Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?

[Tricky]

More important (to me at least) I'm saying "I'm not going to tell you what to believe." And I'm definitely not going to force someone or even insist someone believe like I do.

How is that different from saying "decide for yourself"?

Now - amongst other Christians I may have discussions with them, bible studies, share theories, experiences, ideas, etc. I've been in some unfortunately heated discussions (arguments?) because of some of these differing approaches. I didn't want to get into it, circumstances dictated otherwise though. I've found that if at least one side is Dogmatic (and religions aren't the only things / ideas people can be dogmatic about) then rarely does a discussion take place.

It depends a lot upon the temperament of those in the "discussion", something you have probably observed in the wide variety of posters we have here. It is possible to be polite and chatty and still dogmatic, though admittedly it is rare, especially if their dogma is challenged.

I would say there is a Right and a Wrong and varying interpretations are closer to Right than others. That's the journey I suppose. The basics of pretty much any morality or religion though usually are pretty simple and clear.

If two people disagree, how do you decide what is the Right Interpretation™?

As far as the basics go, in some ways it is clear, in others, not. For example, take something as simple as "Thou shalt not kill." I don't know of a single person who doesn't morally add "except when..." to the end of that. Oh yeah, some say murder, but ask a Greenpeace member and they'll tell you that fur is murder. Even the basics of morality are... erm... tricky.

(For example: The Golden Rule - it's in many religions and is pretty sound advice. It's not that hard to understand the point of it. Doing, though, is another matter.)

Yes, the Golden Rule or "empathy" is a fairly good bit of advice, and in my opinion, it, not religion, is the basis of all morality. But again, it is fraught with subtleties.

It's when people start having opinions on certain broader things and insisting others have to believe that way that things start getting Wronger.

I insist you are right about that.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

How is that different from saying "decide for yourself"?

It's probably not much different. It's just more accurately what I was thinking when I was typing. Often the "decide for yourself" seems sort of a bursh off of the other person. Re-reading it though, you were spot on.

It depends a lot upon the temperament of those in the "discussion", something you have probably observed in the wide variety of posters we have here. It is possible to be polite and chatty and still dogmatic, though admittedly it is rare, especially if their dogma is challenged.

You're right. But I rarely get into in depth rleigious discussions with people, especially dogmatic Christians. It very rarely polite and chatty - not because they are mean, but because it is so intensely personal.

If two people disagree, how do you decide what is the Right Interpretation™?

Well - again - I have some basic ideas of God's Character (that he's Good and Love, etc) and balance it against that. I have a hard enough time doing the things I do understand as it is though.

As far as the basics go, in some ways it is clear, in others, not. For example, take something as simple as "Thou shalt not kill." I don't know of a single person who doesn't morally add "except when..." to the end of that. Oh yeah, some say murder, but ask a Greenpeace member and they'll tell you that fur is murder. Even the basics of morality are... erm... tricky.

Of course there are subtleties, but the point of these religious ideas are easy to understand although, of course, there are varying circumstances where you'll probably not even know how you'll react until you are in them.



Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[verisimilidude]

I'd be curious to know if anyone has ever changed their point of view, in a significant way, from one of these exchanges? I would imagine they occur quite frequently on this forum. Or do they simply serve to solidify our preexisting point of view?

I give you credit ACS for not responding in kind to such remarks as: disingenuous, weasel words, gullible, naive, and even an implication that you lack courage and decency.

I'm glad to see you're not among the many hypocrites who identify themselves as "Christians".
.

 

[GeeMack]

Which parts do you accept as literal? Which parts do you take as allegory? Which parts do you discard as being silly, or unreasonable, or dangerous, or outdated, etc.?

You want me to go through the entire Bible and explain all this to you? I don't think I have enough time for that.

No, of course I don't want you to go through the entire Bible. That you should ask such a stupid question only supports the notion that you're not willing to engage in an honest, productive discussion. But let's say for a second that I'm wrong, and that you're not just another in a long boring line of liars for Jesus...

