Why do atheists always take the Bible literally?

Why do atheists always take the Bible literally? It is not really so much a one dimensional book where what you read is exactly what it says.

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    So it's NOT the literal perfect word of the almighty creator of the universe? What if there's a mistake? Do we have to treat gays like shit? What if we were supposed to like them?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      So I'm not a theist, I can't make this claim, I just know it's not as simple and dry as you and evangelicals make it out to be.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Well I’m an ex-Christian anon and I’ll let you in on a secret.
        Christians claim parts of the Bible aren’t literal that are either blatantly wrong so they don’t have to defend them, or commands and lifestyle changes that the Christian telling you it’s a metaphor doesn’t actually want to do.
        Evangelicals might be dumb but certain groups of them are clearly the only ones left who truly believe in Christianity

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          This. Look at """Christians""" squirm and try to change the definition of usury to mean excessive interest, because the entire world's economy revolves around it and they'd rather live comfortably in sin than change that.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Its the word of the almighty creator of the universe and therefore perfectly, or it isn't. It really is that simple and dry.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Just because somebody claims that doesn't mean the work must be exactly literal. The verse is one thing, what you're interpreting is another. There's been many interpretations of this.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            My interpretation is that you are a pencil-necked candyass

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >actually, the supernatural mythology aspects of the Bible are allegory
    >except Christ's supernatural exploits were 100% real
    I hate LARPers so much it's unreal

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes it is mostly allegory, do you think allegory is.. fake?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        So the part where the creator of the universe comes down and demands that we mutilate our genitals, that's just allegory?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No, that's literal, it's not allegory. But other parts might be.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So it's not that you don't believe that the Bible must be interpreted literally, you do, it's just that you use "allegory" as a way to get around doing the things that you don't like, such as living in a hut for a month, human sacrifice, mixing fabrics, etc.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Whenever christcucks claim some part of the Bible is a metaphor they never explain what the metaphor is supposed to mean and if they do their case is weak.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Do you think Cain and Abel, for example, is supposed to represent exactly what you think they are?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Believe it or not it’s not one of the stories that is memorable to me, though I don’t recall anything in that story being less believable than 90% of the Bible

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          There is an interpretation of this that says it is supposed to represent the transition from semi-pastoral nomads to sedentary farmers. And you probably thought little of it.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Anon I don’t think you understand. They didn’t think god answering sacrifices was a metaphor.
            That interpretation of the story makes sense for maybe that tribe or a specific part of that region, but if you think that’s actual knowledge from god about herdsmen settling for the first time then you have the order wrong anyway. Plants were domesticated before animals.
            By the way the meaning of the story is very obvious, don’t get mad that god seems to answer the prayers of someone else but not you

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >but if you think that’s actual knowledge from god about herdsmen settling for the first time then you have the order wrong anyway. Plants were domesticated before animals.

            It was a process but they weren't fully into agriculture until much later.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            None of that is the type of stuff I’m denying.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because no Christian takes the Bible purely as a literary/mythological work the way they treat the Mahabharata, the Iliad, or the Kojiki. No Christian believes in Apollo, Athena, Zeus, Rama, Varuma, Amaterasu, but many Christians and israelites do sincerely and unironically believe in YHWH's existence, in the Ten Commandments, and that the land of Palestine is the land that YHWH promised to Abraham.
    Atheists take the claims of the Bible literally because for ages Christians did believe in the literal truth of the Bible. At one point, people did believe that Pleiosaurs were alive in the time before Noah's flood. There are many people who do literally believe that Jesus was crucified and came back after 3 days as stated in the Gospels. When atheists deal with the Bible, they are dealing with a written work that many people all around the world do take very seriously and do take many parts of as literal, historical truth.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Well said. All of sudden the parts that were proven to be impossible are now "metaphors."

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Radiochan

    because evangelical christians take it literally, as in they consider it to be the literal inerrant Word of God
    a lot of atheists on the Internet are the product of Evangelical Christian communities

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This is a meaningless thread for a lot of reasons. Atheists fundamentally can't understand why symbolism was so important to the ancients because matter is their God, so the idea that something in the material world could be a symbol of something greater is immediately rejected by them.
    >Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I like that you’re leaving out the part where this section stands out because it’s in parables, and the fact that it’s prefaced with “Jesus began telling some parables”
      What you’ve decided is the entire rest of the Bible is parables, or let’s be honest just the parts you don’t want to obey or can’t defend because they’re so obviously false.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Nope, the parables are not the parts atheists usually point at. Rather, it's the creation story and the fall from the Garden of Eden. Was the universe literally created in 6 days? Was the first woman created from a rib taken from the first man? Did a snake tempt the first woman to eat the forbidden rruit? Did Cain kill his brother Abel?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Rather, it's the creation story and the fall from the Garden of Eden. Was the universe literally created in 6 days? Was the first woman created from a rib taken from the first man? Did a snake tempt the first woman to eat the forbidden rruit?
          Literally none of that is out of the range of the creation stories of ancient peoples. It’s completely in line with normal for what they thought at the time with their limited knowledge.
          >Did Cain kill his brother Abel?
          Nothing out of the ordinary for Bronze Age or Iron Age stories

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So you're admitting the Bible is mythology written out of ancient ignorance? Okay, so then it loses its validity as a religion.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            We trust ancient sources enough to tell us that the Trojan War did take place, so why can't we also trust them when it comes to Jacob wrestling an angel, or that Deucalion survived a flood by hiding in a chest for 9 days?
            If ancient sources tell us that alphabetic writing was introduced to Greece by Phoenician-born Prince Cadmus, the founder of the city of Thebes, then should we also believe that Dionysus, the son of Semele, daughter of Cadmus, was a real human being too?
            Could it be true that Isis, Osiris, Dionysus, and Jesus are all real?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >We trust ancient sources enough to tell us that the Trojan War did take place, so why can't we also trust them when it comes to Jacob wrestling an angel, or that Deucalion survived a flood by hiding in a chest for 9 days
            We do believe the Trojan war happened, we don’t believe Hermes actually came to Achilles or that the gods in those stories are real and played their roles.
            I hope you morons understand this is your possibly the most embarrassingly uneducated history forum that exists.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm an agnostic and it always seemed to me that most of the Bible was parables/literary license and not meant to be taken literally. Usually Biblical literalists are Southern Baptists or Penn Jilette-tier fedoras.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why do atheists always take the Bible literally
    lmao

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Bible contains actual historic events. If you think Adam and Eve were not a literal pair of people you think that genealogy in the Bible lied.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There's a lot of ways you can argue whether a text is meant literally but one thing I would look for is how entangled it is with what we know the author regarded as real events. The Book of Job, for example, basically takes place "once upon a time" and reads like a fable. It's easy to imagine it as just a work of fiction. Adam, though, has genealogies linking him to real (or purportedly real) people in Genesis, Chronicles, and Luke. The Gospel of Luke, for example, traces the genealogy of Jesus back to Adam. Now if Luke regarded Jesus as a literal real person and Adam as not, then it would seem he's saying that at some point a nonexisting person begat a real one. Isn't it more likely that he simply believe Adam and Jesus were equally real?

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Christians are actually quite clever that they can say that vast amounts of their holy book is a metaphor or an allegory so they don't end up like Muslims and have to defend the sun setting in a muddy spring of water every night just because it's in God's holy book that is 100% infallible.

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because I live around Ev*ngelic*ls who take the Bible literally, so I have to dunk on them that way.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *