God is not (so bad after all)

[MorpheusSandman]

MorpheusSandman, you are delusional. You don't have the power to forgive any thing, or any one, not even yourself. May the Grace of God make you aware of this.

The person believing in an invisible man in the sky has no business calling anyone delusional. We as human beings forgive other human beings all the time, so I'm pretty sure we do have that power.

Rationalist atheists will always be a minority of all atheists, so you can only ever be disappointed if you think like that.

I know they're in the minority, but me holding atheists to a higher standard doesn't mean I actually expect most of them (even those that write about it philosophically) to reach it. Hell, I know I still have a lot to work on when it comes to myself. What I'm talking about, though, is along the lines of this and this (I think Luke from the latter site gets it right in his tagline: "Atheism is just the beginning; now it's time to solve the harder questions.").

The fact of "rejecting" god disturbs me as well. What is there to reject?

I meant "rejecting the God hypothesis," the same way one would "reject Intelligent Design" or "flat-Earth theory."

When I realised that atheism simply means: a=without, theos=god.

Ok, but what does a definition have to do with standards? We may call Hitler inhuman because of his actions, but we don't mean that he literally wasn't from the species known as homo sapiens, we merely mean he did a lot of terrible things that are way below the standard that we hold other humans to. Similarly, I have no problem saying Mr. Idiot is an atheist if he doesn't believe in God but has a billion delusions the same as any theist does, but that doesn't mean I have to respect/care about his thoughts on the matter.

I don't think Hitch qualifies in any way.

And I think he qualifies in every way. How was Hitch NOT "addressing and responding to the problems of his society... and (engaging) with the global issues of truth, judgment, and taste of the time?" When he's making a living writing and debating about how religion is evil, he's making a living out of addressing and responding to the problems of society and engaging in issues of truth and judgment.

The whole argument here is that Hitch didn't act in an intellectual manner, and that on its own would mean that he wasn't an intellectual. You can't have it both ways.

You actually can have it both ways because there are multiple meanings of the word. One can be in the role of a public intellectual, ie, publishing works/debating on intellectual issues like religion, philosophy, politics, etc. without being all that intellectually formidable. Hitchens was undeniably an "intellectual" in the former sense, and arguably not an intellectual in the latter sense.

Once he was appointed the Simonyi Chair, Dawkins was no longer a scientist, but a true public intellectual - that's what he was being paid for, so opening his mouth without doing the research was unforgivable, but he kept doing it.

Fair enough. I guess I still think of Dawkins as being primarily an evolutionary biologist whom only got into the "intellectual" life after being faced with so much ignorance by the religious concerning evolution. I think that if there wasn't so much opposition to evolution amongst the religious, Dawkins never would've taken on that role to begin with (I could be wrong, but that's my sense).

[Drkshadow03]

Ok, let's assume the temples and palaces existed in the form stated.

Given we know for sure that an extraordinary amount of the OT is pure bunkum - Noah, Moses, Exodus, Lot, Sodom, Jonah, ... it's quite reasonable to look at Kings as just as much myth as the other books. Elisha alone makes a mockery of the historicity (and parable) in Kings, unless you think getting torn to pieces by 42 female bears for calling someone "baldy" is a good thing.

You're attacking an argument I'm not making. Given how much of Kings has been confirmed: personages, certain battles and events, certain building projects, and geographic locations, etc. it's reasonable to assume it has a historical core. However, much like any ancient history the writers and editors interspersed folktales, legends, and myths to the historical material. Elisha and the bears would be an example of a folktale in the Kings Narrative. As a literary object, Kings is a theological history. The reigns of the kings are seen through the eyes of theology and how their reigns turn out based on how well they follow the rules of G-d. So, of course, one needs to be careful not to take everything in the book as literal history, but it definitely can serve as a guidepost.

The rest of your reasoning is fallacious. Just because some parts are obviously mythical or imaginative doesn't mean all the parts are, especially given what we call the OT isn't one unified book, but a collection of different books by different authors.

