Why does an atheist moderator find it hard to follow

[OpenYourEyes]

The forum rules clearly mentions that the Bible can be used as evidence for people, places, and events. Historians use other ancient works in the same way. You want to accept that Plato exists but yet with the same level or even better evidence for Jesus you deny the existence of Jesus. Hmmm.

Are moderators allowed to restrict people to rules that CONFLICT with the pre-established forum rules?

If not, why do we have one moderator speaking as if the Bible does not count as evidence when in fact, the forum rules clearly state that it does?

[OpenYourEyes]

Zzyzx wrote

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:
If you choose to debate in this sub-forum you are REQUIRED to honor the Guidelines. Notice specifically that the Bible can be used ONLY to show what the bible says and what Christianity says. It cannot be used to prove that a statement or story is true.

So before the debate even began, the odds were stacked against me because I am being prevented from appealing to a source that I believe backs up my case.

Is this to suggest that Non-Theists agree to accept the Bible as proof of truth – accept that “The Bible says so� as proof?

That is the policy in some sub-forums – Holy Huddle, Theology, Doctrine and Dogma, etc. There theists can cite Bible passages as proof. I do not debate in those sub-forums because I am unwilling to accept such terms (which gives preferential treatment to religious positions).

However, it IS a problem when one's entire case is based upon a single source (and its derivatives) that cannot be shown to be truthful and accurate.

I, for one, had NO “false expectations�. I fully expected that no verifiable evidence would be presented. So far, that has proved correct – with only stories and “they believed� offered as though such things constituted evidence.

The Bible stories do constitute as evidence in a historical context. You might disagree with that, just as some Christians disagree with the validity of the theory of evolution, etc, but that doesn't justify anyone imposing their opinion on others, even if you are a moderator.

[benchwarmer]

Wow, you are really grinding on this aren't you? Multiple threads all saying basically the same thing.

I'll let the 'atheist moderator' speak for him/herself, but like I mentioned to you in another thread:

Just because something is evidence, does not mean it is compelling or verifiable evidence. The tissue I just threw in the garbage can is evidence too, but that doesn't mean it is useful or compelling evidence for any and all arguments I might wish to make.

Go ahead, use the Bible as evidence. I personally like to use it all the time on these forums, though usually to show issues with some Christian's own claims. Just be prepared to back it up with something else if this one piece of evidence is not enough to satisfy your opponent. If you don't have anything else, then just admit that and make your best argument with what you have. We can't ask for anything else really. Just don't be surprised if people may not find the argument compelling. Maybe it will be compelling to some who are not commenting. Who knows?

[OpenYourEyes]

[Replying to post 3 by benchwarmer]

The issue is not about 'verifiable' evidence, which is a vague term used by some members to refer to something that's not historical evidence but also not scientific evidence.

The issue is the Bible not being looked at as evidence for people, places, and events, period in the Christianity and Apologetics and Head-to-head section of the debates. This is how it's being passed off to For_The_Kingdom, so much so, that he complained of not being able to reference to his source. So now the debate is pretty much pointless if the Bible, and reasoning from it, is not allowed. This is CONTRARY to the forum rules, of course.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 3 by benchwarmer]

The issue is not about 'verifiable' evidence, which is a vague term used by some members to refer to something that's not historical evidence but also not scientific evidence.

The issue is the Bible not being looked at as evidence for people, places, and events, period in the Christianity and Apologetics and Head-to-head section of the debates. This is how it's being passed off to For_The_Kingdom, so much so, that he complained of not being able to reference to his source. So now the debate is pretty much pointless if the Bible, and reasoning from it, is not allowed. This is CONTRARY to the forum rules, of course.

Ok, maybe we just have a misunderstanding of terms then. When I say 'verifiable' I mean can you support one piece of evidence with another. This other piece of evidence is hopefully disconnected from the first. i.e. written by someone who is not biased or connected to whoever created the original piece you are trying to support. Or this supporting evidence could be archeological and would be something that can be physically studied. Obviously we don't always have access to both kinds. We can only do with what we have. The less we have, the less compelling the evidence usually is.

I get where some of the confusion may be coming from. Specifically in the Science sub forum we would really like to see something that can be verified scientifically i.e. by repeating the same experiment or at least showing that the evidence was peer reviewed by other scientists who are familiar with the field and may have reproduced the data or at least gone over it to check for irregularities.

Verify does not always mean 'scientific'. At least not to me. It just means can you support your evidence with something else.

[OpenYourEyes]

[Replying to post 5 by benchwarmer]

I appreciate you clarifying "verification" but the problem still remains that there are many different ways or types of evidence that can be offered to verify something. Some nurses at my job verify physician orders by talking to the doctor over the phone, whereas I prefer that the doctor puts it in writing or in our computer system. More relevant to this matter, the additional evidence can be one book in the Bible being used to corroborate another. People like Zzyzx do not fully acknowledge this when they make comments like the following,

Zzyzx's current head-to-head debate, post #5

However, it IS a problem when one's entire case is based upon a single source (and its derivatives) that cannot be shown to be truthful and accurate.

Again, the Bible is a collection of books from different sources spanning across more almost two millennia. They are NOT from one source.

Because of statements like the one I quoted here and some of the others ones I quoted elsewhere, this leads to the view that the Bible is not evidence for anything at all. Zzyzx has said just as much, for example, when he says "stories [as in written accounts] do not constitute as evidence".

