Quote:
|
Our Lady of Perpetual Basement?
|
LOL (not sarcastic, very funny!)
Quote:
|
Read Bruce Feiler's books, especially...
|
People might need to have some information and knowledge but deciding exactly what someone has to have read or be an expert on before they can make an argument is a fallacy of authority (I know pointing out these types of fallacies gets the nerd/loser voice around here but so be it).
My point is someone doesn't need to have read those in order find a logical flaw in a certain religion's account. To give one example, you don't need to have read those to understand Dawkin's argument against Noah's ark.
The same can be expanded about the very question of god. You have to defend why the 4 books you have read are the specific and necessary conditions to answering the god question. And why a religious person can't similarly claim that, "only people who "truly" understand the bible can answer the question of god, and truly understanding the bible means you have a complete and blind faith in god."