(January 8, 2016 at 1:22 pm)athrock Wrote:

(January 6, 2016 at 3:06 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: You drank the koolaid because it is comforting to your beliefs.  It's just a belief.  Throwing around words like 'truth' just shows how desperate you are for validation.  I watched the video and for my money, Rohl's and Mahoney's evidence on many points was little more than far-fetched speculation, draped over a few small points of data.  It's an interesting argument, but not nearly strong enough as to justify invalidating sound archaeological chronology.  And that's the bottom line.  You believe a weak argument because it provides you comfort.  That is not the grounds for 'truth'.

You find the argument "interesting". Did you find it completely flawed?

If not, then does that mean that it possibly correct but unlikely. Or is it completely unlikely?

I'm trying to understand what appears to be a concession on your part that Mahoney made a better case than you expected...

By her arguements she has not actually watched the whole movie. she skips around from point to point as if she is reading and relaying someone elses commentary or she skimmed watch.. watch for a few mins get the gist and Fast forward to the next scene.. i made reference to a few key scenes that pull the whole movie together and solidifies it to which she has no knowledge of.

(January 8, 2016 at 1:29 pm)Drich Wrote: The scientific method is only trotted out when they do not want to step out on faith. However it is buried deep down in an arguement/ignored completely when Atheistic belief demands 'faith.'

The only belief all atheists share in common is the belief that you theists have presented no compelling reasons to believe in a god or gods. That isn't faith, despite your desperate pretense that all people are in the same leaky epistemological boat as you. Do you get that, or should I use smaller words, Sport?

(January 8, 2016 at 11:08 am)Drich Wrote:

(January 8, 2016 at 10:51 am)dyresand Wrote:

(January 8, 2016 at 10:38 am)Drich Wrote: how so?

I never said the movie did not provide alternitive dates, nor did i say it offered evidence to dispute those dates. I simply offered the information that the movie presents as the best canidate for the exodus.

Not to meantion I did indeed say that the dating of the exodus was only one aspect of this movie and that the movie provided much much more evidence than just the date.

So again how am I wrong? or is this just another vain attempt to dismiss the message by discrediting the messenger?

Quote:Do you have proof that the jews were ever slaves in Egypt?

Watch the movie sport it is on net flix.
In the movie it shows what is call the Brooklyn papyrus On it it identifies 100 Jew/semetic specific names and lables them as slaves to the state.

What most people do not understand is that the Jews were not called the jews during their time in egypt. That is a loop hole most people who claim the jews were never slaves to egypt use. No durning their slavery they where known and semetic egyptians "The tribes of the desert that have become egyptians" This title is found on another official government papyrus of Egypt "The admonitions of an egyptian sage"

Quote:Do you have proof of moses splitting the red sea?

What does proof of split water look like? Water like air is a conforming substance which means it takes the shape of the container or area that it is in. to move or vacate said substance and then quickly replace it leaves no physical evidence.

what we do have is a underwater land bridge set between the two narrowest points of the red sea where a crossing like this would have most likely taken place.

Quote:Do you have proof that Ramses II was alive during the account? 

Nothing in the bible says the exodus was in the time of Ramses. that is Jewish oral tradition.

Quote:Can you answer any of those questions with historical evidence?

Done, what else you got?

You provided no historical evidence only pseudo evidence i will no longer waste my  time on you. 

(January 7, 2016 at 12:52 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote: Because not only have I "watched the movie" I wrote 1/2 of it.

That would actually explain the generally piss-poor quality of the effort.  Much glitz - little hard fact.

Allow me to remind you of what your fucking movie is all about, drip-shit.  The first half consists of Mahoney being steadily being rebuffed by all those nasty Egyptologists and archaeologists telling him his fucking bible is a pile of shit.  Depressed, he retreats to his home to contemplate how his cherished fairy tales could be saved and resolves to take another trip to the region to get his bible bullshit re-inflated only to be smacked down by reality once again.

