The most important reason anyone is an atheist

[Fidel_Castronaut]

So, what, the biblical literalists of Westboro aren't proponents then?

Do they look like they're following Christs example love even toward your own enemies? They're proponents of their own hate cult not what Christianity is meant to be about, or most other religions for that matter. How many of them are there? 50? You can ignore them.

Translation: They don't have the same interpretation as me so they're wrong.

You've already pretty much dismissed atheism and atheists right off the bat, and judged us based on a warped perspective as to what 'we' are. you've called us ignorant among many other things based purely on the fact we disagree with you.

So, you talk about hate cults and how we can ignore them. I put it to you that your only purpose for being here is to argue, and be disruptive both with your faulty reasoning and constant strawmanning as to what atheism is and who atheists are.

And because of that, utilising your own reasoning, we can be forgiven for ignoring you, too.

The countless numbers of people from times gone by who have used a literalist interpretation of biblical texts to denounce (and often kill) their enemies aren't proponents either?

They were already accounted for in advance.

"Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles? Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!"

"I am Megatron" Megatron

Are you actually saying that the bible was written, initially through its formation and collation of texts, not as a literal interpretation of how those events occurred (from Genesis right through) but as some sort of allegory?

Some parts of it were most definitely, particularly when you get into some the symbolic and dream imagery that's all meant to mean something. And take a look at some of the early Christian interpretations of Genesis.

http://biologos.org/questions/early-inte...of-genesis

The 6000 years literal 6 days of creation business was a relatively modern day interpretation. I think it was first formulated in the 17th century.

I agree that it's all pretty much tosh. But, that wasn't my point. I was raising the issue that some people actually believe that the Earth was created by some sort of god, and that that god did that creating 6000 years ago.

This was raised against your point that the bible isn't meant to be taken as historically accurate. Which, of course, it isn't, but some people do.

In effect,you're admitting that the bible is just a fiction?

Certainly not it's an attempt of describing a reality beyond our normal everyday understanding. There are some dubious tales and whatever else you like to pick out from there as well it is a bit of mixed bag in Old Testament, you have to read it in the cultural context of it's time.

I agree, again, but, also again, that wasn't my point. I am all for contextual analysis of claims, and also for recognizing that people will cry doom based on the stories of revelation today in the contemporary realm. Some of them are here on this very forum! Perhaps you've read their posts?

I know a few people on this very forum who believe that the story of Adam and Eve is a literal and accurate description of the truth of how man first walked this 6000~ Y/O earth. I invite them to debate you on this point now. There are quite a few hundred million more out there in the real world too (depends on ones definition of real I guess).

YEC is essentially a conspiracy theory I wouldn't worry about it. Before you say modern Christians are just yielding to science I gave you some examples of very early Christians who believed the same kind of thing long before Darwin and modern science. It's the kind of thing you know who likes to point out.

I don't worry about it. Their delusions mean little to me. But they do exist, and in very large numbers.

As to theists that posit the scientific method and its role in the advancement of a fluid society, I say kudos to them. I wasn't ever going to make that point, but whatever.

What is the bible going to rebuke, then, as Timothy supposedly points out, if there is no real historic substance to it? Or is only some accurate history, and the other parts are just filler?

It's the history of God creator of the universe breaking into human life, culture and civilization, changing it for the better for the most part I think. The ancient Jews prepared the groundwork. I'm somewhat open to other religions as well if someone wants to ask why the Hindu Vedas or Zoroastrian Avestas aren't the word of God. Perhaps they are to some extent who knows? As long as it isn't hard polytheism or the worship of idols that would be purely man made.

Ok. Some might argue that Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions are all about worshiping idols, but that's another point for another debate.

Don't get me wrong, SOC, I admire someone who agrees with 'us' mean old atheists that the bible isn't really a good conveyor of anything when talking about historic accuracy.

It's a conveyor of God to humanity compiled over historical time by real people who encountered God in their lives whatever form that took. It's not a book of pure history nor is it a pure work of mythology. As Timothy said the scripture was God breathed.

I don't believe they encountered anything except their own imaginations or, perhaps something more nefarious (desire to control, being one notion). I don't believe them because no evidence has ever been forwarded to convince me to the contrary.