Questions atheists are sick of answering. Aaaand Biscuits again, of course.

robindch · 03-07-2013 03:31PM

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

kiffer wrote: »

Disrespectful to whom?

To the written word.

I don't think ink or pixels can take offence.

lazygal · 03-07-2013 03:32PM

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I think Hitler was all about burning books and brainwashing a nation into thinking like he did, perhaps you should read mein kampf!

Godwin - who'd have thunk it'd take so long?

ShowMeTheCash · 03-07-2013 03:34PM

kylith wrote: »

I would call myself a bibliophile to the extent that I have trouble throwing out books which are damaged beyond repair, but the idea that anything anyone could say or do would be disrespectful to a collection of pulped wood and pigment, or to text in general is a bit barmy.

Well your description then does not suprise me...
You see a collection of pulped wood and pigment..
I see decades of work and an insight to a people and a time long gone.

ShowMeTheCash · 03-07-2013 03:34PM

lazygal wrote: »

Godwin - who'd have thunk it'd take so long?

LOL - I know I stopped for a bit and thought hmmmm Do not make this point

Bannasidhe · 03-07-2013 03:40PM

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You are comparing Modern history with Ancient history you may as well compare apples and oranges!

Agreed, if you want to make a comparison why do you not make a comparison of books written in the same time period?

Again, if you have a specific argument why not make it? Are you saying that these accounts (although you make no specific reference) discredits any of the accounts given in the bible? Or simply there is nothing to support the stories their in?

My understanding around the time period of the NT is that most modern schollars agree that Jesus did exist, who or what he was is a different story.

Agreed, as like a lot of sources of it's time usually any written account of any events usually had some underlying reason whether it be political or otherwise!

Agreed.

Again agreed, this was the point I made earlier, granted I said "all History" when it was more geared at Ancient History or specifically anything written in and around the time the bible was written / rewritten.

This is more to do with the time currently we are in, given a more primative Ireland laws perhaps where based on the gods of old...

I fail to see thet point you have tired to make? Are you saying the bible is of no historical value? Or that you dissagree in the statement I made that history of that time is hard to verify?

I haven't 'tired' to make any point. I have made the point that the era under investigation is immaterial to how a historian treats the material and to the rules of historical investigation.

You seem to wish to make a special case for the Bible based on it's antiquity. There is no special case to be made. It is a source like any other and should be treated as such. It's age is not relevant.

I did not say it was of no value - just like I did not say the Táin is of no value - I said it is a source pertaining to the beliefs of a particular group of people. Nothing more/nothing less.

The Táin is contemporary with the NT - which is why I referred to it.

I do disagree with your statement that the history of the time - if we are talking about the NT - is hard to verify. Far from it. There is a wealth of material available on even the more far-flung parts of the Roman Empire.
Now, if the NT had been composed in a non-literate region, say Northern Europe, then yes, it would be hard to verify. But it wasn't. It was composed by a highly literate people in a time and place for which we have a multitude of sources.

We also have access to Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian etc etc sources which are contemporary with the OT - not as many as for the NT granted but they do exist. There is also the fact that the archaeology contradicts the time lines given in the OT.

By the way - re: 'given a more primative Ireland laws perhaps where based on the gods of old...'

The laws of Gaelic Ireland (define 'primitive') are the 2nd oldest legal code in the world and it was not based, in anyway whatsoever, on gods. It was purely secular. It dates from c 2,500 BCE and it survived until the 17th century with some adaptations along the way to reflect changes in society - the brehons were very careful to note any changes made and is widely studied even today around the world by scholars.

So ironically, while you claim special status for the Bible and insist that the time period is hard to verify scholars can and do examine passages of the Táin and then cross- reference with the Brehon Laws to provide an explanation/verification for some of the events which took place.

ShowMeTheCash · 03-07-2013 04:09PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I haven't 'tired' to make any point. I have made the point that the era under investigation is immaterial to how a historian treats the material and to the rules of historical investigation.

You seem to wish to make a special case for the Bible based on it's antiquity. There is no special case to be made. It is a source like any other and should be treated as such. It's age is not relevant.

I did not say it was of no value - just like I did not say the Táin is of no value - I said it is a source pertaining to the beliefs of a particular group of people. Nothing more/nothing less.

The Táin is contemporary with the NT - which is why I referred to it.

I do disagree with your statement that the history of the time - if we are talking about the NT - is hard to verify. Far from it. There is a wealth of material available on even the more far-flung parts of the Roman Empire.
Now, if the NT had been composed in a non-literate region, say Northern Europe, then yes, it would be hard to verify. But it wasn't. It was composed by a highly literate people in a time and place for which we have a multitude of sources.

