(January 18, 2016 at 10:43 am)Drich Wrote:

(January 15, 2016 at 2:55 pm)dyresand Wrote: I have and i even used sources to find out if the video claims are true or not and they weren't true at all.

Then post your findings...

Don't you understand that's how these threads work?

It's not about meme's and ya-huh's, that is not considered to be a topical discussion.

Lets see some links to the resources that directly refute the movie findings, and your summery of them. I'm sure your fellow atheist would love to see this information as well as they all seem to be lacking topical source material to refute what the movie actually says.

Do you not understand that anyone can come up with an alternative theory and find all sorts of evidence for it? Read my responses to athrock. If you can't falsify the much better theory, then your "theory" means jack shit.

(January 15, 2016 at 5:52 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(January 15, 2016 at 2:28 pm)athrock Wrote: Bullshit.

If you aren't willing to spend the time to watch the movie, take some notes, and have an intelligent conversation about the material, then you're just spamming the thread.

OTOH, if you do want to consider the points made in the film, and engage in a civil discussion about what Mahoney did or did not get right, fine. Let's do that.

The burden is on Mahoney and others to show that the currently accepted theory is not better than the one they're proposing. In other words, show that it doesn't better account for the evidence than Rohl's theory and that it is less parsimonious, falsify it, present unique evidence that only Rohl's theory can explain, stuff like that. Don't just drag on about evidence that the currently accepted theory already accounts for satisfactorily.

Rohl's theory is just a small percentage of the total evidence provided by Mahoney. Actually Rohl plays a very small 'Role' is Mahoney's theory. Mahoney compiles a ton of evidence that supports every aspect of the Jewish captivity, from how/when they entered the land of Goshen, to their rise, to their fall into slavery, to the exodus and their entrance into the promised land. All of this was done apart from any contribution Rohl provided with his theory. Rohl's role was to simply shift the time line for those who wanted to make an issue about a middle kingdom exodus.

(January 15, 2016 at 7:07 pm)Heat Wrote:

(January 15, 2016 at 2:16 pm)Drich Wrote: you condone it when you buy products that support or require slavery to make them.
example:
What happened when the owner of Chick Filet spoke out against homosexuality? what did the homosexual community do in protest to chick filet

What happen to Donald trumps sponcers when he came out hard against Muslims and immigration/the Mexico wall?
Why?

what about Disney when they would not give equal benfits to homosexual couples?

Ever heard the term fair trade coffee?? how did that come about?

These companies were boycotted, reason the people boycott a company is so that their money does not go to fund a practice or ideal they do not agree with.

How many companies do you support (no matter the cost) that only deal with items and products that were completely created/grown in a fair trade environment? How many products have you gone without or completely abandoned? (like cell phones for instance) their isn't a cell on the market that does not utilize components made or assembled by slave hands.

You want to talk about not thinking for yourself, why haven't you identified how slavery impacts/provides every aspect of your existence? Are you really so stupid as to believe that after the American civial war all slavery ended? Are you so foolish to believe that 55" plasma TV's can really be produced, packaged, shipped, and sold at retail for less than 200 dollars for a profit without slave labor involved?

Do you think Bananas can be shipped to your grocery store of choice year round for a price you can afford to pay without slavery?

You need to grow up, you are the one who needs to learn to think on his own and stop pretending you don't Need slavery to live every aspect of your life no matter how humble in this or any other western culture!

Argument ad nauseam.

have you answered any of these points? then how can you claim this fallacy? Just because I've used these answers to shut down others does not mean you can claim a logical fallacy if you yourself have not addressed any of these points.

(January 18, 2016 at 10:59 am)Drich Wrote:

(January 15, 2016 at 5:52 pm)Irrational Wrote: The burden is on Mahoney and others to show that the currently accepted theory is not better than the one they're proposing. In other words, show that it doesn't better account for the evidence than Rohl's theory and that it is less parsimonious, falsify it, present unique evidence that only Rohl's theory can explain, stuff like that. Don't just drag on about evidence that the currently accepted theory already accounts for satisfactorily.

Rohl's theory is just a small percentage of the total evidence provided by Mahoney. Actually Rohl plays a very small 'Role' is Mahoney's theory. Mahoney compiles a ton of evidence that supports every aspect of the Jewish captivity, from how/when they entered the land of Goshen, to their rise, to their fall into slavery, to the exodus and their entrance into the promised land. All of this was done apart from any contribution Rohl provided with his theory. Rohl's role was to simply shift the time line for those who wanted to make an issue about a middle kingdom exodus.

That's very misleading. Rohl was the main character in the film, aside from Mahoney. Rohl was the one who provided most of the interpretations that allowed Mahoney to take some liberty with Rohl's theory.

(January 15, 2016 at 7:20 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(January 15, 2016 at 2:23 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I tried, before this thread ever popped up.  It's been a slow few months on netflix.  Bored me to sleep.  I had to go read their executive summary.  Even had I not watched or read it, we've discussed it...... for 60 pages.  

Sorry Drich, it just doesn't hold water.

I watched it.  It's a bible thumper's wet dream.  They twist everything into some evidence for their happy horseshit and then try and skew Egyptian history by 300 years to get that to work.  Only morons like drippy and assrock would be impressed by it.

Impressing those two is obviously a low bar to get over.

This is a proper Minnie response!

I think you did finally watch the movie, or at least enough to get you to stop quoting irrelevant rebuttals about Rohl. You finally saw what/how your approached failed now we get to default back to what you do best. Name calling and cussing, in a weak attempt to sweep everything under the rug without having to address anything.

