AJ Philips,

I cannot understand your point. David f made two statements that I could agree with, so i concatenated them into one quote to tell him that. I did not see a need to analyze why he could have made those statements, neither, I think, he will analyze why I agreed.

>>Could you explain how one determines whether or not their interpretation of scripture is "proper"? How does one know whether they should take a passage literally or metaphorically?<<
I am aware that the word “proper” was vague here. If you are a Catholic, you will accept the interpretation given by a Catholic exegete authorised by the Church. If you are a Christian, you have a more free choice of the exegetes whose interpretation you accept as to be proper for 21st century. If you keep on asking too much you might be referred to Hans-Georg Gadamer, perhaps the father of philosophical hermeneutics (of texts). If you are an atheist , you have an even wider choice of specialists on interpreting ancient texts, or you can adhere to your own interpretation. Not being a specialist this is all I can say.

Of course, you can investigate the Scripture also from other points of view, e.g. whethe the stories they describe - irrespective of the exegetic content comprehensible to a 21st century reader - correspond to facts that history can confirm, etc.

If you are interested in possible interpretations of the Abraham and Isaac stories - not only Jewish and Christian but also Muslim - you can check them e.g. on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_of_Isaac. I have nothing to add to that since, as mentioned a couple of times, I am not an expert on these matters.

Csteele already corrected me that belief in God-Creator is not what we have in common, so you can relax. I also take it that you did not understand my article, which I accept as my fault . Metaphors, like jokes, are not something you explain: you either get them or you don’t get them and you kill them if you try to explain them.

Pericles,

Let me repeat for the x-th time that I never claimed there was a belief system or world view common to all atheists - your “common-atheist-belief-system”. I am sure there are atheists whose belief system differs from that of Bertrand Russell as exposed in his “What I believe”.

I fail to understand why you had to give two syllogisms that any fourth-grader could drive massive holes through.

>>What confuses him is that while Christianity instructs a Christian's personal belief system, atheism (being a non-belief system) cannot, by definition, instruct any specific individual's personal belief system.<<

I never claimed that atheism INSTRUCTS an atheist’s belief system. [Or is it now a non-belief system, meaning that what e.g. Russell believes, as described in his book, are suddenly non-beliefs? This sounds like runner who claimed a woman who has an abortion does not have a conviction just because he does not agree with her.] Even in case of Christians that “instruction” is stronger with Catholics than with non-Catholics.

Perhaps an example: If you are a member of a political party some of your political beliefs are “instructed” by your party. If you are not a member of any party, you are more free to choose your political beliefs. If you are a voter for that political party your political beliefs are apparently somewhere in between being instructed and being freely chosen. However the political beliefs of even somebody who is not a member of any party (or a non-voter) are somehow related to the fact that he/she decided not to be a member of any party (not to vote).

Dear csteele,

So I misread you again, you do not believe in God-Creator, whatever you offer as an explanation. Fair enough. As far as the operating systems we are using are concerned, you are right I use Mac OS X, and if you use Windows I can see what you mean by saying that it is susceptible to viruses, and periodically crashes, since I tried it once for a couple of years. If that is lot of fun then we have obviously different approaches not only to life but also to our computers.

Dear George,

Ah serendipity validating a metaphor. Poetic.

While my computing is Windows based I do use an Apple OS on my phone. As you probably are aware the term used by those who decide to rid themselves of the strictures imposed by that corporation is to ’Jail Break’ their device.

I have chosen freedom of interpretation in all its riotous glory while you take comfort in ’exegete authorised by the Church’.

We are indeed different but as I have said all along I wouldn't have it any other way.

Dear csteele,

As you know, Apple OS and Mac OS X are not the same thing, the one is running my iPad, the other my iMac, but they are certainly related. And ‘Jail Break’ is indeed a good metaphor for forming one’s own world-view, including your preferred freedom of interpretation, which we two look at from different angles, not necessarily 180 degrees apart.

As far as taking comfort is concerned, I had recently a hip replacement and I indeed took comfort from the fact that the operation was carried out by a specialist acknowledged as such by the University he graduated from, rather than by somebody who decided for himself/herself that he/she was a specialist in these matters.

Perhaps it is the lack of clarity in your own position that causes these aberrations, George.

>>Pericles, Let me repeat for the x-th time that I never claimed there was a belief system or world view common to all atheists - your “common-atheist-belief-system”.<<

Yet you step very close to the edge with statements such as this.

>>“…there are atheist world-views or belief systems (they have something in common but are not all identical), the same as there are e.g. Christian belief systems…”<<

The airy suggestion that "they have something in common but are not all identical" only goes so far to qualify your assertion that "there are atheist world-views or belief systems".

You further define your position with the statement that there are atheist belief systems "the same as there are e.g. Christian belief systems".

I took this to mean that you envisage the atheist equivalents of Catholics, Methodists, Protestants, Quakers etc., each with their own "set" of rituals, observances etc. based upon a specific interpretation of Christianity. Only in our case, systems based upon a specific interpretation of atheism.

Atheists-for-AFL, for example, who worship at the G every Saturday in winter, but whose activities are informed somehow by their atheism. And of course the Atheists-for-mass-murder, a group whose actions are guided by the specific atheism of Pol Pot.

But thank you for this clarification.

>>I never claimed there was a belief system or world view common to all atheists<<

A sentiment with which I completely agree. And by definition, therefore, I disagree with the author of the original article to which you linked.

"...such diffidence contributes to the false image of the atheist as someone whose convictions are removed from ordinary experience. It is vital to show that there are indeed atheists in foxholes, and wherever else human beings suffer and die.".

Because there is no common belief system, it is entirely wrong to suggest there is a common experience. Such an approach denies our individuality, and therefore our individual compassion. Proselytising atheism-in-general contributes nothing, while proselytising the atheism of Pol Pot might encounter some cultural resistance.