You've never heard this before? Are you claiming I am the originator of this idea quoted above?
Of course not. I would never be so foolish as to suggest that you had had an original idea.
Intriguing, you seemed though in a previous post, to suggest "I just make things up as I go along".
Your post looks like the usual argument I often see...sort of just sumink to say as some "come back" be it though feather light as a come back in weight.
Yeah, I understand. If you don't think about what people say, it carries no weight at all.
Well, I did
think strangely enough, you didn't actually have a comeback, hence the term feather-weight.
So, when you say: "you are making it up as you go along.". Are saying "you know this because the bible doesn't describe this, and because you read it? ".
No. When I say something, I am saying the thing I said.
I am
never saying the thing you would rather I had said.
But, I would
rather you say the thing you said, cos it gives me the reason to highlight it.
And I don't share your faith in the Bible, or consider what it says (or doesn't say) to be of any particular value.
I've often noticed those things you (plural) aren't able to 'share'. In terms of the atheist attempting to "come back" at the theist by making up out-of-context poor interpretations.
That's not comparable to the 'multiple' biblical authors of the bible..
I was not making any comparison to the bible. It doesn't matter how many authors the bible had; It matters whether they are right or wrong.
Well of course it should matter whether the bible is right or wrong. You don't 'share,I know, the understanding that the bible instructs there to be a need for having 'two or more witnesses' in any biblical scenario relating to truth.
Sagan in
this context regarding your previous example, is but a solo act.
which must require at least two or more witnesses for any doctrinal claim.
The bible includes no witnesses at all; Its authors are all long dead. Anyone can write about a million witnesses; You still only have one claimant, plus 999,999 "witnesses" that they just fabricated from thin air.
You don't share the view that the many writers reports of events are significant, yes I know.
When you say anyone can write about a million/ many witnesses. Can you tell us: who else besides the writers of the bible has done just that?
The bible has many authors!
Unfortunately, for your guru Sagan, with a claim like that.
Sagan is not my "guru", he just happens to have come up with a good argument in this case, which I was honest enough to attribute to him. It matters not one whit to the argument who made it first. As with ALL atguments, it stands or falls on its merits, never on its source. Hence why I give zero shits whether the source of your nonsense is the Bible, or some long dead pope, or your favourite youth pastor, or your own imagination.
Mutually, I don't share your 'faith' in your argument. Nor give a banana
.
I was never concerned about 'who made the argument first', I don't see the advantage.
He would be the lone witness and lone author of his "dragon in the garage" book - just like some of the other known religions that originated from sole authors, even though these religions do have many followers and religious leaders.
You can't see the wood for the trees, can you?
Sagan's story isn't supposed to be the truth; It's an analogy, that is supposed to make you think about how your own story is just as difficult as his, for a sane person to give credence to.
The Saga analogy shows the
difficulty of a
single claimer as I previously point out. It's quite useless - it doesn't demonstrate the bible as not being truthful at all, i.e.
difficult doesn't definitely conclude truth or non-truth!
Adding? As opposed to anyone distorting the theist concepts of the bible? Oh but of course, you've misread the scripture and "you know it quite well'.
I don't give crap the first about "the scripture". I am not having a discussion with "the scripture". I am addressing the things YOU say, IN THIS THREAD. Whether you got those things from scripture, or from the complete works of Shakespeare, or from the Bumper Book for Boys, is of
zero import - an idea stands on its relationship with reality, not on the identity of its originator(s).
If you (anyone) debate about the scriptures using the literal sense, then that is the
line of discussion. Many posters sometimes start to talk this way, but...when their distorted views suited to their arguments aren't as satisfactory as they thought they were. They quickly then 'shift' the line of discussion/debate - from out of the hypothetical line into the 'fantasy fairytale' argument mode, slipping back and forth. If you must, I suppose. Fine by me.
