General question about the possibility of objective moral truth

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Oh, by the way, you should be very careful with that "documentary" of yours.

Your "compelling case" is not recent, and has been debunked thoroughly even by Christian researchers.

http://biblicalremains.com/another-broke...-evidence/

Wow! You did a keyword search and found a contrary opinion with lots of scare quotes. I'm amazed! Simply amazed! (douche)

No, douchebag, I looked it up, found that it was a rehash of a debate on the subject that is not new, which I had read, so I went out of my way to find a Christian website for you to read, so you wouldn't think I was just throwing atheist stuff back in your face.

But if that's what I'm going to get for trying to treat you with a modicum of intellectual respect, then you can go fuck yourself.

Douche.

---

Addendum: If you had even a shred of basic decency and respect, you would have recognized that the point of the article I quoted was a Christian group saying, "Dear fellow Christians, do not use this information as a proof, because it's a bad argument."

That's why the author refers to it as a "broken" arrow. It is not to be fired, because your opponents will recognize it as bunk, and they will laugh at you.

Among atheist (and other forms of skeptic, including honest Christians), warning others of bad arguments that on the surface (or to laymen) sound good but are really not solid arguments, is considered a kindness.

The fact that you decided to call me a douche in return for trying to show you that kindness, with respect and with citation, tells me exactly what kind of person you are.

[robvalue]

Simon: I agree that the only definition of morality anyone should be concerned with is to do with wellbeing. The problem is in how that wellbeing is measured. Are you saying there is an objectively correct way to measure wellbeing, in the same way mass can be measured?

This also completely ignores the problem of intent and available knowledge, when assessing actions rather than just the consequences. For example, I never mean to reduce someone's wellbeing. But I do, by accident. Am I being immoral when I make such mistakes? If so, I wouldn't call this morality anymore. Also, I might mean to increase someone's wellbeing in a way consistent with the information I believe to be true, but I may be mistaken or missing information. Again, am I being immoral if the consequences don't match my intent? I would say intent is precisely what morality is about.

I believe it's a very vague term, one which means something slightly different to everyone. How can there be a "right" answer, until we agree on an explicit way to measure wellbeing? And if there is, but it's an assessment no one person actually agrees with, what use is it?

[Neo-Scholastic]

RS, your own words betray you. Referring to historical speculations as 'debunked' show that you have the same attitude towards theories that touch on religion as paranormal claims. If you had said they were wrong or inadequately supported then I would know you gave the theory a fair hearing.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

RS, your own words betray you. Referring to historical speculations as 'debunked' show that you have the same attitude towards theories that touch on religion as paranormal claims. If you had said they were wrong or inadequately supported then I would know you gave the theory a fair hearing.

Oh FFS.

I said "debunked" and I meant "debunked". This is the 2007 article I was linked to originally, on the subject, when I first heard about the revised chronology, which Bible Archaeology Online was nice enough to publish on duh interwebz. When I looked up the video (to see what it was even about) and saw that it was just a rehash of Rohl's timeline made into video form, I laughed, because the article had torn the idea of an earlier exodus to shreds. Some excerpts:

..."David Rohl purports to have produced a better correlation between the findings of archaeology and the Bible by revising Egyptian chronology. One is tempted to dismiss Rohl as simply another crackpot and get on with more important issues. Rohl, however, cannot so easily be brushed aside. As opposed to most who attempt to revise ancient history, Rohl has some scholarly training - he has studied Egyptology and ancient history at University College, London. Moreover, the lay public, largely as the result of a three-part video series based on his book, have become enamored with his supposed Biblical correlations.

Rohl describes the current state of affairs in Biblical archaeology as follows:

---

   ...archaeological excavations in Egypt and the Levant, ongoing for the best part of the last two centuries, have produced no tangible evidence to demonstrate the historical veracity of the early biblical narratives. Direct material support for the traditional history of the Israelite nation, as handed down in the books of Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles, is virtually non-existent.

---

This statement is, of course, grossly exaggerated and inaccurate, as even a cursory review of the many books on archaeology and the Bible will reveal. By making such a statement, Rohl has set up a straw man which he can now proceed to knock down by means of his new chronology. In actual fact, however, the cure is worse than the sickness, as the new chronology produces no correlations whatsoever! "

"There is not the slightest hint in the archaeological record for this reconstruction."

"The Philistines are scarcely mentioned by Rohl. And for good reason - they utterly destroy his reconstruction. According to the revised chronology, the United Monarchy corresponds to the LB IIA period. The first two kings of the United Monarchy, Saul and David, were very much involved with fighting against the Philistines. But the Philistines did not arrive in Canaan until the reign of Ramesses III at the beginning of the Iron Age (Wood 1991), ca. 800 B.C. by Rohl's reckoning. So we are left with a situation where Saul and David are fighting an enemy who does not appear in the historical or archaeological record until 300 years later!" ...  "They completely destroy Rohl's chronology, so he hardly mentions them."

"It is abundantly clear that, from a Palestinian perspective, Rohl's hypothesis is quite unworkable."

[Bold emphases my own.]

So, as I was saying, debunked. And by Christian scholars.