We also have access to Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian etc etc sources which are contemporary with the OT - not as many as for the NT granted but they do exist. There is also the fact that the archaeology contradicts the time lines given in the OT.

By the way - re: 'given a more primative Ireland laws perhaps where based on the gods of old...'

The laws of Gaelic Ireland (define 'primitive') are the 2nd oldest legal code in the world and it was not based, in anyway whatsoever, on gods. It was purely secular. It dates from c 2,500 BCE and it survived until the 17th century with some adaptations along the way to reflect changes in society - the brehons were very careful to note any changes made and is widely studied even today around the world by scholars.

So ironically, while you claim special status for the Bible and insist that the time period is hard to verify scholars can and do examine passages of the Táin and then cross- reference with the Brehon Laws to provide an explanation/verification for some of the events which took place.

I think you have managed to let your imagination run wilde with you.
I at no point have I tried to give the bible "special status" I only suggested that as a historical source it held weight.

My original argument albeit not with you was in repsonse to the idea that the whole thing was "made up" and it held no weight. My argument being if you think it holds no weight then a lot of historical content could equally be argued to be "made up"...

As for ancient Ireland, I have no idea of our primative laws I simply suggested they could have influenced the laws of that time...

As this seems to be the case with most civilizations...

Sarky · 03-07-2013 04:21PM

Oh for the love of god, dig UP.

Bannasidhe · 03-07-2013 05:54PM

Sarky wrote: »

Oh for the love of god, dig UP.

I don't think that is possible when a person is 'simply suggesting' without doing even a modicum of research first.

ShowMeTheCash · 03-07-2013 05:58PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I don't think that is possible when a person is 'simply suggesting' without doing even a modicum of research first.

This is not an exam, nor do I wish to write a paper..
However your one line quips when you appear to have no argument I find amusing none the less!

Sarky · 03-07-2013 06:02PM

You do want to be taken seriously though. So get researching or keep digging.

Bannasidhe · 03-07-2013 06:05PM

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

This is not an exam, nor do I wish to write a paper..
However your one line quips when you appear to have no argument I find amusing none the less!

Lucky for you.

robindch · 03-07-2013 06:05PM

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

This is not an exam, nor do I wish to write a paper.

You are engaging, however, in online debate. And something like a paper, or even just a brief outline of facts like the one helpfully posted by Bannasidhe above, would go a long way towards making you appear more convincing.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

However your one line quips when you appear to have no argument [...]

If you look back over the debate, Bannasidhe's one-line replies generally came in response to your vague replies to her lengthy replies. In short, pots and kettles really.

Nodin · 03-07-2013 06:06PM

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

This is not an exam, nor do I wish to write a paper..
However your one line quips when you appear to have no argument I find amusing none the less!

....ye wouldn't do us a favour and outline what, exactly, your argument is, would ye?

old hippy · 03-07-2013 06:08PM

Nodin wrote: »

....ye wouldn't do us a favour and outline what, exactly, your argument is, would ye?

The Bible is an accurate document of ye rare olde middle eastern times and should be accepted as such... also, something something something Hitler etc

Bannasidhe · 03-07-2013 06:11PM

old hippy wrote: »

The Bible is an accurate document of ye rare olde middle eastern times and should be accepted as such... also, something something something Hitler etc

and when it comes down to it history cannot be verified anyway.

I must away now and throw out all of those copies of royal proclamations I got from Kew, plus all of those State papers I have copies of (fecking boxes of them), oh -forgot about the Early Modern books - must cancel my subscription to Early Modern books on-line and I may as well stop translating all of those damn Irish annals into English as there is no point really as nothing can be verified so I may as well make it up as I go along. ..
and then I can kiss my career goodbye.

ShowMeTheCash · 03-07-2013 06:15PM

old hippy wrote: »

The Bible is an accurate document of ye rare olde middle eastern times and should be accepted as such... also, something something something Hitler etc

Look a number of you have went on a tangent, you can read back threw the posts.

At no point did I say accurate document, I dissagreed with the idea of it being "made up"...

You want to jump on the bangwaggon so be it.

I see arguments to points i have not even made.

Bannasidhe is making a lot of assumptions the siting events that hold no relevence to my argument.

Bannasidhe · 03-07-2013 06:17PM

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Look a number of you have went on a tangent, you can read back threw the posts.

At no point did I say accurate document, I dissagreed with the idea of it being "made up"...

You want to jump on the bangwaggon so be it.

I see arguments to points i have not even made.