How about you offer a few examples of Bible passages which you take literally. Provide a couple examples of passages which you take figuratively. Give us an example or two of those which you consider completely irrelevant. Let us know of some particular passages which you consider wrong. Tell us of a few rules for living which are written in the Bible, but which you feel you have no obligation to obey.

Eight or ten snippets, ACS, that's all. Maybe you don't really believe. Maybe you're just talking the talk, going through the motions out of habit. But if you really do believe, it would seem defending your allegiance to your imaginary pal might be worth a little genuine effort. Do you have the guts, the honesty, the necessary intellect? Or are you just all mouth with nothing back it up?

And let's say you were trying to help someone else understand the Bible, someone who was considering joining your cult. How would you instruct them to determine which parts of the book are real and which aren't? What sort of objective method would you suggest they apply to their reading in order to obtain from it the same "truth" you apparently have discovered?

Very briefly:
I would tell them that regardless of the style of the book in the Bible ask youself "What's the point being made here?" I would also tell them to find out what style of literature it is and read it like it's that style. Most importantly I'd tell them to figure out the fundamental Character of God and then if anything seems contradictory to that try to figure out why - is it an accurate representation of Him? Is it a misrepresentation of Him? Is it your own lack of knowledge that's causing you to read it a ceratin way? I'd also tell them they don't need to make a decision on every thing they read immediately or at all. If they can't figure it out then it's OK to say "I don't know yet." I'd also tell them they don't need to accept anyone elses opinions on things especially if it seems wrong or they haven't studied it enough. If they were interested in Christianity then I'd tell them to read the Gospels first and start with what they can understand there.

In other words, it's a free-for-all. You aren't able to sort the truth from the crap in your Bible, and you are wholly incapable of offering anyone else a method for doing so. That's a hell of an position to take regarding the book which is supposed to be some kind of foundation of truth for your cult, don't you think?

Can you give straight answers to those questions? Or will you have the decency and courage to simply admit that there is no objective method of sorting truth from fable, reality from fantasy, applicable lesson from ancient myth in your Bible?

Well - I gave you some answers so I suppose that means I don't have any "decency and courage" as you put it.

You didn't give any straight answers. You slithered and dodged. In fact you made a concerted effort to avoid straight answers. So you are correct, you don't have the decency or the courage to simply acknowledge, in so many words, that there is no objective method of determining which parts of your Bible are valid and which are not.

And without any objective method, your own interpretation is exactly as valid as any other, even those directly antipodal to yours. Your wishy-washy position seems to be that your Bible is useless as a tool for accessing any sort of truth, but you aren't brave enough, or mature enough, or honest enough, or smart enough to come right out and admit it.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

No, of course I don't want you to go through the entire Bible. That you should ask such a stupid question only supports the notion that you're not willing to engage in an honest, productive discussion. But let's say for a second that I'm wrong, and that you're not just another in a long boring line of liars for Jesus...

How about you offer a few examples of Bible passages which you take literally. Provide a couple examples of passages which you take figuratively. Give us an example or two of those which you consider completely irrelevant. Let us know of some particular passages which you consider wrong. Tell us of a few rules for living which are written in the Bible, but which you feel you have no obligation to obey.

Eight or ten snippets, ACS, that's all. Maybe you don't really believe. Maybe you're just talking the talk, going through the motions out of habit. But if you really do believe, it would seem defending your allegiance to your imaginary pal might be worth a little genuine effort.

But why do you want me to do all that? I really don't know why you'd care? As for defending my allegiance - against what? Your posts? Are you saying your posts are an attack on my allegiance or something?

Do you have the guts, the honesty, the necessary intellect? Or are you just all mouth with nothing back it up?

Am I supposed to take this statement literally?

In other words, it's a free-for-all. You aren't able to sort the truth from the crap in your Bible, and you are wholly incapable of offering anyone else a method for doing so. That's a hell of an position to take regarding the book which is supposed to be some kind of foundation of truth for your cult, don't you think?

