Don't worry Emanuel, we all know that these fantasy stories are simply echoes of the Truth. Except in those cases where Satan has created fabrications in advance.

If you want to educate yourself on why the Bible is not a work of historical non-fiction, then jump into an Exodus thread, or google it.

The hypothesis they made was the "goddidit" hypothesis. Where are we from, why are we here, why must we suffer, why do we die. GODDIDIT!

I want to make something very clear to you, no one here has any obligation whatsoever to prove that any part of the bible is fiction to you. If someone picks up a book, and says "this is a book" that's the end of it isn't it. Nothing more need be said. It is incumbent upon you, as a believer, who maintains that theses things actually happened, to show that they did. I'm only stating the obvious; that it is a story. No part of my outlook of life, or anything, hinges on whether or not this story is factually accurate, I make no claims that it is anything more than a story. That's your baby. This is called the burden of proof. What you are doing is called shifting the burden of proof. Almost as a rule, before a believer decides to engage in a debate about their beliefs, they have learned to do this. It is dishonest, and I treat anyone who does this the same way I treat slimy used car salesmen, or con-men of any kind.

"Is it rock?"-Geode

What is the point of science? Rock.

What is the point of existence? Rock.

What defeats scissors without fail? Rock.

The bible does not compare to most other works of fiction... to attempt to do so is to do a disservice to...

The Rock.

As a former wrestling nut, I won't have people doing a disservice to The Rock.

Honestly Emanuel, just this afternoon I thought of a couple of other things. The list of ways that the Bible is comparable to fantasy writing is as long as my leg. As Rhythm points out, to show that they are MORE than this, you're going to need some pretty hard evidence. Nothing over the last two thousand years has been terribly convincing, but best of luck.

(August 2, 2011 at 6:07 am)ElDinero Wrote:

---

So basically, Rhythm is defining fantasy as anything not proven to be real, and you're being a bit more stringent in your (valid) definition, saying that it is a specific genre of literature. Both right.

Now even though it was written by multiple authors over centuries, that doesn't make it any less a fantasy. I think the Old English fantasy poem Beowulf is thought to have multiple authors and have been written over about three centuries, if I remember correctly. So while it is different in that respect to something like LotR, the difference doesn't take it out of the realm of fantasy. If you're looking for specific examples of things in the Bible that would qualify as fantasy writing, I think I can oblige through a reasonable knowledge of the Bible and a good knowledge of Tolkien's works:

1. Nature being conscious
2. Talking animals
3. Spirits/demons (In the Tolkien universe, Morgoth is essentially Satan)
4. Miracles
5. Gods intervening in human affairs (Gandalf is actually a demi-God of sorts whose purpose is to lead Men to victory over Sauron)
6. Resurrection
7. A flood washing away the impure people (Tolkien sinks the island of Numenor after the people attempt to reach the Undying Lands)
8. Fulfillment of prophecy (Aragorn, also see Darth Vader and Harry Potter)

I could go on and on, honestly. Some fantasy works, like the Chronicles of Narnia, are direct allegory to the Bible, with Aslan replacing Jesus, so it really isn't hard to make comparisons. All of the above are common elements of many fantasy works, from Harry Potter to Pirates of the Caribbean to Star Wars.

To the original question posed, I will flippantly add that most fantasy books have a protagonist that is likeable.

---

I love your style; you seem like a fair minded person. I do take issue with one line of reasoning I believe you are using here though. Are you suggesting that because there are fantasy books that have similarities with the Bible that this means the Bible is also fantasy?

(August 2, 2011 at 11:32 am)Rhythm Wrote:

---

Don't worry Emanuel, we all know that these fantasy stories are simply echoes of the Truth. Except in those cases where Satan has created fabrications in advance.

If you want to educate yourself on why the Bible is not a work of historical non-fiction, then jump into an Exodus thread, or google it.

The hypothesis they made was the "goddidit" hypothesis. Where are we from, why are we here, why must we suffer, why do we die. GODDIDIT!

I want to make something very clear to you, no one here has any obligation whatsoever to prove that any part of the bible is fiction to you. If someone picks up a book, and says "this is a book" that's the end of it isn't it. Nothing more need be said. It is incumbent upon you, as a believer, who maintains that theses things actually happened, to show that they did. I'm only stating the obvious; that it is a story. No part of my outlook of life, or anything, hinges on whether or not this story is factually accurate, I make no claims that it is anything more than a story. That's your baby. This is called the burden of proof. What you are doing is called shifting the burden of proof. Almost as a rule, before a believer decides to engage in a debate about their beliefs, they have learned to do this. It is dishonest, and I treat anyone who does this the same way I treat slimy used car salesmen, or con-men of any kind.

---

On the contrary, all you have done here is engage in intellectual laziness. You just simply do not understand how the burden of proof works here; you are claiming the Bible is a work of fiction, something completely contrary to what it claims to be. Since you are the one not taking the Bible at its own word you are the one who has to justify this. The burden of proof falls equally on both sides once people take a position. You took the position it was fantasy, Emmanuel took the position it was what it says it is.

