This is a one-sided argument. I am the only one validating my points.
If you want to continue this maybe you should back your claims up with evidence, or at least rational statements.

Telling me I'm wrong, ignorant, or asking me to prove every statement I make is doing nothing to validate any of your points. It's just making you look like you're still contributing to this argument when you aren't.

You continue to switch between either spewing empty words, unfounded accusations or ideas, OR you just attack me using absolutely no evidence that refutes the evidence I provide.

It would be just as easy for me to sit here and call you an idiot without providing any basis for it, which is what you're doing to me.
Ex. Telling me I don't understand the Bible when I've referenced the Bible at least twice as many times as you have. You've quoted maybe one actual verse in this entire thread.

I've defended my beliefs in every single post. Maybe you should actually take the time to read them, instead of ignoring every good point I make and saying "You don't know what you're talking about." You obviously have no idea how to defend your beliefs, so instead of validating your beliefs, you just focus on tearing me down.


-------
///////////////////

---

It would be just as easy for me to sit here and call you an idiot

---

---

I'm sick of this.

This is a one-sided argument. I am the only one validating my points.
If you want to continue this maybe you should back your claims up with evidence, or at least rational statements.

Telling me I'm wrong, ignorant, or asking me to prove every statement I make is doing nothing to validate any of your points. It's just making you look like you're still contributing to this argument when you aren't.  

You continue to switch between either spewing empty words, unfounded accusations or ideas, OR you just attack me using absolutely no evidence that refutes the evidence I provide.

It would be just as easy for me to sit here and call you an idiot without providing any basis for it, which is what you're doing to me.
Ex. Telling me I don't understand the Bible when I've referenced the Bible at least twice as many times as you have. You've quoted maybe one actual verse in this entire thread.  

I've defended my beliefs in every single post. Maybe you should actually take the time to read them, instead of ignoring every good point I make and saying "You don't know what you're talking about." You obviously have no idea how to defend your beliefs, so instead of validating your beliefs, you just focus on tearing me down.  

---

No, what you have done in this thread, more often than not, is attack a strawman. Your argument and apparent disregard for organised religion seems to rest on 2 claims 1) God doesn't exist (fair enough, its not a fact that can be proved either way)
and 2) "a true Christian would, theoretically, interpret the Bible literally. In my opinion that is the "normal" and "true" type of Christian."
Which is simply ridiculous, because as I said, it is not in the nature of the Bible to present itself as such, it is in the nature of man to present the Bible as such. So, there is a claim which you have yet to 'prove' and a claim of mine which you haven't yet provided a rational response to.

So before you criticize the claims of others you would do well to look at the merits of your own, as there are some gaping holes in them.

---

Quote: from Waddiwasi at 11:49 pm on April 24, 2012

---

I'm sick of this.

This is a one-sided argument. I am the only one validating my points.
If you want to continue this maybe you should back your claims up with evidence, or at least rational statements.

Telling me I'm wrong, ignorant, or asking me to prove every statement I make is doing nothing to validate any of your points. It's just making you look like you're still contributing to this argument when you aren't.    

You continue to switch between either spewing empty words, unfounded accusations or ideas, OR you just attack me using absolutely no evidence that refutes the evidence I provide.

It would be just as easy for me to sit here and call you an idiot without providing any basis for it, which is what you're doing to me.
Ex. Telling me I don't understand the Bible when I've referenced the Bible at least twice as many times as you have. You've quoted maybe one actual verse in this entire thread.    

I've defended my beliefs in every single post. Maybe you should actually take the time to read them, instead of ignoring every good point I make and saying "You don't know what you're talking about." You obviously have no idea how to defend your beliefs, so instead of validating your beliefs, you just focus on tearing me down.    

---

 

No, what you have done in this thread, more often than not, is attack a strawman. Your argument and apparent disregard for organised religion seems to rest on 2 claims 1) God doesn't exist (fair enough, its not a fact that can be proved either way)
and 2) "a true Christian would, theoretically, interpret the Bible literally. In my opinion that is the "normal" and "true" type of Christian."  
Which is simply ridiculous, because as I said, it is not in the nature of the Bible to present itself as such, it is in the nature of man to present the Bible as such. So, there is a claim which you have yet to 'prove' and a claim of mine which you haven't yet provided a rational response to.  

So before you criticize the claims of others you would do well to look at the merits of your own, as there are some gaping holes in them.

---

Actually, the argument was initially based on the morality of god. FA stupidly decided to argue that I couldn't argue against her (because her argument is weak) by discussing my atheism. And then you guys just kind of ran with it.
But it's cool. It will always be impossible to prove that god doesn't exist. But there is definitely more evidence on the "god doesn't exist" side.

And your second statement refers to a statement I made about a certain percentage of Christians that you bit into and wouldn't stop talking about. I understand that some Christians do not interpret the Bible literally. I am fully aware of that. Also, this article might interest you.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148427/say-bible-literally.aspx
3 in 10 Americans interpret the Bible literally.
5 in 10 say it is the "inspired" word of God.
And 2 in 10 say that it is a book of fairytales, basically.

This means that at least 3/8 Christians (approximately 40%) interpret the Bible literally.
I was not referring to an obscure branch of Christianity.
40% is pretty significant. And what exactly is meant by "inspired word" is ambiguous.