Well - actually I don't think the Bible is the Foundation of Truth, although you are right it is a kind of foundation of truth. But that's neither here nor there I suppose.

You didn't give any straight answers. You slithered and dodged. In fact you made a concerted effort to avoid straight answers. So you are correct, you don't have the decency or the courage to simply acknowledge, in so many words, that there is no objective method of determining which parts of your Bible are valid and which are not.

How about you give me a straight answer on why you want me to do this. Maybe leaving out the insults would also help.

 

[GeeMack]

How about you give me a straight answer on why you want me to do this. Maybe leaving out the insults would also help.

Once again your attempt to divert the discussion and your refusal to offer straight answers and actually support your position is noted.

But, in the way of a straight answer to your question... I thought, since it was you who claimed there was an objective way to support the existence of supernatural beings, and since you seem to believe there's some kind of truth to be found in your Bible, that you might actually be willing to offer some legitimate, objective support for your positions. And in lieu of being able to offer any such support, I thought just maybe you'd have the decency, the honesty, and the integrity to admit you had none. I thought that perhaps when asked direct questions regarding those issues, you might be willing to provide some straightforward answers. Obviously I was wrong. So far you've shown you're the same kind of liar for Jesus as so many others that march through here arrogantly preaching their "truth".

And regarding insults... Start being honest and people won't call you dishonest, ACS. Start showing a little courage and people won't recognize you as a coward. Start acting intelligent and people won't question your intellect. Stop mouthing off with such confidence then backing out when asked to support your position and you won't seem so immature. My pointing out those things, while they may be uncomfortable for you to deal with, are simply legitimate observations. On the other hand, your intentional effort to avoid directly answering tough questions, and your refusal to simply admit your lack of ability to support your claims, are insults to everyone here who has attempted to engage you in an honest, productive discussion.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Once again your attempt to divert the discussion and your refusal to offer straight answers and actually support your position is noted.

But, in the way of a straight answer to your question... I thought, since it was you who claimed there was an objective way to support the existence of supernatural beings,

I don't think I claimed this. There is definitely no way science can since science can only measure and discover the natural world.

and since you seem to believe there's some kind of truth to be found in your Bible, that you might actually be willing to offer some legitimate, objective support for your positions.

What positions? I've given plenty of methods in my above posts. I think you want some sort of specifics of my own conclusions on things and I don't know why you are insisting on this and then insulting me when I don't provide them. Please explain better.

So far you've shown you're the same kind of liar for Jesus as so many others that march through here arrogantly preaching their "truth".

This is an interesting phrase you keep using. What exactly is a "liar for Jesus"?

And regarding insults... Start being honest and people won't call you dishonest,

Tell me where I've been dishonest. I'm thinking you might be confusing me with someone else. I understand if that's the case. It's easy to do.

ACS. Start showing a little courage and people won't recognize you as a coward. Start acting intelligent and people won't question your intellect. Stop mouthing off with such confidence then backing out when asked to support your position and you won't seem so immature. My pointing out those things, while they may be uncomfortable for you to deal with, are simply legitimate observations. On the other hand, your intentional effort to avoid directly answering tough questions, and your refusal to simply admit your lack of ability to support your claims, are insults to everyone here who has attempted to engage you in an honest, productive discussion.

So far you're not pointing anything out to me, just calling me names and telling me to prove I'm not. Your phrasing sure sounds like a schoolground bully trying to pick a fight.

"You're dishonest, prove to me your not."
"You're a coward, prove to me your not."
"You're stupid, prove to me your not."

 

[Mobyseven]

Why do you insist I tell you everything? I think it would be better if you discover something for yourself.

Because, as I've already pointed out and as you snipped from my post you quoted, I am familiar with the bible. I know about the different styles used, and I have studied the damn book. You have come to a significantly different conclusion than I have, and to find out how that has happened, I need to ask you questions. You don't like it? Tough. If you're here for a real discussion or debate then you'll take the time to answer the questions I ask. In short - I can't 'discover' what you think by re-reading the bible again, I can only do so by asking you what you think.

