(January 9, 2016 at 7:47 pm)Constable Dorfl Wrote: Amazing how quickly drippy has dropped his claim that he wrote half the film, isn't it?

You'd almost think he was lying about it, along with other claims in this thread.

Never claimed i wrote 1/2 of this film ever.

Go back and re read what was written.

(January 11, 2016 at 3:59 pm)athrock Wrote:

(January 11, 2016 at 3:39 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Hey, asshole.  YOU brought up Carrier and made some bullshit claim that YOU could disprove it.  I'm waiting.  Personally having read Carrier's work and seen your lame efforts I know that Carrier has nothing to fear but the ball is still in your court.  Admit you are a bullshit artist or put up your claims to the test.

Every forum needs its bull-y...I guess you've adopted that role.

I'm curious...have you ever read critiques from other skeptics regarding Carrier and the whole Mythicist nonsense he promotes? Seriously, when even non-believers are distancing themselves from the likes of Carrier, that ought to be a red flag...accept for those whose thirst for the kool-aid is insatiable, of course.

I have no problem with GOOD arguments against Christianity, but Mythicism? 

great use of the emoji!
it almost has a mocking quality when paired with the kool aide statement.

(January 11, 2016 at 4:22 pm)Rhythm Wrote: When your worldview, Drich, includes a god that creates women out of ribs and floods the world...or a gaggle of jews wandering the desert eating sky food for a generation....then yes, your worldview conflicts with a scientific worldview.  Hell, it conflicts with a -sane- worldview.

why because the bible uses terms your not familiar with?

DNA from rib

Known world

Air dropped provisions

better? can you wrap you mind around those terms?

(January 11, 2016 at 4:28 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(January 11, 2016 at 4:19 pm)Drich Wrote: Ah, so your the snow flake. I knew I felt a chill in the air, thought it to be alpo, but now after your statment I see that your the one.

Again evidence based reasoning is not the issue. It is the conformity to use 'science' as a crutch. a "god of the gaps" in reverse to fill or filter/interpret all the evidence your world view provides in such away as to 'kill' God. As if one world view (science) precluded the other(God). It's the fact that all 'thought and reasoning based on 'evidence' stops at the feet of science and theory. and is not examined any further, that what makes you a conformist. You don't even know how to look past what science serves up critically.

And look at them goalposts move.  First it's a common atheist methodology, then it's evidentialism, and now evidentialism = scientism.  Drich, if you didn't equivocate so much then you would have no point.  Claiming that all atheists follow scientism is pure bullshit.

do you have an example of someone here who my statement does not apply to?

(January 11, 2016 at 4:30 pm)Helio Nimbus Wrote:

(January 11, 2016 at 4:23 pm)Drich Wrote: Both happen for the same reason. Because a wise man builds his house on the rock of truth and the foolish man builds his house on sand. When tested by the wind and rain the wise man's house stands while the foolish man's house falls.

If an Atheist truly seeks the truth about god he will find it. if a religious man builds his faith on empty religion he will loose it.

Ah, the old 'your not a true christian' card. Got any others?

Explain please.

(January 11, 2016 at 4:33 pm)athrock Wrote: Drich (is Drippy a term of endearment?)-

I watched another documentary on Netflix about Jericho, and Dr. Bryant Wood features prominently in that film. Apparently, he is an expert in ancient pottery.

He claims that Kathleen Kenyon overlooked the pottery evidence regarding the dating of the fall of Jericho, but other websites state that Wood's own proposal for re-establishing the dates of Egypt's Old and New Kingdoms has been shot down. Yet, he features prominently in the Mahoney film.

Thoughts on this?

Additionally, would you say that there is an actual movement (or beginnings of a movement) to reassess the dating of the Egyptian kingdoms among mainstream Egyptologists in view of some of this research? Or are Mahoney, Wood, Aling, et al, really out in the wilderness academically?

Thanks.

It's a name Minnie assigned, and I'll watch that video tonight.

I think that the time line issue is a resolution for those who simply want to believe. I don't honestly think that mainstream egyptologists will EVER admit that the Semites found in Goshen region were the predecessors to the Jews because they were never identified as much on any of the know documents. which can again be explained by the fact that the Israelites were not recognized as a nation by egypt until the settled in the promise land (time of Ramses) up to that point as we see in the Admonitions papyrus they were known as "tribes of the desert who settled in egypt."

