Quran, Harry Potter, and Lord of the rings. Same?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Okay. Thats a good view.

How about Noah?

The Noah story seems like it was intended to be read as a historical account. At one point, it might have been reasonable to accept it as true in the absence of other information.

Today, though? The idea of a global flood has been so thorough debunked that only someone seriously uninformed or a wilful fool would believe that it happened.

... and without a global flood, I'm not sure what it would mean to have a Noah that wasn't fiction.

 

[firedragon]

If you are going to dismiss your own OP, why should any one else be bothered?

Very good. thanks.

 

[firedragon]

The Noah story seems like it was intended to be read as a historical account. At one point, it might have been reasonable to accept it as true in the absence of other information.

Today, though? The idea of a global flood has been so thorough debunked that only someone seriously uninformed or a wilful fool would believe that it happened.

... and without a global flood, I'm not sure what it would mean to have a Noah that wasn't fiction.

Quran speaks of a local flood, not a global flood.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Quran speaks of a local flood, not a global flood.

I'm not really familiar with the account in the Quran.

So it's vague enough not to be falsifiable?

 

[firedragon]

I'm not really familiar with the account in the Quran.

So it's vague enough not to be falsifiable?

Haha. I like the way you put it. Maybe you could say that "its vague enough". Or rather you could say "its too small".

I was only correcting you because this topic was about the Qur'an, not the Tanakh.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Haha. I like the way you put it. Maybe you could say that "its vague enough". Or rather you could say "its too small".

Well, if it's not falsifiable, then it's useless... arguably worse than something like the Biblical account (i.e. both falsifiable and actually falsified).

I was only correcting you because this topic was about the Qur'an, not the Tanakh.

Sure, and thanks for that. I sometimes get mixed up when the two books use the same character but give them different stories.

 

[firedragon]

Well, if it's not falsifiable, then it's useless.

Is that why Noah is a myth?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What evidence do you have that Adam and Noah were fiction?

The burden of proof is to prove they existed, not that they are fictitious.
Anyone who takes up Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter as a religious text probably is in need of psychiatric evaluation.

 

[pearl]

I remember reading an article by Harold Horell, Fordham University, 'Harry Potter Hope and Holiness' but no longer available.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is that why Noah is a myth?

No, that's why it's not reliable as a factual account.

Myths aren't necessarily false. Myths are stories with a particular purpose:

A myth expresses and confirms society's religious values and norms, it provides a pattern of behavior to be imitated, testifies to the efficacy of ritual with its practical ends and establishes the sanctity of cult.

Myth - Wikipedia

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

1. Why do you think Harry Potter is or can be anyones "religious scripture"?

I don't think this is the case because nobody presents it as such. It is only ever presented as a fictional work for entertainment purposes.

2. What evidence do you have that Adam and Noah were fiction?

Several points in this one....

First, this is kind of a shift of the burden of proof. It's upto the one claiming they existed, to support said claim.

Secondly, if by "adam" you mean a single person who's the ancestor of all humans and who was "the very first human", then genetics contradicts that. Genetics effectively disproves such an Adam in every sense of the word.

Same goes for Noah, if by "noah" is meant 1 of only 8 people who survived a specific cataclysmic global flood. This story makes testable predictions that do not check out. Again genetics alone already disproves such a noah in every sense of the word.


And aside from these disproofs of those specific "interpretations" of the stories, there is to my knowledge zero supporting evidence for just about any interpretation of these stories.

So at best, we have stories that can't be disproven and which aren't supported in any way by testable evidence.

And in that sense, I guess you could compare it to the saga's of Lord of The Rings, Star Wars, Harry Potter,...

I mean... how would you go about disproving Harry Potter?

The claimant has the burden of proof, thus rather than committing the burden of proof fallacy, I would like to hear the mythicists argument on this.

Did my response satisfy you?

 

[firedragon]

No, that's why it's not reliable as a factual account.

Thats not the topic of the thread.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Well, maybe comments like that by those who have no clue of the literature they are commenting about says a lot about themselves.

You think the people then were not more like children?

 

[firedragon]

You think the people then were not so much children?

Question: Where are you going?
Answer: I have coconuts in my bag.

Absolutely irrelevant.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I dunno if many kids will read Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit, sure. But damn the trilogy is a bit dense. Interestingly CS Lewis who was converted by Tolkien wrote a children’s version of the Gospels (Narnia.)

But Potter is surely aimed at kids even if many of us find some of it entertaining - just a bit too drawn out in the last sections though (films).

 

[Mock Turtle]

Question: Where are you going?
Answer: I have coconuts in my bag.

Absolutely irrelevant.

I think it entirely relevant if the mass of people then were probably more gullible and much less knowledgeable - than those who did have some education and skills to impart whatever they had to impart.

 

[firedragon]

I think it entirely relevant if the mass of people then were probably more gullible and much less knowledgeable - than those who did have some education and skills to impart whatever they had to impart.

So, due to this reason you gave, is it yes or no to the OP?
And do you think Adam and Noah were myths?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Thats not the topic of the thread.

It's not?

You asked if the story of Noah was a fictional account. If we have no evidence that the flood described in the story actually happened, then this suggests that we shouldn't discount the possibility that it's fictional.

At the very least, it means that the story is indistinguishable from fiction.

 

[firedragon]

It's not?

You asked if the story of Noah was a fictional account. If we have no evidence that the flood described in the story actually happened, then this suggests that we shouldn't discount the possibility that it's fictional.

At the very least, it means that the story is indistinguishable from fiction.

True. If there is no evidence, you cannot dismiss any option. It could be fiction, it could have been a historical figure as well.

 

[Mock Turtle]

So, due to this reason you gave, is it yes or no to the OP?
And do you think Adam and Noah were myths?

Well we all know that the fiction was fiction and people know it as such, so there is an obvious difference. I don't know about Adam or Noah - could well be historical figures - but they perhaps have a place in history as we might view the film Braveheart (many alterations of fact) or Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet (age of Juliet lowered for whatever reasons from where the tale was borrowed from), as being embellished for a purpose - whatever that might be. Nothing against myths if we know they are such, like the fiction being recognised as fiction.