The same way you use when you read any other literary work. Very often the context and the type of literature it is. The Psalms are songs / poems for example. Isaiah is a prophecy. This is pretty common knowledge isn't it?

Still not an answer to the question. Isaiah is a prophecy - is it a true prophecy? Or not? How can you tell? Genesis is a narrative - is it a true narrative? Why/why not?

Finding out the style of the writings does not tell us the truth value of the writings. I can write a completely factual poem, and then the next day film an entirely fictional documentary ('mockumentary'). The style in which I present the information is separate and distinct from the truth of the information.

So, I'll ask again, and I want you to keep in mind that I'm not asking about the style of the books, I'm not asking who wrote them, I'm not asking which book goes best with a Greek salad - I'm asking about the truth value of the bible: By what method can you differentiate between the literal and metaphorical parts of the bible?

Do you want me to go through the entire bible verse by verse or something?

No, I want you to state the method by which you can differentiate between the literal and metaphorical parts of the bible. How can you tell which parts of the bible are fact? You shouldn't have to quote a single bible verse to tell me the rule by which you can separate fact from fiction, though examples may serve to illustrate your point. The examples without the rule, however, are useless.

No - it makes a "piss poor" science book.

Last I checked the Bible was a collection of literature of religious importance.

Well crikey, I never knew that before!

I don't care if it is of religious importance - of course it bloody well is, it's the BIBLE! But that doesn't mean that it is a good basis for morality, law and decision making.

You act as though something being 'literature' and of 'religious importance' somehow guards it from criticism. My point is exactly that just because it is and has been used as the basis for morality, law and decision making, that doesn't mean that it is a good basis for those things. To evaluate whether or not it is a good basis, we need to evaluate the truth of the book. If it is not true, then it is not a good basis. It doesn't need to be literally true to be a good basis, but if the truth is in the metaphors and other non-literal language, then we need a way to sort out which parts are metaphors, and what they mean. At this point I'm only asking about the first step - how can we identify which parts of the bible are non-literal? Until that is established, it is useless to discuss interpretation.

The Lord of the Rings is considered an important piece of literature too, but I wouldn't want people to start a religion based on the writings of Tolkien, or to start basing their morality and decision making on a work of fiction.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Because, as I've already pointed out and as you snipped from my post you quoted, I am familiar with the bible. I know about the different styles used, and I have studied the damn book. You have come to a significantly different conclusion than I have, and to find out how that has happened, I need to ask you questions. You don't like it? Tough. If you're here for a real discussion or debate then you'll take the time to answer the questions I ask. In short - I can't 'discover' what you think by re-reading the bible again, I can only do so by asking you what you think.




Still not an answer to the question. Isaiah is a prophecy - is it a true prophecy? Or not? How can you tell? Genesis is a narrative - is it a true narrative? Why/why not?

Finding out the style of the writings does not tell us the truth value of the writings. I can write a completely factual poem, and then the next day film an entirely fictional documentary ('mockumentary'). The style in which I present the information is separate and distinct from the truth of the information.

So, I'll ask again, and I want you to keep in mind that I'm not asking about the style of the books, I'm not asking who wrote them, I'm not asking which book goes best with a Greek salad - I'm asking about the truth value of the bible: By what method can you differentiate between the literal and metaphorical parts of the bible?

Look, Mobyseven. You're asking me two seperate questions here. You originally asked me what is literal and metaphorical. You find this out by the style and the context. But now you seem to be asking about the Truth Value. The literal and metaphorical can both be true.

Genesis account of creation based on all the scientific data so far appears to be not literally true. But I still believe it is true that God created everything. So in that sense it's true.

No, I want you to state the method by which you can differentiate between the literal and metaphorical parts of the bible.

see above.

How can you tell which parts of the bible are fact?

Fact? That's different then both True and Literal.

You act as though something being 'literature' and of 'religious importance' somehow guards it from criticism.

No - my point is treat it like it is, not something else.

