(November 8, 2017 at 10:53 am)alpha male Wrote: Because the Bible's treatment of the topic is the issue at hand. Whether the bible is demonstrably true or not is irrelevant for purposes of such a discussion. It's fine as a topic of its own, but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Suppose you're in a literature class and discussing The Scarlet Letter. It doesn't matter whether Hester Prynne existed or not. If you were assigned a paper on the themes in the book and wrote There's no evidence Hester Prynne existed, so there's no point in addressing the themes, you'd fail.
Or, as noted, when an atheist makes a post alleging a problem with the Bible, other atheists don't jump down his throat demanding evidence for the Bible. That typically happens when the atheist starts losing to Christians.
*Bold mine
I think the two circumstances are different, with a literature class with a book of fiction everyone involved is agreeing to view it as though the characters and situation were real, in a discussion on a forum like this when an atheist asks a theist 'why did god....'' there is and understanding that for the atheist the character in questions is fictional, while to the theist real.
I think it's fair for a theist to answer from the bible, that being their main source of knowledge but it is also reasonable for the atheist to question why the theist believes or finds compelling any source of information the believer replies with. I think a certain amount of give and take in such circumstances is probably best.
'Those who ask a lot of questions may seem stupid, but those who don't ask questions stay stupid'
