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

ShowMeTheCash · 08-07-2013 03:09PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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.

I dissagree in the comprison being valid. I would suggest the likely hood of getting a more accurate picture of events of the 1920s somewhat easier that that of 2000 years ago.
I think you argument is more "well without evidence" to which all history has some basis it is simply a point of view... Which I can accept.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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...

I can accept you probably know more about history than me but I again i am not talking about the rise of the roman empire, the formation of the united irish men, wolfe tone, 1916 or the dictators of europe... My argument has never really been about "what people know" it was more about logically what can actully be proven or disproven and the arguments to opposing sides have around faith and how we interpret the bible.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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.

I find your bias here remarkable... And I find your statement sensationalism of the highest order!!

"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 "

I do not know what to say to this...

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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?

So let me get this straight, good ideas of common sense existed before the bible therefore you do not attribute them to Christian ideals.
The stupid ideas of course have to be attributed to Christians wanting to impose their wicked regime on the masses... OK got you!

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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????

I at least now understand your bias, I can perhaps even say you are probably entitled to your bias... But I think bias none the less!

They way you descibe something I find very dangerous and I think almost shows a kind of bigotry...

Bannasidhe wrote: »

you really wanna tell me Christians don't try and impose anything on me???

You see nothing wrong with this statement?

Be a bit like me stating after being robbed by a bunch of dudes in yamakas, "The jews robbed me!!"

Bannasidhe · 08-07-2013 04:51PM

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I dissagree in the comprison being valid. I would suggest the likely hood of getting a more accurate picture of events of the 1920s somewhat easier that that of 2000 years ago.
I think you argument is more "well without evidence" to which all history has some basis it is simply a point of view... Which I can accept.

You have obviously never tried to get information in IRA activities during the War of Independence if you think it is easy.

For the last time - without evidence it is not history. It can be proto-history, pre-history or even pseudo-history but it is not history.
You really seem to think historians do a Drumm on it and pull it out of our asses. I could say the same about software developers but I would be wrong. Just like you are wrong about what you think history is.

The Bible is not history no more than the Táin is. It is a source that is all. It is also a source which when examined in detail using the reams of documents and wealth of contemporary accounts is, to use a technical term, well dodgy.

I can accept you probably know more about history than me but I again i am not talking about the rise of the roman empire, the formation of the united irish men, wolfe tone, 1916 or the dictators of europe... My argument has never really been about "what people know" it was more about logically what can actully be proven or disproven and the arguments to opposing sides have around faith and how we interpret the bible.

There is no 'probably' about it - judging by your posts you don't even seem to know what history is.

I find your bias here remarkable... And I find your statement sensationalism of the highest order!!

"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 "

I do not know what to say to this...

So let me get this straight, good ideas of common sense existed before the bible therefore you do not attribute them to Christian ideals.
The stupid ideas of course have to be attributed to Christians wanting to impose their wicked regime on the masses... OK got you!

I at least now understand your bias, I can perhaps even say you are probably entitled to your bias... But I think bias none the less!

They way you descibe something I find very dangerous and I think almost shows a kind of bigotry...

You see nothing wrong with this statement?

Be a bit like me stating after being robbed by a bunch of dudes in yamakas, "The jews robbed me!!"

I'm biased because I object to people telling me I should accept that according to their 'holy' book I should be celibate as having sex with my OH is an abomination and my failure to abide by their rules means I should burn in hell for eternity -WOW.

That is some scary 'logic' you got going there.

ShowMeTheCash · 08-07-2013 05:30PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

For the last time - without evidence it is not history. It can be proto-history, pre-history or even pseudo-history but it is not history.
You really seem to think historians do a Drumm on it and pull it out of our asses. I could say the same about software developers but I would be wrong. Just like you are wrong about what you think history is.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Can you read, have you actually read my posts?? I have argued at very least the bible is insight into what people believed 2000+ years ago an insight to an ancient people... Whether or not some or all of the events actually happened or not is open for debate...

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The Bible is not history no more than the Táin is. It is a source that is all. It is also a source which when examined in detail using the reams of documents and wealth of contemporary accounts is, to use a technical term, well dodgy.

