doubtingt

Your definition of "know" is so ludicrously
constrained that it excludes virtually every
instance where the term might be used.
Furthermore, when two statments directly contradict one another, you know only that one
must be incorrect but you have no basis to determine which one (they could both be wrong).
Also, this knowledge is entirely contingent upon your ability to rule out your own miscontrual
of one or both statements. Given that this can never be ruled out with absolute certainty,
this conclusion also does not count as knowledge
according to your requirements for "knowing".
In fact, all possible conclusions fail your test of knowledge, thus making it useless.

There is nothing Biblical or religious about the
use of allegory or parable and many many works of fiction (including crappy Hollywood movies)
make use of them. There is nothing special about
the Bible as a work of fiction, in fact by many literary standards its a rather unremarkable piece of fiction. I am well aware of the centuries
of biased apologists who have tried to exalt the Bible to some special status within the relm of fiction. I am also aware that there nothing in their work that justifies this claim.

Tristan Scott

What are you talking about here? I've offered no "definition".

As far as the metaphysical events that the bible claims you simply do not know that they did not happen. All of your posturing and pontificating cannot change that fact. The only events depicted that we can say did not happen are the ones that we can prove did not happen. For example we can prove that the universe was not created 6000 years ago.

Huh? Have you ever actually read the bible?

doubtingt

If you are not asserting a definition of knowledge, then you obviously have no basis at
all on which to claim that my conclusion about
the Gospels do not count as knowledge.
Every conclusion you can possibly think of is a belief that cannot be proven with absolute certainty, because it must rest on assumptions than can only be evaluated against empirical evidence that is necessarily incomplete.

If we do not "know" that the miracles did not happen, then we do not "know" anything.
The empirical support for the assumptions the "fiction" conclusion rests on is far far greater than the empirical support for the age of the Earth, the shape of the Earth, and almost any other claim that you would label "knowledge".

As for having read the Bible, I certainly have
and the only thing notable about it is the
incredibly lack of internal coherence
and the lack of originality. This is not surprising given that its seems to have been more of a piece of ideologically edited propaganda than the artistic vision of talented writers.

Tristan Scott

Why? I siad there is no way for you to "know" the events depicted in the bible are false. You can "think" they are false, or "believe" they are false, but it is impossible for you to "know" it.

Bull.

OK. What is the empirical support that you would offer against the "Immaculate Conception"? How do you "know" that Anna was not impregnated by some supernatural means?

Doubtingt, if you actually have read the bible, I would think that you would know that it most certainly does contain parables. Lots of them, and it even identifies them as such, in fact it is those very same parables that many scholars offer as the best proof that Jesus actually existed.