To all athiests out there: bring it on

[troodon]

The Tale was not published under anything. In the first four publications in which it was simply published along with The Battle of the Books and A Discourse concerning the Mechanical Operation of the Spirit. It wasn't until the fifth publication that Swift added anything to the text and even in this instance he only added an Apology for its vulgarity. Swift rarely called anything of his fictional, it was his contemporaries' job to deduce this. In fact, since his persona (which it is debated as to whether it is Swift or a 'mask' speaking) claims it to be true, then if anything it would have been published as non-fiction.

 

[Outspoken]

"The Tale was not published under anything. "

I think ya better check again

 

[troodon]

Oh, okay, you obviously have more knowledge about the story than I do. Phew, I've been looking for an expert on the subject. I mean, I've only studied the paper since the day my Christmas vacation started, and two weeks is a rather short time to study a 130page story, isn't it? Would you please site a page number in the Tale which Swift says that the Tale is fictional? I've yet to find it and it would greatly assist me in my research paper.

Oh, and thanks seesaw

 

[sulphur]

Swift was minor writer with a problem with fantasies

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
I did a search for evolution there and got about 120,000 results. Just FYI

As of 3 months ago, it was only 116,000.  Yes, I do know how many results there are when I send the creationists off to look. 

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by sulphur
ediacarin fossils are less than 600 million years?

Some of them.  Most of them are about 620 million years ago or thereabouts.  They are complex, multicelled organisms prior to the Cambrian explosion.  Contrary to what Outspoken (and the Time article) claim.  The paper showed that not all of them went extinct prior to the Cambrian.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Outspoken
"ediacarin fossils are less than 600 million years?"

This statement? I'm talking about biblical interpreation and forced acceptance of a wrong theory, not the validity of dating fossils.

Outspoken, you claimed that the Cambrian explosion was evidence against evolution and for your biblical interpretation.  The Ediacarin fossils are of complex, multicelled organisms prior to the Cambrian explosion, and thus refute your claims.

Now, of course, you are going to play the shell game and talk about dating of fossils. 

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Outspoken
[BIf you're talking about just genesis, I already showed you that it is nonfiction.  [/B]

And I showed where it was non-literal.  You ignored that, didn't you, Outspoken?  Another clue Genesis 2 is fiction:  Adam means "earth" in Hebrew and Eve means "hearth". Now, isn't it amazing that the "names" of the first two people were "earth" and "hearth"?  A very big clue that it is allegory.  Another clue: it tells how snakes lost their legs and women have pain in childbirth.  Just like what are called "classical" myths in ancient Greek and Roman theologies.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Outspoken
Its pretty self-explanitory. ... Not being vague at all. Adam was a real guy else he wouldn't be included in lineage. Yet another text clue.

Hercules is included in a lineage, too.  Was he a real guy?  Same applies to Gilgamesh in the Enuma Elish. Why don't you think that is history instead of fiction?

Bottom line, Outspoken, testing your criteria shows that inclusion in a lineage in other texts does not make an individual a "real guy". 

Genesis 1 creation is divided into a set of two 3-day creations with each day have exactly 3 creation events.  Now, you going to try and tell us that things are so organized that there were always just 3 creation events each of 6 days?  Now remember that the numbers 3 and 7 were thought by people of the day to have mystical power.  So now you see that Genesis 1 isn't literal but designed so that both those numbers are highlighted.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Outspoken
[BI expect you to read the passages I give and do some real thinking. [/B]

Why don't you take your own advice?  I gave you a list of contradictions between the Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 creation accounts.  So while you've been being flip with Peter you've ignored all those.  Try reading the passages I gave you and do some real thinking.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Outspoken
Pete, I have several times. The passage itself shows its literal.

Luke 1:1-4 simply declares that Luke is writing an accurate account.  That is, Luke is accurate and that "they wrote what we have been told by those who saw these things from the beginning and proclaimed the message".  "The message", of course, being the gospel.  Notice Luke is claiming that he is writing, not God.  Since creationists admit that the author(s) of Genesis were not there at the beginning, then the claim in Luke can't apply to Genesis, can it?

If you are taking Luke 1:1-4 has evidence that the Bible is literal, then you've got to be kidding.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Outspoken
Well first contextual clue..it was published under fiction, correct? there's your answer.

But how did they decide it was fiction?  Obviously they coudn't have used your criteria, could they?  This is what is called a circular argument: it was published under fiction therefore it is fiction.  I can point to an autobiography by General French after the First World War that was published under non-fiction but everyone agrees it is fiction!  French lied repeatedly about events.

