Monday, October 1, 2007

Homer Gots Nothin'

The guys at Way of the Master love false analogies. In fact, they use them so often and with such voracity that it is incredibly easy to peg WOTM Radio listeners simply by the way they talk. I have had the opportunity to stumble across many such individuals in recent weeks.

Today, I'm going to give you a sneak peak at the flawed logic in one of Todd's awful analogies by letting you eavesdrop on a conversation I had recently in a Christian Hip-Hop chat room. See if you can spot it. (The names of the Christian theist and the chat room have been changed to protect their anonymity.)

Christian Hip-Hop Radio Community -- Sept. 26

Real: Do you believe Homer wrote the Odessey[sic]?

Former Follier: I don't care whether or not Homer even existed. Using your world-view, I am not in danger of his damning my "eternal soul" to hell. I am indifferent to the existence of Homer. I have never read his supposed works nor do I maintain a stance on his existence.

Real: Okay do you have any books that you read???

Former Follier: Of course, I do. The bible.

Real: LOL... So you read the Bible??? For what?

Former Follier: Because it's a good read. Aren't you going to ask me if the authors of the bible existed, Real? That's what you were stacking me for, right?

For anyone who finds themselves unfamiliar with WOTM Radio and the tactics they use to try to back unbelievers into a corner, the preceding dialog may not hold much relevance. Let me try to make things just a bit clearer.

Todd is often confronted not only about the authenticity of the bible but the divinity of the bible. As a response, he devised a brilliant analogy comparing the canon of the bible against another antiquated text, Homer's The Odyssey, by showing how many more original copies and partials there are of the bible than any of Homer's works. If you are unable to see the false dichotomy I urge you take another look.

I accept the bible as an authentic historical text but that in no way imbues it with supernatural powers; it simply means that it is a book and that it is old. At this point I must concede that Todd is right; the bible is a much more authentic work of fiction than The Odyssey.


Anonymous said...

You contradict yourself.

You say:

"I accept the bible as an authentic historical text"

then you say:

"the bible is a much more authentic work of fiction than The Odyssey."

which is it?

Historical as in non-fiction or fiction?

Former Follier said...

Well, "Anonymous", let me clarify the closing line of my entry in case I left any room for doubt. I don't want there to be any ambiguity as to my meaning.

I will rephrase the last line: "I accept the historocity of the bible ("the fact that it is a book and that it is old") and feel it to be a much more authentic work of fiction than Homer's work of fiction."

Does that clear things up for you?

If so, you can now turn that eye of scrutiny on your own religious texts and start making uncomfortable equivocations for the actual contradictions founds therein.

Anonymous said...

Been there done, that, for years, no less. With tons of research and really getting a grip to understand the claims against the Bible, I found , to my surprise that they don't hold water. As one person who was really put off by "religion" I found that there are tons of religious people who can't defend or let alone read the Bible versus those that really study and can defend it well. There are no contradictions when one really reads and understands the written and historical context of the narrative in the Bible. So I'll just swing that "eye of scrutiny" back your way and see if you can do that for the tons of built up inconsistencies and contradictions within atheism and evolution and humanism in general.

BoxerShorts said...


A discussion on the tenets of atheism is certainly worth having, and any of us would be happy to have that conversation with you either via private correspondence or on a forum dedicated to such debates. This blog, however, has a very narrow focus, and that isn't it.