For those who want proof of the exodus

[athrock]

[hide]

That's the funniest joke I've read all day.  Floods are generally unexpected.  Noah would have been a working fool to have built a giant boat and loaded it when he was in a local flood.

Generally? Yes.

But you seem to have forgotten that the whole point of the story is that the Hebrew god chose to warn Noah in advance.

[Minimalist]

Now you have crossed over into simply lying.

If I thought you had any credibility at all that would weawwy hurt my feewings.

Don't ever make the mistake of thinking that I give a flying fuck about the "feelings" of ignorant, bible-thumping, morons.

[Angrboda]

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.

do you have an example of someone here who my statement does not apply to?

Yes, myself for one.

Then it is indeed "apart" of the Exodus.  Maybe if you'd bothered to understand the context, you'd have understood the relevance of my mention.  But don't let a lack of reading comprehension spoil your incessant need to say something.

Soo the flood is apart of the exodus???

Book Chapter and verse please

  You really are an ignorant clown, aren't you?

[GrandizerII]

It didn't have to occur at all. And regardless of what some skeptics may say about when the Exodus could have occurred, the fact still remains it has not been established that it did occur. Like I said earlier, it's not enough to just meet pieces of evidence that could fit your theory, you need to make sure your theory is not riddled with various difficulties, not challenged by other pieces of evidence against it, and is not trumped by a better theory.

Fair enough.

However, an ancient text lays out a sequence of six events for which there appears to be archaeological evidence. The common cry is, "Show me the evidence!", and Mahoney has done this in rather convincing fashion.

At this point then, the burden of proof shifts to the skeptic who must now demonstrate why Mahoney, et al. are wrong. IF the theory is "riddled with various difficulties", etc., then why is Mahoney wrong about any of the six events he documented?

Please be specific.

Based on your last paragraph: Let's see...we have a non-king or pharaoh living in a palace in the Land of Goshen inhabited largely by Semites, and this palace has 12 colonnades, 12 tombs found on the grounds, and the one shaped like a pyramid (reserved for VERY important people) has a statue of a man with mushroom shaped haircut (semitic), yellowish-skin (used to depict northerners), a throw-stick (reserved for men of importance) and traces of a multi-colored coat (like the one mentioned in the Bible belonging to Joseph). When the archaeologists discovered this pyramid, they saw that it was not broken into violently but opened carefully, and ALL OF THE BONES WERE REMOVED as one might expect to have occurred if Moses honored Joseph's request to be buried in Canaan. Then, we find a tomb of Joseph in Shechem which indicates that his bones were ultimately moved and interred there centuries after Joseph died.  And all of this is just a coincidence?

All this according to the documentary, but how do we know the documentary's analysis of the statue is accurate? How do we know they didn't omit important facts that would've negated the claims and interpretations they made?

That's what the skeptic has to show. Mahoney, Rolm and others have had THEIR say. Why are they wrong?

May I stress and emphasize Mahoney is just a filmmaker, not an archaeologist? He is not an expert in this field. Just to be clear on this.

And to be clear on another point, my argument isn't that they're wrong. My argument is that they're likely not right. Parsimony, falsifiability, acceptability, not in their favor.

[Minimalist]

The difference between a scholar and fundie assholes:

William Dever: “Originally I wrote to frustrate the biblical minimalists; then I became one of them, more or less”

Evidence will always impress a scholar.  No amount of evidence will ever convince an idiot that he is wrong.



You should be ashamed of yourself, Assrock.  But you haven't the brains to understand "shame."

[The Grand Nudger]

@Ath  You think that an impossible boat might have floated upon the waves of an impossible flood........that this whole business is really real(lol), because a book that claims that bushes can talk said it did?

[athrock]

Then explain, without once resorting to fairytale devices, precisely how the largest wooden boat ever constructed without metal bracing managed to stock between two and seven of every animal on the planet, keep them fed and alive, maintained by a crew of eight for a whole year. Explain how the mountaintops got covered by water, where it came from and where it went afterwards. Explain how the only evidence for any of this is one story in a collection of mythological texts, and why anyone would even consider it as an historical event without reference to the story.

Let me attempt to explain it this way: I personally don't buy into the idea the some all-powerful being created everything that we can see, etc. in six 24-hour periods, and then took a day off to rest. I mean, seriously?

But OTOH, the more common understanding of Genesis is that the author is trying to convey a message about the creation of all things as best he can. It seems to me that he can be dead on about the who (God) and the what (creation) without needing to understand the how (evolution v. creationism). Doesn't this seem reasonable?

Similarly, IF (and I'm saying this because I'm trying to PRESENT the argument rather than ASSUME it) the author was trying to convey the basics of a story about God's judgment of the wicked, etc., would it be possible for him again to have the Who and What correct without necessarily getting the details spot on?

Now, I get that SOME fundamentalist types accept the literal interpretation of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, but not all Christians - heck, not even the majority of Christians - do. So, why are you so intent upon holding such a simple-minded interpretation of the flood when Christians themselves do not?

It's a strawman argument, Stimbo, and not a terribly good one at that.

[The Grand Nudger]

Redneck chicken coop.  Called it pages ago.  Ath, lol, you fucking troll.  

[athrock]

Fair enough.

However, an ancient text lays out a sequence of six events for which there appears to be archaeological evidence. The common cry is, "Show me the evidence!", and Mahoney has done this in rather convincing fashion.

At this point then, the burden of proof shifts to the skeptic who must now demonstrate why Mahoney, et al. are wrong. IF the theory is "riddled with various difficulties", etc., then why is Mahoney wrong about any of the six events he documented?

Please be specific.


That's what the skeptic has to show. Mahoney, Rolm and others have had THEIR say. Why are they wrong?

May I stress and emphasize Mahoney is just a filmmaker, not an archaeologist? He is not an expert in this field. Just to be clear on this.

Of course. He makes this point repeatedly in the film.

And to be clear on another point, my argument isn't that they're wrong. My argument is that they're likely not right. Parsimony, falsifiability, acceptability, not in their favor.

Likely not right? Well, that's how all overturned scientific positions were viewed initially.

[athrock]

The difference between a scholar and fundie assholes:

William Dever: “Originally I wrote to frustrate the biblical minimalists; then I became one of them, more or less”

Evidence will always impress a scholar.  No amount of evidence will ever convince an idiot that he is wrong.



You should be ashamed of yourself, Assrock.  But you haven't the brains to understand "shame."

Ah, memes...the last resort of the man who has nothing of importance left to say.