Well done on stating the obvious!

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm biased because I object to people telling me I should accept that according to their 'holy' book I should be celibate as having sex with my OH is an abomination and my failure to abide by their rules means I should burn in hell for eternity -WOW.

Well at least you know you are biased

Look I do not know what you are trying to prove here, you telling me people activley tell you, you are going to burn in hell? Really???

If you do not believe in the bible why do you care that they think you will burn in a made up place?

Queue arument on legislation... "But I cannot marry my OH!!!"
Take it up with your local TD, unfortunately we live in a democracy, if the majority of people want to believe in fairys then we are going to get some fairy laws......

You got a better idea?

Sycopat · 09-07-2013 11:29AM

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Whether or not some or all of the events actually happened or not is open for debate...

Well done on stating the obvious!

Just to ignore that you've, throughout the course of the thread, challenged people on their knowledge of history, misrepresented the field of history, denigrated scientists and academics, shown absolutely no consistency when it comes to discussing christianity (FYI, you come across as completely unaware that despite the tendency of Irish catholics to only take the bits they like from the bible, organised religions generally don't have the same 'pick and choose' mentality. Your definition of Christianity in post 41 is weird too, and I doubt many christians would agree with it.) and conflated holding grievances against institutionalised discrimination with being a racist. Not of course to forget that your 'two cents on the topic" was completely off topic to begin with. Ignoring all that.

How is it that you arrive at the position of agreeing that the Bible is totally dodgy as a source, yet think it totally acceptable as a holy text?

What sort of mental gymnastics are you doing to hold that position? What's the reasoning?

And I know you claimed you're not a christian, but you also said things like (And I remind you of this because you seem to have forgotten.):

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

If you want to beleive it is madey-uppy, cool your arguement however to why you believe this hold absolutly no more weight than someone that wants to believe it is the written word of god!

ShowMeTheCash · 09-07-2013 12:37PM

Sycopat wrote: »

Just to ignore that you've, throughout the course of the thread, challenged people on their knowledge of history, misrepresented the field of history, denigrated scientists and academics, shown absolutely no consistency when it comes to discussing christianity (FYI, you come across as completely unaware that despite the tendency of Irish catholics to only take the bits they like from the bible, organised religions generally don't have the same 'pick and choose' mentality. Your definition of Christianity in post 41 is weird too, and I doubt many christians would agree with it.) and conflated holding grievances against institutionalised discrimination with being a racist. Not of course to forget that your 'two cents on the topic" was completely off topic to begin with. Ignoring all that.

How is it that you arrive at the position of agreeing that the Bible is totally dodgy as a source, yet think it totally acceptable as a holy text?

What sort of mental gymnastics are you doing to hold that position? What's the reasoning?

And I know you claimed you're not a christian, but you also said things like (And I remind you of this because you seem to have forgotten.):

My posts I agree are a little disjointed, however there are a number of different points being put forward....
Initally it was around the idea of faith and Christianity which then morphed into a historical debate on what can been seen as history or whever terminology people want to use...

Historically dogy yes as something to what we can verify as fact? Absoutly not...
Christianity is about faith and what people choose to believe.... Can anyone say that these events did not happen?? Well they can, but can they prove that? Doubtfull

I think you too have missed my argument, I at no point have suggested the bible is beyond reproach, my argument is, if this is what people choose to believe then so be it.... I also give it at least some weight to the bible as a historical source, most modern schollars at least think Jesus did exist and that the crucifixion probably did happen...... (You can wiki that)

The original post was on "Questions atheists are sick of answering" what I found funny is the logic to some of these.... But I find it funny people of the opposing viewpoint use the same type of argument....

From making that point I essentially have had in influx of peopel defending the athiest standpoint which I find funny as usually it happens the other way around where Christians start on their campaign to defend their point of view.

Just on some of the point above

challenged people on their knowledge of history

Of course why not?

denigrated scientists and academics

Or perhaps just defended my ideas around this, but you can call it denigrated if it makes you feel better.

yet think it totally acceptable as a holy text?

