theists attack atheism because they are insecure

[Polymath257]

That's a stupid comparison. The places mentioned in Exodus were destroyed. Finding archaeological evidence that those places existed is far beyond anything from any of your Mother Goose fairy tales.

Your bias doth cloud your thinking, methinks. Yeah.

Actually, it is often very easy to find ruins. Especially for 40 years of occupation in a small area by thousands of people. The trash alone would be easy to spot.

 

[Polymath257]

All the evidence anyone needs is right here:

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.


So if you don't think God exists then you have no excuse. You have only yourself to blame for believing in something other than the obvious.

Giving a quote from a book of myths written by humans as evidence for a deity is, at best, questionable. At worst, it is simply lying.

 

[Polymath257]

Don't be stupid. If you don't believe the obvious the onus is on you. There is no excuse.

No,the onus is on *you* to show that Paul is believable.

 

[Polymath257]

You're kind of boring. You can put me on Ignore if you wish.

All you have done is ignore arguments and make claims with no supporting evidence (other than a book of myths).

Why are you even here?

 

[DavidFirth]

All you have done is ignore arguments and make claims with no supporting evidence (other than a book of myths).

Why are you even here?

Wrong. You also ignore my statements/arguments with no concrete evidence. You can present all of your guessing games books to no avail.

Why are you even here?

 

[Polymath257]

Wrong. You also ignore my statements/arguments with no concrete evidence. You can present all of your guessing games books to no avail.

Why are you even here?

I have asked you to provide such evidence and I am quite willing to look at it. But what you have offered is the mythical writings of humans as a claim to the existence of a divinity. That is hardly sufficient evidence for your claim.

 

[DavidFirth]

I have asked you to provide such evidence and I am quite willing to look at it. But what you have offered is the mythical writings of humans as a claim to the existence of a divinity. That is hardly sufficient evidence for your claim.

Contrary to your bias, Biblical evidence is credible. For those who are willing to accept it as historically accurate, which it is.

 

[Polymath257]

Contrary to your bias, Biblical evidence is credible. For those who are willing to accept it as historically accurate, which it is.

The Bible is one set of writings that can be used like any other set of writings. Like any other ancient writing, it has the biases of its authors and society. It has propaganda like *all* political writings (especially from that time) and isn't a perfect record of events. So, like *all* writings, it has to be judged in context and with information about the archaeology and beliefs of others in the area.

The upshot is that the Bible is a reasonably decent historical record for one area for the time period starting about 900BC. It is poor prior to that time. And, like many ancient historical writings, it has the mythology of its society interwoven with actual events.

 

[DavidFirth]

The Bible is one set of writings that can be used like any other set of writings. Like any other ancient writing, it has the biases of its authors and society. It has propaganda like *all* political writings (especially from that time) and isn't a perfect record of events. So, like *all* writings, it has to be judged in context and with information about the archaeology and beliefs of others in the area.

The upshot is that the Bible is a reasonably decent historical record for one area for the time period starting about 900BC. It is poor prior to that time. And, like many ancient historical writings, it has the mythology of its society interwoven with actual events.

It isn't mythology and you can't prove that it is. Sorry, that's a fact, Jack.

You either believe the Bible or you don't. That's about the thick of it.

 

[Polymath257]

It isn't mythology and you can't prove that it is. Sorry, that's a fact, Jack.

You either believe the Bible or you don't. That's about the thick of it.

That is simply incorrect. Like all ancient writings, it has some things of value and other things that are just silly. Again, it is fairly reliable for a certain region and a certain time period, although the history is mixed with religious propaganda.

it is possible to investigate the claims of the Bible through archaeology. When that is done, many of the *historical* claims of Genesis and Exodus (in particular) are shown to be simply wrong. The Israelites did NOT come from the direction of Egypt. They were native to the area and worshiped a mountain God. The story of the conquest of Canaan is simple fantasy and is not in line with the actual evidence found on the ground.

This is just like many other ancient writings. For example, the Iliad was considered to be pure mythology for ages before the city of Troy was actually discovered and many of the specifics in the Iliad were verified independently. But many were also shown to be wrong. And in no way are the valid parts of the Iliad a reason to believe in Zeus and Athena.

This is also the case with the Bible. Some aspects (the existence of Tiglath Pileser, for example) have been independently verified. Others, such as the Exodus, have been shown to be wrong. But even the valid parts are not reason to believe in YHWH.

 

[Hawkins]

That is simply incorrect. Like all ancient writings, it has some things of value and other things that are just silly. Again, it is fairly reliable for a certain region and a certain time period, although the history is mixed with religious propaganda.

it is possible to investigate the claims of the Bible through archaeology. When that is done, many of the *historical* claims of Genesis and Exodus (in particular) are shown to be simply wrong. The Israelites did NOT come from the direction of Egypt. They were native to the area and worshiped a mountain God. The story of the conquest of Canaan is simple fantasy and is not in line with the actual evidence found on the ground.

