DISCLAIMER: I’m referring to those that are antagonistic by attitude as a subcatagory of fundamentalists or athiests, so that nobody gets mad. That wouldn’t fit in the title. I realize there are a lot of you out their who are more subtle than this stuff.
It seems to me that they’re both making the same mistake. They’re taking the Bible, a non-sequential work written by many authors, mind you, literally. The fundamentalists to argure for, the athiests to argue against, Christianity.
The fundamentalists should know better, because its IDOLATRY. The athiests should know better because it’s UNREASONABLE.
I had a friend once ask me:
Why do ghetto people and rednecks hate each other so much when they’re exactly the same? And you know, he was right.
I agree that the Bible should not be taken literally, and when done so should not be used to prove the falseness or validity of the religion. This mistake is common on both sides of the fence, although much of the time, the atheist is responding to the fundamentalist’s use of the Bible as such, in which case it is apt to criticise the argument on the assumption of a literalist interpretation.
well the most obvious reason is the fact that their beliefs are completely opposite from one another so that doesn’t help matters.
(as an atheist) i just find fundamentalists annoying as i believe that all religious people have a mental block in their minds in which they can’t imagine a life that god doesn’t exist in and with fundamentalists it’s an even larger/more stubborn mental block. atheists realise that a world could exist without god as there is enough evidence to proof the inaccuracies of the bible and not enought evidence to proof that it is correct. when it is looked at from a historical, psychological and scientific point of view it fails to hold up which is basically the start of atheisim for most people.
I don’t quite understand why a literal interpretation of the Bible - or other holy books for that matter - is even required. I’ve sometimes heard people produce Bible quotes saying that it must be taken literally (being the true word of God), but this is obviously circular.
Got a copy you can link me to. I can try to find one. But then agian the Torah is a document and can’t really have faith- I can’t ask it why it says this or that. So there may well be incompleteness and not circularity.
Got a copy you can link me to. I can try to find one. But then agian the Torah is a document and can’t really have faith- I can’t ask it why it says this or that. So there may well be incompleteness and not circularity.
But really it usually goes-
I1- Why do you belive X?
I2- I have faith in Z.
I1- Why do you have faith in Z?
I2- Because of Y.
I1- Why do you belive Y?
I2- I have faith in Z.
