Lazy Atheism?

[Belacqua]

Yeah I get it.  Actually I do see the literary value of the Bible and am only criticizing the most literal interpretation of it.  It's not actually me who claims the Bible is some kind of straightforward rule book - it's conservative Christians who seem to portray it that way.

That's a good way to put it, I think.

People who claim that (for example) evolution is false and God created all the kinds in a single day DO deserve to be argued with. 

But of course such people are not the whole of Christianity, and even atheists like me can benefit from the really smart Christians in history.

[brewer]

The problem arises with the claim of bible inerrancy and god infallibility. You might not claim that but very many believers do. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

You're right, there are many people who claim that. I have never denied their existence.

What I've been arguing on this thread is that complete literal sola scriptura interpretations of the Bible do not constitute the whole of Christianity. If someone were to argue that since the myths in Genesis are obviously false, therefore the whole of Christianity is worthless, I would argue against that. 

There are a lot of different kinds of Christians. They range from the simplest literalist to someone like William Blake, who claimed that Adam and Eve were never real people, but states or conditions through which individuals may pass. 

So I'm just against laziness, when used to pass judgment.

Lazy atheists, lazy christians or both?

I never said worthless, there are some good educational stories, but the stories came from men and not god(s). Claiming god is a means to claim authority, the ultimate authority which is dishonest from the start. It's also a means to enforce justification, control and manipulation.

[Belacqua]

You're right, there are many people who claim that. I have never denied their existence.

What I've been arguing on this thread is that complete literal sola scriptura interpretations of the Bible do not constitute the whole of Christianity. If someone were to argue that since the myths in Genesis are obviously false, therefore the whole of Christianity is worthless, I would argue against that. 

There are a lot of different kinds of Christians. They range from the simplest literalist to someone like William Blake, who claimed that Adam and Eve were never real people, but states or conditions through which individuals may pass. 

So I'm just against laziness, when used to pass judgment.

Lazy atheists, lazy christians or both?

I never said worthless, there are some good educational stories, but the stories came from men and not god(s). Claiming god is a means to claim authority, the ultimate authority which is dishonest from the start. It's also a means to enforce justification, control and manipulation.

Both, for sure. 

I think that understanding others and making fair evaluations takes a lot of work, no matter what point you start from.

[brewer]

Lazy atheists, lazy christians or both?

I never said worthless, there are some good educational stories, but the stories came from men and not god(s). Claiming god is a means to claim authority, the ultimate authority which is dishonest from the start. It's also a means to enforce justification, control and manipulation.

Both, for sure. 

I think that understanding others and making fair evaluations takes a lot of work, no matter what point you start from.

I previously made fair evaluations, it took little work, just rational thought.

If christians hold or voice irrational beliefs it's on them to either resolve or live with the cognitive dissonance.

[Simon Moon]

The problem arises with the claim of bible inerrancy and god infallibility. You might not claim that but very many believers do. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

You're right, there are many people who claim that. I have never denied their existence.

What I've been arguing on this thread is that complete literal sola scriptura interpretations of the Bible do not constitute the whole of Christianity. If someone were to argue that since the myths in Genesis are obviously false, therefore the whole of Christianity is worthless, I would argue against that. 

There are a lot of different kinds of Christians. They range from the simplest literalist to someone like William Blake, who claimed that Adam and Eve were never real people, but states or conditions through which individuals may pass. 

So I'm just against laziness, when used to pass judgment.

But the fact that many Christians are not literalists just opens an entire set of problems on it's own.

There is no instruction manual of which parts of the Bible should be taken literally, and which parts are metaphor, poetry, fable, etc.

And, it seems that many Christians, the non-literalists, have been dragged by modernity, to believe less and less of the Bible should be taken literally, because they know (consciously or unconsciously) how ridiculous most of it actually sounds. While the fact is, they would all have been considered heretics, the further back in the history of Christianity we go. Many of them might have been burned at the stake.

And all the while, this god, is viewing the entire situation, knowing that a very high percentage of his followers are getting it wrong. Are some of them, despite being devout believers, getting it so wrong, that they are as destined for hell as any non-believer? I'm sure there are many Christians that believe so.

Yet, the greatest hide-and-seek player of all time, fails to show up and clarify the situation.

[Belacqua]

But the fact that many Christians are not literalists just opens an entire set of problems on it's own.

Yes, everything needs to be discussed, debated, worked out. There won't be a final conclusion about each and every sentence.

There is no instruction manual of which parts of the Bible should be taken literally, and which parts are metaphor, poetry, fable, etc.

Well, there have been many many books written over the years addressing that question. It's true there is no single instruction manual which all Christians agree on. 

As you know, the Bible is a collection of many texts written over centuries, by people with different goals, writing styles, and literary genres. To do a good job on it, a person has to research the background and use his brain.

