For those who want proof of the exodus

[Angrboda]

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?

Ah, so your the snow flake. I knew I felt a chill in the air, thought it to be alpo, but now after your statment I see that your the one.

Again evidence based reasoning is not the issue. It is the conformity to use 'science' as a crutch. a "god of the gaps" in reverse to fill or filter/interpret all the evidence your world view provides in such away as to 'kill' God. As if one world view (science) precluded the other(God). It's the fact that all 'thought and reasoning based on 'evidence' stops at the feet of science and theory. and is not examined any further, that what makes you a conformist. You don't even know how to look past what science serves up critically.

And look at them goalposts move. First it's a common atheist methodology, then it's evidentialism, and now evidentialism = scientism. Drich, if you didn't equivocate so much then you would have no point. Claiming that all atheists follow scientism is pure bullshit.

[veoli]

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.

Both happen for the same reason. Because a wise man builds his house on the rock of truth and the foolish man builds his house on sand. When tested by the wind and rain the wise man's house stands while the foolish man's house falls.

If an Atheist truly seeks the truth about god he will find it. if a religious man builds his faith on empty religion he will loose it.

Ah, the old 'your not a true christian' card. Got any others?

[athrock]

Drich (is Drippy a term of endearment?)-

I watched another documentary on Netflix about Jericho, and Dr. Bryant Wood features prominently in that film. Apparently, he is an expert in ancient pottery.

He claims that Kathleen Kenyon overlooked the pottery evidence regarding the dating of the fall of Jericho, but other websites state that Wood's own proposal for re-establishing the dates of Egypt's Old and New Kingdoms has been shot down. Yet, he features prominently in the Mahoney film.

Thoughts on this?

Additionally, would you say that there is an actual movement (or beginnings of a movement) to reassess the dating of the Egyptian kingdoms among mainstream Egyptologists in view of some of this research? Or are Mahoney, Wood, Aling, et al, really out in the wilderness academically?

Thanks.

[Drich]

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.

please Einnie, did something far worse, He sold himself to governmental propaganda to help prop up the sale of war bonds and ultimately pushed the US to develop the first atomic bomb. Einnie used his access to the media to push whatever he passionately believed in. This is not any different that what has happened here with this movie.

[Crossless2.0]

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?

Ah, so your the snow flake. I knew I felt a chill in the air, thought it to be alpo, but now after your statment I see that your the one.

Again evidence based reasoning is not the issue. It is the conformity to use 'science' as a crutch. a "god of the gaps" in reverse to fill or filter/interpret all the evidence your world view provides in such away as to 'kill' God. As if one world view (science) precluded the other(God). It's the fact that all 'thought and reasoning based on 'evidence' stops at the feet of science and theory. and is not examined any further, that what makes you a conformist. You don't even know how to look past what science serves up critically.

Science says: Global Ice age by 2000 You buy a heavier coat, then in 2000 it says Global warming you buy sunblock, now it says global climate change your buying Al gore's Carbon credits to off set your carbon foot print.. Why? because this is the same science that 'killed god' and allowed you to live as an atheist. So now you worship and serve this new master, just not with those terms, oh, no that would have defeated the point of killing God to begin with.

Your every post is more nonsensical than the last, Snowflake. I'm the one who has trouble distinguishing between science as serving up provisional theories based on the evidence and accepting science as "Gospel truth" as you averred in a previous post? That's a fucking laugh. I have yet to see a shred of evidence from you that you understand the difference between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism, so I wouldn't be too quick to make assumptions about what other people do or don't understand about science, my little semi-literate one-book pony.

Your last paragraph is especially cute since you are apparently completely unaware of how the global cooling "predictions" were largely the result of sloppy science journalism. As for climate science in general, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you are as willfully ignorant of that as you seem to be about virtually every other aspect of science I've seen you comment on.

Oh, and for the record, I have no particular dog in the fight on whether a god exists or not. Hence "agnostic atheist". Once you assholes provide something like good reasons for believing, I'll believe, Snowflake. What do you have, other than your usual self-serving A/S/K talking points?

[Angrboda]

I won't waste my time trying to illustrate the truth of what I said since it's clear that you can't or won't accept any examples. But let me say this: The Old and New Testaments of the Bible may have all sorts of problems that need to be sorted out if one is to be a believer, but archaeology isn't among them. If anything, the evidence in the ground suggests that the Bible is surprisingly reliable with regard to these things.

