[Serious] Literal and Not Literal

[Succubus]

Unless Succubus is intending to say that Christians were burned at the stake but not literally burned at the stake for questioning the Bible's veracity. Maybe she is trying out some poetic trope?

I've waited nearly six days for the wankers to sort my new connection and now that the fucking thing's working I find this is the last page I was at.

Bel, I have read this post of yours backwards, forwards, upside down and through a mirror and I still can't make head nor tail of it.

I was told this new fast connection would enhance my online experience. I'm going to demand a refund.

Edit:
OMGFG! There's another sixteen pages of this!

[Belacqua]

Bel, I have read this post of yours backwards, forwards, upside down and through a mirror and I still can't make head nor tail of it.

It was a long time ago, but I think I remember.

You asserted that heretics had been burned at the stake from about the 3rd or 4th century for questioning the Bible's veracity. That isn't true. 

To be clear, I am absolutely against burning anyone at the stake. But I am in favor of making historically accurate sentences.

[Succubus]

I've missed fuckall then.

[Acrobat]

I never was or am interested in reading the boring bible story book. I am not interested in reading many other books as well (like the three little pigs), because my day has only 24hrs. Thats why i am not interested in the bibles stories and what the authors may or may not want to convey.

Its people like you who are constantly asserting that some "knowledge" of "truth" results from reading and correctly understanding it.

Even when I was very young, I enjoyed reading novels, stories, greek mythology, anthologies given to me as gifts, etc... It was to relate and connect to the broad human experience. I was less interested, and quite frankly bored of my science classes.

And yes, there's a great deal of knowledge to be gained from novels, art, stories, poetry, etc.. Dostoevsky has a great deal of wisdom to impart on us. So much so-that even Einstein credits him for giving more than any scientist ever has.

Maybe it confuses you as to why anyone would care about the stories of a culture several hundred years ago, of some goat herders, and illiterates. Because they share with us, the human condition. They are much a part of who we are, as we are of them. We're not a new creation, but a historic being, molded in the same image of men thousands of years before us.


People who seem so occupied with science, seem very weird to me. Because the typical scientific stuff that interests them is primarily about the sterile objective world outside themselves. The humanless reality out there. The things that foster looking outward more than inward. They want to learn about themselves through the lens of a laboratory, then through lived life, in community, friendship, relationships, through love and empathy, relatability, through the connecting threads that tie us all together.

So it seems to me that the sort of knowledge, many atheism appear to seek, appears to be a form of escapism, a life in which they are erased.

[Anomalocaris]

The inward knowledge is ultimately only of any value whatsoever if it enables the individual to better gain and leverage knowledge of the reality outside for his survival.

Without ever enlarging knowledge of the outside world, inner knowledge is a sterile masturbation. Inner knowledge by itself can not offer any possibility whatsoever of forestalling extinction, it can only accelerate extinction by creating the delusion of forestalling extinction and thus prevent measures that can be taken from being recognized as necessary.  Inner knowledge that does not dovetail with acquisition of outside knowledge is truely pure escapism with no redeeming value whatsoever.

Outside knowledge by itself can only forestall extinction for so long.  But it can.   What is more it can contribute to forestalling extinction for longer  because it directly contributes to further acquisition of further outside knowledge that can forestall extinction beyond that point.

[EgoDeath]

What do you mean by unanimous interpretation?

An interpretation that all Christians can agree on.

Secondly interpreting the text, and following whatever the text dictates are not the same thing.

Sure it is. If you know what all of the rules are, but then choose to not follow certain rules, you're cherry-picking which rules to follow and which to ignore.

You're being disingenuous. You accuse me of cherry picking when it comes to interpretation of the Bible,  but have failed to support this accusation.

There you go, being disingenuous again. I actually never accused you of cherry-picking. I asked you what made you so sure that you weren't?

Do you just purposefully ignore what people type and hope they won't notice that you're putting words in their mouth? Or are you just a fucking moron?

