(September 28, 2010 at 8:24 am)solja247 Wrote: Why?
Give me evidence of other people who lived 4000 years ago, we know very little historical figures back then...
Hang on buddy, i'm not the one claiming that some character from pre-history actually existed, you are.
I don't give a shit who lived or who was myth, they all mean fuck all to me. Even if there is no evidence for a single character in pre history that doesn't make the pathetically weak case for Abraham existing any stronger.
Look at Zoroaster for example, we have copies of the 18 poems of the Avesta central to his religion which credit him with authorship, which is still 1000 years after he supposedly lived, as well as accoutns from many authors in 500BCE~27AD talking of the religion and their speaking of the founder being Zoroaster. There is archaeological evidence for a civilisation of Persian descent living in central asia in the area described in the religious stories passed down
This is fuck all evidence that allows us only a rough idea that there lived a religious proto-iranian culture in central asia from 2000-1500BCE of whom the later descendents claimed that a "Zoroaster" founded their religion. This is fuck all, and the details of the religion are almost entirely myth, but it's still more evidence for Zoroaster than we have for Abraham.
Quote:I am slightly skeptical, I used to be more, but I realiesd that being a skeptic was infutile and pointless, I saw the light
So you went from being skeptical to believing the contents of stories passed down from primitive, barbaric, sand-dwelling illiterate Jews living in bronze age pallestine for which there is no evidence at all for the vast majority of it ever having happened?
And you think skepticism is futile...
Skepticism is a standard that evaluates evidence to deem it sufficient in forming a conclusion or warranting a belief. It's not futile, unless you suffer from some emotional insecurity that makes you think you desperately need to believe these stupid fucking mythology is true.
Quote:I believe there is an essense of truth...
Right... so do I, to the extend that I believe that there were cultures that believe certain things based on their stories passed down from generation to generation, most of which were obvious allegory and never intended to be taken as being factually accurate. Beyond that there is no reason at all to think that any specific event or character in the stories happened at all and even less reason to favour any one account from any one culture as being more reliable than any other.
Quote:Like what?
Any other culture at all from pre-literacy. The chinese, the egyptians, the greeks, the polynesians, the afrikaans etc. None of these cultural traditions is any more reliable than any other.
The fact that you take jewish tradition seriously for no other reason that it agrees with your chosen religion just demonstrates that your intellectual incompetence is of epic proportions.
Quote:I dont really know if I believe in a litteral flood but a lot of other cultures DO have a flood story...
Yeah and 1) they all lived to talk about it 2) None of the floods were global 3) They all take place at different times with a few exceptions (of which the Jews are not part). The story in the Torah can't possibly be true if the global flood happened, because according to the silly Jewish tradition only a handful of people lived.
It's clearly bullshit made up gradually over a few thousand years and taken way too seriously by a bunch of primitive, unthinking asshats that managed to convince generation after generation to blindly accept all this bullshit as true with absolutely no fucking reason to do so, right up to you in 2010 half-thinking that a global flood actually happened and willing to accept all sorts of stupid ancient myths all in the name of being consistent with your acceptance of the even more stupid Abraham myths.
How does your brain not implode whilst attempting to reconcile all of this nonsense and failing to avoid the egregious double standards waiting at every turn?
.
