[Serious] Literal and Not Literal

[Acrobat]

No, it seems you don't know how this works. I'm not making a claim as confident as yours. In fact, I'm agnostic about this matter we're debating. You're the one making the confident claim. Hence, you alone bear the burden of proof.

Dishonest much?

You're making a variety of claims. Just because you're not confident about the veracity of the claims you make, doesn't mean you don't have a burden of proof as well. Just because you weakly believe 9/11 was inside job, doesn't mean you can skirt your responsibility to support it. You accuse the basis of my conclusions as being insufficient, while not offering anything even remotely compelling to strengthen those half hearted claims you've made, or negate the ones I have.


Here's another claim of yours:

Back then, it was far easier for people to believe this stuff than to naturally doubt.

Where's the support for this claim? When did we acquire this "natural doubt"? Doesn't it seem a little weird to refer to it as "natural doubt" , when you accuse people back then of not possessing it? If it's a more recent phenomena wouldn't it be an artificial doubt, a product of particular cultural phenomena of our age?

I indicated a variety of such doubts that I would have if I was reading the story literally, what causes me to have such doubts, but some ancient version of me not to possess them?

The Bible is a dialogue between subsequent generations of writers and their community, it posses all sorts of doubts, questioning the silence and absence of God, the nature of suffering, Jobs rejection of prevalent views of theodicies, Doubting Thomas, the followers of Jesus disillusionment following his crucifixion, Christ in his last words on the cross, asking why he has been forsaken?

So excuse me if I'm not inclined to accept your claim that people back then would lack the sort of doubts I would.

Let me guess, this is one of these claims, you're weakly making, and not with any confidence on your part, therefore you don't have to support it, or meet the burden of proof?