Then you finish it up with a fallacy of irrelevance/non sequitur: "Elisha alone makes a mockery of the historicity (and parable) in Kings, unless you think getting torn to pieces by 42 female bears for calling someone "baldy" is a good thing." What does my thinking whether it's a "good thing" or not have to do with whether it really happened or not.

Poor reasoning followed by more poor reasoning.

We'll just have to agree to disagree here, because from the iron chariots to Job to Jonah, all I see is contradictory flim-flam. Call it allegory by all means, but I can't accept any kind of claim for accuracy without substantial evidence. That does not - and I'm sure will never - exist.

Well, I think you're confusing the fundamentalist position of "it's all historically true! 100% accurate!" with my position, "large parts of the Bible are myths, folktales, poetry, and rules and regulations governing their society and fiction (by which I mean made-up stories), but certain books seem to be strongly historical with some folktales and myths grafted onto the material and can be useful as historical sources filtered through a critical eye and archaeology, and therefore we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water, and anyone claiming the Bible is 100% fiction is equally full of nonsense and is holding an untenable position."

That fundies are a tiny percentage of christians? You should know better than that.

As to the former, I don't care whether you believe it or not. I know what happened, as I was there at the time.

My doubt was about the latter, not the percentage of evangelicals if that wasn't clear.

[Ecurb]

No, I am not. Calling a product of imagination is not the same as lying. Do you call Herman Meliville a liar?

Well, Mark Twain did say, “Show may a man who don’t lie, and I’ll show you a man who ain’t got much to say.” However, I never said authors of fiction were liars. What I said was that if a critic says the author is writing a work of fiction, while the author SAYS he is writing a work of history, and never intentionally invents imaginary incidents in his book, then the critic is calling the author a liar. However, there are gray areas about the meaning of “fiction”.

Take my Mark Twain quotation as an example. I can’t remember where I first hear the anecdote, but I think it’s a fun quotation; it’s in character (it’s something Mark Twain might have said). I don’t know if Mark Twain said it or not – but I’m not inventing it; it is not a product of my imagination. I’m merely repeating what I’ve heard. If the quotation IS a work of fiction (if it was intentionally invented by some other author), it is at least neither a fiction ON MY PART, nor a lie ON MY PART. I reasonably believe it to be an anecdote that at least could be historically accurate – although, of course, I care less about the historical accuracy of the anecdote than about its merits as a witticism. Doubtless similar reasoning and motives play a role in shaping ancient histories and myths.

There's a basic problem of attributing genre to the Bible in the first place. We can't reliably know what parts of it were written to be taken as fact, like a history, and what parts were meant to be more like parables that demonstrated a kind of moral or larger truth that wasn't based on any presumption of factual events (though there are certainly books that clearly lean towards certain generic categories). At least, by the time the New Testament was written the authors would have had some exposure to genres of biography and history from the Romans, but how much of the Old Testament can be described in terms of a largely Greco-Roman generic tradition.

I agree. In addition, I’m not a biblical scholar. Probably nobody knows exactly what parts of the Bible were intended as history, poetry, fables, etc. However, those who have studied it know far more about it than I do (and probably far more about it than The Atheist does). WE know, for example that Greek and Roman historians often “quoted” speeches they could not have heard. Some ancient historians admitted they were “inventing” the speeches, but were trying to guess approximately what the speaker might have said. Herodotus is known by twin monikers: “The Father of History” and “The Father of Lies”.

"large parts of the Bible are myths, folktales, poetry, and rules and regulations governing their society and fiction (by which I mean made-up stories), but certain books seem to be strongly historical with some folktales and myths grafted onto the material and can be useful as historical sources filtered through a critical eye and archaeology, and therefore we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water, and anyone claiming the Bible is 100% fiction is equally full of nonsense and is holding an untenable position."
.