This is just like many other ancient writings. For example, the Iliad was considered to be pure mythology for ages before the city of Troy was actually discovered and many of the specifics in the Iliad were verified independently. But many were also shown to be wrong. And in no way are the valid parts of the Iliad a reason to believe in Zeus and Athena.

This is also the case with the Bible. Some aspects (the existence of Tiglath Pileser, for example) have been independently verified. Others, such as the Exodus, have been shown to be wrong. But even the valid parts are not reason to believe in YHWH.

Archaeology in a nutshell are guess works rely on one's interpretation to stand.

Religious claims are about supernatural encounters recorded down which by its very nature cannot be verified. Actually, history can hardly be verified. You can't even show the evidence of what you just did today but a year ago. That's basically the nature of history is, archaeology won't help that much to discover what you did on Jun 23, 2016. If it happens you or someone else wrote about what happened that day to you, the only option is for others to believe or to disbelieve.

History, the farther away the more it is so, can hardly be shown to be simply wrong. It is your belief which it is either right or wrong.

In fact, it's never about right or wrong. One may consider any piece of history as credible or not though.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Religious claims are about supernatural encounters recorded down which by its very nature cannot be verified.

Those are grounds for a skeptic to reject such claims. That is not the same as calling them wrong. It's refusing to call them right and therefore remaining agnostic on the matter, or ignostic in the case of the supernatural, since nobody seems to be able to say just what the supernatural is, just what it isn't, which is presently indistinguishable from the nonexistent..

Actually, history can hardly be verified. You can't even show the evidence of what you just did today but a year ago.

Then you should be skeptical when I make a claim about what that was.

archaeology won't help that much to discover what you did on Jun 23, 2016

That's not what archeology does. Not much of my day or yours from a year ago can be dug from the ground.

 

[DavidFirth]

That is simply incorrect. Like all ancient writings, it has some things of value and other things that are just silly. Again, it is fairly reliable for a certain region and a certain time period, although the history is mixed with religious propaganda.

it is possible to investigate the claims of the Bible through archaeology. When that is done, many of the *historical* claims of Genesis and Exodus (in particular) are shown to be simply wrong. The Israelites did NOT come from the direction of Egypt. They were native to the area and worshiped a mountain God. The story of the conquest of Canaan is simple fantasy and is not in line with the actual evidence found on the ground.

This is just like many other ancient writings. For example, the Iliad was considered to be pure mythology for ages before the city of Troy was actually discovered and many of the specifics in the Iliad were verified independently. But many were also shown to be wrong. And in no way are the valid parts of the Iliad a reason to believe in Zeus and Athena.

This is also the case with the Bible. Some aspects (the existence of Tiglath Pileser, for example) have been independently verified. Others, such as the Exodus, have been shown to be wrong. But even the valid parts are not reason to believe in YHWH.

All of that is very interesting but I don't believe it, especially where you say the Exodus was shown to be wrong. I don't see how it could be.

 

[Hawkins]

Those are grounds for a skeptic to reject such claims. That is not the same as calling them wrong. It's refusing to call them right and therefore remaining agnostic on the matter, or ignostic in the case of the supernatural, since nobody seems to be able to say just what the supernatural is, just what it isn't, which is presently indistinguishable from the nonexistent..

Then you should be skeptical when I make a claim about what that was.


That's not what archeology does. Not much of my day or yours from a year ago can be dug from the ground.

Skeptic is based on the assumption that the claim doesn't affect your life. The the claim that "there's a bomb" will leave you with no middle ground to be neutral to stand skeptical. You either believe the claim to run or to reject it by believing that it's a hoax. Christianity claim is such a claim. We believe because eye-witnesses sacrificed their own lives to stand witnesses for Jesus Christ.

Archeology is the study of scarcely preserved location which may leave you with some clues of what could possibly happened. It usually requires,

1) a claim from a human writing, so that we us archeology to try to verify the claim
2) there's a large scale human activity happened and recorded down. Usually, it is a city ever lived by mass of humans. Or a war event with mass of humans involved. It is because only so a trail could possibly leave behind. It never applies to the deed or speech of an individual figure. You can't use archeology to prove what George Washington said. There's no trail left for individual deeds and speeches.
3) the location for some reason is reserved. Say, an earthquake buried a city which is discovered today.

The rest is up to the archeologist to interpret what the contents preserved are.

You can randomly fetch any history book written more 1000 years ago (in order to be demonstrative), then to go through section by section with the question, "how this section supported by archeology"? Then come back to tell us how many sections out of the total sections of such a history book is supported by archeology. What archeology can prove is minimal.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Skeptic is based on the assumption that the claim doesn't affect your life.

Skepticism is the belief that nothing should be assumed to be true simply because it is said.

The the claim that "there's a bomb" will leave you with no middle ground to be neutral to stand skeptical. You either believe the claim to run or to reject it by believing that it's a hoax.

I don't need to believe the claim to know that it is right to evacuate. I only need to know that it might be correct, and I can't safely rule it out.

