(March 24, 2013 at 10:56 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

(March 24, 2013 at 7:03 am)catfish Wrote: Bolded by me to highlight the hilarious logic applied by fundie atheists.

I'm not an atheist.

Quote:Seriously? It doesn't make sense literally so therefore the literal reading is the most logical??? Who taught you about logic?
.

Considering that your reading comprehension left you thinking I was an atheist, I can see why you're trying to pull off such an absurd argument.

I stand corrected. Drop the "atheist" part of the statement and it will apply to you then...
.

I wasn't using absolutes when I was talking about the most logical interpretation. If you actually bothered to read my entire post, you would have realised that I reasoned my way in order to state that a literal reading is more logical than a metaphorical interpretation, NOT that it is [absolutely] logical, like you're forcing it to be. After all, a "logical interpretation" in absolute terms is an oxymoron when it comes to the Bible.

(March 24, 2013 at 10:56 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Sooo... the best that can be done is throw everything up in the air and shrug our shoulders? From my experience, simpler truths in life are straight forward and don't require such mysterious riddles to work out. Perhaps the ghosts of 2000 years ago are pulling your leg?

And I think the opposite...nothing worthwhile is easily attained. Real gold lies deep in the ground, etc. Tell you what. I'm going to bow out of this conversation for a while. I'm actually writing a lecture on this topic for a lecture I'm giving in April. It's titled, "Inside the Word: Swedenborg and the Secrets of Heaven". I'll post the lecture on-line and post the link in thread for further discussion. Thank you for your insight into the literal minded approach to the bible from an atheist perspective.

(March 24, 2013 at 11:49 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(March 24, 2013 at 10:56 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Sooo... the best that can be done is throw everything up in the air and shrug our shoulders? From my experience, simpler truths in life are straight forward and don't require such mysterious riddles to work out. Perhaps the ghosts of 2000 years ago are pulling your leg?

And I think the opposite...nothing worthwhile is easily attained. Real gold lies deep in the ground, etc. Tell you what. I'm going to bow out of this conversation for a while. I'm actually writing a lecture on this topic for a lecture I'm giving in April. It's titled, "Inside the Word: Swedenborg and the Secrets of Heaven". I'll post the lecture on-line and post the link in thread for further discussion. Thank you for your insight into the literal minded approach to the bible from an atheist perspective.

Sure thing. Looking forward to hearing how you can reconcile the whole account, and, *sigh*... I'm not an atheist

(March 24, 2013 at 11:41 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

I wasn't using absolutes when I was talking about the most logical interpretation. If you actually bothered to read my entire post, you would have realised that I reasoned my way in order to state that a literal reading is more logical than a metaphorical interpretation, NOT that it is [absolutely] logical, like you're forcing it to be. After all, a "logical interpretation" in absolute terms is an oxymoron when it comes to the Bible.

I read your entire post. You based you conclusion on "apparent intricate relationship" blah blah blah.... citing genealogy... How's that "literal" interpretation working for your genealogies?

Funny? Absolutely! This don't make sense so it must be "more logical". Reasoned? I highly doubt it...

(March 24, 2013 at 11:57 am)catfish Wrote:

(March 24, 2013 at 11:41 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

I wasn't using absolutes when I was talking about the most logical interpretation. If you actually bothered to read my entire post, you would have realised that I reasoned my way in order to state that a literal reading is more logical than a metaphorical interpretation, NOT that it is [absolutely] logical, like you're forcing it to be. After all, a "logical interpretation" in absolute terms is an oxymoron when it comes to the Bible.

I read your entire post. You based you conclusion on "apparent intricate relationship" blah blah blah.... citing genealogy... How's that "literal" interpretation working for your genealogies?

Funny? Absolutely! This don't make sense so it must be "more logical". Reasoned? I highly doubt it...

DA FUQ...?

For the love of Odin, you are absolutely impossible. Goodnight catfish.

[quote='Drich' pid='418669' dateline='1363924442']
The proof of Christianity is in God, not in some arguement. Maybe that is why none of you have found Him.


-------

Actually - gods are easily found

THEY are fictional beings made up by humans to include in their ancient religious myths and legends

WE know exactly where to find them - in religious "scripture"(fairy tales) written 1000 plus years ago - when they thought the earth was flat - and it was the center of the Universe - and everything revolved around the earth. Obviously FAIRY TALES.

They are as real as James Bond and Harry Potter - and James Bond has saved mankind from doom and destruction MORE OFTEN than most of them.

(March 24, 2013 at 3:32 am)FallentoReason Wrote: If I may...

It doesn't make sense literally because of the numerous contradictions that sort of reading spawns e.g. two creation accounts. But then a metaphorical reading doesn't work because of the apparent intricate relationship between the OT and NT e.g. the genealogy from Adam to Jesus. Surely the genealogy isn't from metaphorical man to literal man? Therefore, a literally reading seems to be the most logical... as far as "logical" goes with the Bible.

Both atheists and Christians commit the same logical fallacy in having these arguments. The fallacy is:

"False in one part, therefore false in all."

IOW the following assertions are both illogical.

Atheist: "Nah nah I found a mistake, so I don't have to buy any of it."

Christian: "That's not a mistake. It all fits."

The freethinker/logical person does neither. Unfortunately, the Christians feed into this fallacy by going along with the idea that it all fails if part fails. That's nonsense. If half of Mark is true and the rest false, one half of Mark is still true.

Both sides object, "well how do I know what to believe?" You don't until you inquire diligently and set aside that which you cannot accept. That's what Jefferson did, and many other true thinkers.

(March 24, 2013 at 10:35 pm)radorth Wrote:

(March 24, 2013 at 3:32 am)FallentoReason Wrote: If I may...

It doesn't make sense literally because of the numerous contradictions that sort of reading spawns e.g. two creation accounts. But then a metaphorical reading doesn't work because of the apparent intricate relationship between the OT and NT e.g. the genealogy from Adam to Jesus. Surely the genealogy isn't from metaphorical man to literal man? Therefore, a literally reading seems to be the most logical... as far as "logical" goes with the Bible.

Both atheists and Christians commit the same logical fallacy in having these arguments. The fallacy is:

"False in one part, therefore false in all."

IOW the following assertions are both illogical.

Atheist: "Nah nah I found a mistake, so I don't have to buy any of it."

Christian: "That's not a mistake. It all fits."

The freethinker/logical person does neither. Unfortunately, the Christians feed into this fallacy by going along with the idea that it all fails if part fails. That's nonsense. If half of Mark is true and the rest false, one half of Mark is still true.

Both sides object, "well how do I know what to believe?" You don't until you inquire diligently and set aside that which you cannot accept. That's what Jefferson did, and many other true thinkers.

Then please, lead the way. How do I know what is historical in e.g. Genesis? Also, it seems as if you're willing to accept that the Bible is fallible. What does that say about divine inspiration?

(March 24, 2013 at 10:35 pm)radorth Wrote: Both atheists and Christians commit the same logical fallacy in having these arguments. The fallacy is:

"False in one part, therefore false in all."

That is a fallacy... until you claim that the source is inerrant. Then, a single mistake, however tiny, erases all credibility. That's how the shit works, son.