Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Obviously, to even dispute that it doesn't have separate books inside is to never have opened a Bible.
However, your claim that many of them are not narratives is interesting. Go on?
You're started a thread to ask atheists how effective they think the bible is, but have no criteria to measure our answers against?
"Herodotus story was intended to convert people, then it wasn't effective. "
So we can say the same for the bible then since the majority of people are not Christians.
"If it was intended to record the history of the event across time, then it was."
Another fail for the bible then, as much of it clearly does not describe actual events.
“The point of the thread is effectiveness not accuracy.”
If a thread can be effective by any criteria, then why is accuracy not permitted?
If you think narrative is ineffective on the basis that it can lose accuracy, that's fine, present that argument. In fact, when my professor was talking to us about the use of narrative to teach things at NASA or the military, I asked a similar question: how can it teach you anything when it loses accuracy to keep things interesting. We even touched on stories from an evolutionary perspective, and the claim that myths and legends provided humans with an evolutionary advantage by spreading knowledge; how can they be advantageous if most of these stories are inaccurate.
Those are not the questions I'm seeing on here. What I see is people putting the argument in my mouth that if narrative is good, and the bible is a narrative, then God exists.
The question of utility vs accuracy is an interesting one everywhere we look. Children learn language despite parents speaking to them in baby talk for example. There's utility in the simplicity of baby talk, even if it's mostly inaccurate and cartoonish.
What objective evidence do you have that a god exist.
Just because the Bible was written as a narrative, doesn't prove that a god is real.
It's almost as if atheists care more about the veracity of the bible's claims that how effectively it communicates its message. Though by your own admission you have no criteria here for measuring its efficacy.
" There's utility in the simplicity of baby talk, even if it's mostly inaccurate and cartoonish."
Though of course parents don't possess limitless knowledge and power, I can never understand why theists think these kind of analogies can ignore this obvious fact. This is the problem you have ignored from the start John, the efficacy of a message from a deity with limitless power, and knowledge, necessarily must surpass that of all human messages, and methods, in a way that whilst hard to imagine would be recognised if we saw it, and the bible, like all religious books, does not do this at all. A clear and compelling indication its origins are entirely human.
It cannot surpass human intelligence in its interactions with us. Try having these conversations with a child without dumbing it down. I would argue that if God created us, then he's the best psychologist around. Delivering a message through a story, that can be understood and retold over and over, by the brightest minds or the youngest of children, is rather brilliant.
If the bible was effective there would be less atheists and a lot more christians.
You can babble about children's books, but I am talking real world results.
It's actual success could as easily be a measure of human gullibility and their superstitious nature as the efficacy of the book itself.
I don't think those numbers matter, since calling yourself christian or atheist doesn't save anybody. That said, how many more Christians do you want lol. I'm pretty sure it's the largest religious group on the planet, rivaled only by other religions that used narrative.
"pretty sure it's the largest religious group on the planet,"
How many agree on what that bible wants / says? In terms of the bibles efficacy, numbers of Christians are meaningless, unless they all agree on what it says.
" rivaled only by other religions that used narrative."
A commonly used human from of communication, a rather compelling reason to indicate they're all human in origin.
"It cannot surpass human intelligence "
Good to know but I said "the efficacy of a message from a deity with limitless power, and knowledge, necessarily must surpass that of all human messages," Did you misread that deliberately?
"Try having these conversations with a child without dumbing it down. "
Again, you're comparing a human's ability to communicate with a deity that supposedly has limitless power and knowledge, it's nonsensical for the reasons already offered.
"Delivering a message through a story, that can be understood and retold over and over, by the brightest minds or the youngest of children, is rather brilliant."
For a human yes, but not for a deity with.....fuck I'm tired of typing this John, and you ignoring it, is it deliberate? Besides it's risible to claim the bible is understood by everyone, no one can agree what it means, they couldn't even agree what should go in and what be left out other in an arbitrary way. It is laughably wrong, contradictory, ambiguous, and contains morals that would make Hitler blush. It;s a very poor message if its purpose is to convince us it is divine in origin, and again it reads exactly as if primitive and ignorant humans created different stories and these were later cobbled together.
As I said earlier, why couldn't a deity with limitless power create a bible or a Koran that was indestructible? Then make every copy that was accurately made indestructible, with morals when read that every human would go wow that's brilliant, and that never date at all.
We have a bible with a creation myth that couldn't even get the basic chronology right, or the fact of species evolution ffs.
According to the Bible, god only created Adam and Eve. So what evidence do you have that you got here outside of your parents having sex?
You say the bible cannot surpass human intelligence in its interactions with us. That doesn't explain why we know the god of the bible to be flawed in its knowledge of the world it allegedly created, and know that its book was written by authors of confusion.
I don't need to present a counterargument, as I consider your questions irrelevant to proving the validity of religions and gods, even without the fact that I don't recognize the bible as having a narrative format.
See, there it is again.
No, that's not the case. My contention is that there is no reason to suppose that a text having a narrative format has any positive or negative value to a religion or a god...which was your question. This was why I asked you to show how the specific format of a work has any relevancy to the truthfulness of religion and the intent of the gods. Or whatever your criteria of effectiveness actually is, which I don't believe you've actually revealed yet.
So then you just answered my OP: you don't see any "reason to suppose that a text having a narrative format has any positive or negative value to a religion or a god."
What more do you want? Cause that's all I wanted.
It is clear from your subsequent posts in the thread that you also wanted us to accept your view that the bible is clearly a narrative, without you actually offering any proof. Obviously, if that is not true, your questions are irrelevant.
And again, the format being of any relevance to your question depends on your criteria of what you consider effectiveness.
I don't personally care to make anyone accept the view that the bible is a narrative, anymore than I care to convince anyone that Cinderella is a story. My post presupposes that people already know this. If you disagree then formulate your argument, gather your references, and present them.
Most people believe the Moon exists because they have the evidence of their senses, even though the Moon is not especially remarkable.
How does this compare to the number of people who believe in an omnipotent and omnipresent god that they have not observed a single unique identifying property of? In such terms, the fact that every sentient being does not believe is quite a damning indictment about the effectiveness of the religious texts of such a god, regardless of format.
Why couldn't a deity with limitless knowledge get basic facts correct about the chronology in which our universe and world were formed?
If that same deity is communicating a message why aren't the morals all perfect and therefore unable to become obsolete after just a few hundred years of human societal evolution?
If that same deity has limitless power, why can't it create a bible that was indestructible, then only allow copies that were 100% accurate and which also became indestructible?
Compare evidence of that nature that the message came from an omniscient omnipotent deity, with the bible we have filled with talking snakes and magic apples. Fictitious global flood myths, and men living for months inside living whales.
I'm not sure what 6 pages of "the bible is a narrative" is telling us that these simple facts don't.
Could a deity with limitless knowledge and power do better than the bible?
A reasonably literate high school student, with access to the internet could ffs...
Assuming for the sake of argument the best way to communicate a message is narrative. This doesn't explain why the bible is wrong, or why what narrative it possesses is not as good as examples we know are entirely human in origin. Does anyone think the bible narratives are better than A tale of Two Cities, Les Miserables, or The Adventures of Tom Sawyer for example?
An omniscient deity that can't create a better "narrative" than the fallible evolved primates it is supposed to have created.
And I am going to add to Sheldon's wonderful treatise above. Read the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever. All ten books. Stephen R. Donaldson is a wonderful master of "narrative." And he puts your pathetic Bible to shame.