Quote:
So if someone takes the Bible literally they are an idiot and if they don’t they’re cherry picking. Of course you’re free to cherry pick whatever in the name of atheism.
If somebody takes the Bible literally, they are ignorant of or ignoring the bounteous amount of data, facts, and theories that science has uncovered that are in direct conflict with the Bible.
If they don’t take the Bible literally, then they are growing further away from the fundamentalist stance of Christianity, which is definitely something new, considering for millenia Christians have interpreted the Bible literally, and only stopped doing so when new evidence was brought forth on the road paved by science.
Quote:
I mean they are comparing the best atheistic arguments they’ve ever heard to the kinds of uninformed religious comments their friends and family have made. My evidence is rife in this thread- all the atheists that are saying theism is completely irrational, that atheism is clearly superior for thinking people, and that theism involves some level of brainwashing vs. atheism’s simple logic, are demonstrating that they haven’t actually read any theistic philosophy- they’re comparing a cynical view of the pastor/layman relationship to actual professional philosophers on the other side. A comparison like that proves nothing at all.
Nobody is denying that Dawkins’ arguments are directed towards what the majority believe. The majority of religious believers aren’t theistic philosophers. In fact, the God that is presented by many theistic philosophers is so borderline to deism, agnosticism, or atheism, that any secularist would agree a world filled with such believers would be far better than the current situation.
However, the majority of believers aren’t the theistic philosophers you refer to, which is why the arguments presented by Dawkins, while somewhat elementary, directly address why the majority’s belief system is absurd.
If everybody were the theistic philosophers that you mention, I doubt there’d be such strong opposition to gay marriage and equal rights for homosexualities. Instead, the majority continue to discriminate against homosexuals with the same intolerance that was displayed towards blacks before the civil rights movement, and all thanks to religious dogma.
If a majority of the electorate were the theistic philosophers that you mentioned, I doubt so many would be opposed to stem cell research, including the U.S. president, which is opposition which solely arises from religious dogma.
I am certain that if the majority were the theistic philosophers you reference, this world would be a better place. But they’re not. Most people don’t believe what they do because of reasons that theistic philosophers present.
Quote:
The only way atheism could be a ‘default’ for everyone would be if everyone made some sort of ‘leap’ to atheism without any argument or evidence to support it.
Atheism is the default. If 100 people were raised in a closed society, and religion was never taught, they would be atheist. It takes indoctrination to become religious.
Quote:
There are logical atheistic arguments, and logical theistic arguments.
Agree, which is why evidence enters the picture. An argument for the existence of talking puppies can be completely logical, and yet completely false, which is when evidence for talking puppies is required.
Quote:
The fact is, major Christian and Jewish scholars have acknowledged the opening of Genesis as not-literal for at least a thousand years, long before there was any science on the matter to compel them.
I’d love to see evidence of the time periods when the majority thought the Genesis account was false. Why would anybody have reason to believe the Genesis account wasn’t the origin of life until evolution theory was presented?
Quote:
and you can’t say that it became popular through that, since we’d both agree that it’s not nearly popular enough.
Are you arguing that the theory of evolution had no effect on whether or not people interpreted the Genesis account as literal or figurative?
Quote:
Dawkins is proclaiming to the world what the correct interpretation of Scripture is, with no expertise in that department that I am aware of, and that correct interpretation just happens to be the easiest one for him to defeat.
No, religion claims what the correct interpretation of scripture is. Dawkin’s claim is that a literal interpretation of the Bible is ludicrous. The figurative interpretation is a caveat that allows the religious to cherry-pick.
Quote:
It’s a version of the same problem I’ve been talking about- atheists limiting their interactions to the dumbest religious statements they can find, for one reason or another.
The dumbest religious statements? How about this one:
Jesus was resurrected to heaven.
I think that’s along the same lines of absurdity as a talking snake, man coming from dust, plagues of God, a virgin birth, or a place called hell. It’s not like Dawkins has slim pickins when it comes to silly religious beliefs. Is your problem that he only zeroes in or mentions a few of these instead of going one by one and explaining why they’re insane?
“We have heard talk enough. We have listened to all the drowsy, idealess, vapid sermons that we wish to hear. We have read your Bible and the works of your best minds. We have heard your prayers, your solemn groans and your reverential amens. All these amount to less than nothing. We want one fact. We beg at the doors of your churches for just one little fact. We pass our hats along your pews and under your pulpits and implore you for just one fact. We know all about your mouldy wonders and your stale miracles. We want a this year’s fact. We ask only one. Give us one fact for charity. Your miracles are too ancient. The witnesses have been dead for nearly two thousand years.” -Robert Ingersoll
