Yes, I read the book too. But like you pointed out, RD says “…a major source…” and one would have to be blind to not appreciate that, so no mystery there.

My request for a cite, was because I had the impression that now RD was saying that the Bible was “…THE major source..” and I wanted to see it with my own eyes.

It’s all clear now though.

K: You seem to be saying the Odyssey is a better adventure than the bible, but wasn’t sure you’re limiting it’s betterness to the adventure angle.

I found Beowulf interesting only in a this-is-one-of-the-earliest-stories-ever-written kind of way. Maybe I was too young at the time to appreciate the adventure.

I got distracted by the extra text to facilitate rhyme, etc. with the Illiad. They could refactor out “by the long ships”.

The Odyssey is outstanding. The Iliad is interesting in a this-is-one-of-the-earliest-stories-ever-written kind of way but the Odyssey is a great adventure. Better than the bible.

Never read the Koran. Read lots about it.

“The King James Bible of 1611 includes passages of outstanding literary merit in its own right, for example Song of Songs, and the sublime Ecclesiastes. But the main reason the English Bible needs to be part of our education is that it is a major source bok for literary culture. The same applies to the legends of the Greek and Roman gods, and we learn about them without being asked to believe in them.”

The God Delusion p.341 [Dawkins, 2006]

That mis-perception often occurs when atheists claim to appreciate religious literature and imagery,

Don’t get defensive, just curious to see in what context it was said For example, did he also advocate the odyssey/Iliad? The Koran?

I rarely read fiction, so I haven’t read those either, but I understand they’re beautiful too. The way you said, it almost sounds like Dawkins was saying “if you only read one book, read the bible”, which I doubt he would ever say.

I’m sure that’s not what you meant, hence the “cite?” so I can see the context.

Why do you ask?

Twas in his interview on Forum. WRT Asimov, that wasn’t the point he was making, it was the two reasons I mentioned. As literature. He went on to say there’s some BBC radio show “With Great Pleasure” where people come on and read passages of their favorite works: Byron, Keats etc. He went on the show and read from Ecclesiastes, from the King James Bible (as well as some Carl Sagan, Shakespeare, etc.) Though he probably did love the part he read, I gotta believe he was trying to optimize some for irony and controversy.

That said, in supporting a different thought, he did say that there are a few passages in the old testament that describe the xtian god as a monster, if read literally, which, as he is frequent to point out, many people do - particularly in the US.

Everything anyone needs to know about God is in the official God FAQ:

http://www.400monkeys.com/God/

cite? anyway, maybe Dawkins agrees with Asimov and has an agenda:

“Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.” - Asimov