There appears to be some sort of disconnect between our communicating here. I think it might be that you asked one question but meant another or something.

 

[Mobyseven]

Look, Mobyseven. You're asking me two seperate questions here. You originally asked me what is literal and metaphorical. You find this out by the style and the context. But now you seem to be asking about the Truth Value. The literal and metaphorical can both be true.

Haiku writing man
Argues online with Christians
Might have some lunch soon...​

In other words, the style and context don't tell me anything, because even poetry and song can be literal, and as I pointed out documentaries can be fictional. I have been asking about what is literal and what is non-literal because until there is a method for sorting that out, it is a bit ridiculous to start discussing which parts are true or not. Any part that isn't true (which at this stage looks to be 99% of the damn bible) can immediately be labelled as non-literal and in need of interpretation.

So, again, how can one separate the literal parts of the bible from the non-literal? For example, let's take the first few lines of the bible:

1 In the beginning, when God created the universe, the earth was formless and desolate. 2 The raging ocean that covered everything was engulfed in total darkness, and the power of God was moving over the water. 3 Then God commanded, "Let there be light" - and light appeared.

This is a purely descriptive narrative. There is nothing in the language, style or context that would suggest that this is non-literal. It does, in fact, seem to be an entirely literal and authoritative description of how the everything was created. And yet you said:

Genesis account of creation based on all the scientific data so far appears to be not literally true. But I still believe it is true that God created everything. So in that sense it's true.

So you accept that from what we are able to observe, this account of creation is incorrect. You say that it is therefore non-literal - in a sense it is true, because you believe that god created everything (based upon what, if not the bible?) and so the creation story is true in a non-literal sense.

But this is different from what you had previously said - previously you had said that one has to look at the style and context of the writing to figure out whether or not it is literal or non-literal. Now you say that because the account in the book is incorrect, it is non-literal.

So which is it? Do I look at the style and context? Or do I instead treat anything that contradicts science as non-literal? Or both?

Using the first method, it seems that the creation story should be treated as literal. Using the second method, close to the entire bible should be treated as non-literal. I feel compelled to ask you - is there anything in the bible that you do think is literal? If so, could you give an example?

After that, we might as well move on to truth values...

Fact? That's different then both True and Literal.

Well, that depends upon your definition of a fact. The definition I tend to use is a proposition with such a high probability of being true that it would be unreasonable not to tentatively treat it as true. That doesn't seem to be particularly different to 'true' to me, it just uses human limits and fallability as the measure instead of the objective universe.

So, discussing truth values - once we have ascertained which parts of the bible are literal and which are non-literal (hopefully you can at least clearly state the method for doing that once and for all), how do we then ascertain which statements are true? Presumably, the literal parts of the bible will be automatically true, but for the non-literal parts, how do we tell which interpretation is the true interpretation? What method do we use?

No - my point is treat it like it is, not something else.

I'm treating it as a book that daily forms the basis for the morality and decision making processes of over a billion human beings. I would like to figure out whether or not it is a good basis for morality and decision making. The truth of the bible is directly related to whether or not it is a good basis for these things, as something that is based on reality will form a better basis for things that occur in reality than something that is not based in reality.

I'm not going to treat it like some other piece of literature, because it isn't just 'some other piece' of literature. It is a piece of literature that over a billion human beings believe is the divine revelation of a supreme being, and as far as I can tell this belief has no grounding in reality, thus making a very poor foundation for anybody who actually lives in the real world.

There appears to be some sort of disconnect between our communicating here. I think it might be that you asked one question but meant another or something.

No, I asked the question that I meant to ask. I've now asked it a number of times, without receiving anything approaching a coherent answer. As I mentioned before, though you seem to have not understood, before we can discuss the truth of the bible (or more accurately, the truth of different interpretations of the bible) we have to have a method by which we can sort the literal sections of the bible from the non-literal sections.