It is not until he brings in Rohl on his white fucking horse and drinks all the Kool-Aid that he finds someone will tell him what he desperately wants to hear.  YES...IT"S TWUE, IT'S TWUE (think Madeleine Kahn in Blazing Saddles) and all we have to do is re-write all of ancient history so we can shoe horn the fucking bible in.

Your bible is not worth that much effort drippy.  You are so easily fooled.

Actually, Minimalist, what I observed while viewing the film is that all of the Egyptologists and Archaeologists interviewed were unwilling to consider any evidence that contradicted what they have already accepted as incontrovertible fact. "Oh, no, you poor fool...those could not possibly be the Hebrews of the Exodus...why, the artifacts are much too early for them. <sniff>" 

IOW, Mahoney MUST be (has to be) wrong because the experts already know/believe other things to be true, and those things don't line up with what Mahoney was considering.

Now, they MIGHT be correct, and Mahoney MIGHT be wrong. Or it could be the other way around. Unfortunately for scientists like this, every so often, someone comes along with an idea that fits the evidence a little more closely than the old theory does. Then, the cart has to be righted and the apples picked up.

So, you'll suck down the last drops of Kool-Aid from Richard Carrier (despite the evidence and expert opinions that Jesus really did exist) and then turn right around and deny Drich the opportunity to consider a new theory about the Exodus because YOUR experts deny that an Exodus ever occurred.

Presuppositions are powerful things, aren't they?

(January 8, 2016 at 1:36 pm)dyresand Wrote: You provided no historical evidence only pseudo evidence i will no longer waste my  time on you. 

I mentioned two official Egyptian documents written about not only Jewish Slavery, AND confirmation of the plagues... Both written by Egyptian hand both in museums and Both certified and acknowledged by Mainstream egyptologists as being authentic documents...

Do you not understand the term "Historical Evidence?"

Listen, asshole.

When you have a PH D in Egyptology then you can tell them what they have to consider.  Rohl's hypothesis is not new.  He trotted it out over 20 years and was instantly dismissed as a fucking crackpot.  His evidence then was laughable and he hasn't gotten much better.

These are people who have devoted their lives to studying these issues and in many cases are right down in the dirt digging up the artifacts.  Some dilettante showed up with a camera and a fucking bible and I think the professionals were quite tolerant of his stupidity while telling him that he was barking up the wrong tree.

I feel no such urge to be polite.

Waving a fucking bible around is not impressive.

(January 8, 2016 at 1:29 pm)Drich Wrote: The scientific method is only trotted out when they do not want to step out on faith. However it is buried deep down in an arguement/ignored completely when Atheistic belief demands 'faith.'

Book, chapter and verse, please.

(January 8, 2016 at 1:34 pm)Crossless1 Wrote:

(January 8, 2016 at 1:29 pm)Drich Wrote: The scientific method is only trotted out when they do not want to step out on faith. However it is buried deep down in an arguement/ignored completely when Atheistic belief demands 'faith.'

The only belief all atheists share in common is the belief that you theists have presented no compelling reasons to believe in a god or gods. That isn't faith, despite your desperate pretense that all people are in the same leaky epistemological boat as you. Do you get that, or should I use smaller words, Sport?

Atheism uses a shared a methodology all of you have in common that leads to a shared singular belief about God, even if their isn't any formal organization to it. that you can not deny (Unless you simply don't understand how what i saidvdescribes and identifies all of you 'snowflakes.')

Yes. It's called logic. You may want to try employing it sometime.

(January 8, 2016 at 1:50 pm)Drich Wrote:

(January 8, 2016 at 1:34 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: The only belief all atheists share in common is the belief that you theists have presented no compelling reasons to believe in a god or gods. That isn't faith, despite your desperate pretense that all people are in the same leaky epistemological boat as you. Do you get that, or should I use smaller words, Sport?

Atheism uses a shared a methodology all of you have in common that leads to a shared singular belief about God, even if their isn't any formal organization to it. that you can not deny (Unless you simply don't understand how what i saidvdescribes and identifies all of you 'snowflakes.')

Oh, do tell! What is this shared methodology?