(August 1, 2011 at 9:23 pm)Ziggystardust Wrote:

(August 1, 2011 at 6:43 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: There are thousands of things science cannot explain!

I agree with you that science has not explained a lot of things yet, however how is goddit is any better of an explanation?

I think it is more complex than just saying “God did it”, but there are certain truths that cannot be explained by purely natural occurrences and I believe require the God of the Bible. Ruling out certain explanations before you have even looked at the problem seems to me ridiculous (Naturalism), it would be like saying, “Before I solve this physics problem I am prohibiting the use of odd numbers.”

---

(August 2, 2011 at 12:58 pm)ElDinero Wrote: As a former wrestling nut, I won't have people doing a disservice to The Rock.

Honestly Emanuel, just this afternoon I thought of a couple of other things. The list of ways that the Bible is comparable to fantasy writing is as long as my leg. As Rhythm points out, to show that they are MORE than this, you're going to need some pretty hard evidence. Nothing over the last two thousand years has been terribly convincing, but best of luck.

Well just not terribly convincing to you right? They have been convincing to atheists who have converted right?

(August 2, 2011 at 2:44 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I love your style; you seem like a fair minded person. I do take issue with one line of reasoning I believe you are using here though. Are you suggesting that because there are fantasy books that have similarities with the Bible that this means the Bible is also fantasy?

(August 2, 2011 at 12:58 pm)ElDinero Wrote: As a former wrestling nut, I won't have people doing a disservice to The Rock.

Honestly Emanuel, just this afternoon I thought of a couple of other things. The list of ways that the Bible is comparable to fantasy writing is as long as my leg. As Rhythm points out, to show that they are MORE than this, you're going to need some pretty hard evidence. Nothing over the last two thousand years has been terribly convincing, but best of luck.

Well just not terribly convincing to you right? They have been convincing to atheists who have converted right?

Firstly, thanks. I try to be fair minded, but I have a low threshold for bullshit also.

That's not exactly what I was saying. However, one thing that fantasy writing must have by definition is at least one thing that is 'fantastic', or in other words, something that differs from the natural order of the world we live, whether it's flying broomsticks, talking trees, lightspeed travel or whatever. The Bible has this sort of stuff in abundance. So yeah, talk of the flood, burning bush, parting of the seas and so on place it firmly in the realm of fantasy, because we know that all of those things are impossible.

Now, if you're going to claim such events could or did happen, which would then disqualify them from being called fantasy, we'll need some evidence, which leads onto your second thing. My use of the word convincing was probably a little vague. What I should have said is that none of the evidence provided over the last two thousand years has been scientifically verified, and the majority of claims made to support biblical events have been refuted conclusively by professionals. You can, of course, convince people of things without evidence, if they don't have the means or will to investigate the claims/think critically, and if the person or people doing the convincing are clever and eloquent enough.

(August 2, 2011 at 2:44 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: On the contrary, all you have done here is engage in intellectual laziness. You just simply do not understand how the burden of proof works here; you are claiming the Bible is a work of fiction, something completely contrary to what it claims to be. Since you are the one not taking the Bible at its own word you are the one who has to justify this. The burden of proof falls equally on both sides once people take a position. You took the position it was fantasy, Emmanuel took the position it was what it says it is.


I think it is more complex than just saying “God did it”, but there are certain truths that cannot be explained by purely natural occurrences and I believe require the God of the Bible. Ruling out certain explanations before you have even looked at the problem seems to me ridiculous (Naturalism), it would be like saying, “Before I solve this physics problem I am prohibiting the use of odd numbers.”

(I'm well aware that you would like the burden of proof to work differently with regards to your beliefs....however)

Lets follow the chain of claims in your own sentence:
Bible claims to be fact
Rhythm says prove it.
Bible thumper says bible doesn't have to prove anything.

Your a midget.

Now show me things which require god, point to them. Or are you engaging in fantasy.....again.

I didn't write your religious book, I'm not responsible for the workings of the world. If it bothers you, go out and educate yourself. There is Christianity beyond the literal. That you cannot engage in a conversation based on evidence could be said to be twofold. Firstly, you have no evidence, secondly, your religious beliefs elevate ignorance to a virtue, and so there is a very real incentive for you to avoid even looking, or at the very least to hand-wave the whole thing away and say "faith alone".

This worldview belongs in a dark cave, nowhere near where my children, or anyone for that matter, will have to grow up and live. This type of position takes the exclusionary principle so far that it becomes inclusionary. Everything that doesn't agree with it is wrong, or evil, or valueless. So we have an endless parade of people making their way to the forums who cannot discern the difference between things like science and atheism. They want to argue that anything other than their world view is evil, and all evil is the product of that which is outside of their worldview. It's pathetic. To top it off, we have people like you, who come in with "supporting arguments" that just feed the flames of pessimism amongst a certain subset that believes we're doomed for different reasons. The entirety of the human experience turned into one massive, mouth-breathing joke. Fuck anyone who defends this type reasoning, and fuck the horse they rode in under, no matter what deity they chose to name it after.

