Taking the Bible literally would be like taking Parable of the Sower literally. Both have empowering messages and great ideas, but both of them are obviously meant to be allegorical in structure.
It is not obvious that any passage of scripture was not meant to be taken literally that is not clearly indicated as such as with the use of the word parable. In the absence of any clear reason to believe that the author did not mean to be taken literally, it should be assumed that that is what he intended or is a poor writer.
Atheists believe untestable hypotheses quite freely.
Did you mean critical thinkers? Most atheists are critical thinkers, which is why they are atheists. And critical thinkers learn how to identify and reject unfalsifiable claims, not generate or believe them. They leave that to the religious metaphysicians who routinely make and believe such claims about what lies outside of and underlies experience.
How have you calibrated your chosen method of ageing the rocks based on your assumption there was no catastrophic world flood?
There is no such assumption. That's a sound conclusion. Likewise with the ark, also myth. And both conclusions are supported by multiple types of evidence. Beginning by believing that an assumption is a fact is called belief by faith, and is not a part of critical thinking or science.
How do atoms form molecules form dna to form consciousness in nature without the Creator? This has gone unanswered so far.
You're saying that a conscious god was necessary to create consciousness. Can you see the logical fallacy there? I can.
Furthermore, religion has no answers if by answers we mean demonstrably correct answers. What it offers is unfalsifiable claims, meaning that they can neither be ruled in nor out, and can never be used to accurately predict outcomes. Such ideas may be comforting for some, but are of no other value except to those who make a living from religion.
As a Christian I do know where consciousness comes from, that is from God. I used to be a foolish atheist.
So you think you've transcended foolishness now by embracing faith-based thought? I think I escaped foolishness by jettisoning religion four decades ago.
And for your effort, you are now making unfalsifiable (untestable, metaphysical, unscientific) claims the critical thinker learns to identify and reject. As a critical thinker and an empiricist, I know that you don't know those things, because you can't. You believe them by faith.
I have experienced God manipulating electronic equipment. In any case complex organic molecules in nature are made by God.
And more of your untestable metaphysics.
Also in this case it seems to me that you have misunderstood, or wrong information what is actually said in the Bible.
Much of it is vague or ambiguous, and thus has no fixed meaning. Also, people feel free to keep retranslating it to taste. Nothing means what it says if you don't want it to. Wasn't it you that just gave the apologetics on a slew of biblical contradictions? Those words pretty routinely are understood as contradictions by anybody not vested in them, people who are in agreement about what the words say and mean, but the apologist sees what he wants, no two agreeing on how to reconcile the contradiction.
Nobody has an authoritative stance on what biblical scripture means. Some might claim it for themselves, but their claims are rejected. And believers are routinely trying to disqualify the opinions of unbelievers regarding what the words say and mean, but as I said, they have no authority with skeptics and their opinions, which are generally baseless or irrelevant, are considered just that. I've actually collected a bunch of these efforts over the years. Here's a random assortment:
[41] You get your biblical passages from Atheist web sites.
[42] A copy/paste from Biblehub does not make one a biblical expert.
[43] Don't bother quoting Scripture to me, atheist. You don't even know what you're doing.
[44] Your lack of belief in God coupled with your lack of experience with God means you are not qualified to comment on God.
[45] He believes he is qualified on the basis that he has been inside a church and picked up a bible.
[46] The word of God can not be understood no matter how many times it is read without the help of the Holy Spirit.
[47] Out of context arguments are presented by narrow minds that refuse to take in the bigger perspectives and the greater all encompassing truths.
[48] You're cherry picking scripture.
[49] You can't just read the Bible to understand it, you need to study the scriptures.
[50] You don't know what Jesus was talking about. Typical atheist.
[51] If you are going to quote Scripture for support for your claims then you need to tell me what the context is.
[52] Your ignorance of the Bible, its laws and customs and what applies to Christians today is embarrassing. You should be red faced for making this comment in public.
[53] You have no biblical expertise, your word on the Bible is strictly a layman's opinion.
[54] You want to convince me you have knowledge of the Bible. 1) Provide 5 examples of slave liberation in the Old Testament. 2) King Saul was merciful to the merciless and subsequently merciless to the merciful. Explain.
[55] You are a heretic with little if any understanding of Scripture. If you did study the Bible it was in a Laurel and Hardy College in Tijuana
[56] Like I say there are no errors in the bible only skeptics that can't read and comprehend.
It is interesting how many Christians don't seem to have any idea of what Jesus taught. Even the leaders don't seem to know.
And skeptics can see that. This is why I say that the words have no definite meaning if people can argue about what they mean and nobody can establish that he is correct.
One of the reasons why I like Bible and Jesus is that it really doesn't fit to the idea to rule and oppress others, if one knows what is actually said in it.
I know what is said as well as anybody else who is literate and has read it, and I disagree with you. The basic message is to submit to the core dogma and be saved or exercise free will and be punished.
And why you believe the "known history" is correct?
Absence of expected evidence is evidence of absence. Empiricists develop the simplest narrative that accounts for all of the available relevant data. The anthropological evidence for an Egyptian captivity, an exodus, the conquest of Jericho, and the invasion of Canaan either lack expected empirical support for those events or are contradicted by that archeological evidence.
The problem with historians is, they really don't have much anything substantial and then they make all kind of claims with almost nothing.
I think you have historians confused with theologians.
I expected some proof, but all you gave is a modern belief.
There is never a burden of proof with a faith-based thinker. Proof is a cooperative effort that requires that one has the ability and willingness to recognize a sound argument and be convinced by it. When dealing with somebody who decides what's true by a different method - faith - there is no way to prove anything to him that he has a stake in not believing, as with the biblical contradictions.
Besides, neither proof nor evidence is involved in how the faith-based thinker choose what to believe, so why would you insist on it before believing others? Just accept it on faith that the Genesis flood never occurred. Why not? Faith lets you believe anything you choose to believe. I don't have that choice, because I use a different method to decide what is true about the world, and it doesn't offer choices of what to believe. Belief is imposed by the method, which generates sound (correct) conclusions every time when performed without fallacy.
