• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Others

Why would a fiction novel be criticized for its inaccurate historical and scientific content?
Click to expand...
Because Dan Brown published it as a highly accurate book, and it was advertised, and received by the media, as a potential threat to modern Christianity.

Head over to Amazon for a second. As you're probably aware, the store allows readers to view digitalized versions of many of their books, rather the same way you're allowed to read books without buying them in a bookstore. You're allowed to Look Inside the Da Vinci Code at the book's product page, and after spending time in the acknowledgments boasting about all the material he's combed through and all the people and organizations who have helped him with his research, he goes on to state "facts" about the Opus Dei and state that "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate".

So I'm sorry, epix, but I never understood the Dan Brown fanboy response that "it's just a fiction novel".

There was plenty of opportunities to do so with Richard Dawkin's book, which bridged science and philosophy with something that no one in his right mind would walk on.
Click to expand...
Let's say Dawkins wrote The God Delusion as a fiction novel, with some sort of plot acting as framework and the characters, items and events in the novel acting as his mouthpiece. Let's say that this fiction novel basically conveys every idea found in the real God Delusion, much the same way Da Vinci Code communicates the ideas of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, or whatever the inspiractional book was called.

Would it, too, suddenly be above criticism? Could I hail it as a wonderful argument against theism one minute, and then do a 180 degree turn and excuse it as a "fiction book that can't be challenged on the basis of accuracy" when it received criticism?
 
epix said:
We love to trivilalize in the name of constructive simplification, coz we fear the complex, and so either there is God or there is not;
Click to expand...

We fear the complex?
What about the scientists who have developed all those incredibly complicated laws and formulas to describe the mechanics of nature? Those look pretty complex to me.

Also, what is the other alternative besides "Either there is a God or there is not?". Are you suggesting there's a third option? Please do tell, what is it?
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
We fear the complex?
What about the scientists who have developed all those incredibly complicated laws and formulas to describe the mechanics of nature? Those look pretty complex to me.
Click to expand...
What looks complex to you may not look complex to others.

1) The fear of complexity is not the primary by far; it is the unconscious fear of failure to perform complicated tasks that helps to seed the fear of the complex, coz the chances of making a mistake is far greater than the one which involves flushing the toilet.

Also, what is the other alternative besides "Either there is a God or there is not?". Are you suggesting there's a third option? Please do tell, what is it?
Click to expand...
2) The exploration of the third option is enormously complex philosophical undertaking -- a task that I shall not pursue further due to (1), even though I have been vaccinated with EpixFailTM more than anyone else in the history of Relentless Counter-Atheism Task Force. Another reason not to uncomplex the third option and make it available to the lay folks is two-tiered one:

a) The third option endorsed by the secular officialdom would make the theists and the atheists go out of business.

b) I am a very humble person and the Nobel Peace Prize award would make me very uncomfortable, providing I would survive the consequences implied from (a) and made it to Oslo.
 
epix said:
1) The fear of complexity is not the primary by far; it is the unconscious fear of failure to perform complicated tasks that helps to seed the fear of the complex, coz the chances of making a mistake is far greater than the one which involves flushing the toilet.
Click to expand...


You make no sense, but then again, that is nothing new.

PS: It's not "coz", it's because. That doesn't help you come across like you're older than 12.
 
AdMan said:
You make no sense, but then again, that is nothing new.
Click to expand...
Let me show you an example of complex and simple, so the next time you will understand the difference.

COMPLEX

SIMPLE


PS: It's not "coz", it's because. That doesn't help you come across like you're older than 12.
Click to expand...

See? You are making a progress learning.

BECAUSE = simple

COZ = simpler

Or the way you do it:

IT IS and DOES NOT= simple

IT'S and DOESN'T = simpler

But first, get a firm grip on that simple/complex difference.
 
epix said:
BECAUSE = simple

COZ = simpler
Click to expand...


No.

BECAUSE = English

"COZ" = Not English

You should have learned that in second grade.

As mentioned, it does emphasize why your thinking is so illogical, though.

ETA: I have to clarify that if the rest of your posts made any sense, the spelling and grammatical errors wouldn't be a big deal, but because your posts for the most part are just pretentious nonsense, the mistakes just help to emphasize that fact.
 
Last edited:
I understood very little of the reasoning behind this post until I got to the piece about homo erectus.

I now have no understanding whatsoever of the reasoning behind this post.

I could blame my age but I don't think it's that.
I could blame my Tasmanian heritage but I don't think it's that.

Maybe its because I haven't been wearing my tin-foil hat today.

Yes, that will do. :wink:
 
epix said:
Let me show you an example of complex and simple, so the next time you will understand the difference.

COMPLEX

SIMPLE




See? You are making a progress learning.

BECAUSE = simple

COZ = simpler

Or the way you do it:

IT IS and DOES NOT= simple

IT'S and DOESN'T = simpler

But first, get a firm grip on that simple/complex difference.
Click to expand...