(edited for clarity)

Quote:It is not used to discern truth though deduction, that's the job of logic.

Except when logic, as wielded by bible nuts, begins with a premise that "goddidit" without any demonstration that your god ( or any god) exists in the first place then you can toss "logic" out the window.

Which brings us back to boring old science with its observations and hypotheses and even more boring old evidence.

Listening to morons discuss which pile of holy trash smells better may be entertaining to theists but I have better things to do.

(August 2, 2011 at 3:26 pm)ElDinero Wrote:

---

(August 2, 2011 at 2:44 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I love your style; you seem like a fair minded person. I do take issue with one line of reasoning I believe you are using here though. Are you suggesting that because there are fantasy books that have similarities with the Bible that this means the Bible is also fantasy?

(August 2, 2011 at 12:58 pm)ElDinero Wrote: As a former wrestling nut, I won't have people doing a disservice to The Rock.

Honestly Emanuel, just this afternoon I thought of a couple of other things. The list of ways that the Bible is comparable to fantasy writing is as long as my leg. As Rhythm points out, to show that they are MORE than this, you're going to need some pretty hard evidence. Nothing over the last two thousand years has been terribly convincing, but best of luck.

Well just not terribly convincing to you right? They have been convincing to atheists who have converted right?

Firstly, thanks. I try to be fair minded, but I have a low threshold for bullshit also.

That's not exactly what I was saying. However, one thing that fantasy writing must have by definition is at least one thing that is 'fantastic', or in other words, something that differs from the natural order of the world we live, whether it's flying broomsticks, talking trees, lightspeed travel or whatever. The Bible has this sort of stuff in abundance. So yeah, talk of the flood, burning bush, parting of the seas and so on place it firmly in the realm of fantasy, because we know that all of those things are impossible.

Now, if you're going to claim such events could or did happen, which would then disqualify them from being called fantasy, we'll need some evidence, which leads onto your second thing. My use of the word convincing was probably a little vague. What I should have said is that none of the evidence provided over the last two thousand years has been scientifically verified, and the majority of claims made to support biblical events have been refuted conclusively by professionals. You can, of course, convince people of things without evidence, if they don't have the means or will to investigate the claims/think critically, and if the person or people doing the convincing are clever and eloquent enough.

---

Just out of curiosity, how would you even attempt to scientifically verify or falsify that a burning bush spoke to Moses 3,500 years ago? Seems to me that you are asking for a bit much there, not all claims are verified scientifically, particularly those that are said to be miraculous and by nature defy scientific observations. I believe the accounts in the Bible because it is God's revealed nature and God does not lie. Interesting conversation though.

(August 2, 2011 at 4:59 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Just out of curiosity, how would you even attempt to scientifically verify or falsify that a burning bush spoke to Moses 3,500 years ago? Seems to me that you are asking for a bit much there, not all claims are verified scientifically, particularly those that are said to be miraculous and by nature defy scientific observations. I believe the accounts in the Bible because it is God's revealed nature and God does not lie. Interesting conversation though.

Seems you answered your own question, didn't you. When something would defy scientific observations, science has weighed in on that something. Guess science has already tested the veracity of your burning bush after all, hasn't it.
Next

(August 2, 2011 at 4:59 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Just out of curiosity, how would you even attempt to scientifically verify or falsify that a burning bush spoke to Moses 3,500 years ago? Seems to me that you are asking for a bit much there, not all claims are verified scientifically, particularly those that are said to be miraculous and by nature defy scientific observations. I believe the accounts in the Bible because it is God's revealed nature and God does not lie. Interesting conversation though.

With great difficulty, even at the time. Now, almost impossible. However, to claim that it DID happen still requires evidence. If that means we have to leave that particular example, then we do. The fact that it hasn't once happened since the time that reliable records have been kept (and didn't happen in a place at that time where records were already kept, such as China) is very suspicious though. I'm happy to say that I cannot outright disprove that a bush caught fire and spoke once, but since it contradicts everything we know about what things do (humans) and do not (everything else) talk, as well as the conditions required for things to catch fire, I don't feel like I need to speak further on it.

However, with reference to something like a huge flood said to have taken place circa 6000 years ago, there would be enormous amounts of evidence for something like that. And any claim to evidence that has been made has been refuted, and unlike the burning bush, we can indeed disprove it utterly, by looking at layers of sediment, carbon dating of materials, argon-potassium dating, distribution of animals and so on.

You're a nice guy SW, and I'm enjoying this conversation, but your last bit there worries me and is going to take this thread off topic if we continue. Always ask 'why?'. Why do you believe the accounts are God's revealed nature? Why do you believe he does not lie? So many things from the Bible have been proven inaccurate already, he's either lying or, at best, being misrepresented.