(January 18, 2016 at 11:01 am)Drich Wrote:

(January 15, 2016 at 7:07 pm)Heat Wrote: Argument ad nauseam.

have you answered any of these points? then how can you claim this fallacy? Just because I've used these answers to shut down others does not mean you can claim a logical fallacy if you yourself have not addressed any of these points.

Let me simplify all this for you, since you are still stuck in Candy Land.

It's all made up bullshit. Yours and all god claims in human history. I am sure you like what you believe, but so what. We don't doubt you truly believe what you claim, but we do doubt your perception of reality. The covered olives in the bowl in the dark room at a Halloween party are olives, doesn't matter if someone scared you into believing they were eyeballs. There is no God, and thankfully especially not the bloodthirsty gang leader of Abraham. If you want to believe it sure, you will.

(January 17, 2016 at 5:36 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote:

(January 15, 2016 at 2:24 pm)Drich Wrote: Do some RESEARCH before you speak

Ah, poor drippy, you can never accet that you're wrong. Fact is you condone slavery (which, to my mind is worse than murder) and we don't. Knowing that this is wrong, instead of recanting your earlier immoral and evil views, you try to make out that our position is the same as yours when, in fact, it is the opposite. And that must really kill you, the knowledge that you have deep down that you are a worse person than the godless atheists you've been demonising all your life.

If you weren't such a shit stain, I'd almost feel sorry for you.

OMG...

How is it you are the only one who still does not understand that YOU CONDONE SLAVERY in Practice just by living a life that the work of slaves provides? How is it you still do not understand that just because you re-lable a slave a 'sweat shop employee' or a 'migrant worker or a field hand' does not mean they are not slaves? How is it you STILL do not acknoweledge that definition of Slavery goes far beyond the Chattle Slaves of the 17 and 18th century in North America?
How can you be ignorant of the fact that Slavery is a problem world wide and that an American civil war did not stop Slavery the world over? Are you still so stupid to blindly accept that any product that can be bought or sold can be done so affordably if everyone involved in said product is paid fairly? If So why have production facilities been leaving America (where people were being paid fairly for what they created) to 3rd world countries? where they are paid less than 1/3 of an hourly wage here, for an entire day (12-16 hours) there?

Compounding all of that, now ask yourself what would happen to these people if all of it were to simply stop? What if the world demanded that all workers got a fair wage (what a union worker would get here?) Companies would bring manufacturing back to the US (because their is still shipping costs involved, therefore all else being equal then it would not make sense to manufacture over seas.) Meaning all their jobs would dry up, leaving billions with no way to provide for themselves. Which in a 3rd world country means most of those people would starve and die.

So looking at the reality of all of it I like YOU support slavery (by it's actual definition) However acknowledging my role in it I want to demand that it be highly regulated and treated fairly. Because nothing is written that all slaves must be treated badly. You on the other hand (being a self righteous monster) wants to pretend that just because modern slavery does not meet the stereotype you've been brain washed to identify, it no longer exists. and therefore do not have to concern yourself with any regulation of slavery in the countries which all your 'products' are made. Which literally means slaves today can have it much much worse than the black man you have pictured in a field somewhere when ever you use that word.

(January 18, 2016 at 10:57 am)Irrational Wrote:

(January 18, 2016 at 10:43 am)Drich Wrote: Then post your findings...

Don't you understand that's how these threads work?

It's not about meme's and ya-huh's, that is not considered to be a topical discussion.

Lets see some links to the resources that directly refute the movie findings, and your summery of them. I'm sure your fellow atheist would love to see this information as well as they all seem to be lacking topical source material to refute what the movie actually says.

Do you not understand that anyone can come up with an alternative theory and find all sorts of evidence for it? Read my responses to athrock. If you can't falsify the much better theory, then your "theory" means jack shit.

AGAIN THAT IS WHAT A DISCUSSION IS!!! Post your 'alternative theory'!

(January 18, 2016 at 11:03 am)Irrational Wrote:

(January 18, 2016 at 10:59 am)Drich Wrote: Rohl's theory is just a small percentage of the total evidence provided by Mahoney. Actually Rohl plays a very small 'Role' is Mahoney's theory. Mahoney compiles a ton of evidence that supports every aspect of the Jewish captivity, from how/when they entered the land of Goshen, to their rise, to their fall into slavery, to the exodus and their entrance into the promised land. All of this was done apart from any contribution Rohl provided with his theory. Rohl's role was to simply shift the time line for those who wanted to make an issue about a middle kingdom exodus.

That's very misleading. Rohl was the main character in the film, aside from Mahoney. Rohl was the one who provided most of the interpretations that allowed Mahoney to take some liberty with Rohl's theory.

No, Rohl's theory of a time shift at the 2nd dark age is ONLY used to sync the time line. Rohl's other role is to confirm artifacts and data that has been provided and explained by other sources. Which again are completely independent of anything his theory changes.

(January 18, 2016 at 11:07 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(January 18, 2016 at 11:01 am)Drich Wrote: have you answered any of these points? then how can you claim this fallacy? Just because I've used these answers to shut down others does not mean you can claim a logical fallacy if you yourself have not addressed any of these points.

Let me simplify all this for you, since you are still stuck in Candy Land.

It's all made up bullshit. Yours and all god claims in human history. I am sure you like what you believe, but so what. We don't doubt you truly believe what you claim, but we do doubt your perception of reality. The covered olives in the bowl in the dark room at a Halloween party are olives, doesn't matter if someone scared you into believing they were eyeballs. There is no God, and thankfully especially not the bloodthirsty gang leader of Abraham. If you want to believe it sure, you will.

and let me do the same (simplify)
The discussion this movies brings provides 'proof' that 'candy land' is not a made up place. It uses documented vetted existing Egyptian artifacts.