Bannasidhe is making a lot of assumptions the siting events that hold no relevence to my argument.

Why don't you outline exactly what your argument is so?

You can leave out the bit about no history being verifiable if you like.

lazygal · 03-07-2013 06:50PM

Dp

lazygal · 03-07-2013 06:51PM

Bangwaggon. Snigger.

kylith · 03-07-2013 07:17PM

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Look a number of you have went on a tangent, you can read back threw the posts.

At no point did I say accurate document, I dissagreed with the idea of it being "made up"...

In fairness I said 'madey uppey or exaggerated', or are you suggesting that people living to be hundreds of years old and guys walking on water and bringing back the dead are factual?

endacl · 03-07-2013 07:23PM

lazygal wrote: »

Bangwaggon. Snigger.

Bannasidhe · 03-07-2013 07:24PM

kylith wrote: »

In fairness I said 'madey uppey or exaggerated', or are you suggesting that people living to be hundreds of years old and guys walking on water and bringing back the dead are factual?

There is an argument to be made for some of it to be a case of 'events added for dramatic effect' - like the whole marching around the walls of Jericho and making it fall down bit. The walls of Jericho did indeed fall down, but not when it says in the Bible they fell down and it is unlikely any Israelite within 100 miles of the place at the time but someone thought 'cool story bro. We'll include that.'
Like the census guff- 'aw, k...how are we gonna explain why they had to schlep to Bethlehem and fulfill this here prophesy like?' 'Census' 'What?' 'We'll say they had to go there for the census because...um...'

endacl · 03-07-2013 07:26PM

Does somebody need a new .....

Brian Shanahan · 03-07-2013 10:39PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You can leave out the bit about no history being verifiable if you like.

Don't tell me SMTC is a feckin' postmodernist. They don't have an argumement, just an assertion that "nothing is real, and nobody can be right. I'm right your (bad grammar intentional) wrong. Nyeh, nyeh."

ShowMeTheCash · 04-07-2013 01:01AM

OK let me put this into a little context as it can be difficult to talk to 3 or 4 different people who are all arguing different points..

@ kylith

From what I gather you want to look at extreme cases in the bible: Adam and Eve, Jesus walking on water, people being brought back from the dead and other Supernatural events... etc etc...
Your argument has been well this is BS... Therefore the whole lot of it is BS... Or made up...

You also seem to suggest the bible is the reason for y oppression, misogyny, and the attempting to force Christian ideals and morality on people

My argument was and is, understanding that some stories demonstrate the primitive understanding people had at this time... The idea of someone coming back from the dead probably had more to do with people not actually being dead in the first place... The story of adam and eve most likely the top theory at the time... The world being flooded, well to all intensive purposes it could be argued is what it seem to have happened at the time, easy to look back and agree somewhat of an exaggeration...

Do I think everything in the bible was made up... No of course not, do I think everything in it is factual?? Again of course not.

You seem to want to hold the bible responsible for oppression, misogyny as you seem to think this is what the bible preaches, again I think you seem to be focusing in on a very small element of the text for the most part it talks about forgivingness and loving ones neighbor but these passages I guess do not fit your agenda.

If people wish to use parts of the bible for their own agenda in the quest for oppression or misogyny then it is my opinion this has more to do with organized religion or the corruption of people and not the book itself.

Equally if people want to take it is a spiritual guide or a guide to morality so be it..

Bannasidhe

I think you simply want an argument without really adding anything to the above.
Oh except you hold a Phd in History, well done take a bow, oh and you are on an exam board... Sounds exciting that must go down real well with the ladies!

Looking back over the posts you actually support my stance on this somewhat, you give the bible some weight as a historical source, which really was my original point.
I had also made the point, Christians that take the bible literally are no different to Atheists that discredit the bible for the same literal translation....
My position being that I do not take it literally but more as an account or opinion of people of its time....

In terms of trying to verify how credible it is, like any history of its time it becomes near impossible to say without any real doubt this did happen. But all history is like this...

It was this statement that seem to annoy you, it was more aimed at ancient history and not all history...

i.e. Written account of events of in around 2000 years ago.... Not the rant you made over the history of the IRA 1988...

Then of course you started to put words in my mouth "You want to make a special case for the bible" at no point did i say this.

Old hippy then made this synopsis:
"The Bible is an accurate document of ye rare olde middle eastern times and should be accepted as such"

Again not even close to anything I had actually said but you seem to want to jump on that bandwaggon as it seem to fit an argument you thought you where having with me.

