Hey, I answered that.
Bears repeating, especially given the recent common misusage of “literally” to mean “figuratively”. A large percentage of poll respondents probably key in on only a few key words like “Bible” and “believe” and base their answer on that without doing a rigid logical deconstruction of the poll question.
No, they don’t. The vast mass of believers tend to ignore the scholars even if they’ve actually heard what the scholars claim. It’s that vast mass of believers and the people who preach to them what they already want to believe who set the tone for a religion.
As others have said, I don’t think you understand what American Christianity is like. They are mainstream here; if not the majority, probably the biggest single minority. They are most certainly not outliers.
We atheists need only know how to read to know what the bible says. We have no way of knowing which parts of the bible you discount, nor what convoluted interpretations you might apply to the remainder. In general I have found that believers are adept at reconfiguring their interpretation to counter any argument.
Provide me with a book that details these things and I’ll be happy to point out the numerous contradictions, logical fallacies, historical impossibilities, and glaring gaps in your published interpretation of the bible’s passages… but write well and unambiguously, because my arguments will be based on what you wrote, not what you later claim you meant.
It is a bit parochial to assume that the topic of conversation has to be about conditions in your courner of the world, no? Not everywhere is America, and in this respect, America is clearly the outlier - and even there, at least according to the poll whose questions we can see, “literalists” however defined are an absolute minority. Worldwide, they are most certainly not “the vast mass of believers” whom you claim “set the tone”. Even in America, admittedly an outlier itself in this respect, they are … one third.
Question: where does one go to find the atheists who interpret the bible hyper-literally (per the accusation of the OP)? It would not surprise me in the slightest to learn of a reigonal correlation between biblical literalism in believers, and biblical literalism in atheists.
Not when the OP is an American, and Biblical literalists are mostly an American problem, and as said that’s who atheists are most likely to use Biblical literalism against.
They are also some of the most fervent and politically powerful. They are numerous and passionate and enthusiastically try to ram their beliefs down the throats of everyone else; atheists and fellow believers alike. So yes, they set the tone, and what religious scholars say is unlikely to even be heard much less affect anything.
That’s not how it was argued upthread. It was argued that these arguments ‘ad literalum’ were valid, full stop, in that they gutted the religious meaning of the Bible.
Now, the goalposts have shifted: it is argued that these arguments are useful against a minority in your corner of the world, albeit a vocal minority.
To my mind, even that isn’t true - someone who believes in Biblical literalism in that form is unlikely to be persuaded by any sort of logical argument, so you might as well save your breath.
But be it as it may, it isn’t a good argument against the religious use of the Bible, but only against the literalist interpretation of the Bible, which most mainstream religions do not hold to in any event, and never have - whatever a minority (even a vocal one) of nutters in your part of the world prefer to believe.
Many non-fanatics and non-literalists still carry the lingering belief that the bible is still somehow ‘special’, and that it is still plenty accurate in a lot of places, such as when documenting that Jesus said and did various things. If bringing the actual text to their attention can disabuse them of the irrational special pleading the book often receives, then so be it.
That said, I don’t know that I’ve often seen an atheist lead off with these arguments. Usually the progression is that some theist invokes the bible, and then the atheists come down like a ton of bricks.
They do; it’s just that many Christians don’t actually base their beliefs on the Bible, or even know what it says. They say they do and might even believe it, but what they actually believe has little to do with the Bible.
At the very worst, you are showing non-literalists why they should reject the literalists’ claims which is useful in itself.
Using the literalist argument against non-literalists is useful in getting them to actually define what they believe so you can argue against it. That won’t stop them from changing their claims later of course, but at least you can then point out that they are lying, which you can’t do if they’ve been allowed to never actually define what they believe.
They will quite happily tell you that the words “seperation of church and state” don’t appear in the constitution. The establishment clause implies it, and from the writings of the founding fathers that’s clear, but I’ve met at least some who don’t see the constitution as banning basically making the country a Christian state.
You don’t go anywhere to find them, they’re a a big straw man. Curtis is trying to apply that all atheists (or anyone who criticizes the bible) are these minor nitpicks like taking “the sun rose” to mean the bible endorses geocentrism. He’s trying to imply that our position is too weak that all we can do is creatively interpret minutia.
But the reality is that, taking his example of geocentrism, I was able to post a link that supported much more clear biblical text than “the sun rose” - it also ignores that geocentrism was the default form of the church for 1500 years and people would be persecuted for disagreeing with it, so this idea of biblical geocentrism was not created by nitpickers.
So it was basically a straw man and another hit and run by Curtis.
You are quote correct. Perhaps this can serve as an example to Curtis of why the bible is parsed so closely.
The actual text of the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”.
At the very least this means, IMO, two things. 1. Congress may not create or select an official national religion. 2. Congress may not create laws that favor any one religion over any others.
I would like to hear the others ways this is interpreted that would allow this country to become a “Christian state”.
The Supreme Court decided in 1947 that this clause applied to individual states as well. Cite.
We have crazy bigoted close-minded people in our families, so the American Animal is hardly incomprehensible to us. That American Exceptionalism crap you tykes are always spouting is a pleasant fiction we play along with for the sake of politeness.
Sometimes it seems like it is, as seen in this thread. And having a relative few people like that who are regarded as weird isn’t the same as having tens of millions of them, and their viewpoint being considered perfectly reasonable by many who don’t even share it.
Then the real point of confusion isn’t the mindset of the crazy people, but the baffling reason the rest of you put up with them.
Bolding mine.
I think that’s a very astute observation and the real difference in culture that’s causing a rift here. It would be one thing if the US “just” had a larger bloc of crazy people than other countries. I think what might make this country unique is the extent to which, as you say, this viewpoint is considered reasonable by almost everyone else. On top of that, people who don’t find it reasonable aren’t supposed to say anything about it. Religious beliefs are given so much deference, regardless of their plain insanity, that doing something like correcting someone who claims that their version of the Bible perfectly matches the “original text,” commas and all, would be a monstrous faux pas.
To the extent that many American Christians are ignorant of their religion, pointing out some of the crazy stuff in the Bible is a good way to focus people who don’t know much about it at all and have been fed a largely sanitized version of it and its figures from various sources. These “atheist literalists” aren’t tilting at windmills, here.
We’re not allowed to kill them or clap them away in crazy houses. Go figure.
Unfortunately, it’s not a fiction in terms of “exceptionally crazy”.
Who at the time were lucky to have the reading skills of a poor performing second grader by todays standards…
Horse hockey. Religious scholars are to religion as *cinema verite *auteurs are to hollywood blockbuster fans: tiny, ignored and largely irrelevant.
It’s not. It is a direct attack on literalists but few non-literalists tend to fully grok the implications of biblical contradictions and the insertion of fallible witnesses, just as you didn’t till I pointed out the implications in post #191. You didn’t rebut that post, but you seem now to be ignoring its implications.
They do, essentially.