I s'poze it's because it's so darn RIGHT about my own self and the people around me and the world I find myself in, it would seem silly to me to chuck the whole thing on account of some surprising historical assertions that are still within the realm of possibility.
Which parts are right for you, and which parts do you find wrong for you? Because you can't mean the WHOLE thing is right, right? I mean, do you think slavery should be legalized and that as long as you don't beat your slaves so hard that they can't get up in the morning, you are fine to beat the crap out of them? Or how about the idea that we should kill people who work on the Sabbath? Sure, you can find some good things in it too that seem to fit with you and your life, but I guarantee you will find that stuff in just about every religious book ever written. Here are just a few examples...
"Your Sustainer has decreed that you worship none but Him, and that you be kind to parents. Whether one or both of them attain old age in your lifetime, do not say to them a word of contempt nor repel them, but address them in terms of honor. And, out of kindness, lower to them the wing of humility and say: My Sustainer! Bestow on them Your mercy, even as they cherished me in childhood" The Quran. (Islam)
"I so pronounce that all the omniscients of all times, state, speak, propagate, and elaborate that nothing which breathes, which exists, which lives, or which has essence or potential of life, should be destroyed or ruled over, or subjugated, or harmed, or denied of its essence or potential." The Acaranga Sutra (Jainism)
One in whose heart there is love attains salvation. Guru Ganth Sahib (Sikh)
Do those all feel so darn RIGHT to you too? Sure they do. It does to me too. But that doesn't mean the books speak the truth in other places, and I sure as hell don't need a book to tell me to treat my parents with respect or that love is important.
So let me ask you about these biblical
passages.... Do they feel oh so darn RIGHT to you?
And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.
For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death
If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.
And you shall eat it as barley cakes, and you shall bake it with dung of the excrement of man, in their sight.
What you have done is romanticized the idea of the bible as if it's the greatest book of all time, whilst forgetting that it's also chock full of some of the most disgusting, immoral and ludicrous things you will ever find in any book. You've cherry picked the parts you like and ditched the rest as if it's not there and then claimed the whole thing is so darn RIGHT. It makes me question whether you've actually read the book at all.
You say it would be silly to chuck the whole idea just because of some surprising historical assertions that are within the realm of possibility. But isn't it even more silly to cling to the entirety of an ancient superstition just because you think a few of the passages feel
oh so darn RIGHT to you?
If you know what Logic means then you know there's nothing technically Illogical about a talking donkey.
You're right, I agree. There is nothing illogical about the concept of a talking donkey. I can easily conceptualize that. Or a talking spider. Or a talking pig. Or talking horses. After all, Shrek's best friend is a talking donkey, and Mr. Ed was a very famous talking horse.
But there is something logically wrong with assuming there once lived an ACTUAL talking donkey just because you read it in a 2000 year old book. Without proof, it's just plain stupid to believe that.
If you know the meaning of Reason, then you know the thing to be considering is: which is more unreasonable? A God who exists and makes a donkey talk, or no God at all to make a person talk.
A God who exists and makes a donkey talk is by far more unreasonable. Hands down.
Scenario A. God exists and makes a donkey talk. You must prove beyond reasonable doubt...
1. Donkey's exist. I will give you that one.
2. God exists. Good luck with that.
3 A donkey talked. Also, good luck with that.
Scenario B. no God exists to make a person talk. You must prove beyond reasonable doubt...
1. There is no God. Since there is no evidence for God other than what is written in the bible, (which, as we all know, the bible can't be used as evidence that the bible is true) this is already done. It is the default assumption.
2. People exist. I think we can prove that.
3. People talk. I think we can do that too. And we can explain it in natural terms.
Hands down, scenario A is far more unreasonable.