Still. You don’t believe in God because of the Genesis story. Your belief in God is based on something else entirely. That’s where you should steer the conversation. Don’t waste time on arguments that have nothing to do with nothing.Well, what I’m basically saying is that it has to be one or the other with atheists. If it’s literal, you’re a loon who believes in a single ark being able to carry two of every animal to exist on earth. If it’s figurative, you’re a wishy-washy idiot who relies on flaky symbolism to see him through an argument
I doubt that any atheist, ever, said this. Most are better at logic though some of us always try to improve. Atheists say: "if you accept the Bible as literal, you must believe that at least one snake talked to at least two people, and that God then removed his legs (otherwise how could s/he be cursed to go on his belly?). There are millions of people who believe this. Catholics generally don’t. Although the Church is ok with them doing so, a mistake in my opinion.A common straw man I’ve heard when debating with atheists is the “talking snake” line, i.e. "If you believe in an omnipotent, loving God, you have to by default believe in talking snakes too. " As in the talking snake from the Adam & Eve fable. There are variations, but the basic argument remains the same.
Actually I can accept the talking donkey better than the talking snake. The reason is that God created the snake with everything else in the Garden of Eden; the snake is an animal; the snake being an animal cannot sin and is inherently good like all God’s creation that does not have free will. God berating the snake and telling it that it will crawl on its belly etc therefore doesn’t make sense except as parable or allegory. Snakes are not bad and cannot be bad, they’re just snakes. And God knows this.Some atheists (myself included) sense at least a portion of believers are embarrassed by these items. They try to distance themselves from the talking snake/bush/donkey by claiming some or all of them are mere allegory, as if they’d rather not have to deal with those items being in the Bible. It’s a retreat position that’s done to almost bury the idea that this tome of tomes tries but doesn’t rise to the level of Aesop’s Fables.
Angels can appear as humans so I think it possible that the devil may have appeared as a snake without possessing one. You are right that in that scenario the punishment does not make sense.Actually I can accept the talking donkey better than the talking snake. The reason is that God created the snake with everything else in the Garden of Eden; the snake is an animal; the snake being an animal cannot sin and is inherently good like all God’s creation that does not have free will. God berating the snake and telling it that it will crawl on its belly etc therefore doesn’t make sense except as parable or allegory. Snakes are not bad and cannot be bad, they’re just snakes. And God knows this.
It’s pretty obvious this snake is either symbolizing the devil or is possessed by the devil. If the devil is involved, the snake could literally talk, but it doesn’t have to; the devil could be causing Eve to have evil thoughts (perhaps while looking at the snake ) without the snake having to say words. Any of us who have ever had an evil thought knows this is true. Eve blaming the snake is the equivalent of “The devil made me do it.”