So the issue is not just about Zzyzx not considering the Bible to be verifiable evidence. My issue with him is that he doesn't even consider the Bible as being evidence at all, for places, people, and events and he imposes that on others, like For_The_Kingdom.

[benchwarmer]

Again, the Bible is a collection of books from different sources spanning across more almost two millennia. They are NOT from one source.

Granted, they were not written by one source, but they were compiled by one source and presented as the Bible.

Surely you can see how this makes the contents of the Bible biased. It is a canon that was compiled by the church. Do you think they just 'willy nilly' included whatever mentioned God or Jesus? Of course not, they compiled a set of documents that they hoped would solidify their doctrines and beliefs. Thus we end up with a very biased collection. Yes, it is evidence. However, it must be taken for what it is and not assumed to be what it isn't. And what it isn't is a disconnected set of documents, in that it was put together by a group that wants to push 'an agenda' or a belief system. You can't really say one document within the Bible is a disconnected piece of evidence that supports another and expect everyone to 'buy in'. At best, a skeptic might concede they are 'lightly' disconnected. Written perhaps by different authors, but certainly not unbiased, disconnected from the 'church'.

[OpenYourEyes]

Again, the Bible is a collection of books from different sources spanning across more almost two millennia. They are NOT from one source.

Granted, they were not written by one source, but they were compiled by one source and presented as the Bible.

Surely you can see how this makes the contents of the Bible biased. It is a canon that was compiled by the church. Do you think they just 'willy nilly' included whatever mentioned God or Jesus? Of course not, they compiled a set of documents that they hoped would solidify their doctrines and beliefs. Thus we end up with a very biased collection. Yes, it is evidence. However, it must be taken for what it is and not assumed to be what it isn't. And what it isn't is a disconnected set of documents, in that it was put together by a group that wants to push 'an agenda' or a belief system. You can't really say one document within the Bible is a disconnected piece of evidence that supports another and expect everyone to 'buy in'. At best, a skeptic might concede they are 'lightly' disconnected. Written perhaps by different authors, but certainly not unbiased, disconnected from the 'church'.

A selection bias would not necessarily take away from the accuracy of the sources themselves. In order for the sources themselves to be inaccurate due to some factors not conducive to truth, like bias, this would require the writers of the sources being biased, as well. We can measure the degree of bias to an extent based on information that they reported on, like if some of the details went against their cause, etc.

Also, remember we are talking about history here which is not totally objective to begin with. All writers had some potential for bias whether it be to prop up a religious or secular leader/government, or to go against them. I'm sure there are plenty of other agendas that have influenced writers, as well. Sometimes history is reported by the victors, so I doubt that we'll ever get much from the perspective of the common population.

My main purpose is to have Otseng address the issue of the Bible not being seen as evidence at all by one moderator. The forum rules clearly state show that the Bible can be used as evidence for historical issues like people, places, and events, just like historians use other ancient writings. The more evidence historians have (empirical evidence, "verifiable evidence", "official documents", power of attorneys, etc) then the more certain they are, but the bare minimum standard starts with written documents, which the Bible contains, and it comes from MULTIPLE sources.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Zzyzx wrote

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Zzyzx wrote:
If you choose to debate in this sub-forum you are REQUIRED to honor the Guidelines. Notice specifically that the Bible can be used ONLY to show what the bible says and what Christianity says. It cannot be used to prove that a statement or story is true.

So before the debate even began, the odds were stacked against me because I am being prevented from appealing to a source that I believe backs up my case.

Is this to suggest that Non-Theists agree to accept the Bible as proof of truth – accept that “The Bible says so� as proof?

That is the policy in some sub-forums – Holy Huddle, Theology, Doctrine and Dogma, etc. There theists can cite Bible passages as proof. I do not debate in those sub-forums because I am unwilling to accept such terms (which gives preferential treatment to religious positions).

However, it IS a problem when one's entire case is based upon a single source (and its derivatives) that cannot be shown to be truthful and accurate.

I, for one, had NO “false expectations�. I fully expected that no verifiable evidence would be presented. So far, that has proved correct – with only stories and “they believed� offered as though such things constituted evidence.

The Bible stories do constitute as evidence in a historical context. You might disagree with that, just as some Christians disagree with the validity of the theory of evolution, etc, but that doesn't justify anyone imposing their opinion on others, even if you are a moderator.

Do you REALLY think that Joshua's long day constitutes and should commonly be considered factual history? Open any history text. You're not going to find the story of Noah's ark included as an established fact of history. Muslim's believe, and claim, that Muhammad once split the moon in two, and then returned it to it's natural condition. You wouldn't really expect to find that in a history text presented as valid history either, would you? That's because religious claims are religious in nature, and NOT valid history. That Christians believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead is a historical fact. That Jesus was ACTUALLY resurrected from the dead IS NOT a historical fact. It is a religious belief.

[Divine Insight]

If not, why do we have one moderator speaking as if the Bible does not count as evidence when in fact, the forum rules clearly state that it does?

Where is this happening?

It was presented to Zzyzx that the bible claims that there were eyewitnesses to specific events. Zzyzx acknowledges this 'evidence' that the authors of the Bible made these claims.

Where in the rules does it state that Zzyzx is then obligated to accept these claims of eyewitness reports to be accurate and verified to be true? Even the authors of the Gospels themselves don't claim to have verified these eyewitness reports.

So what exactly is the problem?