Bingo! I’d also suggest that oral literature (of whatever genre) evolves organically. In other words, myths differ from fiction in that no SINGLE author invents them out of his imagination (note the word “single”, JCamilo). Instead, stories change over time as the story tellers embellish them to appeal to their audience or combine parts of different stories (often as a tactic to improve their storytelling). I read an analysis of The Iliad once where the author (I forget the reference) demonstrated that the story used many techniques essential to oral literature – many of the descriptive passages (“The wine-dark sea”) are pat, memorized passages that serve as a mnemonic aid to the storyteller. He can repeat them by rote, while he tries to remember where the story goes next. These pat sections differ from "fiction", however, because they are not "invented from the imagination" of the storyteller -- they are memorized as part of the storyteller's repertoire, and often repeated verbatim from earlier versions of the story. OF course story tellers also have to “invent”, because they can’t remember word for word and incident by incident exactly how they originally heard the story. So their stories RESEMBLE fiction in that they include some “invention”, even when the storyteller is attempting to repeat the story as exactly as possible. Therefore, the stories change over time.

[JCamilo]

Well, Mark Twain did say, “Show may a man who don’t lie, and I’ll show you a man who ain’t got much to say.” However, I never said authors of fiction were liars. What I said was that if a critic says the author is writing a work of fiction, while the author SAYS he is writing a work of history, and never intentionally invents imaginary incidents in his book, then the critic is calling the author a liar. However, there are gray areas about the meaning of “fiction”.

Let's not take Mark Twain jests too serious. As you said: You never said authors of fiction were liars. So, why saying the bible can be called fiction would be the same as calling it a lie? Because fiction is not the same as lie. Does not matter if it is a oral tradition product or a modern authorship product.

Bingo! I’d also suggest that oral literature (of whatever genre) evolves organically. In other words, myths differ from fiction in that no SINGLE author invents them out of his imagination (note the word “single”, JCamilo). Instead, stories change over time as the story tellers embellish them to appeal to their audience or combine parts of different stories (often as a tactic to improve their storytelling).

Bingo!. Let's quote myself: So, that is why it is fictional, someone had to invent a garden of eden allegory. It is hilarious, so it is historically incorrect (lets say) that Moses existed, then how there is a Moses history? Obviously if it is not what really happened, someone made it up. If Solomon was a king, but nowhere as rich as suggested, so how those details came to the register? God sent and Angel with the mission to make stories more funny?

Does not matter how much authors you have, what matters is those works are mixed and changed by the imagination of a human, therefore, fits as fiction. You do not have folktales without the creativity of a human, faerie tales, parables, fables, etc. And that it has (or not) historical roots is irrelevant. The piper of hamelin has historical roots.

I read an analysis of The Iliad once where the author (I forget the reference) demonstrated that the story used many techniques essential to oral literature – many of the descriptive passages (“The wine-dark sea”) are pat, memorized passages that serve as a mnemonic aid to the storyteller. He can repeat them by rote, while he tries to remember where the story goes next. These pat sections differ from "fiction", however, because they are not "invented from the imagination" of the storyteller -- they are memorized as part of the storyteller's repertoire, and often repeated verbatim from earlier versions of the story.

You are telling me the "pat" was spontaneous generated by magic? All pats were once invented by a storyteller. They are left as mnemonic (although the improvisation could turn it in the fine-dark sea to help to keep the rythim, in case the storyteller forget it) cues, that people copy, but so are Shakespeare plays and they are of course once the product of someone imagination. Or just because all books are copied verbatim, this does not means the origal was not a product of imagination right? Orality does not change it, you cannot identify the authorship, but in orality still a momment of humam creation and all Iliad is certainly the product of one or more author's imagination.

OF course story tellers also have to “invent”, because they can’t remember word for word and incident by incident exactly how they originally heard the story. So their stories RESEMBLE fiction in that they include some “invention”, even when the storyteller is attempting to repeat the story as exactly as possible. Therefore, the stories change over time.

