[Serious] Literal and Not Literal

[Acrobat]

Absolutely not, unless the source is making the claim to be historic (something along the lines of "I will destroy Tyre and it will never be rebuilt"). But in absence of conclusive data regarding one or the other metaphoric (or whatever) interpretation, i would tend to withold belief either way. I have no dog in this "book inspired by god" being literal or not race. I am just wondering, why others seem not to suspend belief in absence of evidence...either way.

I wouldn't even know what suspending belief here would look like, unless i avoided reading it all together. If I'm reading genesis, how do I suspend belief on whether it's symbolic/metaphorical, or intended as literal history? What does a suspended reading look like?

It seems to me that reading requires at least intuitively making such assumptions, even if we're not particularly conscious of what those assumptions being made by our brains are.

Like when someone misunderstands sarcasm, it's generally because they assumed incorrectly that it was meant literally/non-sarcastically. I have no idea what it would mean to suspend belief one way or the other on whether it's sarcastic or not, without having to cover my ears refusing to hear a word being said.

As i indicated earlier, people on the autistic spectrum, tend to have an impaired inferential capacity, so they have trouble understanding sarcasm, metaphors, and non-literal use of language. But even here, such individuals tend to read and interpret everything quite literally, rather than in this supposed state of suspension.

...and you are basing your belief in an outrageous claim that some deity spoke all of reality in existence, wants to be worshipped and is interested in your bedroom activities

I'm not basing how I read the Bible on any of those things. I don't read the Bible any differently than i read anything else. I also don't believe God wrote the Bible, but men did. So i read it the way I would anything else written or spoken by men.

on this!? At least partially, of course. Even if i grant you that you may be correct in your interpretation, what may be the impact on the plausibiity of the existence of said deity? Thats the part i just dont get.

We were arguing over literalism, and the basis of this argument doesn't have anything to do with the plausibility of the existence of God.

I was pointing out why I read the Genesis account non-literally, based on the style in which it most resembles. In fact reading it literally requires a whole slew of silly assumptions to hold.

Yes, they better to. Lots of miscommunication in my everyday life is caused exactly by this.

Yes, in the meantime let’s suspend all attempts to understand each other, until we preface all our communication with a disclaimer as to whether we’re speaking literally, non-literally, sarcastically, using similes, metaphors, etc....

Sorry I forgot the disclaimer: sarcasm