For those who want proof of the exodus

[Whateverist]

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.

Do you have a problem with evidence based reasoning?  You don't use it?  I can tell you that I didn't reason my way into atheism, personally.

Perhaps too progressive for his liking.

[athrock]

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.

Of course.

I suspect that many people who have walked away from a faith position have done so for emotional reasons more often than not.

[Crossless2.0]

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. 

Then maybe Mahoney should tear a page from the Einstein playbook and submit his ideas to the appropriate peer reviewed journals. In fact, if he wants to go full Einstein, perhaps he can offer specific things that would utterly disconfirm his theory if they came to light.

I don't remember Einstein selling his ideas in a movie he made over which he enjoyed full editorial control and that he marketed to an audience predisposed to accepting his conclusions because it stroked their need for validation on something they already believed because their holy book said so.

[athrock]

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.

My point is simply that the crackpot ideas of today often turn out to be the bedrock of mainstream thought tomorrow.

[Crossless2.0]

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.

Of course.

I suspect that many people who have walked away from a faith position have done so for emotional reasons more often than not.

Yes, as opposed to all of those theists who believe on largely rational grounds.  

[Cyberman]

My point is simply that the crackpot ideas of today often turn out to be the bedrock of mainstream thought tomorrow.

Sometimes, that's true. Often? Hardly. Either way, that's still to be established. You can't claim the title for him before the work is done.

[Nay_Sayer]

well...where is it?

[Cyberman]

Prophecy:

We're about to be pointed back at the video.

[Whateverist]

For those who want proof of the exodus .. there is only evidence but not very much and nothing of any substance. 

Such as?

Their is absolute evidence That a semetic people live in the very same region of egypt the bible says the Jews/semites lived

Granted.  People lived in Egypt.

Their is absolute evidence that they lived and Prospered for a very long time, then towards the end of their time in egypt they lacked the basics of life while other at the same time prospered (which would indicate slavery.)

Stipulated: there were slaves in Egypt.

Their is a cataloged and verfied Egyptian govermental document that lists 100 Jew only slave names

Stipulated: there were slaves in Egypt.

There are over 25 unescavated towns/villages sites around the central Semetic city that could indeed support the number recorded leaving egypt.

Stipulated: there were towns sufficient in number to house some number of slaves some of which might well have been jewish.  But what do you have to show a large number of jewish slaves were released at the same time.  I strongly doubt it.

Their is an egyptian document that describes the plagues from an egyptian perspective.

Denied: that it rained frogs and genies swept through Egyptian towns killing every first born child in any house not marked by the blood of a burnt offering (or whatever it was).

So what in you mind is without substance?

Just the crazy part.  

You have some evidence for the mundane bits:
jews in Egypt;
that Egyptians owned slaves;
some of whom were Jewish

Do you have any evidence that a large number of jews left out of slavery at the same time?  This I would question along with the crazy 'miracle' bits.

[Angrboda]

My point is simply that the crackpot ideas of today often turn out to be the bedrock of mainstream thought tomorrow.

No, the crackpot ideas of today often turn out to be the crackpot ideas of tomorrow. The key word there being 'often'. Crackpot ideas don't often turn out to have merit. Period. If you meant to say that they sometimes turn out to have merit, you would have been on firmer ground, the only question being how often is 'sometimes'. I would argue that it is rarely.