Literalism and Autism

[Acrobat]

Unless I have good reasons to think human beings in the past behaved differently when exposed to similar stimuli, than humans beings in the present, then I expect them to follow the same predictable patterns. In fact plenty of people in the past wrote of having visions, etc, including in the Bible. So it does seem that this tendency was present then as it is now.

Not necessarily. You're just assuming they'd behave the same because that's what you want to believe. The truth is, you don't know, and you can't stand to admit that.

Like I said deductive reasoning.

If all monkeys we’ve observed when exposed to certain stimuli, behave in similar predictable patterns, it’s safe to assume that other monkeys would behave similarly as well.

I expect humans when exposed to stimuli like a vision, to behave in ways consistent with the observations of how other humans who experienced them.

I expect when human beings use the phrase “it’s raining cats and dogs”, to mean it’s raining hard outside and not literally. Now maybe some person had a hallucination, of it’s literally raining cats and dogs, but unless the person told me that, I’d take the phrase it’s raining cats and dogs, non-literally.

You're arguing that the creation story isn't literal because it wasn't announced at the beginning of genesis that it was literal. But by this logic, the creation of Adam and Eve isn't literal either, right?

When the style of the writing resembles the style use in allegorical stories, when nothing contained in the writing indicates literalism, such as no particular historical setting etc..., when the meaning of the story as a contained passage, isnt impacted by non-literalism, etc... I assume it was written non-literally.

Unless I have a reason to assume the author/s wanted me to take it literally, as a historical event, than I don’t.

And yes I take the Adam and Eve story allegorically as well. Adam is not even a proper name, but rather a term for mankind, not to mention forbidden trees “with fruit of knowledge of good and evil”, placed in the middle of a garden.

The story itself appears to be about how the knowledge/consciousness of good and evil, is the basis of doing evil/bad, choose it over good, feel shame, guilt etc...

Also, we can then assume that the vast majority of the Bible isn't literal too, right?

If the meaning of the vastly majority of the Bible, isn’t impacted by assuming their non-literal, if it isn’t causing you to ponder questions outside the context of the text themselves, than there isn’t any real reason to assume these writing are literal.

For the most part you can leave the question of literal or not to the side, because it would probably just be a distraction, and try to work out the meaning of the passage. After that you can if you want try and work out if it was describing a literal historical event or not. Just don’t let that question confuse or obscure what meaning the authors were attempting to convey. This is a question many atheists get stuck on, but not religious literalist themselves.

All you're doing in this argument with me is proving that, in your view, with your reasoning, you know what is literal and what isn't. To you. You haven't proved anything outside of that. And you certainly haven't proven that any sort of interpretation of the Bible is more valid than another.

I’m not in the business of proofs, because proofs appear to be about absolutes. I’m only in the buisness of presenting what’s likely.

I provided the reasoning and logic, and basis for the conclusions I’ve drawn, and unless you can point to some flaw in them, then I’ll continue to draw the conclusions I do, about everything, not just religious writings.

Now if you’re the type of person who likes to sit on the fence until absolute certainty comes along, then you’ll be sitting there a long time.