Whether that accuracy supports its supernatural claims is another matter, of course.

NOVA: Have biblical archeologists traditionally tried to find evidence that events in the Bible really happened?

William Dever: From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. [William Foxwell] Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people.

NOVA: Archaeology Of The Hebrew Bible

Your empty blather is as unconvincing as your empty claim.

[Pat Mustard]

Ah, so your the snow flake. I knew I felt a chill in the air, thought it to be alpo, but now after your statment I see that your the one.

Again evidence based reasoning is not the issue. It is the conformity to use 'science' as a crutch. a "god of the gaps" in reverse to fill or filter/interpret all the evidence your world view provides in such away as to 'kill' God. As if one world view (science) precluded the other(God). It's the fact that all 'thought and reasoning based on 'evidence' stops at the feet of science and theory. and is not examined any further, that what makes you a conformist. You don't even know how to look past what science serves up critically.

And look at them goalposts move.  First it's a common atheist methodology, then it's evidentialism, and now evidentialism = scientism.  Drich, if you didn't equivocate so much then you would have no point.  Claiming that all atheists follow scientism is pure bullshit.

To be honest equivocation is not the same as having a point. It is simply waffling on regardless in the vain hope of disguising that you don't have a point, or evidence, or even reason.

[Crossless2.0]

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.

please Einnie, did something far worse, He sold himself to governmental propaganda to help prop up the sale of war bonds and ultimately pushed the US to develop the first atomic bomb. Einnie used his access to the media to push whatever he passionately believed in. This is not any different that what has happened here with this movie.

Wow, I had no idea Mahoney was in the business of lending his assistance to help win a world war against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Shit, he is admirable, isn't he, Snowflake? I can see why you wouldn't see any difference between Einstein's advocacy of the Allies winning the war and Mahoney's pandering to people like you. There's no difference whatsoever. 

Do you live near some place where lead concentrates are perhaps leeching into the soil and affecting the groundwater?

Regardless of your idiotic response, my point stands. If Mahoney is in possession of a revolutionary way of viewing ancient history, he should have submitted his ideas to peer review by experts, not cobbled together some film to be watched by a bunch of evangelical yokels.

[athrock]

Ath......If you won't waste your time demonstrating it, you probably shouldn't have wasted our time claiming it, or indeed wasted your time restating it, in that very response.

Rhythm-

If you're going to argue in support of your beliefs, at least be good at it.

Sci-News.com is not a religious site; they post all kinds of stuff from a variety of sciences. But from time to time, they report something unearthed like this: 

Archaeologists Uncover Clay Seal Impression with Name of Judean King Hezekiah
Dec 2, 2015 by 

Israeli archaeologists digging in the Ophel Archaeological Park, near the Southern Wall of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem’s Old City, have discovered an ancient clay bulla bearing the name of Hezekiah, King of Judea (727-698 BC).





For more examples of archaeological work supporting the Biblical texts, you might also check http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/


They have a nice magazine, too.

[athrock]

I won't waste my time trying to illustrate the truth of what I said since it's clear that you can't or won't accept any examples. But let me say this: The Old and New Testaments of the Bible may have all sorts of problems that need to be sorted out if one is to be a believer, but archaeology isn't among them. If anything, the evidence in the ground suggests that the Bible is surprisingly reliable with regard to these things.

Whether that accuracy supports its supernatural claims is another matter, of course.

NOVA: Have biblical archeologists traditionally tried to find evidence that events in the Bible really happened?

William Dever: From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. [William Foxwell] Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people.

NOVA: Archaeology Of The Hebrew Bible

Your empty blather is as unconvincing as your empty claim.

Jorm-

You've stepped into waters over your head at this point. If you need to learn more about how archeological evidence supports the accuracy of Biblical texts, all you have to do is read.

But if you've pre-determined that NOTHING in the Bible is true, then you can dismiss anything you want. I think you're guilty of this.

Look, I'm not making the case that the supernatural claims of the authors of the Bible are legit, but stating that the Bible is inaccurate historically, geographically, or whatever just makes skeptics look stupid.

Don't do that.