Everything In the Bible Should Be Taken Literally

:My opponents argument is only applying to people who are not christen. No. Perhaps it only appeals to them. But it applies to all. I highly encourage Christians-- take the Bible literally! If it's true, they'll find it out that way. If not-- they'll find that out too, and not waste their life on illusion. But founding one's moral code upon metaphor-- upon anything but truth-- why do that if your goal includes being right? :Also, my opponent has failed to state why faith is harmful. If I have faith that a car will not hit me, I do not look both ways before I cross. If I have faith that what is in a container is food, I do not read the label, and eventually I get poisoned. :People get a lot of things out of having faith, they find strength No, one finds strength by lifting weights or doing pushups, and then eating something with protein in it. :hope, Hope of what? Hope-- that it doesn't matter that they die because they'll live again? Without evidence, such hope is nothing more than an inducement to throw away all they have to value. That's not "getting something out of it." :If anything, religion is what brings out any good in people's hearts. You see the problem here? Your argument here is a metaphor, a metaphor of nothing, not reducible to any literal meaning. What good? You get good out of your heart by eating whole grain foods and getting cardiovascular exercise. Not by attending church. :All moral conduct, norms, and virtuous standards are spawned from religion after all. http://en.wikipedia.org... I have some fellows who would beg to differ. :And what about the good religion has done? How many charities can you name that are secular or were started by a secular group? Charity? Charity consists of donation-- of detaching the beneficiary from the agent. This is obviously a less successful model in general of doing good than trade, especially in scale. Look at what you're typing on. Was it a charity that invented this device? Or was it someone seeking to trade value for value, in order to live their life on this world, and not any other? Incidentally, there are many secular charities http://techskeptic.blogspot.com... :The Salvation Army, Red Cross, etc. were established by religion. Although my point above stands, the Red Cross is a secular organization. :Religion is not some bad thing, or pointless thing that has shown no results. There is a place for everything, and everyone will have their own beliefs and perceptions of those beliefs. That is, after all, the cusp of individuality. This is a platitudinous way of not making an argument. By stating "it's not something that has shown no results," you've written a check that in the sentences after your *** didn't cash. And individuality occurs whether people embrace religion or not, it is by no means diminished by discrediting religion within individual minds. And if there is a place for drinking poison, where is it? :Also, the bible does not need to be taken literally to be proven false. The whole concept of a supernatural being is baloney In order to regard this as a disproof you have to first assume that the Bible is LITERALLY declaring a supernatural being exists. If you don't, you can muddle around and declare it to be a "moral metaphor," thinking people will say "oh okay" instead of "a metaphor reducible to what literal message? And why is that message moral?" Because-- they often will, because you're encouraging them to evade reality by means of a metaphor that is no longer a metaphor (i.e. something reducible to some other literal meaning), but rather a deliberately meaningless statement made flowery. :Also, if you agree with the CON side, you can say that the WHOLE bible cannot be taken literally No, you can't. You take the whole bible-- as a literal and nontrue account of the world. Anything else does not address the function it has arrogated as means to evade thought in one's life-- which means-- surrenders thought to that function.