No evidence is needed to dismiss an insufficiently supported claim.
- "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens
I found the moral set of Christianity to be inadequate for the 21st century. Where does the Christian Bible proclaim that democracy is a more moral system of government than monarchy, or that people be viewed as citizens with guaranteed personal rights rather including freedom from religion than subjects at the mercy of the whims of a despot, that society should be structured to facilitate the most opportunity for the most people to pursue happiness as they envision it, that women should be seen an men's equal rather than their property, and more. It doesn't, so I don't go to it for moral instruction.
These are the values that define modern life, which is why a book that commands men to submit to gods, subjects to kings, slaves to masters, and wives to husbands simply isn't relevant today.
With omniscience and omnipotence comes omni-responsibility. If you know everything and can do anything, then you are fully responsible for what happens.
Yes, if you keep reinterpreting scripture to conform with the new science, then your religion won't contradict science, but you'll need to stay current in science.
Regarding being a literal reader, prose is intended to be understood literally, and the Christian Bible is said to be a guide for living. It would be absurd to write such things figuratively. It I want to leave instructions as to how my estate is to be handled after my death, or if I want to give you directions to get to my house, or if I want to teach you how to make a certain dish, I'm going to use the clearest language I can : "Go two blocks then turn left at the light" or "slice into the chicken several times, about ½ cm (¼ inch) apart, but only cut about 85% of the way through, leaving the bottom intact," not vague poetic passages or metaphors. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" means whatever you want it to mean, since it has no clear or distinct meaning.
Incidentally, Bible apologists like to tell us that the passages that we know cannot be taken at face value metaphor or allegory, but scripture that is now recognized to be mythology is neither. It's simply the best guesses of an ancient culture that were undoubtedly reported and believed as history and science until that became untenable. Saying that the Bible is wrong isn't an option for the believer, so now, the stories are called metaphor or allegory.
But here's the thing about both of those. They stand for something else, something the writer is aware of. The elements of the Genesis creation myth don't stand for anything, nor were the writers aware of really happened - the singularity, initial temperatures and densities, the expansion of the universe, the inflationary epoch, symmetry breaking, particle condensation, nucleosynthsis, the decoupling of matter and radiation, the hundreds of millions of years before starlight, the 9 billion year delay before the formation of the sun and earth, the moon creating impact event, the cooling of the earth with crust formation, and the evolution of life. The is no mention of lava, no Great Bombardment, no coalescing dust around early star, no proto-star, no first and second star, no proto-galaxy, no Big Bang. All it seems to have gotten right is that the universe had a beginning - just like every other creation myth.
Gulliver's Travels is an allegory, meaning that its author, Swift, realized that he was writing fiction intended to make a political statement about contemporary England in which each element of the allegory represents something from history known to the author.
"
One clear example of Swift's use of political allegory is the Rope Dancers, who are Lilliputians seeking employment in the government, All candidates are asked to dance on the rope and whoever jumps the highest without falling is offered a high office . Very often the current ministers are asked to dance to show their skills . For instance, Flimnap, the treasurer, is required to dance on a tight rope to show his superiority to other in this respect.
"This jumping game may sound innocent to the children, however, politically its significance is far from innocent. Obviously, Swift makes a satire on the way in which political offices were distributed among the candidates by George I. Flimnap stands for Sir Robert Walpole the prime minister of England. Dancing on a tight rope symbolizes Walpole's skill in parliamentary tactics and political intrigues. In general, Swift wants to infer that England's system is arbitrary and corrupted."
Political Allegory In Gulliver's Travels
That's allegory. The Genesis creation story and the flood story, for example, are not allegories or metaphors, which require that their source understands what the elements in the story actually stand for. They are stories that were wrong. Some of us are free to say as much. Others can't and won't.
I don't expect you to actually address this argument - what parts you agree with, which you disagree with, and why
That's not what this atheist believes. I'm pretty much agnostic on any point that cannot be resolved at this time. I neither say that something can come from nothing, nor that it can't.
Nor do I say that either something has always existed, nor that there was a first thing. Although they are both counterintuitive, it seems that one of these two must be the case, but I have no means to rule either in or out, so I remain agnostic. No other position is as sound.
I am sure that many things exist for which we have no evidence at this time, such as extraterrestrial life.