Or we can even go to science and look at Haeckel's drawings of embryos.  Published under non-fiction but made up.

So, where it is published is not a criteria to decide whether the account in true or not. 

Of course, using that is a duck, since you claim we must use only what it says in the text. As soon as we do that, then you change the rules and use non-text evidence! As Peter said, completely inconsistent. In the context of science, a series of ad hoc hypotheses that contradict one another.

 

[Outspoken]

"I've yet to find it and it would greatly assist me in my research paper."

Again, its published under fiction, if you can't see that context clue, then you've got your eyes closed.

"Outspoken, you claimed that the Cambrian explosion was evidence against evolution and for your biblical interpretation."

can you please refer to the post where I do this..thanks. I don't think you're understanding what you're reading.

"Hercules is included in a lineage, too."

Not in someone who is proven to exsist. Sorry, thanks for playing, try again.

"Now remember that the numbers 3 and 7 were thought by people of the day to have mystical power. So now you see that Genesis 1 isn't literal but designed so that both those numbers are highlighted."

You've got to be joking. Now what gypsy lady told you this and how much where you drinking?

 

[Outspoken]

"Luke 1:1-4 simply declares that Luke is writing an accurate account. "

It shows it was ment to be taken as literal. That's very easy to see, open your eyes.

"But how did they decide it was fiction? "

Its pretty apparent you're not using your thinking cap here bro. The author and the publisher decide what its published under so we can safely assume that it was the authors intent for it to be a fictional story. Mystery solved...great job watson, but next time try to keep up.

"So, where it is published is not a criteria to decide whether the account in true or not. "

Yes it is, it is one of many context clues to show the account is literal or not. the pictures of embryos where ment to be taken literally, not as a methaphor for the state of the world. Please actually think before you write something okay?

 

[troodon]

If I were to go to the library right now and look for A Tale of a Tub yes it would be under fiction. I agree with you here. But, when the Tale was first published, it was never printed with a big warning on the cover saying, "I am fictional." The reason that it is classified is fiction is because the story is so absurd it must be fiction, regardless of the narrators claims of its historical accuracy and the author's lack of input in the matter. Basically, whoever first decided to classify the story as fictional disregarded the narrator's claim of its authenticity.

The author and the publisher decide what its published under

Printing wasn't like this in the 18th century bro. Things got published with their rediculously long titles and ubsurd hidden meanings but they were not published as fiction or non-fiction. The decision to classify the work as fiction came long after the author and publisher were dead.

 

[Outspoken]

"I agree with you here. But, when the Tale was first published, it was never printed with a big warning on the cover saying, "I am fictional.""

no, it was published as fiction. Thats the point.

 

[troodon]

No, at the end of my post I pointed out that when it first was published it was not published as fiction. Swift never decided for it to be published as fiction and the original bookseller never decided that either. This was decided many years (decades, perhaps generations) after Swift was long dead. Swift had no say on whether or not it was published as fiction or non-fiction. So, this was decided on the book's text. Yet, much like the Bible, the text claims that the story is "historical". So, this is an example of a book who says it is historical yet is not considered to be, just like I interpret the Bible. Once again, it was critics who decided it was fiction, not the author.

So many typos...

 

[Outspoken]

"Swift had no say on whether or not it was published as fiction or non-fiction."

So every single person who read this book thought it was nonfiction. Doubtful. I seriously doubt that Swift told anyone it was anything other then fiction.

 

[elanah]

quote from tacoman:

"That is my definition of a rediculous question. but I'll answer it anyway. in my experience, God doesn't lie. It even says in the Bible that he cannot lie."

You're trying to use circular logic, and it doesn't work. Example:

1. The Bible is the word of God
2. God doesn't lie.
3. The Bible says that God exists
4. Therefore, God exists. (and created the world several thousand years ago, etc.)

This argument uses its own conclusion as part of its premises, and is not valid. You can't prove that the Bible is correct by using the Bible as evidence. Perhaps some physical evidence to support your cause would work better, if you can find any.

Sidenote: I'm know I'm being horribly nitpicky, but forgive me- it's atheist, not athiest. If I can be bothered to learn how to spell "Christian" correctly, you can reciprocate.

 

[lithium.]

Sidenote: I'm know I'm being horribly nitpicky, but forgive me- it's atheist, not athiest. If I can be bothered to learn how to spell "Christian" correctly, you can reciprocate.

Heh agreed.

Welcome to the forum