I think if people choose to use it as a holy text so be it.

organised religions generally don't have the same 'pick and choose' mentality

Really? Explain... I actually do not know what point you are making here?

holding grievances against institutionalised discrimination with being a racist

I think the comments of Bannasidhe seem somewhat exaggerated, she gives the idea that she cannot leave her home without Christians somehow trying to descriminate against her... I found her statement
you really wanna tell me Christians don't try and impose anything on me???

At very least sterotyping...

What sort of mental gymnastics are you doing to hold that position?

See things as you may, I have not actually tried to prove anything on this thread, only to suggest that any argument either side of this too some degree is pointless, idiotic even!
But that is not to say I do not give some respect to people in what they choose to believe...
An argument was then made that these people are imposing on legal rights due to something they believe in..... Perhaps but that is society and democracy....

endacl · 09-07-2013 12:47PM

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

My posts I agree are a little disjointed, however there are a number of different points being put forward....
Initally it was around the idea of faith and Christianity which then morphed into a historical debate on what can been seen as history or whever terminology people want to use...

Historically dogy yes as something to what we can verify as fact? Absoutly not...
Christianity is about faith and what people choose to believe.... Can anyone say that these events did not happen?? Well they can, but can they prove that? Doubtfull

I think you too have missed my argument, I at no point have suggested the bible is beyond reproach, my argument is, if this is what people choose to believe then so be it.... I also give it at least some weight to the bible as a historical source, most modern schollars at least think Jesus did exist and that the crucifixion probably did happen...... (You can wiki that)

The original post was on "Questions atheists are sick of answering" what I found funny is the logic to some of these.... But I find it funny people of the opposing viewpoint use the same type of argument....

From making that point I essentially have had in influx of peopel defending the athiest standpoint which I find funny as usually it happens the other way around where Christians start on their campaign to defend their point of view.

Just on some of the point above

challenged people on their knowledge of history

Of course why not?

denigrated scientists and academics

Or perhaps just defended my ideas around this, but you can call it denigrated if it makes you feel better.

yet think it totally acceptable as a holy text?

I think if people choose to use it as a holy text so be it.

organised religions generally don't have the same 'pick and choose' mentality

Really? Explain... I actually do not know what point you are making here?

holding grievances against institutionalised discrimination with being a racist

I think the comments of Bannasidhe seem somewhat exaggerated, she gives the idea that she cannot leave her home without Christians somehow trying to descriminate against her... I found her statement
you really wanna tell me Christians don't try and impose anything on me???

At very least sterotyping...

What sort of mental gymnastics are you doing to hold that position?

See things as you may, I have not actually tried to prove anything on this thread, only to suggest that any argument either side of this too some degree is pointless, idiotic even!
But that is not to say I do not give some respect to people in what they choose to believe...
An argument was then made that these people are imposing on legal rights due to something they believe in..... Perhaps but that is society and democracy....

The problem is of course, that people who would quote the bible with an agenda in mind, don't quote it as A source. They quote it as THE source. I know that's not you, but you have kinda tied the thread in knots, and yourself too, in trying to argue the point. From a sophistic point of view, I think you've done as well as can be done on this one. Maybe it's time to concede, so we can get back to biscuits?

old hippy · 09-07-2013 12:58PM

Are there biscuits in the bible?

endacl · 09-07-2013 01:04PM

old hippy wrote: »

Are there biscuits in the bible?

Only unleavened ones. Not very dunkable.

ShowMeTheCash · 09-07-2013 01:06PM

I think there are Jaffa cakes mentioned somwhere, but is that a biscuit or a cake?

endacl · 09-07-2013 01:09PM

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

I think there are Jaffa cakes mentioned somwhere, but is that a biscuit or a cake?

Oh FFS! I should have known you'd pick Jaffa cakes!?!

Not. A. Biscuit.

ShowMeTheCash · 09-07-2013 01:15PM

endacl wrote: »

Oh FFS! I should have known you'd pick Jaffa cakes!?!

Not. A. Biscuit.

