sources are rather wacky. I could have sworn that it was you who claimed that the Catholic Church had banned paper in the Middle Ages and offered, as evidence, the fact that this claim had been deleted from Wikipedia. I could also have sworn that after someone printed the relevant portion from the book that the erroneous statement on Wikipedia had cited, you vanished from the thread. And I could have sworn that all of this was the [second time](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12577112&postcount=7) you’d trotted out this absurd claim, since I [debunked it](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11420101&postcount=124) the first time you made it a year earlier. After that, perhaps you shouldn’t throw stones on the issue of sourcing. Most, though not all, of my cites go to academic books, papers, and websites, so I don’t think you’ve got any basis for claiming that my sources are too out there. > [@Sage Rat](#): > > But let’s look at CurtC’s example of talking animals. Sure, to modern day eyes, talking animals look ludicrous. But then you go and study Shinto or Native American religion and I’ll darned if it doesn’t seem pretty likely that they honestly believed that some animals were spiritual and wise creatures who could talk to each other. Not all of them, perhaps, but some. > > [http://books.google.com/books?id=P9v...20talk&f=false](http://books.google.com/books?id=P9v...20talk&f=false) > > [Ko-Shintō - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koshint%C5%8D) > > You have to remember that ancient peoples really did perform human sacrifices to placate the Big God living in the Volcano. That’s not just something someone made up to make fun of indigenous peoples. Committing murder to placate something that quite demonstrably has less intelligence than an animal is rather decent evidence that ancient people believed wacky shit. Heck, modern day humans believe some really wacky shit. > > Ultimately, there’s no particular reason to think that the ancients didn’t believe what they were writing down. Meeting indigenous tribes, we’ve had plenty of experience of people taking that sorts of silly stuff as deathly serious. Why assume that a bunch of people who felt that it was entirely reasonable for the Creator of the Universe to really care about how much flesh you had on your willy didn’t also believe in something wacky like intelligent animals. And this has what do to with the original intentions of the Jewish authors of the Old Testament? It looks to me like a complete non-sequiter. Wouldn’t you agree that if we wanted to know what those Jewish authors meant, we would research historic Jewish thought, not the though of people 10,000 miles away who never had any relationship to the Jews? Wouldn’t you agree that a much wiser approach would be study the opinions and philosophies of early Jewish writers such as Philo, to understand the different genres of early Jewish writing, to look for clues within the text of the Bible itself as well as non-canonical Jewish writings, and to do an in-depth of how the question of literal vs. allegorical has been treated throughout Jewish history. Wouldn’t you agree that that would be a lot better than linking to Wikipedia pages about ancient Japan? ---
**Author:** ![pikey\_pete](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pikey\_pete](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pikey_pete)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/186 "2010-09-27T21:38:30Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > Why do most atheists who debate theists interpret the Bible (or other religious texts) even more literally than most fundamentalists? > > Case in point: [http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/](http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/) because the best way to win a debate is to use your opponents information against them. ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/187 "2010-09-27T21:53:15Z")
> [@pikey\_pete](#): > > > [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > > > Why do most atheists who debate theists interpret the Bible (or other religious texts) even more literally than most fundamentalists? > > > > Case in point: [http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/](http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/) > > because the best way to win a debate is to use your opponents information against them. Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner. Close the thread. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/188 "2010-09-27T23:34:39Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > I mean they interpret it more literally than the fundamentalists. To give an example the phrase “the sun rose” is used to justify that the Bible argues for geocentrism when we ourselves still use the phrase! Can you find an example of a serious discussion where an atheist makes that argument? ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/189 "2010-09-27T23:41:36Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > > [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > > > I mean they interpret it more literally than the fundamentalists. To give an example the phrase “the sun rose” is used to justify that the Bible argues for geocentrism when we ourselves still use the phrase! > > Can you find an example of a serious discussion where an atheist makes that argument? Does it matter? The Catholic church used to make essentially that argument while claiming Galileo’s ideas were heretical. If an atheist wanted to demonstrate the absurdity of biblical literalism with that example, there’s plenty of evidence for it. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2010, 8:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/190 "2010-09-28T08:59:24Z")
Somewhat off-topic perhaps, but interesting (yet not interesting enough for a new thread): From [The New York Times](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/us/28religion.html): > [@](#): > > Americans are by all measures a deeply religious people, but they are also deeply ignorant about religion… > > Those who scored the highest [on a survey testing knowledge of religions, related constitutional principles, etc.] were atheists and agnostics, as well as two religious minorities: Jews and Mormons. The results were the same even after the researchers controlled for factors like age and racial differences… > > “I have heard many times that atheists know more about religion than religious people,” Mr. Silverman said. “Atheism is an effect of that knowledge, not a lack of knowledge. I gave a Bible to my daughter. That’s how you make atheists.” ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 10:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/191 "2010-09-29T10:21:06Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Again, this isn’t a very useful argument, because your targets - I presume, most Christians - do not deny the contradictions in the text, and explain them very simply by pointing out that the authors of the narrative are human _witnesses_ to the divine, not the divinity _itself_. You’re almost there. Yes, exactly, pointing out the contradictions in the bible forces Christians to offer the pissweak explanation that you just did on their behalf. The next step in the argument is to point out that the admission that it is necessary to assume interposed fallible witnesses to explain away the contradictions in the bible amounts to an admission that the bible is indistinguishable from something that is not the work of those witnesses and not a god. Consequently, it has no value in proving a god, or in deriving what the views of the god might be. > [@](#): > > In your tale of the watches, the believer would analogize god to the notion of time. Time (in this analogy) exists and is perfect, but man must approach it through human means - the “watches” being, for example, the four Gospels, each telling a slightly different story, each telling, as it were, different “time”. Sure, but the penny that hasn’t dropped with you is that if the religious guy’s watches tell the time no better than anyone else’s, the religious guy has no better claim to knowing the time than anyone else. Religious people commonly claim that their religion gives them an authoritative morality (in this analogy “a certain knowledge of the time”) that atheists must necessarily lack. I fully appreciate that religious people can churn out rationalisations such as those you offer and that the strategy mentioned by the OP does not defeat those rationalisations as such. What the strategy does is to force religious people to adopt rationalisations that amount to admissions that their religion cannot be distinguished from shit someone made up. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/192 "2010-09-29T12:14:10Z")
Sorry, I misplaced a “not”. I meant to say “The next step in the argument is to point out that the admission that it is necessary to assume interposed fallible witnesses to explain away the contradictions in the bible amounts to an admission that the bible is indistinguishable from something that is [del]not[/del] the work of those witnesses and not a god.” A point that I might add is that it perhaps helps with understanding of the mock-the-bible-by-interpreting-it-literally argument to understand that it is primarily an argument against _religion_ not the Christian god as such. A self contradictory bible is not incompatible with the existence of a god for reasons **Malthus** suggests. It is however an argument against the idea that religion rests on any convincing authority. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/193 "2010-09-29T12:34:40Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > A point that I might add is that it perhaps helps with understanding of the mock-the-bible-by-interpreting-it-literally argument to understand that it is primarily an argument against _religion_ not the Christian god as such. A self contradictory bible is not incompatible with the existence of a god for reasons **Malthus** suggests. It is however an argument against the idea that religion rests on any convincing authority. But doesn’t the “Christian god” spring from the religion that describes and promotes it? ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/194 "2010-09-29T12:50:47Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > > [@Princhester](#): > > > > A point that I might add is that it perhaps helps with understanding of the mock-the-bible-by-interpreting-it-literally argument to understand that it is primarily an argument against _religion_ not the Christian god as such. A self contradictory bible is not incompatible with the existence of a god for reasons **Malthus** suggests. It is however an argument against the idea that religion rests on any convincing authority. > > But doesn’t the “Christian god” spring from the religion that describes and promotes it? Well, he could, in principle, exist seperate from the religion that describes him. It might just describe him wrongly. There are in fact loads of (semi-) religious people that no longer believe in the God as described in Bible, yet still “feel” there must be _something_. The somethingites, most often, still call that something “God”. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/195 "2010-09-29T13:07:11Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > But doesn’t the “Christian god” spring from the religion that describes and promotes it? Yes, generally. But as a matter of logic, the particular argument in question more directly undermines religious claims for the importance of the bible and only indirectly undermines the idea that there is a god. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/196 "2010-09-29T13:57:50Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > You’re almost there. Yes, exactly, pointing out the contradictions in the bible forces Christians to offer the pissweak explanation that you just did on their behalf. The next step in the argument is to point out that the admission that it is necessary to assume interposed fallible witnesses to explain away the contradictions in the bible amounts to an admission that the bible is indistinguishable from something that is not the work of those witnesses and not a god. Consequently, it has no value in proving a god, or in deriving what the views of the god might be. Hence those versions of Christianity (such as Catholicism and Orthodoxy) that have legions of apparent back-up - such as the experience of mystics, saints and miracles - that act as corroboration. > [@](#): > > Sure, but the penny that hasn’t dropped with you is that if the religious guy’s watches tell the time no better than anyone else’s, the religious guy has no better claim to knowing the time than anyone else. Religious people commonly claim that their religion gives them an authoritative morality (in this analogy “a certain knowledge of the time”) that atheists must necessarily lack. What religious folks (or at least many of them) claim, is that the Bible is witness to a mystery that is corroborated through other means. In short, the text in the Bible is only _some_ of the “clocks” available to them; the Catholics (for example) also have sacred traditions and the Magisterium, mystics and miracles. With all of these “clocks” pointing to one place, or so they claim, a divinity can be inferred from the _totality of the evidence_. Cherry-picking contradictions is thec weaker argument, in the face of this. Naturally, all of this is simply a working out of mythology in a self-referential way, but you can’t break the cycle merely by proving that the witnesses are human and fallible. That is already known, and accounted for. > [@](#): > > I fully appreciate that religious people can churn out rationalisations such as those you offer and that the strategy mentioned by the OP does not defeat those rationalisations as such. What the strategy does is to force religious people to adopt rationalisations that amount to admissions that their religion cannot be distinguished from shit someone made up. I’ll stop you at “what the strategy does is to force …”. This presumes that, absent “the strategy”, religious types will not have noticed the contradictions. However, religious types (at least the learned ones) have been studying this stuff ever since the beginning. The contradictions are well-known and the rationalisations already well established, so pointing out the contradictions as if they were some great new discovery simply plays into their well-worn narrative. That’s why it isn’t a very good argument. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/197 "2010-09-29T15:21:35Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > > [@Czarcasm](#): > > > > But doesn’t the “Christian god” spring from the religion that describes and promotes it? > > Well, he could, in principle, exist seperate from the religion that describes him. > It might just describe him wrongly. > > There are in fact loads of (semi-) religious people that no longer believe in the God as described in Bible, yet still “feel” there must be _something_. > The somethingites, most often, still call that something “God”. But if the description given them by the Bible is rejected, how is this entity described? From the Bible you get “all-knowing”, “all-seeing”, “all-powerful”, “creator of all there is”, “eternal”-take away these _Biblical_ descriptions and what have you got? ---
**Author:** ![redtail23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/3e96dc/32.png) [@redtail23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/redtail23)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/198 "2010-09-29T17:25:29Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I’ll stop you at “what the strategy does is to force …”. This presumes that, absent “the strategy”, religious types will not have noticed the contradictions. However, religious types (at least the learned ones) have been studying this stuff ever since the beginning. The contradictions are well-known and the rationalisations already well established, so pointing out the contradictions as if they were some great new discovery simply plays into their well-worn narrative. > > That’s why it isn’t a very good argument. I agree with you that it’s not a good argument for those learned scholars, nor for non-literal Christians. Can you comprehend the fact that not everyone falls into those groups? The people I deal with are a different sort entirely. They’re people who think that “The Bible must be right because it’s the Word of God. You know it’s the Word of God because it says so, right there in the Bible!” is a perfectly fine and valid argument. These people do not have centuries of rationalisation behind them. As I said before, they are not even aware of the contradictions and therefore have felt no need to rationalise them. Which makes hyper-literalism a perfectly good argument to use with them.\* I also don’t give detailed biology lessons on evolution to three-year-olds who ask “where do babies come from”, nor advanced optics lectures when they ask “why is the sky blue”. Perhaps your mileage varies. \*Please note that, as a general rule, I don’t argue with these people at all. I used to sometimes when I was much younger, but I grew out of it. 😛 The only time I do these days is when someone gets in my face. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/199 "2010-09-29T20:20:38Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > > [@Czarcasm](#): > > > > But doesn’t the “Christian god” spring from the religion that describes and promotes it? > > Yes, generally. But as a matter of logic, the particular argument in question more directly undermines religious claims for the importance of the bible and only indirectly undermines the idea that there is a god. I think the notion of God came first, and was incorporated into the Bible. Thus, the gnostic gospels that incorporated a totally different notion of god. They eventually got filtered out, of course. Both the NT and the OT incorporate several different views of God, which religion, claiming that there is only one, tries to paper over. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2010, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842/200 "2010-09-29T20:24:30Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > … But doesn’t the “Christian god” spring from the religion that describes and promotes it? According to whom? According to the Christians, it must surely be the other way around. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-atheists-interpret-the-bible-hyper-literally/554842.md?page=11)