They do not resemble fiction. This is fiction. It is not fiction, the genre for book shops. It's fiction the production of human invention and creativity. The simple literary form of the bible is a production of human invention and creativity, even if they wanted it to be taken as a historical account (And I mean specific biblical books), just simple as put, they do not see the use of humam imagination as a form of lying. Our historical critery is not the same as their, if a guy exagerates the richness of Solomon, he would not think I am lying, he just think, I am making more interesting something that would be dull and nobody would listen and learn how it was.

[Ecurb]

Let's not take Mark Twain jests too serious. As you said: You never said authors of fiction were liars. So, why saying the bible can be called fiction would be the same as calling it a lie?.

We're simply misunderstanding each other. That's not what I said. I've repeated myself five times, and you seem unable to understand. One more try: if you called a modern work of history a "piece of fiction", you would be insulting the author, claiming that he was a liar in claiming the work was a history, not a piece of fiction. Of course it might be true that some parts of the history had been invented by authors (centries ago) whom the modern author mistakenly believed to be reporting reliable facts instead of inventing them. It's a subtle distinction.

Descriptive passages in The Iliad ("the wine dark sea) may have been invented to enliven the story, or they may have been actual eye-witness descripitons of the sea originally repeated by Odysseus himself. Who knows? It doesn't really matter if we call such passages "fictional" or not. Of course the Bible is the result of "human invention and creativity". So is "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". If we were to call "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" a "work of fiction" we would be impugning Gibbon's claim that it was a work of history. No doubt some bits of the Decline and Fall that were reported by Gibbon as historical facts were actually invented by ancient authors whose reports Gibbon believed. However, in standard English I'd suggest that calling "Decline and Fall" "a work of fiction" would be misleading, inaccurate and insulting to Gibbon. No doubt the Bible is less accurate historically than Decline and Fall, and some of the stories in it can reasonably be called "fictional". Nonetheless the principle remains the same. If (whoever wrote written version of the book of Kings, based on the oral tradition) was attempting (like Gibbon) to write an accurate history, but was misled because earlier contributors to the stories had added "fictional" episodes, how is the author of "Kings" writing a "work of fiction" any more than Gibbon was?

Let's look at the Gospels. Nobody has a perfect memory. None of the stories Jesus is quoted as telling could possibly be exactly accurate, word for word (assuming no divine intervention, of course). Nonetheless, if we imagine that the parables were repeated by early Christians as accurately as possible, and that the authors of the Gospels TRIED to write (as closely as they could) exactly what they believed Jesus said, it would be misleading to call the Gospels "works of fiction". In standard English, calling them "works of fiction' would imply that Matthew, Mark, et. al. had "intentionally invented" episodes, rather than attempting historical accuracy. I make no claims about which version of how the Gospels were written is correct (i have no idea)-- simply that calling the Gospels "fiction" suggests that Matthew et. al. intentionally invented (parts of) them.

[cafolini]

We're simply misunderstanding each other. That's not what I said. I've repeated myself five times, and you seem unable to understand. One more try: if you called a modern work of history a "piece of fiction", you would be insulting the author, claiming that he was a liar in claiming the work was a history, not a piece of fiction. Of course it might be true that some parts of the history had been invented by authors (centries ago) whom the modern author mistakenly believed to be reporting reliable facts instead of inventing them. It's a subtle distinction.

Descriptive passages in The Iliad ("the wine dark sea) may have been invented to enliven the story, or they may have been actual eye-witness descripitons of the sea originally repeated by Odysseus himself. Who knows? It doesn't really matter if we call such passages "fictional" or not. Of course the Bible is the result of "human invention and creativity". So is "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". If we were to call "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" a "work of fiction" we would be impugning Gibbon's claim that it was a work of history. No doubt some bits of the Decline and Fall that were reported by Gibbon as historical facts were actually invented by ancient authors whose reports Gibbon believed. However, in standard English I'd suggest that calling "Decline and Fall" "a work of fiction" would be misleading, inaccurate and insulting to Gibbon. No doubt the Bible is less accurate historically than Decline and Fall, and some of the stories in it can reasonably be called "fictional". Nonetheless the principle remains the same. If (whoever wrote written version of the book of Kings, based on the oral tradition) was attempting (like Gibbon) to write an accurate history, but was misled because earlier contributors to the stories had added "fictional" episodes, how is the author of "Kings" writing a "work of fiction" any more than Gibbon was?