You can randomly fetch any history book written more 1000 years ago (in order to be demonstrative), then to go through section by section with the question, "how this section supported by archeology"?

Archeology doesn't support or fail to support anything except that which leaves a record or that which fails to do so when it should have.

 

[Hawkins]

Skepticism is the belief that nothing should be assumed to be true simply because it is said.



I don't need to believe the claim to know that it is right to evacuate. I only need to know that it might be correct, and I can't safely rule it out.



Archeology doesn't support or fail to support anything except that which leaves a record or that which fails to do so when it should have.

You don't seem to get it. So using my example, if police (a reliable source) says that there's a reported bomb nearby. Do you run or stay! You remain skeptical and wait for the evidence before making any decision, or you choose to believe its possibility to make a run.

Moreover, you don't understand truth. Not every kinds of truth can be evident. History as a kind of truth can hardly be evident. Most humans will accept history as it is said. We examine the reliability of source to believe what history is. You can't stay skeptical without making a decision if the message threatens your life directly, unless you have absolute faith that "the bomb is a hoax" which remains your faith, opposite to those making a run.

I don't think that humans are with a skeptical mind when reading daily news from TVs. They rely on the credibility of our media to get to a truth, instead of examining into the evidence of each piece of news. Unless, something don't matter if you believe it or not. Say, the media reported that someone saw an UFO. You can choose to be skeptical because its true or false doesn't concern you. If a serious issue is broadcast, it's no point to keep skeptical, provided that the media is the only way you can get to a critical information affecting you or your life. When you are in the middle of a sea, you will have to listen to the advice from the weather forecast. I don't think that any sane person will take it skeptically. It is because, 1) what you should examine is the reliability of the info source, which is our media, instead of the evidence itself. and 2) it affects you life thus you can't stand neutral.

Archeology then proves nothing by your definition.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You don't seem to get it. So using my example, if police (a reliable source) says that there's a reported bomb nearby. Do you run or stay! You remain skeptical and wait for the evidence before making any decision, or you choose to believe its possibility to make a run.

I already posted, "I don't need to believe the claim to know that it is right to evacuate. I only need to know that it might be correct, and that I can't safely rule it out." That's a problem in risk management - the product of the likelihood of one choice being an error and the severity of the consequences for being wrong versus the same product for being wrong the other way. I can evacuate or not. Even if the chance of there being an actual bomb is only 20%, the cost of being wrong by evacuating unnecessarily is very, very low compared to the cost of being wrong if I sit there and blow up. I don't need to either believe or disbelieve the threat to know to evacuate.

Global warming can be assessed in exactly this same manner. Given the relative chances regarding the warnings of the community of climate scientists and the outcomes they forecast, what is the cost of acting needlessly versus the cost of not acting when it was necessary.

Moreover, you don't understand truth.

Sure I do. Do you?

I don't think that humans are with a skeptical mind when reading daily news from TVs.

I am.

Archeology then proves nothing by your definition.

Proof isn't my standard for belief. Evidence is. My beliefs should be no stronger than that which the available evidence supports, and tentative enough to be amenable to revision pending new evidence.

And if you're a faith base thinker, proof is not your standard for belief, either. Nor is evidence. Religious faith is belief without evidence.

So what's all this talk about truth and proof?

 

[Grumpuss]

Wrong. You also ignore my statements/arguments with no concrete evidence. You can present all of your guessing games books to no avail.

Why are you even here?

I have asked you to provide such evidence and I am quite willing to look at it. But what you have offered is the mythical writings of humans as a claim to the existence of a divinity. That is hardly sufficient evidence for your claim.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Not taking a position, just so you can snipe at others' position is lowbrow.

 

[Grumpuss]

I already posted, "I don't need to believe the claim to know that it is right to evacuate. I only need to know that it might be correct, and that I can't safely rule it out." That's a problem in risk management - the product of the likelihood of one choice being an error and the severity of the consequences for being wrong versus the same product for being wrong the other way. I can evacuate or not. Even if the chance of there being an actual bomb is only 20%, the cost of being wrong by evacuating unnecessarily is very, very low compared to the cost of being wrong if I sit there and blow up. I don't need to either believe or disbelieve the threat to know to evacuate.

Global warming can be assessed in exactly this same manner. Given the relative chances regarding the warnings of the community of climate scientists and the outcomes they forecast, what is the cost of acting needlessly versus the cost of not acting when it was necessary.

Ain't nobody getting rich making bomb threats though. Climate change may be happening, but governments are hauling in a lot of money doing it. Lying, even by exaggeration to sell the point as "settled science" is also a no-no.

Skepticism is the belief that nothing should be assumed to be true simply because it is said.

Are you a lawyer? Science actually frowns upon only attacking a theory, if there's no alternative theory presented or referenced to explain something.

 

[DavidFirth]

Science actually frowns upon only attacking a theory, if there's no alternative theory presented or referenced to explain something.

Good point.