I will try and put this in terms you may understand and something I remember from from my University exam prep "Read the question, then read it again" although you make some good points, it really has little to do with any if the views I had expressed!

legspin · 04-07-2013 08:16AM

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

OK.....!

Oh ffs.

Bannasidhe · 04-07-2013 10:43AM

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

OK let me put this into a little context as it can be difficult to talk to 3 or 4 different people who are all arguing different points..

Bannasidhe

I think you simply want an argument without really adding anything to the above.
Oh except you hold a Phd in History, well done take a bow, oh and you are on an exam board... Sounds exciting that must go down real well with the ladies!

Looking back over the posts you actually support my stance on this somewhat, you give the bible some weight as a historical source, which really was my original point.
I had also made the point, Christians that take the bible literally are no different to Atheists that discredit the bible for the same literal translation....
My position being that I do not take it literally but more as an account or opinion of people of its time....

In terms of trying to verify how credible it is, like any history of its time it becomes near impossible to say without any real doubt this did happen. But all history is like this...

It was this statement that seem to annoy you, it was more aimed at ancient history and not all history...

i.e. Written account of events of in around 2000 years ago.... Not the rant you made over the history of the IRA 1988...

Then of course you started to put words in my mouth "You want to make a special case for the bible" at no point did i say this.

Yes- the highlighted statement did annoy me as it is not correct and I have explained why.

If you missed the point of my reference to Peter Hart there is nothing I can do about that except to say it was made to illustrate how you do not appear to understand what 'history' actually is and the level of peer review historical works are subjected to.

I mentioned my qualifications to illustrate that I do know what I am talking about.

As for this:
'I had also made the point, Christians that take the bible literally are no different to Atheists that discredit the bible for the same literal translation....'

Do you really think that a group of people who wish to impose the rules and strictures contained in that book upon all of society are the same as people who say that book is just a book of folktales and should be treated as such?

See- it's sweeping statements that appear ill thought out that got you in this pickle in the first place.

Btw, Historians give every document 'weight' as a historical source - because they all have something to tell us. Even a humble shopping receipt give us information that forms part of the puzzle. The receipt would have more weight than the Bible however...

kylith · 04-07-2013 11:30AM

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

From what I gather you want to look at extreme cases in the bible: Adam and Eve, Jesus walking on water, people being brought back from the dead and other Supernatural events... etc etc...

How on earth are those 'extreme cases'? They're the entire basis of all the various Christian religions! If the core principals of something are highly dubious what does that say about the thing itself?

Your argument has been well this is BS... Therefore the whole lot of it is BS... Or made up...

Again; made up OR exaggerated. Do I think Jesus fed hundreds of people with 5 loaves of bread and a couple of fish? No, that's obviously nonsense. Is it possible that other people in the crowd added food they'd brought, but that bit got left out of the final edit because the 'miracle' was a better story? Totally plausible.

You also seem to suggest the bible is the reason for y oppression, misogyny, and the attempting to force Christian ideals and morality on people

The bible may not be the source of these things but it provides, for some people, an authority which they can use to legitimise their misogyny and oppression. And let's be frank here; you couldn't foist Christian ideals on someone, with the BS notion of deific authority, if there were no Christian bible.

My argument was and is, understanding that some stories demonstrate the primitive understanding people had at this time... The idea of someone coming back from the dead probably had more to do with people not actually being dead in the first place... The story of adam and eve most likely the top theory at the time... The world being flooded, well to all intensive purposes it could be argued is what it seem to have happened at the time, easy to look back and agree somewhat of an exaggeration...

And I would agree with Banna that those stories hold no more weight than An Táin, and deserve no more respect than that story.

Do I think everything in the bible was made up... No of course not, do I think everything in it is factual?? Again of course not.

You seem to want to hold the bible responsible for oppression, misogyny as you seem to think this is what the bible preaches,

Women couldn't vote, have bodily autonomy, or own property because the bible said they were to be under men's control. Homosexuals are still persecuted and killed because the bible says they're an abomination. Access to contraception has been limited because the bible says to 'be fruitful and multiply'. There probably would still be oppression in the world without the bible but, were it not taken to be the directive of a deity, there would be one less justification for it. People wouldn't be able to say 'I think homosexuals should be killed because God ordered it', they'd have to admit that it was because they were a dickhead.

again I think you seem to be focusing in on a very small element of the text for the most part it talks about forgivingness and loving ones neighbor but these passages I guess do not fit your agenda.

And I think that you're cherrypicking the parts of the bible you like and disregarding the nasty bits because they don't fit your agenda.