Their almost seems to be a hostility to verifying the bible from any historical vantage point. Most people want to separate church and history as they have in government, and find it offensive when the two colide. Like for instance claiming that their is no proof for Jesus outside the bible, or really any OT story or account. I do not see this as any different. History is written by the victors, or in this case those in the majority who want to exclude God from history despite the truth.

Those who seek the truth will always be mocked and belittled if it does not coincide with popular belief. columbus, the wright brothers, Washington/revolutionists.

(January 11, 2016 at 5:28 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(January 11, 2016 at 5:14 pm)Drich Wrote: It's suppose to be missing... I know you claim to be a hindu now, so FYI the Ark... Not apart of the exodus..

Then it is indeed "apart" of the Exodus.  Maybe if you'd bothered to understand the context, you'd have understood the relevance of my mention.  But don't let a lack of reading comprehension spoil your incessant need to say something.

Soo the flood is apart of the exodus???

Book Chapter and verse please

(January 12, 2016 at 11:07 am)Drich Wrote:

(January 11, 2016 at 5:28 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:
Then it is indeed "apart" of the Exodus.  Maybe if you'd bothered to understand the context, you'd have understood the relevance of my mention.  But don't let a lack of reading comprehension spoil your incessant need to say something.

Soo the flood is apart of the exodus???

Book Chapter and verse please

Noah flood is OT so give or take if you wish that happened before jesus "existed".

(January 11, 2016 at 5:00 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(January 11, 2016 at 2:59 pm)athrock Wrote: Thanks for your review. I have a question or two.

1. Based on your next to last paragraph: what is the basis for the conventional assumption that the Exodus HAD to occur during the reign of Rameses? IOW, if the skeptics are right, and the Exodus is PURE FICTION, then why do they insist that this fictional event had to occur during his reign? If the Exodus never happened, why do skeptics insist on dating it in the Middle Kingdom? But if they are insistent upon placing it in the reign of Rameses, aren't they admitting that the Exodus did occur???

It didn't have to occur at all. And regardless of what some skeptics may say about when the Exodus could have occurred, the fact still remains it has not been established that it did occur. Like I said earlier, it's not enough to just meet pieces of evidence that could fit your theory, you need to make sure your theory is not riddled with various difficulties, not challenged by other pieces of evidence against it, and is not trumped by a better theory.

Fair enough.

However, an ancient text lays out a sequence of six events for which there appears to be archaeological evidence. The common cry is, "Show me the evidence!", and Mahoney has done this in rather convincing fashion.

At this point then, the burden of proof shifts to the skeptic who must now demonstrate why Mahoney, et al. are wrong. IF the theory is "riddled with various difficulties", etc., then why is Mahoney wrong about any of the six events he documented?

Please be specific.

Quote:Based on your last paragraph: Let's see...we have a non-king or pharaoh living in a palace in the Land of Goshen inhabited largely by Semites, and this palace has 12 colonnades, 12 tombs found on the grounds, and the one shaped like a pyramid (reserved for VERY important people) has a statue of a man with mushroom shaped haircut (semitic), yellowish-skin (used to depict northerners), a throw-stick (reserved for men of importance) and traces of a multi-colored coat (like the one mentioned in the Bible belonging to Joseph). When the archaeologists discovered this pyramid, they saw that it was not broken into violently but opened carefully, and ALL OF THE BONES WERE REMOVED as one might expect to have occurred if Moses honored Joseph's request to be buried in Canaan. Then, we find a tomb of Joseph in Shechem which indicates that his bones were ultimately moved and interred there centuries after Joseph died.  And all of this is just a coincidence?

All this according to the documentary, but how do we know the documentary's analysis of the statue is accurate? How do we know they didn't omit important facts that would've negated the claims and interpretations they made?[/quote]

That's what the skeptic has to show. Mahoney, Rolm and others have had THEIR say. Why are they wrong?

(January 11, 2016 at 5:01 pm)Minimalist Wrote: You are an astonishing fuckhead.  Trying to give drippy a run for his money as dumbest of the dumb?

Oh, no. I could never hope to out-do you in this regard.