And, it seems that many Christians, the non-literalists, have been dragged by modernity, to believe less and less of the Bible should be taken literally, because they know (consciously or unconsciously) how ridiculous most of it actually sounds. While the fact is, they would all have been considered heretics, the further back in the history of Christianity we go. Many of them might have been burned at the stake. 

I think it's not true to say that in the beginning, every part of the Bible was taken literally, and then as science proves a literal interpretation is impossible, they switch over to different readings. 

Both Jesus and Paul interpret stories from the Hebrew Bible as allegory. That's pretty far before modernity, and they weren't dragged to it. 

St. Augustine (354 – 430) also said that if a literal reading contradicts what experts say about the world, then Christians shouldn't stick to a literal reading. I don't know which parts he had in mind, but for example there's a place in the NT where Jesus goes up a mountain and can see the whole world. Augustine knew the world was round and that no such mountain exists. I also don't know enough about Greek idioms, but I know that in (for example) French, "tout le monde" almost never refers to all the world. "Tout le monde sait que le restaurant est trop cher" refers to all the people who happen to know about a particular restaurant. 

So literary usage, and language itself, is full of non-literal expression. As I say, a reader has to use his brain and do his best. 

In the Song of Songs, when the lover says "You have dove’s eyes behind your veil" that was not intended to be literal. That would be monstrous.

Also I expect you know about the Pardes system. This was in use from medieval times, and was not an attempt to save as metaphor the things that science had shown to be impossible. In this system, each and every verse is already literal, allegorical, comparative, and esoteric. There are Christian versions of this, also. 

Augustine worked hard on this issue. But we have to keep in mind that he used the word "literal" to mean "what the original author intended." So if the original author intended a sentence to be metaphorical, then the literal meaning is metaphorical. (The idea, of course, is that with sacred scripture the original author may not himself have known the deepest meaning of what he was writing.)

And all the while, this god, is viewing the entire situation, knowing that a very high percentage of his followers are getting it wrong. Are some of them, despite being devout believers, getting it so wrong, that they are as destined for hell as any non-believer? I'm sure there are many Christians that believe so.

Yes, if we think of it as a quiz, it doesn't seem fair to me. If each individual really has to get precisely the correct hermeneutic in order to go to heaven, that's too difficult. 

Before Luther, the Bible was often approached the way we would look at the books of legal code in a lawyer's office. Interpretation is difficult, and people who try to do it themselves are likely to end up as hopelessly lost pro se defendants or Sovereign Citizen oddballs. It's better to hire professional help. 

So if you or anyone doesn't want to take the time to work out skillful interpretation, I don't see that as a problem. We can all live long happy lives knowing nothing about it. As with all subjects, though, if we start passing judgment it's probably better to know a lot. And this applies to religious and non-religious alike.

[Fake Messiah]

Both Jesus and Paul interpret stories from the Hebrew Bible as allegory. That's pretty far before modernity, and they weren't dragged to it. 

Yeah right. The gospels begin with Jesus's genealogy which includes characters from every fairytale in the OT, so that is as literal interpretation as it gets.

[The Grand Nudger]

No no no, we've got it all wrong, we're going to need a couple thousand more years experience with christianity before we can confidently call it what it's always been.

[Ahriman]

Okay I admit the title is clickbait.  I love the fact that so many atheists have a lot of knowledge about certain religions and are able to deconstruct the texts.  However it has always seemed to me that since "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" the burden of proof should fall on the religious rather than those who disbelieve.

I would love to hear more "lazy atheist" arguments based on the the most basic flawed logic of religious beliefs.  Prima facie simple arguments.  1) Like do we really have to read the entire Bible when the first few pages of Genesis conflict with scientific facts we now know?  Such as that the genetic diversity of the human race means we could not possibly have evolved from a single mating pair 6,000 years ago? 

I've always wished that atheist debates with theists would focus more on the basic, simple stuff. 

2) Another one for me is why didn't Jesus write down his own teachings (or have someone else write them down at the time he taught), since presumably being God he knew that controversies over authorship would arise in the future?  Certainly if he'd intended to start a new religion, he should have done this.  Why did he not?  This seems like a really important question that gets ignored.   When I was a child listening to Mass, I remember thinking that his words to Peter "on this rock I build my church" was clearly metaphorical and only make sense if he didn't actually intend to start a church. 

3) And if Jesus gave a crap about abortion or homosexuality, how come he never mentioned either?  Yet these are things modern Christian fundamentalists/evangelicals focus on to the exclusion of all else.

1) It's a different perspective. It doesn't have to be true to be valid.

2) Because He didn't intend to start a new religion. And actually, His teachings were written down, but have since been lost.

3) Jesus didn't care about that stuff. Modern Christians care, for some reason. But Jesus didn't.

[The Grand Nudger]

(4) There was no jesus to write those things down. He's a composite character in a work of fiction.