Post edited at 5:57 pm on April 24, 2012 by Waddiwasi

-------
///////////////////

---

And your second statement refers to a statement I made about a certain percentage of Christians that you bit into and wouldn't stop talking about. I understand that some Christians do not interpret the Bible literally. I am fully aware of that. Also, this article might interest you.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148427/say-bible-literally.aspx
3 in 10 Americans interpret the Bible literally.
5 in 10 say it is the "inspired" word of God.
And 2 in 10 say that it is a book of fairytales, basically.

This means that at least 3/8 Christians (approximately 40%) interpret the Bible literally.
I was not referring to an obscure branch of Christianity.
40% is pretty significant. And what exactly is meant by "inspired word" is ambiguous.

---

No...just no

---

Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted May 5-8, 2011, with a random sample of 1,018 adults, aged 18 and older,

---

I have always been skeptical of surveys that pose such grand questions to such a small minority. Furthermore, although it says the survey was random it goes on to suggest that it was deliberately weighted, which seems stupid...

---

Furthermore, even if we accept the premise that the methodology and sample size is indicative of the wider population. Did you read the question? It divides religious opinion into four categories, which is hardly indicative of the plurality of views possible.

---

That doesn't change the fact that at least 30% of Americans interpret the Bible literally.
If they didn't interpret it literally, they would choose the "divinely inspired" option. That's an ambiguous option that allows them to say that they believe the Bible, but maybe not in its entirety.

You're grasping at straws, once again.

-------
///////////////////

---

Gallup polls are fairly-quite accurate.
I'm not going to spend any more of my time arguing with idiots.
You're one of those people that wouldn't know the truth if it punched you in the face.

---

What have I said that is idiotic?
Just because I question the value of a questionnair with an unimaginative question that questions 0.0003% of the population and then draws a fairly grandiose conclusion for the rest of the population.

So what about me makes me 'one of those people'?

---

Oh and one more thing, regardless of what people believe. You still havent refuted, or attempted to address the claim that the Bible cannot be the literal word of God by its nature. So, you going on about inconsistencies and scientific impossibility is perfectly explainable by symbolism.

---

Because the Bible is the only foundation that Christianity has. It is the history, collection of beliefs, creation myths, etc. of the Christian faith. Christians present the Bible as being divinely inspired:
Jeremiah 1:9 - Then the LORD put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth.
So, if the Bible comes to these vessels of God's word, it would naturally follow that the Bible is the ultimate truth. Because it was sent from God.
So any good Christian wouldn't question the Bible, because they would by extension be questioning God.
And because God hasn't sent Christians anything new since primitive man, wouldn't you naturally think that God didn't have anything to add? That he had sent you everything that you needed to understand life, the universe?

But I was basically critiquing Christians. They interpret it literally when they want to, and then interpret it figuratively when interpreting it literally is impossible. The classic flip-flop. I was being sarcastic, bro.

-------
///////////////////

---

Quote: from Waddiwasi at 2:32 am on April 25, 2012

---

Gallup polls are fairly-quite accurate.  
 I'm not going to spend any more of my time arguing with idiots.  
 You're one of those people that wouldn't know the truth if it punched you in the face.

---

What have I said that is idiotic?
Just because I question the value of a questionnair with an unimaginative question that questions 0.0003% of the population and then draws a fairly grandiose conclusion for the rest of the population.

So what about me makes me 'one of those people'?

---

Gallup polls are used in academia, and on national platforms. It's not some silly little high school survey. Gallup polls practice good polling procedure.

What could they have done to improve it?

Polls by their definition only sample a small percentage of the population. It is impossible to poll a large amount of people, and it is also entirely unnecessary. Have you never taken a statistics class?
Gallup polls people in the most efficient/correct way.
I'm sorry you don't agree with the result, but that doesn't change its truth.

-------
///////////////////

---

Quote: from RandomThought at 9:16 pm on April 24, 2012

---

Oh and one more thing, regardless of what people believe. You still havent refuted, or attempted to address the claim that the Bible cannot be the literal word of God by its nature. So, you going on about inconsistencies and scientific impossibility is perfectly explainable by symbolism.

---

Because the Bible is the only foundation that Christianity has. It is the history, collection of beliefs, creation myths, etc. of the Christian faith. Christians present the Bible as being divinely inspired:
Jeremiah 1:9 - Then the LORD put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth.
So, if the Bible comes to these vessels of God's word, it would naturally follow that the Bible is the ultimate truth. Because it was sent from God.
So any good Christian wouldn't question the Bible, because they would by extension be questioning God.
And because God hasn't sent Christians anything new since primitive man, wouldn't you naturally think that God didn't have anything to add? That he had sent you everything that you needed to understand life, the universe?

But I was basically critiquing Christians. They interpret it literally when they want to, and then interpret it figuratively when interpreting it literally is impossible. The classic flip-flop. I was being sarcastic, bro.

---

False.
The Bible was written by men, hence cannot be the literal word of God, no matter how you look at it. Translations and interpretations have made it so the word of man is just as prevalent in the Bible as the word of God. It seems that, despite throwing in some biblical quotes here and there you haven't really taken the time to think about the nature of the text.

But as a foundation, historically it isnt a bad one. Aristotelian and Platonic texts, which scholars seem to believe that they have a good understanding of, have less historical supporting evidence than the Bible, significantly less evidence. Furthermore, despite what you believe about miracles, it seems fairly undeniable that these Biblical characters existed.

" So any good Christian wouldn't question the Bible, because they would by extension be questioning God. "

This myth is the single most dangerous thought, from the atheist and theist side. It retards discussion and is a hopelessly lazy thought. Read excerpts from the New Testament, alot of it does not claim to be the word of God. This idea is the result of an overly-reductionist approach to a complicated text.