theists attack atheism because they are insecure

[Grumpuss]

And do I think the Trojan War happened as described in the Iliad? Of course not! For example, I reject that a Golden Apple disputed over by the Gods was the origin of that war.

You seem to think that I treat the Old Testament differently than I would some other document.

So, for example, the early books of Livy's history of Rome are clearly a mixture of mythology and patriotic propaganda. Horatio at the bridge is very unlikely to be a true story.

I wouldn't take a Hittite account of events 500 years before the writings any more seriously than I take the account in Exodus. There may well be some historical value to be gleaned from both, but there would also be a lot of cruft. Separating the value from the cruft is the work of archeology.

LOL. Nothing happened before Twitter, in your universe, I guess...

 

[Polymath257]

LOL. Nothing happened before Twitter, in your universe, I guess...

Huh?

No, physical evidence is better than written evidence. it is that simple. Written evidence *always* has biases. Physical evidence doesn't.

 

[Polymath257]

Yet that's exactly what you're doing by considering alternative sources to Biblical history: taking modern agglomerations of oral traditions that don't include Biblical canon. Great if they were contemporary, but they're not.

Not even the Biblical writings are contemporary. That is my point.

You go out of your way to denigrate Jews and their history, with no real basis for doing so. It's perplexing. I'm not Jewish, but you have some real animus there. Palestinian supporter, maybe?

I have not denigrated Jews. I have merely asked that the same standards be used for the Bible as for every other historical narrative. And that means being skeptical of extreme claims, no matter who writes them. I expect the narratives to be supported by archeology when possible and a good explanation when not possible.

Wow, you really like to jump to conclusions!

 

[McBell]

That's a moot point. Thanks to Obamacare, the only people with health insurance, are healthy people.

Except yuou are flat out wrong.

I have type 2 diabetes, Crohn's Disease, heart disease, hemiplegic migraine headaches, etc. and have health coverage.
I pay $25 a month for it.

 

[Grumpuss]

No, physical evidence is better than written evidence. it is that simple. Written evidence *always* has biases. Physical evidence doesn't.

You don't have any physical evidence. You have a lack of physical evidence that you're using to argue against witness accounts.

Not even the Biblical writings are contemporary. That is my point.

They are contemporary.

I have not denigrated Jews. I have merely asked that the same standards be used for the Bible as for every other historical narrative. And that means being skeptical of extreme claims, no matter who writes them. I expect the narratives to be supported by archeology when possible and a good explanation when not possible.

Wow, you really like to jump to conclusions!

You reject the history of one of the world's most oldest religions, it's denigrating them. No one has asked you to share their beliefs, but it's highly insulting to cast aspersions on theirs.

Except yuou are flat out wrong.

I have type 2 diabetes, Crohn's Disease, heart disease, hemiplegic migraine headaches, etc. and have health coverage.
I pay $25 a month for it.

You miss the point. Health coverage ≠ health insurance. People with a high expectation of filing a claim draw more from the system than they could ever be expect to pay in while "healthy".

 

[Polymath257]

You don't have any physical evidence. You have a lack of physical evidence that you're using to argue against witness accounts.

They are contemporary.

Hardy.
From Book of Exodus - Wikipedia

"Traditionally ascribed to Moses himself, modern scholarship sees the book as initially a product of the Babylonian exile (6th century BCE), based on earlier written and oral traditions, with final revisions in the Persian post-exilic period (5th century BCE).[2][3]"

Or how about History of the Jews in Egypt - Wikipedia

"The Book of Genesis and Book of Exodus describe a period of Hebrew servitude in ancient Egypt, during decades of sojourn in Egypt, the escape of well over a million Israelites from the Delta, and the three-month journey through the wilderness to Sinai.[4] The historical evidence does not back this account.[5] Israelites first appear in the archeological record on the Merneptah Stele from between 1208-3 BCE at the end of the Bronze Age. A reasonably Bible-friendly interpretation is that they were a federation of Habiru tribes of the hill-country around the Jordan River. Presumably, this federation consolidated into the kingdom of Israel, and Judah split from that, during the dark age that followed the Bronze. The Bronze Age term "Habiru" was less specific than the Biblical "Hebrew". The term referred simply to Levantine nomads, of any religion or ethnicity. Mesopotamian, Hittite, Canaanite, and Egyptian sources describe them largely as bandits, mercenaries, and slaves. Certainly, there were some Habiru slaves in ancient Egypt, but native Egyptian kingdoms were not heavily slave-based.[5]
"

You are off by 700 years at least and describing a *legend* and not actual history.

You reject the history of one of the world's most oldest religions, it's denigrating them. No one has asked you to share their beliefs, but it's highly insulting to cast aspersions on theirs.

That is simply insane. ALL texts, whether religious or not, are to be questioned for accuracy. To do anything else is to forgo the search for truth.

Sorry, but I am more concerned with the truth than whether people are offended by the truth. I am not casting aspersions, I am pointing out that the story as written is not true.

