Lazy Atheism?

[Belacqua]

This all assumes that the reader takes it for granted that a) God exists, and b) the writings in the Bible are divinely inspired in one way or another, but for the atheist, these are just as much a part of the claim, even if only implicitly, as the message. 

Yes, I think that's right. 

The Bible was written by believers for believers. Off the top of my head I can't think of anywhere in the Bible that attempts to demonstrate the existence of God. At most there are lateral moves -- like you should worship Jesus instead of the Roman pantheon. The Hebrew Bible constantly scolds the Israelites not to worship other gods. But if you start out with no gods at all then there's no attempt to persuade. Maybe an argument from consequences -- like you'll suffer if you don't accept Jesus -- but as you say, that's not persuasive if you don't believe anyway. 

The fact that any body of text is infinitely interpretable, which to me is usually a bug not a feature BTW, doesn't speak to those underlying claims, ie the existence of God, or the reliability of the text as coming from or inspired by God, if it exists. 

That's true. The people I was referring to in my last post (Blake, Theresa, etc.) who see the Bible as infinitely interpretable, are solid Christians and read the Bible in a way that's consistent with their belief. 

I can never quite tell whether it is literature itself that you're so passionate about, regardless of subject, or specifically the religious ideas within?

Neither can I. Certainly I came to the study of religion through a love of art and literature. I don't see those things as separable, deep down. Religious art and writing have layers of content that appeal to someone like me, who takes pleasure in making connections and expanding on signs and symbols. 

 Ie do you just enjoy the puzzle of looking for deeper meanings in things, regardless of the source, so you'd be just as happy to see Dante's interpretation of a ChatGPT text as anything else? At the end of the day, do you find these texts and their interpretations a compelling claim for the existence of God, or do you, like they, take that for granted, or something else?

I don't believe in the God of the Old Testament, though there are parts of the OT that I love. Dante's God, if it makes sense at all, works only as a sort of transcendent symbol of the Good. Blake's God is basically a fully achieved human potentiality, in which love triumphs and peace reigns -- so I don't see that as achievable but it makes sense as an ideal to keep in mind. 

Just speculating, I guess that any ancient text which history's geniuses have interpreted could end up being a wonderful beautiful thing. The other day I was reading an early katabasis story from Sumeria, and it struck me how rich the symbolism was. If history had panned out differently and we'd grown up with Raphael frescoes and Milton epics depicting that story instead, it could be a rich part of our culture. 

Naturally, Christians think that I am insufficiently serious about this stuff -- that I take it as simply aesthetics. They are certainly correct. But I think that aesthetics can be a very serious way of knowing the world. 

Remember the OP was claiming that any statement in the Bible which is not scientifically true makes all of religion worthless. I have been arguing against that simple claim, not that God exists.