I listed the rules I use when interpreting the biblical text, you failed to show any flaws in such rules, or why if applied consistently would result in cherry picking? All you've tried to do is shift the goal post from interpretation of the meaning of the texts, to following the text.

 
Who the fuck do you think you are? LMAO. I don't have to play your little game and pick apart some arbitrary list of rules just because you typed it on the screen and demanded I prove you wrong. Fuck off you little weirdo lmao. All I did was ask you how you were so sure that you're not cherry-picking. You then went on ranting about how every atheist says this and that, essentially ignoring what I said to you. Holy fuck you're dense.

You're right, one of the annoying features of being on forums like this, is how easy it is to believe what you do, without any real challenges to it. You get a cheap sense of comfort regarding the veracity of your views. But I'm not proud of this. Part of the reason I even participate in atheists forum, it's perhaps the few places where people strongly disagree with your views, and you would think this would foster meaningful criticism, and challenges to think through. But instead you just get insults and barely thought through nonsense. I don't find this satisfying but disappointing.

Acrobat, you're having a conversation that I never even started. I never accused you of cherry-picking, get your fucking head out of your ass and read what's actually on the screen.

All I did was ask you how you were so sure that you're not cherry-picking and here you are throwing a temper tantrum. Chill the hell out.

---

Anyone else feel like they're talking to a wall here? Is this just an exercise in complete futility or what?

[Belacqua]

The inward knowledge is ultimately only of any value whatsoever if it enables the individual to better gain and leverage knowledge of the reality outside for his survival.

This is a very common viewpoint these days. It hasn't always been the case, and it is instructive to see what the alternatives are. 

"Leverage," and "instrumental," and "practical" and such words are aimed at control. Since science and capitalism have taken over our world, this is the approach we take -- our job is to leverage the world to our goals, to use everything for some practical end. Usefulness becomes a value for us, and things that aren't useful aren't valuable. 

The arts, philosophy, and religion are areas in which usefulness doesn't always mean quality. It is possible for things to be good in themselves, to be valued for merely what they are. 

And those fields may serve as a corrective when the instrumental view of the world goes too far. When we start treating other people as objects that only contribute to our own gain, capitalism can't tell us to stop, but art might. 

I think that inward knowledge is ultimately of great value in itself, especially when it doesn't enable me to use the world to my advantage.

[Deesse23]

Even when I was very young, I enjoyed reading novels, stories, greek mythology, anthologies given to me as gifts, etc... It was to relate and connect to the broad human experience. I was less interested, and quite frankly bored of my science classes.

I didnt say i prefer science to story books. I said i am not interested in your story book. You are one of the people who are constantly trying to tell anybody its not a story but true.

And yes, there's a great deal of knowledge to be gained from novels, art, stories, poetry, etc.. Dostoevsky has a great deal of wisdom to impart on us. So much so-that even Einstein credits him for giving more than any scientist ever has.

Dostoevsky, novels, poetry.....the bible. Please dont tell me you think the bible is actually only a storybook.  
Do you?

Maybe it confuses you as to why anyone would care about the stories of a culture several hundred years ago, of some goat herders, and illiterates.

No not at all.
But it puzzles me that someone bases their belief in an all powerful reality creating entity on this and wants to impose the morals he derives from this on everyone else.

Please stop pretending you are reading the bible just because of the cool stories. Its disingenuous and insulting my intellect.

Because they share with us, the human condition. They are much a part of who we are, as we are of them. We're not a new creation, but a historic being, molded in the same image of men thousands of years before us.

Lots of hot air with absolutely no substance or relevance.
Sounds great tho, i give you that.

People who seem so occupied with science, seem very weird to me.

Whom are you talking to? Me? My book shelf is so fucking full, i am currently trying to sell some via ebay. Not a single one is about science. Only if you want to count "science fiction" as science.
Maybe talk to (and listen) other people instead of talking at them? Maybe Get yourself informed about them, instead of peddling stereotypes?

Because the typical scientific stuff that interests them is primarily about the sterile objective world outside themselves. The humanless reality out there.