Coz is only acceptable as an abbreviation for cousin.
 
epix said:
Let me show you an example of complex and simple, so the next time you will understand the difference.

COMPLEX

SIMPLE




See? You are making a progress learning.

BECAUSE = simple

COZ = simpler

Or the way you do it:

IT IS and DOES NOT= simple

IT'S and DOESN'T = simpler

But first, get a firm grip on that simple/complex difference.
Click to expand...

Lol,the idea of you trying to teach somebody something.
 
I've been trying to follow this, but I'm not sure what the point is of the thread. Are we attempting to describe the demographics of the Da Vinci Code readers?
 
Hecubas said:
I've been trying to follow this, but I'm not sure what the point is of the thread. Are we attempting to describe the demographics of the Da Vinci Code readers?
Click to expand...


I think the question at hand is something along the lines of, "if so many secular, non-religious people will avidly read a work of fiction, and many of them will believe a large chunk of it to be true, or factual, even though it really isn't, why can they not accord the bible the same belief?"

But honestly, I could be waaaaaay off the mark. :cool:
 
We must go to the racetrack to see the "others." One of the races is a match race between two horses. (Actually one of them is a gelding.) Here is the post position:

1. The God Delusion
2. The Da Vinci Code
Click to expand...
Really? You're comparing the sales of a work of fiction vs. a scholarly book written for a lay audience? This is Doing It Wrong--scholarly books, even the best-written, will always sell less than a fiction work of similar apparent popularity. It's the way the mediums work. So your entire analysis is based on a deeply flawed premise.

Who are those folks who bought those 80 million copies of Ed Brown's book? You can try the elimination method and ask who was unlikely to go to the bookstore to get it.
Click to expand...
Um.......no. Several reasons. First, there's no way to predict this. I mean, I've been on the road on long trips and needed a book to fill hotel time, and you purchase some weird stuff doing that. "Hey, that looks interesting! It has pictures!" (my logic for purchasing TdVC). Second, what any individual purchases is not necessary important--if other individuals purchase multiple copies (I know relatives that gave out a few copies as gifts) you can get much higher numbers of books sold than you have purchasers of said book. This is an economics thing, and you apparently don't understand economics at all.

I don't think that the populous subset of theists called the Christians was responsible for the best part of the 80 million copies sold. And that leaves the atheists as the only option. But the book is said to have been criticized for its historical and scientific inaccuracies, and as we know, the atheists are very partial to anything that is scientifically correct and instrumental in refuting the basis religions stand on. So are there actually "the others?"
Click to expand...
The highlighted part is not an argument at all, merely hand-waving away an argument. Besides, peopel who self-identify as Christians aren't all the same. Most of my family is Christian, and most have a copy of TdVC and Holy Blood, Holy Grail. They read them for laughs.

The italicized part is is pure bovine fecies. The options aren't Christian vs. Atheist, but Christian vs. [insert all other religions here] vs. atheists. You've dismissed a huge swath of the population for literally no reason, not even the bad hand-waving you used to dismiss Christians as purchasers!

The bolded part is just silly. I have a copy of Starship Troopers 2, just to point and laugh at it. And atheists indulge in many forms of entertainment which aren't 100% scientifically accurate. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy comes to mind.

The underlined part does logically follow--if you eliminate everyone, there's no one left. However, you didn't eliminate them for valid reasons, and therefore your conclusion is wrong.

Why would a fiction novel be criticized for its inaccurate historical and scientific content?
Click to expand...
Because it's fun. Because Dan Brown was an idiot. Because people like you (and the RCC) take it as true. Take your pick.

There was plenty of opportunities to do so with Richard Dawkin's book, which bridged science and philosophy with something that no one in his right mind would walk on.
Click to expand...
No True Scottsman, plus Argument from Intimidation. :rolleyes:

Let me show you an example of complex and simple, so the next time you will understand the difference.
Click to expand...
Tell me which is simpler: Platihelmenti or Porifera. I'll wait.
 
epix said:
What looks complex to you may not look complex to others.

1) The fear of complexity is not the primary by far; it is the unconscious fear of failure to perform complicated tasks that helps to seed the fear of the complex, coz the chances of making a mistake is far greater than the one which involves flushing the toilet.
Click to expand...

Clearly you haven't been following science, as this is fear you speak of is exactly what scientists have lacked, and thus they've been able to make any number of experiments to learn more about the world, regardless of whether or not they could be wrong, make mistakes or look like fools to the public. Scientists don't care about being wrong. If they did, they wouldn't bother doing experiments, nor incite others to run the same experiments to see if they can find any mistakes they have made. They would just make flat armchair speculations and demand to be taken at face value (which is what theists do).

epix said:
2) The exploration of the third option is enormously complex philosophical undertaking -- a task that I shall not pursue further
Click to expand...

Fair enough. End of discussion then.

Oh, and still: Epix Fail ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom