we do not recognise the bible as a valid historical factual book

Erren Music

With our Mod's permission I would like to propose a new rule for the A+A charter.

In the A+A forum we do not recognise the bible as a valid historical factual book, and as such any quotations used to prove it's authenticity in a discussion are not valid.

Ickle Magoo

Is that not a bit obvious though?

Surely if people thought the bible was an accurate representation of events they would be theists?

I'm not sure what the second part of that sentence means...using the bible as the source of evidence for the validity of the bible is something that theists do quite a lot but it doesn't take long for them to realise the futility of that particular line of "reasoning" (and I highlight the inverted commas), especially in this forum.

Erren Music

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Is that not a bit obvious though?

Surely if people thought the bible was an accurate representation of events they would be theists?

I'm not sure what the second part of that sentence means...using the bible as the source of evidence for the validity of the bible is something that theists do quite a lot but it doesn't take long for them to realise the futility of that particular line of "reasoning" (and I highlight the inverted commas), especially in this forum.

It is very obvious, but it is meant for certain people who would not be able to clog our forum up with biblical quotations as proof of religion and god for the point they were trying to make.

IE they will have to reason with us without using the bible.

bnt

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Is that not a bit obvious though?

It should be obvious, but it happens repeatedly. It bugs me only indirectly, the number of threads that get clogged up with biblical quotes that don't contribute to the discussion. I wouldn't support any kind of penalty for it, I just think it's just worth reminding scripture quoters that they're losing their audience when they do that.

JimiTime

Erren Music wrote: »

It is very obvious, but it is meant for certain people who would not be able to clog our forum up with biblical quotations as proof of religion and god for the point they were trying to make.

IE they will have to reason with us without using the bible.

Judging by your usual bluster around the place I'm not going to be very expectant, but could you show evidence that this forum is being 'clogged' with people 'using the bible as proof of religion'?

strobe

Erren Music wrote: »

It is very obvious, but it is meant for certain people who would not be able to clog our forum up with biblical quotations as proof of religion and god for the point they were trying to make.

IE they will have to reason with us without using the bible.

I disagree. Why prevent theists (Christians in this case), from posting bible verses? It was Bible verses that cemented my disbelief in the Christian God.

Why so confrontational all the time Erren? Take a step back and think about what you are trying to accomplish (if anything) man, and question wether the way you go about it is the right way to accomplish that.

Rather than try to prevent theists from putting forward thier responses as they see fit, you should choose to address the points they bring up. There are plenty of holes to be picked in the Bible, if that is what you want to do. But suggesting we should censor anyone putting forward an argument that they see as valid is a hideous and counterproductive concept as far as I'm concerned.


TL;DR Version:

Dude, be cool.

Ickle Magoo

Erren Music wrote: »

It is very obvious, but it is meant for certain people who would not be able to clog our forum up with biblical quotations as proof of religion and god for the point they were trying to make.

IE they will have to reason with us without using the bible.

To a theist the bible IS a valid source of information and/or evidence - that atheists and agnostics choose to dismiss it as valid or it doesn't satisfy the criterion that you and I apply to evidence doesn't make it so universally.

Besides, I rather like witnessing the slow dawning of realisation as to why the mighty biblical quotations they came swinging in with mean precisely zip.

bnt wrote: »

It should be obvious, but it happens repeatedly. It bugs me only indirectly, the number of threads that get clogged up with biblical quotes that don't contribute to the discussion. I wouldn't support any kind of penalty for it, I just think it's just worth reminding scripture quoters that they're losing their audience when they do that.

I don't really see the difference between a christian or whatever religious person quoting their holy book as evidence and it being picked apart the same way any scientific paper would be - you have to remember that theists don't see their holy books in the same way we do, they think they ARE evidence, ARE true...some even think the world was built in a few days a few thousand years ago, you think a general ban on biblical quotations due to lack of supporting evidence is going to wash?! :eek: :pac:

eoin5

I can see your point that if someone just keeps posting biblical responses as proof of something it would get annoying. I dont think it would need new rules for it though as its just refusing to discuss or debate anything. Anyways it doesnt happen very often, usually because of the appropriate level of levity it brings at the poster's expense.

Rev Hellfire

Lets create a new rule while we're at it, night follows day.
Naturally those people who say its day follows night have no place here.

Valmont

It's valid for atheists if we want to understand 2000 years of Christianity; I don't think a blanket proposal of 'invalid' reflects the true educational value of the bible in understanding civilisations and religions, regardless of its veracity.

Zillah

Erren Music wrote: »

With our Mod's permission I would like to propose a new rule for the A+A charter.

In the A+A forum we do not recognise the bible as a valid historical factual book, and as such any quotations used to prove it's authenticity in a discussion are not valid.

[...personal remark deleted...]

Maximilian

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Lets create a new rule while we're at it, night follows day.
Naturally those people who say its day follows night have no place here.

Rev, that's shockingly discriminatory to both Twilightangilists and Dawnologists.

MrStuffins

Zillah wrote: »

Do [...]?

Whoa, i don't like this post.

The Mad Hatter

Freedom of speech includes the freedom to advance banal arguments.

robindch

Erren Music wrote: »

In the A+A forum we do not recognise the bible as a valid historical factual book, and as such any quotations used to prove it's authenticity in a discussion are not valid.

As the Mad Hatter says, people are free to produce pretty much any argument they want to around these parts -- good, bad and indifferent.

If the argument is bad, then that will do little to advance the cause or reputation of the poster, and that applies to atheists with bad arguments just as much as it does to religious posters with bad arguments.

Erren Music

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Lets create a new rule while we're at it, night follows day.
Naturally those people who say its day follows night have no place here.

But what about the east V west factions

Galvasean

Bad idea IMO for two reasons.

1) The inevitable "We'rebeing oppressed!" reaction, which would be somewhat justified.

2) Why bar them from using a debating style? If we're so confident taht we are right we should be able to reasonabnly dismantle anything they throw at us without resorting to embargoes.

Galvasean

Maximilian wrote: »

Rev, that's shockingly discriminatory to both Twilightangilists and Dawnologists.

Couldn't resist it.

Hagar

"The Bible is remarkably close to the truth" I remarked to herself the other evening while watching "The Life of Brian".

Zombrex

Erren Music wrote: »

With our Mod's permission I would like to propose a new rule for the A+A charter.

In the A+A forum we do not recognise the bible as a valid historical factual book, and as such any quotations used to prove it's authenticity in a discussion are not valid.

I don't think it's bothering anyone that much, I would hate this forum to go the way of the other forum where we all just sit around complaining about theists trolls and rabbit holes and the like.

One of the nice things about this forum is that the believers are free to come in here and pretty much make any case they can, including quoting from the Bible is they wish. If you think quoting the Bible is invalid its perfectly possible to just say so.

Tim Robbins

Erren Music wrote: »

With our Mod's permission I would like to propose a new rule for the A+A charter.

In the A+A forum we do not recognise the bible as a valid historical factual book, and as such any quotations used to prove it's authenticity in a discussion are not valid.

I reject that proposal. An occasional discussion with someone who takes a different view about the bible is interesting. It's also a good way of learning what sort of tactics your opponents use.

Galvasean

Also, would we too be barred from quoting the Bible when we want to show off the bits that arent nice?

The_Minister

Erren Music wrote: »

With our Mod's permission I would like to propose a new rule for the A+A charter.

In the A+A forum we do not recognise the bible as a valid historical factual book, and as such any quotations used to prove it's authenticity in a discussion are not valid.

The thing is, it is.

In a way.

The Bible is both prescriptive and descriptive; it not only sets down rules by which humans are supposed to live, but is also (particularly in the Old Testament) supposed to be an historical account of certain tribes.
Most historical accounts that old are subject to embellishment and the introduction of supernatural events, but they often still describe true events that actually occured.

There is a very good chance that there is a large portion of truth in much of the Bible's account of the history of the tribes, it's just that someone added God in too.
No-one sat down and made up a bunch of fairy tale legands - when much of the early Bible was written it was transcribing stories that had been passed from generation to generation by spoken means. The Bible allows us an unparallelled insight into the laws, history and social mores of our ancestors, and it is probable that most of the events described (and remember that much of the Bible contains no supernatural events) have some factual basis.

iUseVi

The_Minister wrote: »

The thing is, it is.

In a way.

The Bible is both prescriptive and descriptive; it not only sets down rules by which humans are supposed to live, but is also (particularly in the Old Testament) supposed to be an historical account of certain tribes.
Most historical accounts that old are subject to embellishment and the introduction of supernatural events, but they often still describe true events that actually occured.

There is a very good chance that there is a large portion of truth in much of the Bible's account of the history of the tribes, it's just that someone added God in too.
No-one sat down and made up a bunch of fairy tale legands - when much of the early Bible was written it was transcribing stories that had been passed from generation to generation by spoken means. The Bible allows us an unparallelled insight into the laws, history and social mores of our ancestors, and it is probable that most of the events described (and remember that much of the Bible contains no supernatural events) have some factual basis.

Two points. Firstly, if you are a fan of or have read fantasy you'll see that its quite easy for humans to make up entire worlds, complete with all their own languages and histories. Tolkien's work for example. And fiction is not a modern phenomenon.

Now I'm not saying the bible is pure fiction, but so much of it is it's hard say with any certainty that any of it is fact. Except of course for the bits that can be independently verified. Genesis is almost all nonsense (garden of eden, Noah's ark etc). Next book; Exodus, again the main story is considered non-historical by most historians. And so on through the bible (Sun stopping, the Jericho event etc. etc.). I expect people will want to argue about these but there's little point - the list of cases of historical fantasy is as long as my arm.

The point is, you can't trust it. And of course there's the fact that its been edited and copied widely. I saw a bootleg copy of Harry Potter once, even after one copying a lot of errors had crept in.

sonicthebadger*

I'm against a blanket ban, telling people what they can or can't say is not what I'm about. If I make a point that turns out to be invalid or based on information which is of questionable reliability I'd much prefer to have that pointed out to me so that I might learn from the experience rather than just being silenced and learning nothing.

aidan24326

Erren Music wrote: »

With our Mod's permission I would like to propose a new rule for the A+A charter.

In the A+A forum we do not recognise the bible as a valid historical factual book, and as such any quotations used to prove it's authenticity in a discussion are not valid.

Sorry but that's a stupid idea. Introduce that rule and the A&A forum becomes like the Islam forum, i.e a big group hug where intruders are not usually welcome. We welcome christians, muslims and everyone else here because it provokes debate, and if they want to quote from the bible/qu'ran/torah or anything else then go ahead, let's have it. If somebody quotes bible scripture then it's up to the A&A posters to formulate a counter-argument. Sometimes that's easy, sometimes less easy. But therein lies the joy of forums like this.

Sheeps

Mods please also amend the charter to note that humans breath air.

Dades

Yes, but what is air?

Sam Vimes

Dades wrote: »

Yes, but what is air?

It's a place in Scotland duh!! (Ayr)

nozzferrahhtoo

It all really depends on what you mean by historically accurate.

2000 years from now if a historian picks up a copy of “The Bourne Identity” and reads it, he will be able to establish some truths about the politics of our day, the cities in which we lived, the kind of society which we populated and more.

Remember, most fiction is set amongst realities of the day it is set in and the Bible may be no different to this.

The issue is that all the “facts” in such fiction need to be corroborated and supported and not taken on their face value. The fact has to be successfully mined out of the fiction like distilling gold from the rock and mud and crap it is found in.

The issue is people accepting the bible as fact on the fact of it in all its claims, despite many claims within it having no ex-biblical corroboration what so ever. (You would imagine for example that all the graves opening and the dead walking would make it into SOME ex biblical record being as it would have been a massively life and societal changing event etc etc)

The other issue is the same but reversed. Establishing the historical fact of something within a work of fiction is NOT the same as establishing as true all the other claims in that work of fiction. The vast realities of politics, people, locations, geography and more in the “Bourne Identity” all of which can be confirmed, lends in no way any credence to the existence of a super solider called Jason.

sonicthebadger*

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The vast realities of politics, people, locations, geography and more in the “Bourne Identity Book Long Edition” all of which can be confirmed, lends in no way any credence to the existence of a super solider called Jason.

I think the correct spelling is Jesus. :P

sceptre

There are plenty of theists who don't consider the bible to be a "valid historical factual book". Some of them are Christians at that.

Handsome Bob

Have you been taking tips from this bloke OP?

Erren Music

sceptre wrote: »

There are plenty of theists who don't consider the bible to be a "valid historical factual book". Some of them are Christians at that.

Any chance they could come on here and have a chat about it, although how would you believe in god with out the book?

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Slugs

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Thus finally giving sensible people the chance to read what the **** was in the damn thing, rather then being told by the local priest.

RepublicanEagle

Erren Music wrote: »

With our Mod's permission I would like to propose a new rule for the A+A charter.

In the A+A forum we do not recognise the bible as a valid historical factual book, and as such any quotations used to prove it's authenticity in a discussion are not valid.

Pathetic trolling attempt.

bnt

RepublicanEagle wrote: »

Pathetic trolling attempt.

Who are you kidding, Mr. Ashamed to be Irish? Any thoughts on the actual issue?

I think the OP is wrong to call for a rule of any kind - but I still think that quoting scriptures does not help your argument in this forum. If a point can't stand on its own, without claiming divine support from scripture, you might be better off keeping it away from this audience. :eek:

Flamed Diving

Erren Music wrote: »

With our Mod's permission I would like to propose a new rule for the A+A charter.

In the A+A forum we do not recognise the bible as a valid historical factual book, and as such any quotations used to prove it's authenticity in a discussion are not valid.

No, because that would make us just as bad as them. We are supposed to be the open-minded ones, remember?

Flamed Diving

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's a place in Scotland duh!! (Ayr)

If you need to explain why a pun is funny, it isn't a pun.

MrPudding

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That is not quite true though, is it? My understanding is that for a long time the problem was not printing it was that the church simply did not allow the peasants to own a bible.

MrP

eoin5

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Have you been taking tips from this bloke OP?

Its Tom Hanks!

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

robindch

MrPudding wrote: »

the church simply did not allow the peasants to own a bible.

While there might be some truth in this -- I seem to remember something about purity rules for sacred texts -- it was certainly true that a bible was massively expensive and useless thing to have for people who were illiterate, and even had they been literate, probably wouldn't have been able to read Hebrew or Greek (or even the Latin Vulgate) anyway. Luther's religious views benefitted mostly from the printing press, and to a lesser extent, from his translation into the vernacular.

I think it's probably fairer to say that the Roman church did much (selective education especially) to create the conditions under which bible ownership was difficult and pointless.

RepublicanEagle

bnt wrote: »

Who are you kidding, Mr. Ashamed to be Irish?

Excuse me? Do you have a problem Mr. Read Posts & Threads More Carefully?

sponsoredwalk

If you people start banning religious people's right to advance fallacious arguments then it's the last you'll be hearing of me...

My guess is the OP is some religious nut trying to convince atheists to descend as low as they do in their stellar historical record.

Another obvious point, why would you want these people to stop quoting biblical scripture when 90% of the time the same verse can be reinterpreted against their very point???

Trolling IMO...

Dades

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

If you people...

Hey not's lump everyone in here with the OP, thanks!

His suggestion got little support here, if any.

sponsoredwalk

:cool:

Erren Music

Galvasean wrote: »

Bad idea IMO for two reasons.

1) The inevitable "We'rebeing oppressed!" reaction, which would be somewhat justified.

I do not see it as being oppressed, if you choose to believe something and then prove it by referring to a book, then that book needs to pass any challenge.

If you do not know who wrote that book, when, why, or how is was written, then that book has no basis in anything.

Galvasean wrote: »

2) Why bar them from using a debating style? If we're so confident taht we are right we should be able to reasonabnly dismantle anything they throw at us without resorting to embargoes.

We are, and we do. Again and again ad infinitum.

Erren Music

Dades wrote: »

Hey not's lump everyone in here with the OP, thanks!

His suggestion got little support here, if any.

You are a MOD, less of the personal please

Zombrex

Erren Music wrote: »

You are a MOD, less of the personal please

Saying your proposal didn't get much support is hardly a personal attack