Why do some Atheist express reactionary ignorance and generalize without knowledge?

Question

Today some guy from Yahoo answers pm'd me, going on about how they can disprove God by disproving the stories in the bible. He goes on to say, hey we can disprove your biblical God. Which is an generalization to even think that I believe this bible god is real. Then he went on about if you try to rationalize and say it is all metaphors then he can say the flying spaghetti monster is real. I replied by saying, atheist words are always reactionary to fundamentalism and fundamentalism is not relative to what was generally respected as fact in the approach to scriptures.

Why do some Atheist negate reason and not get understanding on certain movements, not all perceived the scriptures literally, many of which have said that they were allegoric for esoteric truths, the applying of the physical sense to perceive the nature which constitutes mind. For those that dont know thy perceived the world as an illusion that was an allusion, and everything was an aspect of mind, vibration of thought?

Many assume that these portrayals were historically taken literally, however any study of early theology of the church and other such groups such as the Nazirenes nor did those who were mystic/spiritual Christians dubbed Gnostics like Valentinus etc will show that this was not the case. The winners write history after they put genocide on everyone that did not hold the orthodox view of things. Before holding an argument make sure you research the actual history of these things and not try to fit everything into the little bible. Trying to disprove God by disproving the bible is foolish because the bible was never meant to be taken literally. Or what was the whole thing about traditions and rituals being the outward projection of the letter that kills, taking the ordinances of God and projecting them outwardly rather than inwardly. And apparently to Atheist one can’t use these stories as analogies to explain a reality of a given thing, since the atheist that pm’d me said so.

I was trying to be clever by reversing the generalization. It makes no sense for me to say hey all atheist make it appear as though you can't use stories as analogies in real life without believing them historical fact. What more sense does it make to generalize all people who believe in "God" as believing in some portrayal out of a book? See :p?

Answer 1

Atheists are generally ex Christians who knew more of the bible when they believed and know more about the bible and its origins and the beliefs Christianity came from once they become unbelievers. By the way, didn't you say generalizing is wrong. Stop judging yourself.

Answer 2

You are apparently confused about the meanings of a lot of these words. A friendly piece of advice: using big words doesn't make you look smarter. You do a lot better if you use short, everyday words and clearly say what it is you want to say. Throwing in "reactionary" and "negate" and "generalization" and "relative to" doesn't help if you don't use them correctly.

As to the point, many fundamentalists claim that the Bible is literally true. That false belief is their basis for things like creationism, which is one of the ways that religion threatens us. We respond by pointing out that the Bible is not literally true. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and in fact is a duty in light of the situation.

When you write that some atheists "generalize without knowledge", you suggest that there's something that atheists don't know, and that they're acting as they do only because they don't know it. So what is it? Believers seem to often say this, but can't point to the knowledge that we're supposedly lacking. That's a dramatic difference between atheist comments here and those of believers.

Answer 3

Hum, I always thought it was the Fundies that ignored reason in favour superstition to promoter their view.

Answer 4

ok !