For example, a common accusation against atheists by believers is that without God life is meaningless. (Which has absolutely no bearing on the truth claims under discussion, by the by.). And certainly, to be honest, atheism can lead to nihilism. Conversely, the promise of a blissful hereafter can lead to the devaluation of this life to the point that martyrdom makes perfect sense. As for myself, I choose to appreciate this life, the only one I’ll ever know, in a way that is unavailable to those who believe in God. It’s often not fair, it can be very cruel, but you’ve got to play the hand you’ve been dealt as best you can.

@NostraDumbass
That's all true, and good thinking. It is relevant however only to an up or down vote on religious literalism. What generally gets lost in this type of discussion is the fact that not all religious people are literalists. My original point is... that there is really no difference between god and no-god. Life deals with us the same, either way. So, whether believers or non-believers are aware of it, the god concept probably always was just a personification of what our contemporaries today call the universe. That thing exists. We call it different names, and envision it in different ways, and attribute to it varying qualities, but it still does what it does. And our attitude toward it is what makes any possible difference in our experience of life.

@skado The thing is, the literalists are the loudest and most aggressive and therefore in need of the most attention. And these are the same people who will insist against all evidence and experience that holding the “correct” beliefs makes all the difference in your worldly walk as well as your eternal destination. You and I know different (rain falls on us all)-but if the need to believe otherwise is strong enough a way will be found. And it can also be reasonably and rationally argued that the non-literalists are giving cover to the bad actors in their midst simply by buying into the general theistic paradigm.

@NostraDumbass
The question is, what might the non-literalists be getting out of their participation that makes that risk worth taking.

@skado They, like the literalists, are merely expressing their version of the truth. Each camp would see the other as the enemy within that must be marginalized and defeated. Typical internecine squabbling. So the goal is not to give cover, but to dominate the stage if possible. And if the non-literalists did get the upper hand then the cover they’re currently providing would become a smothering of the literalists. But I’m not holding my breath on that one. Things seem to be trending in the other direction, wouldn’t you say?

@NostraDumbass
I don’t know any group or individuals who are not expressing their version of the truth. The non-literalists that I am aware of are not into squabbling or taking over. They, in my view, are the only ones who got the message, which is basically “don’t squabble.”

The literalists will probably always outnumber the figuratists, but the uninformed have always outnumbered the informed. It’s no reason to abandon reason.

Religious figuratism is essentially synonymous with art appreciation. It’s not about dogma. There is nothing to take over.

Not necessarily "Christians". Fundamentalists. There are other Christian interpretations.

@skado Exactly. Thanks for the clarification. It’s still early here…