For those who want proof of the exodus

[Edwardo Piet]

So do idiots. And of course "Christian snowflakes" and "idiots" are not mutually exclusive peopleingz

For me, they often (but not always) function as synonyms.

That's the thing with synonyms, they mean "similar" not "same".

Did you know that "Young Earth Creationist" is also a synonym for "Completely Fuckmothering Fucktarded"?

[athrock]

Was there ever a time when the Big Bang Theory was rejected by mainstream cosmology?

Yes; for the longest time.

Know what swayed the balance? Evidence. Evidence that withstood peer scrutiny and actually matched reality better than any other hypothesis. That's how it got to be a theory; the clue's in the name.

So, were all those who argued in favor of a Big Bang routinely mocked in Internet forums by the "establishment cosmologists" at one point?  

Maybe Mahoney is just another insignificant patent clerk waiting for his big break. 

[Crossless2.0]

As a former Hindu, I can only say that this is simply wrong.  I lack a belief in the existence of 'god', of 'gods', and I'm also mute on the subject of 'God'.  I did not arrive at the same position as a former Christian might have by a "shared methodology".

So out of a complete vacuum you just stop believing in the hindu god or and God.

If this is the case then you are correct. You are a unique snowflake the world has never seen the likes of and shall never see again.

However if you used evidence based reasoning to come to a conclusion their isn't any god(s) then you are a conformist like your non hindu brethern.

Your fundamental dishonesty continues to amaze. I know damn well you have seen the difference between agnostic atheist and gnostic atheist explained, so your last sentence is either another of your straw men or incontrovertible evidence that your comprehension is close to nil.

And evidence-based reasoning is now conformity? Perhaps. Conformity to reality. But group think? That's your territory, Sport.

I suppose that means your fellow Christians, who believe on insufficient evidence (at least those who haven't risen to the self-serving standards you outline in your A/S/K talking points) are what -- mavericks because they don't care about good evidence?

[athrock]

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

What part of 'weak argument' did you not understand?

"Weak" is a relative term.

Like people who say there is "NO" evidence that Jesus existed when they really mean that they weren't impressed by the evidence that does exist.

[GrandizerII]

You can't just look for selective evidence that fits your beliefs and then dismiss all the evidence to the contrary. That's not how it works.

One question: Have you watched the film in its entirety?

No, I'm going by what is being stated in the thread. But you know what, I'm going to watch that film in its entirety within the next couple of days and give my review (if I'm not too lazy then).

[athrock]

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?

Which is to say that you, as an individual, have not yet heard a compelling argument for theism. Maybe you never will.

But that is NOT the same thing as saying that compelling arguments do not exist, is it? After all, there are lots of atheists who finally run across the one with their name on it...

[athrock]

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.

I could take these same sentences, substitute a few words, and turn them around into a devastating case against Richard Carrier and your silly belief in Jesus Mythicism.

[Crossless2.0]

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?

Which is to say that you, as an individual, have not yet heard a compelling argument for theism. Maybe you never will.

But that is NOT the same thing as saying that compelling arguments do not exist, is it? After all, there are lots of atheists who finally run across the one with their name on it...

No, I have not encountered a compelling reason to believe and neither (by definition) have any other people who are, at this time, atheists. Of course, there are former atheists who found or experienced something that caused them to change their minds. By the same token, there are former theists who now say they saw through the "reasons" they previously had for believing.

[Cyberman]

So, were all those who argued in favor of a Big Bang routinely mocked in Internet forums by the "establishment cosmologists" at one point?  

Maybe Mahoney is just another insignificant patent clerk waiting for his big break. 

Maybe, but were I him I would cringe at the quality of champion defending me, if this thread is anything to go by. Comparing him to Einstein just on the offchance that he may be the next one is a backhanded argument from authority; it's up to you and similar proponents to etablish the fact, not simply surmise it. Posturing from a position of ridicule doesn't exactly help.

And yes, BBT was and continues to be thoroughly peer-reviewed. The major difference is that the BB supporters separated their personalities from the work they presented for scrutiny. They didn't just say "you must believe this because we're clever", nor did they try to sell their work on the back of deriding their opponents as idiotic.

[athrock]

One question: Have you watched the film in its entirety?

No, I'm going by what is being stated in the thread. But you know what, I'm going to watch that film in its entirety within the next couple of days and give my review (if I'm not too lazy then).

Good.

I look forward to your hearing your thoughts after seeing it!