Lots of people take Genesis literally! Come to the South! The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it! I love Dawkins!

so how do we know which parts are an analogy and which parts are the literal word of god. Please pass on the bits that are literal......better yet.....why don't YOU re-write it so the christian world can be of one mind

I love Richard Dawkins!

Rubbish face the facts and proof that evolution speaks for itself loud and clear

Ok somebody here got butthurt thinking that a book of fairy tales is real...

Dawkins is trying showing that fairy tales are a bunch of bs. No matter how it's written.

Chriistianity is too ludicrous to be fundemental

As to the Genesis creation stories being considered allegorical, let us consider what everybody's favorite Genesis allegoricalist, Augustine, thought about the age of the Universe. From his book City of God, book 18 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120118.htm):

Chapter 40.— About the Most Mendacious Vanity of the Egyptians, in Which They Ascribe to Their Science an Antiquity of a Hundred Thousand Years.

In vain, then, do some babble with most empty presumption, saying that Egypt has understood the reckoning of the stars for more than a hundred thousand years. For in what books have they collected that number who learned letters from Isis their mistress, not much more than two thousand years ago? Varro, who has declared this, is no small authority in history, and it does not disagree with the truth of the divine books. For as it is not yet six thousand years since the first man, who is called Adam, are not those to be ridiculed rather than refuted who try to persuade us of anything regarding a space of time so different from, and contrary to, the ascertained truth? For what historian of the past should we credit more than him who has also predicted things to come which we now see fulfilled? And the very disagreement of the historians among themselves furnishes a good reason why we ought rather to believe him who does not contradict the divine history which we hold. But, on the other hand, the citizens of the impious city, scattered everywhere through the earth, when they read the most learned writers, none of whom seems to be of contemptible authority, and find them disagreeing among themselves about affairs most remote from the memory of our age, cannot find out whom they ought to trust. But we, being sustained by divine authority in the history of our religion, have no doubt that whatever is opposed to it is most false, whatever may be the case regarding other things in secular books, which, whether true or false, yield nothing of moment to our living rightly and happily.

(the "chapters" are all very short" )

Yes, Augustine was a young-earther, and most Christian and Jewish theologians were young-earthers until the last few centuries, despite many pagan philosophers believing that the Universe is much older than what one would calculate from the Bible's genealogies. In fact, some philosophers believed that the Universe is infinitely old -- eternal.

This seems like gotcha apologetics: "Gotcha! It's allegorical!"

Allegorical interpretation is indeed old. For instance, Plutarch, in his book "On Isis and Osiris" (46 - 120 CE), states "Therefore, Clea, whenever you hear the traditional tales which the Egyptians tell about the gods, their wanderings, dismemberments, and many experiences of this sort, you must remember what has been already said, and you must not think that any of these tales actually happened in the manner in which they are related. The facts are that they do not call the dog by the name Hermes as his proper name, but they bring into association with the most astute of their gods that animal's watchfulness and wakefulness and wisdom, since he distinguishes between what is friendly and what is hostile by his knowledge of the one and his ignorance of the other, as Plato remarks." [penelope.uchicago.edu]*/A.html

But how does one tell what's literal and what's allegorical? If something is allegorical, then what is an allegory of? The Bible does not discuss allegorical interpretation anywhere, as far as I know.

Dawkins does not ‘assume,’ ...you lost me there. The Science was not replaced, religious teachings were overridden is how I take that.

I always figured Dawkins was critiquing Religion as currently (for the past 500 years or so) practiced, not as Augustine or Philo may have considered it. When he, or anyone else for that matter, denigrates Religion as an institution, it’s irrelevant whether Genesis is considered to be literal or figurative. It’s the basic function and purpose of religion that cause the problems, not the details of the dogma of its adherents. Saying that Dawkins has a closed mind entirely misses the point.

The author makes Darwin's case, and then attacks his person, ascribing motives that are of no consequence of Dawkin's writings.

What a waste of intelligence.

This is the same shit thrown at Sam Harris. His response is, "The majority of believers do believe the stories are literal. I am only responding to those believers who say they believe."

People like dawkins can back up their lectures with proof....based on actual evidence.....show me one shred of evidence to back up any evidence relating to that fairy story book nutters call the bible

The Genesis Story is required for Christian dogma insofar as it describes the generation of Original Sin which is the reason for the human sacrifice; it is Adam and Eve's sin that Jesus propitiates. If you say it's a myth, you don't need the crucifixion.

Moreover, there is a passage wherein Jesus references Moses and Adam in the same breath, not something one would do if one was real and the other allegorical. The claim that Genesis is allegorical is pure dodge.

I was reading Daniel C Dennett when I was in grade school. I didn't know until years later that he is an atheist. I wonder if that had something to do with my lack of belief and always questioning religion. I just know I couldn't make myself swallow the garbage the fundies were peddling. I could never get past the concept of original sin.

More attacks from the same old areas. Why don't these publications, sometimes right wing, sometimes regressive left, pick on the truly bigoted close minds that run the world.

Attacking prominent atheists will not undermine this growing movement. Give it up.

started reading but then found myself examining my navel & noticed a tiny amount of lint...

From what we have been seeing many of the evangelical Christians today talk about the literal statements from(a) bible - there are several versions. I am sure not all atheist agree on some of the finer points but we all agree all religious teachings are crap and only pollute ones mind. Dawkins is human and so can be prone to mistakes but my question would be how much conflict of interests are involved. Religion has a massive conflict of interest but there is usually little gain in helping people let go of myths. Looking at some of the links I suspect Gray is a stealth religionist. Denigrating science and glorifying religion shows that.

Just because some highly educated Jewish and Christian thinkers didn't take the myths seriously doesn't mean that the ordinary priests didn't inculcate such superstitious myths into the common people.

well, it is interesting to know that the bible's original readers (or hearers) were not encouraged to take genesis literally, but as for dawkins, i had been an atheist for nine years when his first book came out, so he had no influence on me one way or the other, and still doesn't.

g

Augustine argued that the world was flat because the bible says so. He even said if there in fact were people walking (upside down!) on the underside of the earth, they were not sons of Adam anyway, and therefore not really people. It's hard to imagine a more literal reading of the bible.

If we are to read the bible as literature, and not think Jesus literally rose from the dead, or was literally the son of a literal god, or necessarily literally existed, etc., I'm fine with that. That's how I've been reading it for decades anyway.

When fundie's don't believe catholics are even christian there's some serious translation problems in religion. Batshit crazy is what they all are.

You mean they think Moses didn't exist? Wow. I had no idea.

This is the same old "atheism is another religion" argument. I am narrow minded, apparently, because of my inability to take the ridiculous with the undue seriousness with which they embrace it.