Literalism and Autism

[EgoDeath]

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.

Once again, you're simply not providing a good enough reason to believe this. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The creation in Genesis cannot be compared to the behavior of monkeys reacting to a red ball, nor the commonly known phrase of "it's raining cats and dogs."

There being a lack of a specific wording or a qualifying statement doesn't suddenly mean that we should take it as a metaphor. That would mean the whole of the scripture is to be taken metaphorically, unless explicitly stated otherwise. That is your reasoning and, apparently, it makes sense to you. I'll have to agree to disagree with you. As do a large number of, if not most, Christians. In fact, even Josephus disagreed with the idea that the creation in Genesis was allegorical.

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...

Unfortunately for you, no where in the Bible does it ever state explicitly, "This is a passage you are to read and follow literally."

So I suppose the whole of the Bible is just one big metaphor? Maybe the book's existence itself is a metaphor? Oh wow. This goes deeper than we originally thought. Having any back pain? It must hurt constantly bending over backwards to make these statements of yours make sense.

Once again, all you're really doing is giving a reason why you personally think the passage is allegorical. You haven't given anyone else a good enough reason to believe you, yet. I'm still waiting.

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.

English isn't your first language, is it? What are you trying to say?

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.

I'm not stuck on anything, as gae tried to explained to you, most atheists are not. I'm simply trying to understand how you differentiate that the creation in Genesis isn't literal when other stories are.

So far, you've done little but walk around in circles to explain your reasoning to me.

I’m not in the business of proofs

I can tell.

And, you still haven't adequately explained where the connection is on this topic to autism. What was that about? Do you have an adequate explanation? Or were you just trying to insinuate that some of us may be developmental disorders simply because we disagree with you?

You're one haughty fuck, Acro.

Imagine I went to a Christian forum talking about, "I wonder if there's a connection between schizophrenia and Christianity. I'm not making fun of you guys, I swear! I'm just honestly curious."

I'd be lucky if I wasn't banned immediately, sensitive as some of you are.