If one wishes to follow the bible then one must follow the entire bible, otherwise what is it for? "This is the word of God which I will live my life by, except for the bits I don't like." For every 'love your neighbour as yourself' there is a 'women who give birth to girl children shall be considered unclean for twice as long as if they'd had a boy'. For every 'Suffer the little children' there is a 'I come not to bring peace, but with a sword'.

You can say that there are good bits about how much god loves everyone and how there'll be peace on earth, and how we'll all go to live in heaven with the angels and Granny but, in my opinion, the moment someone wrote about an killing gay people, penned a passage condoning gang rape, or wrote about Yaweh ordering his followers to cut women open and dash their babies on rocks it lost all credibility as any kind of manual of morality.

[/quote]If people wish to use parts of the bible for their own agenda in the quest for oppression or misogyny then it is my opinion this has more to do with organized religion or the corruption of people and not the book itself.[/quote]
Except that ALL THOSE THINGS are condoned, supported, and recommended by the bible itself. How can it be a corruption of the people if they are following what is written down?

ShowMeTheCash · 08-07-2013 01:41PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If you missed the point of my reference to Peter Hart there is nothing I can do about that except to say it was made to illustrate how you do not appear to understand what 'history' actually is and the level of peer review historical works are subjected to.

I can appreciate the point you are trying to make, I just found the example you use of one Author using events of 'Modern History' somewhat of a bad comparison to the example I gave, looking at history from 1988 were we still have primary sources, eye witeness accounts and reems of data somewhat different to looking at ancient history of 2000 years plus and multiple Authors.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I mentioned my qualifications to illustrate that I do know what I am talking about.

Perhaps, I studied Math and software Engineering at Uni not History, I have a number of Phd students on my team, the assumption that holding a Phd and them actually knowing what they are talking about I find is not mutually exclusive.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As for this:
'I had also made the point, Christians that take the bible literally are no different to Atheists that discredit the bible for the same literal translation....'

Do you really think that a group of people who wish to impose the rules and strictures contained in that book upon all of society are the same as people who say that book is just a book of folktales and should be treated as such?

Do you actually believe that this is the agenda of all Christians? Again I think this is a very extreme view of probably a very small minority of people...

Just out a matter of interest and taking probably the best known rules of the bible the 10 comandments... Do you think any of them are at least a good idea?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

it's sweeping statements that appear ill thought out that got you in this pickle in the first place.

And in answer to your question, I try and treat people with the same amount of respect no matter how crazy I think their beliefs...

As for them trying to impose anything on me I doubt even you really believe that!

Bannasidhe · 08-07-2013 02:10PM

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I can appreciate the point you are trying to make, I just found the example you use of one Author using events of 'Modern History' somewhat of a bad comparison to the example I gave, looking at history from 1988 were we still have primary sources, eye witeness accounts and reems of data somewhat different to looking at ancient history of 2000 years plus and multiple Authors.

If you had read my post you would have seen that the events Hart was writing about took place in the 1920s not 1988.

I could give you many, many. many more examples from any era you wish to choose of how it is unacceptable to claim to be writing a scholarly work of history and at the same time fail to take into account all of the sources. For the Roman Empire 2,000 years ago there are reams of data and multiple authors so the comparison is valid.

Perhaps, I studied Math and software Engineering at Uni not History, I have a number of Phd students on my team, the assumption that holding a Phd and them actually knowing what they are talking about I find is not mutually exclusive.

I think you can assume that I know far more about History than you and that as bad as you consider those PhD students to be they know far more about Maths and Software engineering than I do. But since we are discussing history here...

Do you actually believe that this is the agenda of all Christians? Again I think this is a very extreme view of probably a very small minority of people...

Is it?
Have you not been following the debates on abortion or same-sex marriage?
I can hardly turn on a TV without a 'Christian' wanting to control what I do with my body or calling me a threat to humanity if I am allowed to marry my OH.

Just out a matter of interest and taking probably the best known rules of the bible the 10 comandments... Do you think any of them are at least a good idea?

Just out of interest do you think many of those 'rules' were not in place before the Bible?
Are non-Christian societies awash with murder, adultery and coveting neighbour's asses?

And in answer to your question, I try and treat people with the same amount of respect no matter how crazy I think their beliefs...

As for them trying to impose anything on me I doubt even you really believe that![/QUOTE]

So do I - up until the point they try and have their crazy reflected in civil legislation and deny me equal rights.

I am a lesbian - a double whammy of being female and homosexual - you really wanna tell me Christians don't try and impose anything on me???

Really????

Questions atheists are sick of answering. Aaaand Biscuits again, of course.

Comments