Correct, in 1991 the McVities corporation defended its classification of Jaffa Cakes as cakes and not biscuits.
You pay value added tax on chocolate covered biscuits and not chocolate covered cakes... Saved them millions

kylith · 09-07-2013 01:20PM

Jaffa cakes are lovely.

endacl · 09-07-2013 01:23PM

kylith wrote: »

Jaffa cakes are lovely.

Your use of 'lovely' does not correspond to any accepted definition I can find. Explain yourself. Immediately.

Podgers · 09-07-2013 01:29PM

"So you don't believe in an afterlife then? you must have an awful grim/loney view of life?"

ah not really, infact i have an amazing life, i know that i must do all the things i want to do achieve, or give them my best shot anyway, theres only one chance no point in wasting it.

"what's going to happen when to you when you die?"

like everything else that dies, disintegrate into the ground, nourish the ground and help other life forms to generate, thats the cycle of life.

kylith · 09-07-2013 01:35PM

endacl wrote: »

Your use of 'lovely' does not correspond to any accepted definition I can find. Explain yourself. Immediately.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRCaenN1_m9Y040U6Bu9dH7SuT_WUmGtzve5ks_ihjGoK063G0a

Are you going to tell that man that Jaffa cakes aren't nice?

endacl · 09-07-2013 01:40PM

kylith wrote: »

Are you going to tell that man that Jaffa cakes aren't nice?

Yes. He wears makeup and is therefore obviously a bit girly.

Terrlock · 09-07-2013 01:41PM

What about this question.

If someone could prove without a shadow of a doubt that God is real.

Would you submit to him?

endacl · 09-07-2013 01:46PM

Terrlock wrote: »

What about this question.

If someone could prove without a shadow of a doubt that God is real.

Would you submit to him?

'Submit'? Not a chance. If he exists, he's a prick.

I would accept the fact of his existence though, but that's a different question, isn't it?

robindch · 09-07-2013 01:54PM

Terrlock wrote: »

If someone could prove without a shadow of a doubt that God is real. Would you submit to him?

Depends on which god or gods you're talking about.

For the old-testament christian god, you'd have to submit or die without hope of a glorious afterlife since that didn't really exist for OT believers. And the new-testament christian god, well, probably the same choice really, but he'd let you live first, then consign you upon death to the NT's "hell" for all eternity.

I suppose it just depends on which mafia-style "submit or I'll murder you" you happen to think applies in your case.

kylith · 09-07-2013 01:57PM

endacl wrote: »

Yes. He wears makeup and is therefore obviously a bit girly.

Right, you tell him that, I'll get the popcorn. Jaffa cake flavoured, if possible.

Terrlock wrote: »

What about this question.

If someone could prove without a shadow of a doubt that God is real.

Would you submit to him?

No. If he does exist he's one of the most murderous, oppressive, misogynistic, uncaring, vain, selfish individuals to ever be. I would never submit to anyone who could have created a world in which everyone could have had peace and enough to eat, and who instead decided to create malaria and genocide instead.

SebBerkovich · 09-07-2013 02:05PM

Something in another thread reminded me of a question that i'm sick of answering.

That is when someone says in answer to your argument

Well then by that logic <something illogical & borderline insane>

i think it's up there in my list of top 5 argument copouts

ShowMeTheCash · 09-07-2013 02:30PM

kylith wrote: »

No. If he does exist he's one of the most murderous, oppressive, misogynistic, uncaring, vain, selfish individuals to ever be. I would never submit to anyone who could have created a world in which everyone could have had peace and enough to eat, and who instead decided to create malaria and genocide instead.

Sorry I really cannot help myself

So lets wipe the slate clean, nothing to do with the bible or our interpretaion of god....

But let's say there is a god, some all powerful being entity whatever you want to call it...

First off, I think you would need to try and think of god not as an individual and something that is not bound to what we interpret as good or evil... But something beyond our comprehension.... So the questioning of the above I think probably irrelevant...

kylith · 09-07-2013 02:47PM

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Sorry I really cannot help myself

So lets wipe the slate clean, nothing to do with the bible or our interpretaion of god....

But let's say there is a god, some all powerful being entity whatever you want to call it...

First off, I think you would need to try and think of god not as an individual and something that is not bound to what we interpret as good or evil... But something beyond our comprehension.... So the questioning of the above I think probably irrelevant...