Let's look at the Gospels. Nobody has a perfect memory. None of the stories Jesus is quoted as telling could possibly be exactly accurate, word for word (assuming no divine intervention, of course). Nonetheless, if we imagine that the parables were repeated by early Christians as accurately as possible, and that the authors of the Gospels TRIED to write (as closely as they could) exactly what they believed Jesus said, it would be misleading to call the Gospels "works of fiction". In standard English, calling them "works of fiction' would imply that Matthew, Mark, et. al. had "intentionally invented" episodes, rather than attempting historical accuracy. I make no claims about which version of how the Gospels were written is correct (i have no idea)-- simply that calling the Gospels "fiction" suggests that Matthew et. al. intentionally invented (parts of) them.

Without getting entangled with the motives of the writers, it is pure history. We can learn from it whatever we can. Who really cares whether they saw it as truth or fiction? It is plainly the history of truth and fiction in existential evolution.

[The Atheist]

I know they're in the minority, but me holding atheists to a higher standard doesn't mean I actually expect most of them (even those that write about it philosophically) to reach it. Hell, I know I still have a lot to work on when it comes to myself. What I'm talking about, though, is along the lines of this and this (I think Luke from the latter site gets it right in his tagline: "Atheism is just the beginning; now it's time to solve the harder questions.").

A site which is now defunct, I might add.

The trouble with your goal is that it's very much like Dawkins' awful, failed attempt to label rational atheists as "brights". All it does is court derision.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love it to succeed, but I see no chance of it ever happening. It makes me cringe when some dopey mullet selling crystals for healing claims to be an atheist, but we're stuck with them.

I meant "rejecting the God hypothesis," the same way one would "reject Intelligent Design" or "flat-Earth theory."

That makes a lot better reading.

Ok, but what does a definition have to do with standards? We may call Hitler inhuman because of his actions, but we don't mean that he literally wasn't from the species known as homo sapiens, we merely mean he did a lot of terrible things that are way below the standard that we hold other humans to.

Inhuman is not a simile for non-human, though.

Similarly, I have no problem saying Mr. Idiot is an atheist if he doesn't believe in God but has a billion delusions the same as any theist does, but that doesn't mean I have to respect/care about his thoughts on the matter.

Quite right, but why would you think anyone would automatically have respect for other atheists? I certainly don't - I'm more of an actions speak louder than words guy.

And I think he qualifies in every way. How was Hitch NOT "addressing and responding to the problems of his society... and (engaging) with the global issues of truth, judgment, and taste of the time?" When he's making a living writing and debating about how religion is evil, he's making a living out of addressing and responding to the problems of society and engaging in issues of truth and judgment.

I suppose my line is drawn on whether the writer is appealing to emotion or reason. In Hitch's case, he was never appealing to reason, but to emotion. Based on the "addressing and responding to the problems of his society... and (engaging) with the global issues of truth, judgment, and taste of the time" qualifier, Jenny McArthy is a public intellectual.

I think that if there wasn't so much opposition to evolution amongst the religious, Dawkins never would've taken on that role to begin with (I could be wrong, but that's my sense).

But if you break it down, there is very little opposition to evolution among the religious. It really is only a small group of US-based Southern Baptist/Pentecostal churches that think that way.

Given Dawkins' progression, I don't believe fundies had that much of an affect on him, because they are rare in England.

Given how much of Kings has been confirmed: personages, certain battles and events, certain building projects, and geographic locations, etc. it's reasonable to assume it has a historical core. However, much like any ancient history the writers and editors interspersed folktales, legends, and myths to the historical material. Elisha and the bears would be an example of a folktale in the Kings Narrative. As a literary object, Kings is a theological history. The reigns of the kings are seen through the eyes of theology and how their reigns turn out based on how well they follow the rules of G-d. So, of course, one needs to be careful not to take everything in the book as literal history, but it definitely can serve as a guidepost.