Can i have a tissue please? My existence suddenly feels so sad....No wait, i actually do reflect on myself. Thats why i know its not a good idea to project myself outwards into a fictional creator of everything.
You still have not sparked the faintest interest of mine in your storybook, mainly because you havent made any progress in convicing me that what you think about it is correct and that the all powerful originator of all of this has even a remote chance of being real.

You are trying to derail by pretending this is about "boring scientists" vs "open minded inquiring humanists", ignoring the fact that is me who is hte humanist and you are the one who keeps defending a storybook of which you cant even properly tell me what the fuck the story actually is about let alone....god, ya know. Its your book that has a distorted view of humans, its you who actually isnt interested in the human condition but only to confirm what your book says about the human condition.

Sterile? What is sterile? Its your claim that you are special and everything outside of yourself is so much less and *sterile*. Put up or shut up, and put that hubris a notch down please.
Whats wrong with a humanless reality out there? Oh wait, its not humanless, its full of (other) humans, its just you-less. But this is to be expected from someone who has learned to be so fricken arrogant to think of himself as being the crown of creation and that the whole universe must be like he wants it to be, just because .

The things that foster looking outward more than inward. They want to learn about themselves through the lens of a laboratory, then through lived life, in community, friendship, relationships, through love and empathy, relatability, through the connecting threads that tie us all together.

Stop strawmanning the shit outta my life. You know about me as much as about your storybook, yet you claim with the same confidence to know, how unsurprising. Just because i dont worship your story book does not mean i am a lifeless robot who isnt interested in intself. Its the height of arrogance and disingenuity. Disgusting.

How about defending your own ideas and beliefs instead of attacking other peoples character? Have you started yet to collect information about why your particular interpretation of storybook is correct, and even more important why i should care about said interpretation?

So it seems to me that the sort of knowledge, many atheism appear to seek, appears to be a form of escapism, a life in which they are erased.

Atheism doenst seek knowledge. Its a position on a single claim, but you already knew that.
But its nice to know that the best defense of your storybook and your particular interpretation is to assassinate the character of the people who criticize you. Tells us heaps about you and the values you got from your storybook.

I am actually now even less interesed in it, if it leads me to becoming only remotely smilar to you. Thanks, but no thanks, l´ll stick to Harry Potter.

[Anomalocaris]

The inward knowledge is ultimately only of any value whatsoever if it enables the individual to better gain and leverage knowledge of the reality outside for his survival.

This is a very common viewpoint these days. It hasn't always been the case, and it is instructive to see what the alternatives are. 

"Leverage," and "instrumental," and "practical" and such words are aimed at control. Since science and capitalism have taken over our world, this is the approach we take -- our job is to leverage the world to our goals, to use everything for some practical end. Usefulness becomes a value for us, and things that aren't useful aren't valuable. 

The arts, philosophy, and religion are areas in which usefulness doesn't always mean quality. It is possible for things to be good in themselves, to be valued for merely what they are. 

And those fields may serve as a corrective when the instrumental view of the world goes too far. When we start treating other people as objects that only contribute to our own gain, capitalism can't tell us to stop, but art might. 

I think that inward knowledge is ultimately of great value in itself, especially when it doesn't enable me to use the world to my advantage.

Perhaps you can play with your inner knowledge and leave us to do adult things.

[Belacqua]

Perhaps you can play with your inner knowledge and leave us to do adult things.

Working to manipulate nature to make it do what you want comes from lack.

Play comes from abundance. 

I like playing.

Without ever enlarging knowledge of the outside world, inner knowledge is a sterile masturbation.

You are a Puritan. Only Puritans speak against the pleasure of masturbation. We must save our seed for procreation! Sterile equals evil!

Yet I have never regretted a minute of the time I spent learning kinbaku-bi, and neglecting to make babies.

Puritans think that adults work to manipulate nature for practical ends. They think that only children are allowed the autotelic pleasures like play and self-understanding. Yet playful people aren't sterile, though they may grow roses instead of spinach.