| axt113 said: No actually it proves my point about the falsehoods in the bible, see the whole reason is, that there are many who view bible as literally true (according to gallup 31%of Americans http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/onethird-americans-believe-bible-literally-true.aspx) So your argument that it disproves my point is false, if people believe that the bible is literally true then that proves that many don't view it as purely non literal, and therefore me arguing its falsehoods based on a literal interpretation is valid. 31% is rather popular, its not the largest, granted, but large enough to argue the point, and your comment that it is a recent construct, is probably lacking as well, since you have nothing to vailidate that argument that the average peasants in the past didn;t think it was literally true as well. As for your argument that the burden of proof has fallen on me is wrong, since as I've shown, I can point out falsehoods in their own holy books, and they cannot prove the existence of their god, so that does indicat that their beliefs are false, since the falsehoods have been proven, and many take it as literal, hence saying that religions are false has been already proven, its up to you to prove god exists.
|
I am literally faceplaming here... People who take the bible literally doesn't mean they literally think the bible is completely without things like parables and allegories. Biblical Literalism isn't what you think it is.
The only thing you are really proving is your general ignorance on the subjects of religion and philosophical burden of proof... and a fair amount of immaturity honestly.
I mean, you think you've proven religion is false, by saying something is false, that the vast majority of people (which you admit is, 69%, even though it's actually higher then that since you don't know what biblical literalism is) think is a metaphor or a parable.
You do realize that's basically the definition of a strawman arguement... right.
