I love KitH, very nice guys in person and they love their fans. :D

Guys I would like to announce we're on page 69, it is my favorite number and I feel I had to point this out.

Hum, everything? Because as of now we are running in circles because you didn't get what I've said in the very first post.
And yes, I've said it is and even told you why I think that way. You, on the other hand, just mocked me (and everyone else) left and right, and now blame me for the very thing you did.

Oh and you want me to read the article to you? The fact that you only read half of it goes well with the fact that you only read/respond to only half the things I've posted here as well, so, can I safely assume you are just trolling? Ok, I'll indulge you: bottom line: experiments show that there's a thin line between actual scientific discovery and faith in the real truth of that discovery and that it's possible to believe in something without it being completely true even if you are an atheist scientist. I'll even copy here the author comment where he responds to someone in the comment section at the end of the article (the part that you did not reach):

"Thanks Michael, and while I agree with you I also think it is worthwhile to nail down precisely how scientific knowledge differs from other domains. The naive answer is that scientific propositions can be tested against an external reality, whereas religious statements cannot. But this research shows that the individual is not testing statements against reality but against statements it has already accepted - and this is true for both religious and scientific statements.

By this mechanism it is thereby possible to build a completely false picture of the universe but one that the individual still believes in - even one that many individuals believe in.

The problem as I see it is not so much the truth or falsehood of facts but of theories. Theories are more than a bag full of facts. I know, I recently came across a quote by Feynman to the effect that (paraphrasing) "Philosophy of science is as useful to the scientist as ornithology is to birds." But there are branches of science where philosophy has become important, such as the neurosciences, where correlations between brain activity and personal experiences require that both sides of the correlation have valid data." - Richard Mankiewicz

Do you get where I'm going now?
Of course. I wasn't questioning that. From my very first post I tried to be very clear that my (personal) problem is with the extremists from both sides. I have nothing against Science (or religion in general). In fact, I can't agree more with you here. What I'm trying to point out (and you readily grasped now) is that you can't be arrogant to the point of saying: "THIS IS THE TRUTH! I'M 100% SURE OF IT!" Unless of course the thing in question can be 100% verifiable. The Big Bang, for example, is not.

You are generalizing. I NEVER said "atheists" in general. I said the fanatic atheist. And yes, for them Science is their religion. Man, in the very first line of my very first post I explained that. "I'm agnostic and I hate both extremes of the "faith"". Keyword: Extremes.

Ah shit. YouTube didn't load for a few seconds, I only saw the title, instantly presumed this was gonna be some metal music and left my dumbass comment. Fail of the week.

They should be taken in context with the language and culture of the time, considering the other examples of same.
What makes ONE interpretation better than another is just that - examining the intended meaning by looking at how the language was used.

For an argument against taking everything literally (even in the original language) -> When Jesus was speaking to the shepherds, he used parables about sheep. When He was speaking to the money changers, He used parables about money. Clearly He speaks to us in terms (and metaphors) we can understand.

You can learn how or why things were back then by studying history - this part has nothing to do with religion. Studying older cultures and times is what historians and archaeologists do.
"They couldn't explain anything at all, scientifically" -> if you're going to hold them to scientific method, before the scientific method was developed, then you're making a circular argument. If they HAD such a method, and knowledge of science, they wouldn't have needed God to explain things in metaphors ;)

Side note:
They didn't say "oh well, God did it" - they accepted that all things come from God, yes.

I'm not going to hold them to a standard, but it doesn't mean I have to give their standards credibility at all.

(bolding added by me).
Therein lies the atheists' problem - they see that people disagree and therefore assume there's nothing to see.
Rather than look for yourself and try to understand a thing, you accept what some others tell you and assume they're wrong.
Arguing that some interpretations are wrong is not a convincing argument that ALL interpretations are wrong.
Sure, you can ask a few religious people until you get a silly answer, then use it "to deride the whole religion" - OR you could look at the intended meaning of the text based on the culture and language-use of the time and then see what you think.

sure, but now you're dodging the point -> that you must interpret the bible's books and meaning of the language, based on the culture and language of the time.
Therefore, taking a literal meaning from an English translation and using it to argue that it's a load of rubbish because you infer things based on the use of English is flawed. Sure, I'm not saying they're bad in their own minds - I'm saying they've missed the point of Jesus' teachings re: "Judge not" and "How can you say to your brother 'let me help you take the splinter from your eye' when you have a plank in your own?"

There's a million different interpretations to the same obviously fictional stories. I guess what I should be asking what makes you an expert over the other million denominations that makes your personal interpretation correct and what confirmed your interpretation as correct?

They ARE atheists, by definition - they don't believe in a god or gods. You could argue that they are religious atheists (as, for example, Buddhists are) but that usually suggests some spirituality and belief in something beyond this life.
If you believe that people who are cruel to others are being Christian then (to use your terms) you truly are dumb enough to be one of those atheists who'd rather mock religion than try to understand it.

I didn't say that and you would owe me an apology for the baseless assumption.

It's the 'obviously' part (that I bolded) that makes me sure you haven't looked at this seriously. You start from the belief that it's not true (based on your interpretation of what you've read in an English bible or, more likely, an internet forum) and then proceed to mock it.
"There's a million different interpretations" -> could you provide, perhaps 20 of a single example? Or was this exaggeration for the sake of making your point sound stronger than it is.

You're again dodging my point. I haven't given an interpretation to be made correct. Do you, or do you not, accept that to understand and interpret a piece of writing, you need to understand the language in the culture of the time?
And the many denominations don't all disagree on the meaning of all the stories in the text. Just how to go about worshipping God. Once you get past my actual point in these posts, you'll see that they don't all disagree that far (except re: the translation of this word or that passage should be based on the literal meaning / intended meaning).

This is why the King James Bible has unicorns - the original text had a kind of wild ox found in the area of Israel but nobody in England had seen it and "ox" didn't sound majestic enough. (I normally disagree with the KJB translations but this one made some sense).
I didn't make any assumption - I used a conditional "if" to make a contrast with the main point so you might understand it. My apologies if you took it as a personal attack - it was merely meant to illustrate the point.
Do you now accept that the people in the article are atheist?

You don't have to give an interpretation to assume that you would think your own personal interpretation to be correct. It's common sense or there wouldn't be however many sects of christianity there is. And when there's stories of great floods, resurrections, dead jewish zombies on sticks returning from the grave. Which is common thing between them all no matter the language. Any thinking person in their right mind would say that this is bullshit.

Of course I believe that my interpretation is close enough. I don't, however, think my interpretation is 100% solid. I'm therefore open to reading and learning and have, on many occasions, revised my beliefs accordingly.

As to your last point: *sigh* I knew it was pointless. If you're not going to engage in a rational discussion and resort to implying some kind of not-right-mindness to me, then I'm done with the thread.
I'm quite capable of rational thinking - I do it all the time, even in relation to my religious beliefs. Thank you.
Enjoy the rest of the thread.