(October 14, 2014 at 11:54 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(October 14, 2014 at 6:49 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Same with the bible. Nowhere does it say 'this story is allegorical', so how on earth are we supposed to know when talking to a theist what part they accept and what part they reject unless it comes up in discussion?

Sacred texts do not exist in a vacuum. They are nested within cultures and traditions. They are particularly complex and one must receive proper instruction about them in order to make such subtle judgments. Demanding the precision of mathematics is simply unrealistic when navigating through the many and various circumstances of life to which the texts refer. Such a demand by an atheist is just as fundamentalist and literal minded as the believer he condemns. That I believe is the jist of the OP.

I'm not demanding that people do anything with their holy book(s), I'm just reflecting the reality of what happens.

Proper instruction from whom? What would be the 'proper' instruction and how could one tell? Is it not simply another assumption to presume that the a given holy text exists as literal in one context and allegorical in another? How could we tell that, and where would we garner this information?

I understand the point completely about contextual readings of the bible, but there's no consistency. You'll have one person quoting Leviticus about why gay marraige is bad but ignoring Deuteronomy saying you should kill a woman if you marry her and she's not a virgin. Which is more contextual and why (not)?

I'm certainly not demanding the mathematical precision you indicate, but when we consider what books like the bible actually are (supposedly the direct word or 'inspired' word of a supreme celestial being of unknown quantification), then surely something more concrete is achievable/preferable? These are not 'normal' texts to those that believe in them.

Even you few theists that are regulars here often disagree on many points about the bible and it's interpretation. If not even you guys can agree, and you're the one's who believe in all this stuff, what on earth are we supposed to think?

(October 14, 2014 at 2:42 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Just saying it over again =/= proof.

Not understanding the proof does not negate its validity.

You're just asserting the existence of something, and your comeback is "you just don't understand"? That's weak, dude, even for a theist.

(October 15, 2014 at 7:20 am)genkaus Wrote: The subject of the discussion is the relevance of doctrine to the religion ...don't derail the discussion by bringing in your fantasies. That is what Chad did, for which he was vilified.

Gee, I didn't feel vilified. I gave an honest opinion on the issue and you replied with the equivelant of "Keep Your Rosaries off my Ovaries." It was a shallow and smartass comment. I gave you a smartass comment in return, which is all you deserved.

(October 15, 2014 at 8:12 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(October 14, 2014 at 2:42 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Just saying it over again =/= proof.

Not understanding the proof does not negate its validity.

Not being sound negates its validity.

---

(October 15, 2014 at 8:19 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Gee, I didn't feel vilified. I gave an honest opinion on the issue and you replied with the equivelant of "Keep Your Rosaries off my Ovaries." It was a shallow and smartass comment. I gave you a smartass comment in return, which is all you deserved.

Gee, you sure sound like you feel vilified.

(October 14, 2014 at 10:55 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(October 14, 2014 at 4:07 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: And people on this forum frequently speak out against the Bible itself as well, because like the Koran, it's a collection of immorality and superstitious shit with a handful of nice ideas and concepts that have been presented elsewhere more effectively and without the threat of divine punishment or the shoe-horning in of supernatural justifications. Both books deserve to be ridiculed because both books are ridiculous.

Sure. But is ridiculing the book enough justification to dismiss the religion?

Ridicule is not justification. The book itself is ridiculous - that is the justification.

And even if they were to disavow the book, their theology is ridiculous and worthy of being dismissed.

(October 15, 2014 at 9:14 am)Chas Wrote: Ridicule is not justification. The book itself is ridiculous - that is the justification.

And even if they were to disavow the book, their theology is ridiculous and worthy of being dismissed.

Dismissed in what sense? And why are the book or the theology central to the religion?

(October 15, 2014 at 9:21 am)genkaus Wrote:

(October 15, 2014 at 9:14 am)Chas Wrote: Ridicule is not justification. The book itself is ridiculous - that is the justification.

And even if they were to disavow the book, their theology is ridiculous and worthy of being dismissed.

Dismissed in what sense? And why are the book or the theology central to the religion?

A religion without a theology?

I was taking issue with your wording, that 'ridicule is the justification'. It is the content that is the justification for the ridicule.

(October 15, 2014 at 9:21 am)genkaus Wrote:

(October 15, 2014 at 9:14 am)Chas Wrote: Ridicule is not justification. The book itself is ridiculous - that is the justification.

And even if they were to disavow the book, their theology is ridiculous and worthy of being dismissed.

Dismissed in what sense? And why are the book or the theology central to the religion?

That is what I've always wondered. Christians hold certain -what to us seem unjustified- beliefs. They would have you believe they hold them because the bible is the word of god. But that means their primary belief is that the bible is the word of god. That begs the question: why do they believe the bible is special.

So apparently no Christian has any more clue what a god is than we atheists do except to the degree they may have spent more time reading the bible and understand it better. (A hugely suspect assumption.)

I agree with the OP that attacking Christianity (or theism more broadly) based on a literal reading of the bible is picking the lowest of fruit. Moreover if we can only speak of theism/theology in literal terms then we too have a fundamentalist frame of mind. On the other hand, if this is the kind of religion an atheist held before de-converting, I suppose it is understandable to keep addressing the religion you knew.

(October 15, 2014 at 7:42 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Proper instruction from whom? What would be the 'proper' instruction and how could one tell?

That’s a fair question. I think the same rules apply to religious instruction as they do to all other topics. Based on our own judgment and those of people we trust, we study known experts. Generally, we defer to their opinion until we feel sufficiently educated to challenge those opinions. Of course even experts disagree and we generally defer final judgment on an issue we feel is questionable until we have given them a fair reading. For example, Ed Feser has much greater expertise than I do with respect to Neo-Scholastic philosophy. That said I question his conclusion that the God of classical theism is pure act. Nevertheless, I am deferring judgment until I finish reading his book “The Last Superstition.”

(October 15, 2014 at 7:42 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: I understand the point completely about contextual readings of the bible, but there's no consistency?

I believe having a consistent hermeneutic matters more than a consistent results. The criticism that believers are cherry-picking is valid only to the extent that they do not have an overall methodology for determining how things should be “rightly divided.” This applies to all holy writ and sacred texts regardless of tradition.

(October 15, 2014 at 7:42 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Even you few theists that are regulars here often disagree on many points about the bible and it's interpretation.?

Also true. But most are on minor points. I do not know a single Christian that does not believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, although there is much ecumenical bickering about the role of baptism and such.

Also there are many different interpretations of secular history as well. Some things are less certain than others. Columbus sailed in 1492, but the exact date of Leif Erikson’s voyage is not so certain. Questions about authorship, the historical backdrop, and linguistic ambiguities play a part in determining the meanings of and doctrines following from certain scriptures.