Some say I'm interesting.
This is a Haiku.
“I don’t believe in evolution, I accept that it is true.”
“I don’t believe in evolution, I understand why evolution is true.”
New atheists don’t understand what a belief is.
*Explains what “non-fiction” means to atheists claiming the bible ought to be classified as fiction*
what, non fiction is stuff that isn’t made up?
yepp, the bible is fiction
I don’t know the strict definitions are but surely it has to be total and complete fact to be non-fiction? Otherwise it’d just be fiction with some basis in fact….
Yeah, pretty much.
“stuff that isn’t made up” is a terrible definition for non-fiction. So is “it has to be total and complete fact”. Your definitions lead to chucking science, history, biographical, geographical, and language books into the “fiction” pile if they contain factual errors.
Go to your local library and spend a day examining and studying the classification system. You will find that works in the “fiction” section are intended to be made up stories while works in the “non-fiction” section are intended to be factual. You will find that all sorts of incorrect information exists within the non-fiction section. You will be astonished to note that 200-299 in non-fiction is the “religion” section, which is made up of all sorts of works both factually about and preaching various religion. You may at first wonder if some sort of mistake has been made: “why are all of these clearly fabricated religious teachings in the non-fiction section?”. The answer is simply: library classification isn’t based on logical positivist observations; it’s based on the intent of the author.
It’s also worth noting that the Bible is more than stories. A sizeable portion of the Bible are songs (psalms), proverbs, laws and prescriptive content. All things that nobody in their right mind would classify as fiction.
Practitioners of a strange trade, friends, enemies, ladies and gentlemen: Before starting with my talk, let me explain to you how it came into existence.
About a year ago I was short of funds. So I accepted an invitation to contribute to a book dealing with the relation between science and religion. To make the book sell I thought l should make my contribution a provocative one and the most provocative statement one can make about the relation between science and religion is that science is a religion. Having made the statement the core of my article I discovered that lots of reasons, lots of excellent reasons, could be found for it. I enumerated the reasons, finished my article, and got paid. That was stage one.
Next I was invited to a Conference for the Defence of Culture. I accepted the invitation because it paid for my flight to Europe. I also must admit that I was rather curious. When I arrived in Nice I had no idea what I would say. Then while the conference was taking its course I discovered that everyone thought very highly of science and that everyone was very serious. So I decided to explain how one could defend culture from science. All the reasons collected in my article would apply here as well and there was no need to invent new things. I gave my talk, was rewarded with an outcry about my “dangerous and ill considered ideas,” collected my ticket and went on to Vienna. That was stage number two.
Now I am supposed to address you. I have a hunch that in some respect you are very different from my audience in Nice. For one, you look much younger. My audience in Nice was full of professors, businessmen, and television executives, and the average age was about 58 1/2. Then I am quite sure that most of you are considerably to the left of some of the people in Nice. As a matter of fact, speaking somewhat superficially I might say that you are a leftist audience while my audience in Nice was a rightist audience. Yet despite all these differences you have some things in common. Both of you, I assume, respect science and knowledge. Science, of course, must be reformed and must be made less authoritarian. But once the reforms are carried out, it is a valuable source of knowledge that must not be contaminated by ideologies of a different kind. Secondly, both of you are serious people. Knowledge is a serious matter, for the Right as well as for the Left, and it must be pursued in a serious spirit. Frivolity is out, dedication and earnest application to the task at hand is in. These similarities are all I need for repeating my Nice talk to you with hardly any change. So, here it is.
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower.”