You suggested looking at the style and context. I have pointed out to you that such a method is inaccurate, as there is no law that requires different styles to be literal or non-literal. Poetry can be both, narrative can be both, song can be both, prophecy can be both, and so on. I have now also pointed out that using such a method, the creation story of the bible should be taken as literal given its style and context, yet we know that the creation story of the bible is incorrect, and therefore if it is meant to be literal then the bible is not entirely true, casting doubt upon the veracity of everything that follows (not that a talking snake and a woman turning into a pillar of salt isn't ridiculous enough as it is).

You also mentioned that because we can observe that the universe was not created as per the bible then that part is not to be taken literally. This is also an inadequate method, as it basically makes the bible useless - sections are only considered literal until they are shown to be false, when they are flagged as being non-literal. This is not a method for ascertaining which parts of the bible are literal, it is a post hoc rationalisation for why some parts of the bible appear to be false. It would also make nearly all of the bible 'non-literal'.

Once we are able to sort literal from non-literal (the method by which you do so I hope you will now tell me, or alternately admit that the methods you have been using are inadequate for the task) then we can discuss truth values.

When I ask a question, I want an answer to that question. Stop assuming a hidden meaning, or that I meant something different, and just answer the questions that I've asked, not the questions you want me to ask or think that I've asked.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

This is a purely descriptive narrative. There is nothing in the language, style or context that would suggest that this is non-literal. It does, in fact, seem to be an entirely literal and authoritative description of how the everything was created. And yet you said:

So you accept that from what we are able to observe, this account of creation is incorrect. You say that it is therefore non-literal - in a sense it is true, because you believe that god created everything (based upon what, if not the bible?) and so the creation story is true in a non-literal sense.

But this is different from what you had previously said - previously you had said that one has to look at the style and context of the writing to figure out whether or not it is literal or non-literal. Now you say that because the account in the book is incorrect, it is non-literal.

I don't think Genesis is a myth because of science. I believe it's a myth because most scholars and experts on myth agree, because it is very similar in structure to other myth stories, etc. (You might enjoy reading Primal Myths: Creation Myths Around The World by Barbara C. Sproul) The Science we have currently seems to show it pretty much is a myth. But if it turns out it's not a myth - I'm fine with that too. Because the how is not the point of the creation story.

Anyway, you seem to have a good grasp at analyzing styles of literature and context so you shouldn't have to much trouble. I'm not really sure why you're wondering how I do it when you appear to know plenty on how poems, etc can be literal and non-literal, etc.

 

[articulett]

I'd be curious to know if anyone has ever changed their point of view, in a significant way, from one of these exchanges? I would imagine they occur quite frequently on this forum. Or do they simply serve to solidify our preexisting point of view?

I give you credit ACS for not responding in kind to such remarks as: disingenuous, weasel words, gullible, naive, and even an implication that you lack courage and decency.

I'm glad to see you're not among the many hypocrites who identify themselves as "Christians".
.

Very few change much, if at all... but some of the favorite posters here came as theists... we've had a conspiracy theorists change too... but most just come here to prop up whatever woo they've come to believe... I guess they think that if they convince us, it makes their woo more true... but they never have facts or evidence for their beliefs--which are usually very poorly defined... but they have tons of the same sorts of attacks on the facts as others of their ilk. Most find science and facts very flawed ways to know stuff--or at least the facts that go against their woo... but they use the most unverifiable inaccurate methods to prop up the most magical or incredible claims or beliefs. They fly on airplanes in the real world... but they fly on the equivalent of "flying carpets" when it comes to getting from point A to point B to reach the conclusions they've come to believe in their head.

A temporal seizure IS god if you believe in god... it's something else if you've been inculcated with something else it could be. Aberrant behavior is demons if you believe in demons... it's something else if you are a physician, neurologist, psychologist, or rationalist.