Yep, I did say I'd be happy to consider it a starting point. If I could be bothered, I think it would be interesting to know what the ratio of fact to fantasy is in the bible. My guess would be 10 reality to 90 fantasy.

The rest of your reasoning is fallacious. Just because some parts are obviously mythical or imaginative doesn't mean all the parts are, especially given what we call the OT isn't one unified book, but a collection of different books by different authors.

Unfortunately, we know that every single book is chock-full of utter tripe. I gave one example from Kings that doesn't even work as an allegorical story, it's so hideous, and there are others.

Note that I also didn't say it was all fantasy, just that all parts are questionable. It isn't a fallacy to not trust any information in a book that is known to be almost entirely false or mythological.

Then you finish it up with a fallacy of irrelevance/non sequitur: "Elisha alone makes a mockery of the historicity (and parable) in Kings, unless you think getting torn to pieces by 42 female bears for calling someone "baldy" is a good thing." What does my thinking whether it's a "good thing" or not have to do with whether it really happened or not.

You know it didn't happen - I was giving you a chance to explain how it's even a good parable. Even 3000 years ago, I can't see how that made sense, unless you wanted your kids to have phobias about baldness.

Well, I think you're confusing the fundamentalist position of "it's all historically true! 100% accurate!" with my position, "large parts of the Bible are myths, folktales, poetry, and rules and regulations governing their society and fiction (by which I mean made-up stories), but certain books seem to be strongly historical with some folktales and myths grafted onto the material and can be useful as historical sources filtered through a critical eye and archaeology, and therefore we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water, and anyone claiming the Bible is 100% fiction is equally full of nonsense and is holding an untenable position."

Luckily nobody's claimed it was 100% fantasy, and you're welcome to see it as a worthwhile historical source. You can call it Swiss cheese on chocolate cake for all I care.

I'll just stick with the position that it's overwhelmingly incorrect and/or mythological, and utterly worthless in the 21st century, a position which appears to be held by every recognised university I can find, since no courses outside of theology use it as any form of reference whatsoever*. We had a discussion some time back, and there was exactly one literature university course using the bible - at a US military college.

*Some history courses may use it in passing, but I can't find it in a curriculum anywhere.

In terms of not throwing it out, you're way too late - it's already been thrown out from the non-religious world, and good riddance, as far as I'm concerned. The only suitable place for bibles are churches.

Our historical critery is not the same as their, if a guy exagerates the richness of Solomon, he would not think I am lying, he just think, I am making more interesting something that would be dull and nobody would listen and learn how it was.

Proof it was written by men.

[cafolini]

Proof it was written by men.

No way. LOL

[russellb]

i wouldn't personally... by all accounts your welfare system is **** and all i can say about thalidomide people who are half deaf and totally blind is that they don't know how to fill forms in...as for christopher hitchens like most of us he was an intellectual donkey (i much prefer peter) and obviously his profs weren't impressed either...even i got better than a third...albeit not from the esteemed dreaming spires.

[Drkshadow03]

Yep, I did say I'd be happy to consider it a starting point. If I could be bothered, I think it would be interesting to know what the ratio of fact to fantasy is in the bible. My guess would be 10 reality to 90 fantasy.

[. . .]

Luckily nobody's claimed it was 100% fantasy, and you're welcome to see it as a worthwhile historical source. You can call it Swiss cheese on chocolate cake for all I care.

Except, you know, that is exactly what you claimed!

“I have to disagree with you on the bible as a historical document. . . . I submit that the historicity argument for the bible is entirely false, so please do list any parts that you feel qualify as suitably and genuinely historical. . . . In its place, the bible is as good a book as Hans Andersen's, but it is 100% fiction. There's nothing wrong with fiction, but let's accept that it is fiction and not try to dignify it with fallacies about historical accuracy.

