Richard Dawkins and The Ignorance of The New Atheism

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

One can learn a lot from Aesop's fables

Which is my point. There is a lesson, moral, theme to each fable. It is no harder to identify the theme, moral, lesson in a Bible story. So why get tangled up in things like, "Snakes don't talk." No they don't. So move on. What lesson is being taught?

That some things can't be taken literally.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Agreed. Perhaps the bible was written specifically for children.

More likely, it was written for all ages. Different insights were picked up by different age groups...just like they are today. Cartoons are a great example of this. Children miss some of the points that adults get.

A fascinating, yet completely uncompeling example.

 

[Meriweather]

That some things can't be taken literally.

Not a difficult concept to grasp, is it? Often the non-literal is used to present a vivid picture of the point the author was illuminating for his intended audience.

 

[Meriweather]

A fascinating, yet completely uncompeling example.

Facts stand on their own, so there is no need to be compelling.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Are you comparing fables to parables written about the "infallible word"?

Absolutely. He was a BC storyteller, and of course the stories of the Old Testament are also BC. Keep in mind most heard them, they didn't read them.

The creed says man is not infallible. Therefore, you're creating a false equivalency by comparing the 'Divinely Inspired' bible with Aesop.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

That some things can't be taken literally.

Not a difficult concept to grasp, is it? Often the non-literal is used to present a vivid picture of the point the author was illuminating for his intended audience.

Yeah. It's called magic.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

A fascinating, yet completely uncompeling example.

Facts stand on their own, so there is no need to be compelling.

Pretty much my point.

 

[Meriweather]

The creed says man is not infallible. Therefore, you're creating a false equivalency by comparing the 'Divinely Inspired' bible with Aesop.

The Bible can be compared to many types of literature. It was written by man, not by God. Like any author, the person writing the story is going to use techniques already proven to grab the attention of the audience. My equivalency is true.

 

[Meriweather]

Yeah. It's called magic.

Yeah, in English class we use the terms metaphor or allegory. Magic has a different connotation, well presented in the Harry Potter series.

 

[Meriweather]

Pretty much my point.

Then why do you seem to have so much trouble with the Bible? The Bible was written by man. Fact.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Pretty much my point.

Then why do you seem to have so much trouble with the Bible? The Bible was written by man. Fact.

I don't have any trouble with the bible. You're speaking in a circular pattern. I already mentioned the Divinely inspired men that wrote it. Maybe saying it a third time is the charm, who knows. You want to equivalate fables to parables to learn a lesson? Go crazy. Lessons can be learned reading The lliad, Moby Dick and Atlas Shrugged as well. All pieces of fiction jam packed with them.

The bible is allegedly the infallible, documented Word, so any equivalency to works of fiction seems blasphemous to the narrative of the creed to me. But that's 'your cross to bear', I suppose.

 

[ding]

is a response to your militant atheist attempt to subordinate religion and faith in God

Yes ding, i literally just said that. Thank you for repeating my point back to me. Of course, since you are a drama queen, you turned "criticism" into "subversion" and "militancy" (embarrassing to watch). But it's just criticism. And the only reason you get in a rabid tizzy is because it speaks to YOUR preferred fetishes. And the only reason you hissy throwers think you deserve more consideration that someone who claims their houseplants talk to them is because your preferred fetishes are much more popular.

If Dawkins were criticizing faith in Greek mythology, nobody would bat an eye, including you. Criticize the gross Abrahamic god character and the childish faith in it, and a bunch of blubbering, angry dicks will call you a subversive militant on the internet.

Again, thanks for repeating my points back to me while also demonstrating them perfectly with your behavior. You are a fine assistant.

No. That's not really what you said. You have a terrible habit of parsing posts. It's dishonest.

You condemn respect for people of faith and that's why you are opposed. You don't want to have an honest debate. You want to insult people. I think the worst thing is that you are dishonest about your desire to insult people.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Yeah. It's called magic.

Yeah, in English class we use the terms metaphor or allegory. Magic has a different connotation, well presented in the Harry Potter series.

I don't see any chasm of difference.

 

[Sunsettommy]

QUOTE="DudleySmith, post: 26797274, member: 77056"]

LOL

I always find it amusing when Christians can't answer my simple questions about large errors in the bible.

Carry on with the bogus attack on Richard Dawkins if that will make you feel better.

What large errors? And, Dawkins thinks pedophilia is okay, another sign he's mentally ill.
[/QUOTE]

I never care about Dawkins who has better things to do than be hostile to the 1st amendment.

Here are some obvious errors and nonsense:

Genesis

God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). 1:3-5

God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament. This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. This firmament, if it existed, would have been quite an obstacle to our space program. 1:6-8

Cain is worried after killing Abel and says, "Every one who finds me shall slay me." This is a strange concern since there were only two other humans alive at the time -- his parents! 4:14

Numbers

The Israelite population went from seventy (Ex.1:5) to several million (over 600,000 adult males) in just a few generations! 1:45-46

Judges

Every male Midianite was killed during the time of Moses (Num.31:7), and yet just a few years later they flourish like grasshoppers "without number." 6:1-6

Matthew

There are 29 generations listed from David to Jesus in Matthew's genealogy, while Luke's (3:23-31) has 43. Except for David at one end and Jesus at the other, there are only three names in the two lists that are the same. 1:6-16

Luke

In Luke's gospel, God addresses Jesus directly saying, "Thou art my beloved son." But Matthew (3:17) has God speak to those witnessing Jesus' baptism, by saying: "This is my beloved son." Whatever the exact wording, it is strange that after witnessing this even, John the Baptist is still unsure about Jesus (Mt.11:2-3, Lk.7:19). 3:22

======

There are hundreds more.......

 

[Meriweather]

The bible is allegedly the infallible, documented Word, so any equivalency to works of fiction seems blasphemous to the narrative of the creed to me. But that's 'your cross to bear', I suppose.

Actually, it appears to be your cross to bear. I have no problem with "fiction" in Biblical works. One great example is that it was not King David who slew Goliath. Throughout the Bible, facts were often changed to portray the lesson. I haven't a clue why that bothers some or why they think it some huge surprise when someone opens it for discussion. None of these change the theme or lessons in these stories and accounts. The Bible can easily be accepted as written. It is a great work of art, philosophy....and truth.

 

[Meriweather]

I don't see any chasm of difference.

Magic is invisible force. Allegory and metaphor are descriptions using figurative language. (This concludes today's lesson in grammar. )

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Throughout the Bible, facts were often changed to portray the lesson. I haven't a clue why that bothers some or why they think it some huge surprise when someone opens it for discussion.

Because some see no value or good reason to patronize such a dialogue?

 

[Meriweather]

Because some see no value or good reason to patronize such a dialogue?

Why not? First, it is not people of faith who open the dialogue on such things. Most are immersed more deeply in their faith studies and brush away distractions from atheists.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

I don't see any chasm of difference.

Magic is invisible force. Allegory and metaphor are descriptions using figurative language. (This concludes today's lesson in grammar. )

No lesson required, quite aware of both concepts. As to their application in this conversation? Practically interchangeable.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Because some see no value or good reason to patronize such a dialogue?

Why not? First, it is not people of faith who open the dialogue on such things. Most are immersed more deeply in their faith studies and brush away distractions from atheists.

Okay.