 

[articulett]

CS, I thnk we were trying to understand for ourselves if anyone uses any kind of rational or objective method to determine which part of whatever sacred books they adhere to is to be taken seriously or as "literally true"... most people, thankfully, don't take all the teachings in their magic books as literally true... but it doesn't seem like there's anything except confirmation bias and subjective opinion to guide you and your morality and your interpretation of what is true... and the same for everyone else and whatever woo it is they believe. You choose what is true in your magic book... Each Muslim choose what is true in theirs, each Scientologist has their truth... it seems crazy to rationalist... so many truths... anything can be twisted to say anything you want it to say--and then you (and everyone else) can claim the message came from a "higher source". Wouldn't you see this if you were talking to say, a Moonie, about the real "truth" and message of "god" and what is "moral"?

It sounds like all theists are saying that they get their morals from a higher source--but they are clearly doing what you are doing--cherry picking their "morals" from what they want to be true in the whatever book or translation or religion they've been inculcated with. That's a frightening thing to non-theists. It's irrational... and we wonder how it is you can be so certain and convinced on your "truth" knowing that others are equally convinced of other truths and different morality and other "higher means" of knowledge and after lives... To us, it looks like a bunch of crazy people--all convinced that they are more moral than everyone else while none feel an obligation to actually further truth, knowledge, understanding, cooperation, and alleviating suffering in their fellow humans... instead they've judged them all as not having their "magical knowingness".

 

[amb]

The conception of gods originated in fear and curiosity.
Primitive man, unable to understand the phenomena of nature and harassed by them, saw in every terrifying manifestation some sinister force expressly directed against him, and as ignorance and fear are the parents of all superstition, the troubled fancy of primitive man wove the God idea.

Angelo

 

[GeeMack]

I don't think I claimed this. There is definitely no way science can since science can only measure and discover the natural world.

In another thread you claimed to have a way to objectively determine the existence of your invisible friend. Good that you might be rescinding your claim here and admitting that you have no objective method for such a determination. Bad that you needed to go through all the sidestepping, avoiding, and other gyrations for so long before you could admit it.

What positions? I've given plenty of methods in my above posts. I think you want some sort of specifics of my own conclusions on things and I don't know why you are insisting on this and then insulting me when I don't provide them. Please explain better.

Your position seems to be that some kind of supernatural being exists and that there is some way to sort the truth from the BS in your Bible. And no, you haven't provided any sort of objective method among your "plenty of methods". What you perceive as insults might just be valid criticism of your apparent inability to understand the simple concept of objectivity.

This is an interesting phrase you keep using. What exactly is a "liar for Jesus"?

Here's a single, understandable example: You are asked to provide an objective method for sorting the crap from the truth in your Bible. You don't offer any such method. Then you claim to have provided "plenty of methods". That's a lie. And you do it to prop up your superstitious beliefs about supernatural beings. Lying for Jesus. Simple. Get it?

Tell me where I've been dishonest. I'm thinking you might be confusing me with someone else. I understand if that's the case. It's easy to do.

See above. Lying is dishonest. No, I'm not confusing you with anyone else.

So far you're not pointing anything out to me, just calling me names and telling me to prove I'm not. Your phrasing sure sounds like a schoolground bully trying to pick a fight.

The fact that you refuse to understand (or are perhaps simply incapable of understanding), does not mean I haven't pointed out your apparent arrogance, dishonesty, and lack of courage.

So come on, ACS, you can say it. It won't kill you. You don't have any objective method for sorting the right from the wrong, the good from the bad, the truth from the baloney in your Bible, right? You can't provide any objective support for the existence of your imaginary pal, right? (Now here's the easy part, that is if you're an honest person and don't want to willingly continue lying for Jesus, you say, "Right.")

 

[Mobyseven]

I don't think Genesis is a myth because of science. I believe it's a myth because most scholars and experts on myth agree, because it is very similar in structure to other myth stories, etc. (You might enjoy reading Primal Myths: Creation Myths Around The World by Barbara C. Sproul) The Science we have currently seems to show it pretty much is a myth. But if it turns out it's not a myth - I'm fine with that too. Because the how is not the point of the creation story.

Anyway, you seem to have a good grasp at analyzing styles of literature and context so you shouldn't have to much trouble. I'm not really sure why you're wondering how I do it when you appear to know plenty on how poems, etc can be literal and non-literal, etc.