I realize saying something is 100% fiction is not exactly the same as calling something 100% fantasy, but this is why it is hard to take you seriously as an interlocutor. You constantly switch your terms and wiggle your way out of your own fallacies and even just make stuff up.

Unfortunately, we know that every single book is chock-full of utter tripe. I gave one example from Kings that doesn't even work as an allegorical story, it's so hideous, and there are others.

Note that I also didn't say it was all fantasy, just that all parts are questionable. It isn't a fallacy to not trust any information in a book that is known to be almost entirely false or mythological.

I already explained why you’re reasoning was fallacious (it was a fallacy of composition), so no need to reiterate the obvious. Unfortunately, you’re still stuck on repeat and haven’t added anything new to your argument that was already challenged. Yes, there are mythical elements attached to some of the historical elements, but huge portions of Kings have been historically vindicated. No one is claiming the Bible is 100% historically accurate or that every book is of equal historical value.

I'll just stick with the position that it's overwhelmingly incorrect and/or mythological, and utterly worthless in the 21st century, a position which appears to be held by every recognised university I can find, since no courses outside of theology use it as any form of reference whatsoever*. We had a discussion some time back, and there was exactly one literature university course using the bible - at a US military college.

As usual you’re being dishonest and demonstrating your inability to deal with basic facts. I’m assuming you mean the Bible as literature debate. I was the one who responded to you in that thread and listed over 15 colleges that had featured the Bible in a literary course, two of them were Ivy Leagues, if I remember correctly. The academic world is teeming with courses that use the Bible, which are non-theological courses.

[cafolini]

Except, you know, that is exactly what you claimed!

“I have to disagree with you on the bible as a historical document. . . . I submit that the historicity argument for the bible is entirely false, so please do list any parts that you feel qualify as suitably and genuinely historical. . . . In its place, the bible is as good a book as Hans Andersen's, but it is 100% fiction. There's nothing wrong with fiction, but let's accept that it is fiction and not try to dignify it with fallacies about historical accuracy.

I realize saying something is 100% fiction is not exactly the same as calling something 100% fantasy, but this is why it is hard to take you seriously as an interlocutor. You constantly switch your terms and wiggle your way out of your own fallacies and even just make stuff up.



I already explained why you’re reasoning was fallacious (it was a fallacy of composition), so no need to reiterate the obvious. Unfortunately, you’re still stuck on repeat and haven’t added anything new to your argument that was already challenged. Yes, there are mythical elements attached to some of the historical elements, but huge portions of Kings have been historically vindicated. No one is claiming the Bible is 100% historically accurate or that every book is of equal historical value.





As usual you’re being dishonest and demonstrating your inability to deal with basic facts. I’m assuming you mean the Bible as literature debate. I was the one who responded to you in that thread and listed over 15 colleges that had featured the Bible in a literary course, two of them were Ivy Leagues, if I remember correctly. The academic world is teeming with courses that use the Bible, which are non-theological courses.

It would be hard to argue with you about this and what you are saying to atheist. I, however look at all literature as historical, regardless of the author/s intentions or motives. Every thing else is speculative in that area. However, when the bible is taken as the word of God, no one can deny it, regardless of who wrote it. But who could deny that a my toe is the word of God in that regard? Saint Agustin, for example, is very funny in that respect. He said that Joseph had to be virgin because otherwise God would have never given him his mother for a spouse.

[The Atheist]

Except, you know, that is exactly what you claimed!

If you don't understand the difference between fiction - which uses historical points as a basis for a story, as explained by JCamilo - and fantasy, which bears no resemblance whatsoever to reality, then I probably can't help you.

The bible is as much fiction as any Clive Cussler, Dean Koontz or [/insert any other tenth-rate author here] book is, with as much social relevance in the 21st century.

The bits based on fact are only there to give some kind of legitimacy to the parables attached to them.

