Once you start saying that some of the book is “metaphorical”, based on your own preferances, what is to keep you from saying that about the whole text (basically what atheists do- we don’t treat it as a depiction of real events).

Why do you think that it would be “based on your own preferences”? How do you think historians decide how accurate historical records are? Whim?

In case you’re curious, look up “historical-critical method” or “higher criticism” some time. The Wikipedia article is a pretty good introductions.

Rev. Samuel Krouse wrote:

The New Atheists are certainly right about one very important thing — it’s atheism or biblical theism.

(Emphasis mine.)

BlackSun rephrased it as:

There is no substantive philosophical position between biblical literalism and atheism.

(Again, emphasis mine. I’m undecided if this was a misunderstanding or a deliberate case of bait-and-switch.)

I was going to make the same observation. “Biblical theism” is not synonymous with “biblical literalism”. One is a belief about the existence and nature of God, the other is a method for interpreting a book. BlackSun is either confused, or else deliberately changed the wording in order to talk about what he wanted to instead of what the pastor actually said.

Of course, Christian fundamentalists don’t do that either, but they come closer. And isn’t trying to enforce a horrific theocracy on the population the important part?

The New Atheists are certainly right about one very important thing — it’s atheism or biblical theism.

(Emphasis mine.)

BlackSun rephrased it as:

There is no substantive philosophical position between biblical literalism and atheism.

(Again, emphasis mine. I’m undecided if this was a misunderstanding or a deliberate case of bait-and-switch.)

BlackSun further said:

It’s really rich to see a Baptist pastor admitting what Sam Harris said in The End of Faith.

Hardly.

Sam Harris believes the same thing as Christian fundamentalists do, so it’s hardly surprising when fundamentalists agree in return. Quite frankly, they deserve each other.

The New Atheism is not just a reassertion of atheism. It is a movement that represents a far greater public challenge to Christianity than that posed by the atheistic movements of previous times. Furthermore, the New Atheism is not just another example of marketing an idea in the postmodern age. The New Atheists are, in their own way, evangelistic in intent and ambitious in hope. They see atheism as the only plausible worldview for our times, and they see belief in God as downright dangerous – an artifact of the past that we can no longer afford to tolerate, much less encourage.

That’s just one bit of the cut-and-paste.

Hey, here’s one that THIS atheist has over THIS christian: When I write something with my name on it, I didn’t rip it off from someone else!

This isn’t just a misplaced byline of an article by Mohler. In Krouse’s article, he talks about having been a philosophy student at Chico state. Mohler went to Florida Atlantic University and Samford in Birmingham, Alabama.

Plagerism.

Also, I’d like to add in my obligatory dissent from the idea that there is nothing substantial between atheism and biblical literalism. Remember that theologian, Haught, who refused to confront modern atheism because he insisted that only nihilistic atheism was philosophically tenable? You guys are doing the same thing, only in the other direction.

But otherwise, pastor Krouse gets nearly everything right. Finally, an apologist who understands his audience. I find it interesting that there are still a bunch of atheist folks who are making negative comments on his column. They don’t know what’s been handed to them.

Either miracles do happen, or this guy had a (drum roll please………) false conversion!