That's really the thing though - I don't think you can honestly say that you are analysing the bible as though it is just another piece of literature. I look at the bible, look at the style and context of the different sections and books, and I conclude that the entire thing is fiction. Certainly there may be some truth to it, in the same way that in a Tom Clancy book the USA is a real country, the capitol building is a real building, and the CIA is a real government agency. JFK was a real figure who really was assassinated - just not because of a fictional conspiracy a la the Oliver Stone movie. Any truth in the book, in other words, is entirely a situational truth, and given that the bible ranges from slight inaccuracies to inaccuracies that make a drunken darts game seem mild in comparison it would be foolish to accept anything as fact based only on the word of the bible. This, of course, completely undermines the basis for both the Christian and Jewish religions.

My point is that you have obviously come to a different conclusion than I have. It may be that, like me, you believe the entire bible to be fictional, but unlike me you believe that there is still truth to it because it serves as a metaphor or a symbol. If that is the case (and it certainly may be - you have shown yourself to be no 'ordinary' Christian in your beliefs) then I would ask another question - how is it that one can ascertain the true meaning of the bible? By what method can one understand it if it is entirely non-literal, and how can one know that they have reached the true meaning, or an approximation of the true meaning?

If you disagree and believe parts of the bible to be literal...I imagine it would help me understand the process you have reached that conclusion if you could give an example of a part of the bible you take literally? And perhaps why you take it literally? You could also contrast with a section yo believe to be non-literal, and the corresponding explanation, but the most important example would be a section you believe to be literal.

I don't know if I am yet any closer to understanding your thought process...

 

[Belz...]

Uh ... why do you think I don't? Of course I think this is important.

Then don't you think it'd be better not to just DECIDE which parts are metaphors ?

 

[Belz...]

I don't think Genesis is a myth because of science. I believe it's a myth because most scholars and experts on myth agree, because it is very similar in structure to other myth stories, etc.

Since it's true of most of the bible, as well, you should re-think that.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

In another thread you claimed to have a way to objectively determine the existence of your invisible friend. Good that you might be rescinding your claim here and admitting that you have no objective method for such a determination. Bad that you needed to go through all the sidestepping, avoiding, and other gyrations for so long before you could admit it.

Nope. Sorry, never claimed I have anything that I could use to prove anything.

Here's a single, understandable example: You are asked to provide an objective method for sorting the crap from the truth in your Bible. You don't offer any such method. Then you claim to have provided "plenty of methods". That's a lie. And you do it to prop up your superstitious beliefs about supernatural beings. Lying for Jesus. Simple. Get it?

Wrong - I was asked about how I determine literal and metaphorical NOT truth from crap. And then I did give some methods one could use. You don't have to, or you can come up with your own.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

That's really the thing though - I don't think you can honestly say that you are analysing the bible as though it is just another piece of literature.

I don't think of it as just another piece of literature. It's ultimately a religious work, so regardless of style it's purpose is to teach ultimately about the religion it represents. But for literal and metaphorical purposes the style is one helpful way I've found on how to begin approaching that particular book in the bible. You might have different ways.

My point is that you have obviously come to a different conclusion than I have. It may be that, like me, you believe the entire bible to be fictional, but unlike me you believe that there is still truth to it because it serves as a metaphor or a symbol.

It appears your really asking about factual - how do you determine which parts are factual. Is this correct?

If that is the case (and it certainly may be - you have shown yourself to be no 'ordinary' Christian in your beliefs) then I would ask another question - how is it that one can ascertain the true meaning of the bible? By what method can one understand it if it is entirely non-literal, and how can one know that they have reached the true meaning, or an approximation of the true meaning?

I don't really think I can adequately answer until I understand what you are meaning by literal. Because it is sounding like you are wanting to know what I take as historical or something. That's a bit different then something being simply literal. Jesus said many things and (regardless of if it was historically factual whether He said the words in that exact order) what he said could still be literal or metaphorical.