As usual you’re being dishonest and demonstrating your inability to deal with basic facts. I’m assuming you mean the Bible as literature debate. I was the one who responded to you in that thread and listed over 15 colleges that had featured the Bible in a literary course, two of them were Ivy Leagues, if I remember correctly. The academic world is teeming with courses that use the Bible, which are non-theological courses.

Dishonesty? Basic facts? I said, and since you like quoting me, I'll do the same: "*Some history courses may use it in passing, but I can't find it in a curriculum anywhere."

You found 15 courses? Out of how many thousand courses? 10,000? 20,000? Admittedly I didn't look too hard, but on those numbers, I'll stick with the completely insignificant at this stage, thanks.

As I do recall, the original discussion was about English Literature degree-level courses, and it is factual that that the major non-religious universities around the world do not include the bible in their Eng Lit curriculum.

Maybe you'll believe a christian viewpoint on what's really happening with the bible in 2013:

Sadly, the common assumption that Christians possess an in-depth knowledge of the Bible is wrong.

So, not just academia has given up on the bible, so have everyday christians.

[Drkshadow03]

If you don't understand the difference between fiction - which uses historical points as a basis for a story, as explained by JCamilo - and fantasy, which bears no resemblance whatsoever to reality, then I probably can't help you.

It seems to me in the context you used both the words, "fiction" and "fantasy" you meant: "a made-up event." If you had a specific definition in mind for each term it is your job to define them so as not to cause confusion (this is logic/argumentation 101 stuff). Since I'm fairly confident you used the words to mean the same thing and are just trying to wriggle out of your the intellectual hole of your own making this would also be a wonderful example of why I find you intellectually dishonest.

The bible is as much fiction as any Clive Cussler, Dean Koontz or [/insert any other tenth-rate author here] book is, with as much social relevance in the 21st century.

Repeating the same bad argument five hundred times won't make it true. The Bible is regarded as one of the greatest works of literature, this has already been demonstrated to you in a previous thread. So no need to rehash it here.

You found 15 courses? Out of how many thousand courses? 10,000? 20,000? Admittedly I didn't look too hard, but on those numbers, I'll stick with the completely insignificant at this stage, thanks.

No, I stopped at 15 courses because I got tired and felt that was more than enough to rebut your "evidence" in the Bible as Lit thread. There are plenty of others, plus many universities don't post their course offerings or syllabus on the open web, but often have a private system accessible to students only (hence your 10,000 or 20,000 comment is based on flawed assumptions).

Let's review exactly what happened in that other thread: you claimed that most major universities don't include the bible in their curriculum and you proved this by pointing to FOUR universities (not 15, not 10, not even 5, but just four) that didn't include it. Yet, here you are with your ONLY 15 nonsense. Like I said in the previous thread, two of the colleges I pointed to were Ivy Leagues and some of the others are known for their English departments, so clearly your statement "the major non-religious universities around the world do not include the bible in their Eng Lit curriculum" is false too. But what else is new?

At this point everything that needs to be said has been said. You've been shown to be demonstrably wrong on numerous assertions, haven't really provided much evidence to back-up your assertions, and have resorted to numerous fallacies in your discourse along the way. Not only with me, but pretty much with everyone else too! Last word is yours if you want it.

[The Atheist]

Let's review exactly what happened in that other thread: you claimed that most major universities don't include the bible in their curriculum and you proved this by pointing to FOUR universities (not 15, not 10, not even 5, but just four) that didn't include it. Yet, here you are with your ONLY 15 nonsense. Like I said in the previous thread, two of the colleges I pointed to were Ivy Leagues and some of the others are known for their English departments, so clearly your statement "the major non-religious universities around the world do not include the bible in their Eng Lit curriculum" is false too. But what else is new?

I will spend some time on this later, and rest assured, in the unlikely event I am wrong, I will admit it.



Edit: In fact, having given it a minute's thought, I can't see the point in spending a second of my time doing it, so I'll accept your position that the bible is still relevant in universities. I was wrong.

[cacian]

god made you and so how could he be bad?