How about this:

IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT WANTS ME TO WORSHIP IT, IT HAD BLOODY WELL BETTER DEMONSTRATE THAT IT IS WORTH WORSHIPPING.

And even then I probably wouldn't because if there was an all-powerful, all-loving deity then, if it is truely good and wise, it wouldn't want to be worshipped. Desire for worship is selfish. A selfish being does not deserve worship.

Clear enough? And none of this 'not bound by our morality' crap. If it's interacting with humans it has to use human morality. Which human morality it went for would be a deciding factor, I think.

kiffer · 09-07-2013 03:00PM

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

But let's say there is a god, some all powerful being entity whatever you want to call it...

First off, I think you would need to try and think of god not as an individual and something that is not bound to what we interpret as good or evil... But something beyond our comprehension.... So the questioning of the above I think probably irrelevant...

If it's beyond our compression then we can't answer any sensible questions about it... we can't even ask any sensible questions.
At that point you have defined it to be something we can't have any real understanding of at all.
At that point how could we tell thr difference between "things people make up about it" from "things that are true about it"?
I'm not saying any guess is as good as another... but frankly taking "some sort of super being exists but we can't understand it" as a priori knowledge doesn't really tell us anything about it... doesn't really help at all

ShowMeTheCash · 09-07-2013 03:35PM

I really do not know what you are talking about...

I think you make too many assumptions...

For example:

And none of this 'not bound by our morality' crap. If it's interacting with humans it has to use human morality..

You are making the assumption that we "humans" are somehow special... Perhaps there is a "god" creator whatever you want to call it and it created us simply because it could... Perhaps we are no different to any other animal on the plannet albeit we pertain to being somwhat intelligent....

Your last comment shows better lateral thinking....

kylith · 09-07-2013 03:37PM

If a god created us especially, wouldn't that make us special?

Or are you talking about some pan-galactic being that never created anything nor claimed to? In that case why would we worship it or call it a god?

I think the problem may be that your initial question was so confusing that no-one can give a clear answer to it.

ShowMeTheCash · 09-07-2013 03:54PM

kylith wrote: »

If a god created us especially, wouldn't that make us special?

Or are you talking about some pan-galactic being that never created anything nor claimed to? In that case why would we worship it or call it a god?

I think the problem may be that your initial question was so confusing that no-one can give a clear answer to it.

It was not my question. I think Terlock posted it...
I think the idea being would you submit to it/him....

You say no and give reasons.... But your reasons are fimly based in morality and I guess firmly inside the box...

The question probably opens up a lot more questions.
Does this god want us to submit to it?
Is their actually a purpose to our existance?
Are we special?
Are we held accountable for what we do? etc.. etc..

I do have a question, were do you think morality comes from?
The sense of doing something right or wrong?

kylith · 09-07-2013 04:00PM

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

It was not my question. I think Terlock posted it...

I was referencing your post - the one directly above mine, #236.

ShowMeTheCash · 09-07-2013 04:06PM

kylith wrote: »

I was referencing your post - the one directly above mine, #236.

I think the problem may be that your initial question was so confusing that no-one can give a clear answer to it...

But I did not ask a question in 236?

Again you make an assumption:

If a god created us especially, wouldn't that make us special?

Could be argued that god made Tigers... Are they too bound to morality?

kylith · 09-07-2013 04:15PM

Can you please use the multi quote function so that I can see who you're quoting in various parts of your post? Or are you trying to get me to argue against myself? If you have difficulty with it; you just put

at the beginning and [ /quote] at the end (without the space). As it is, your posts are very confusing.

From what I can work out....

You assumed that I said that humans were special, which I didn't. When you questioned me I pointed out that being created by a deity would automatically make us special, which it would being that we would have been made by a creator (and yes, that would make everything else special too*, but historically humans have tended to cast themselves as 'most special' because of the intelligence thing). The only thing I said about morality is that I refuse to take it out of the equation as you wanted to in #233

ShowMeTheCash wrote:

...something that is not bound to what we interpret as good or evil...

*assuming we were created by a deity, which we weren't.

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

Comments