NOBODY gets a pass when it comes to truth. Eusebius wrote a history of the early Christian church that is mostly propaganda and has little true history. The Chinese claim a history that goes thousands of years further back than is actually the case. Americans like to talk about Washington chopping down a cherry tree. The Romans pointed to Romulus and Remus. The fact that great civilizations believed the stories doesn't make them true. And to claim they are true when it is known they are not is not a denigration of the beliefs, but rather simply supporting truth.

 

[Grumpuss]

Hardy.
From Book of Exodus - Wikipedia

"Traditionally ascribed to Moses himself, modern scholarship sees the book as initially a product of the Babylonian exile (6th century BCE), based on earlier written and oral traditions, with final revisions in the Persian post-exilic period (5th century BCE).[2][3]"

Or how about History of the Jews in Egypt - Wikipedia

"The Book of Genesis and Book of Exodus describe a period of Hebrew servitude in ancient Egypt, during decades of sojourn in Egypt, the escape of well over a million Israelites from the Delta, and the three-month journey through the wilderness to Sinai.[4] The historical evidence does not back this account.[5] Israelites first appear in the archeological record on the Merneptah Stele from between 1208-3 BCE at the end of the Bronze Age. A reasonably Bible-friendly interpretation is that they were a federation of Habiru tribes of the hill-country around the Jordan River. Presumably, this federation consolidated into the kingdom of Israel, and Judah split from that, during the dark age that followed the Bronze. The Bronze Age term "Habiru" was less specific than the Biblical "Hebrew". The term referred simply to Levantine nomads, of any religion or ethnicity. Mesopotamian, Hittite, Canaanite, and Egyptian sources describe them largely as bandits, mercenaries, and slaves. Certainly, there were some Habiru slaves in ancient Egypt, but native Egyptian kingdoms were not heavily slave-based.[5]
"

You are off by 700 years at least and describing a *legend* and not actual history.



That is simply insane. ALL texts, whether religious or not, are to be questioned for accuracy. To do anything else is to forgo the search for truth.

Sorry, but I am more concerned with the truth than whether people are offended by the truth. I am not casting aspersions, I am pointing out that the story as written is not true.

NOBODY gets a pass when it comes to truth. Eusebius wrote a history of the early Christian church that is mostly propaganda and has little true history. The Chinese claim a history that goes thousands of years further back than is actually the case. Americans like to talk about Washington chopping down a cherry tree. The Romans pointed to Romulus and Remus. The fact that great civilizations believed the stories doesn't make them true. And to claim they are true when it is known they are not is not a denigration of the beliefs, but rather simply supporting truth.

I've already said they may be somewhat inaccurate. But that isn't grounds to throw them out entirely. Especially if your alternative is to dig around in the dirt and make profound conclusions about the absence of small items not found.

I'd like to revisit why you show such disdain for the Jews. Did one of them hurt you, say something mean, or touch you inappropriately?

 

[Polymath257]

I've already said they may be somewhat inaccurate. But that isn't grounds to throw them out entirely. Especially if your alternative is to dig around in the dirt and make profound conclusions about the absence of small items not found.

Not just absense of findings. Also other written records from the time and before. Also knowledge of where Egypt ruled and when. Also archeology of where the culture originated and when. The books of the OT are one piece of the puzzle and need to be regarded in that way. As with ALL writings, they have their biases and we have to analyze the writings critically to determine those biases and find the truth.

I'd like to revisit why you show such disdain for the Jews. Did one of them hurt you, say something mean, or touch you inappropriately?

Yes, I know you would like to change the subject from the truth of the legends to and create an ad hominem attack.

Again, I have no idea why you think I dislike (or disdain) Jews. Of the main mono-theistic religions, Judaism is the one with the best intellectual tradition. I respect that highly. I appreciate the tolerance that is a deep part of their culture. They tend not to have the issues with atheism that Islam and Christianity do. I appreciate and respect that. They tend not to be evangelical about their beliefs, which I find to be admirable.

But that has *nothing* to do with the question of whether the book of Exodus is historical or legend or mythology or a mix of all of them.

On the other hand, the tactics you have shown in this debate are leading me to disdain *you*.

 

[Grumpuss]

Not just absense of findings. Also other written records from the time and before. Also knowledge of where Egypt ruled and when. Also archeology of where the culture originated and when. The books of the OT are one piece of the puzzle and need to be regarded in that way. As with ALL writings, they have their biases and we have to analyze the writings critically to determine those biases and find the truth.

WHAT other written records? You haven't shown any other contemporary documents, just attacked the Bible.

Yes, I know you would like to change the subject from the truth of the legends to and create an ad hominem attack.

Again, I have no idea why you think I dislike (or disdain) Jews. Of the main mono-theistic religions, Judaism is the one with the best intellectual tradition. I respect that highly. I appreciate the tolerance that is a deep part of their culture. They tend not to have the issues with atheism that Islam and Christianity do. I appreciate and respect that. They tend not to be evangelical about their beliefs, which I find to be admirable.

But that has *nothing* to do with the question of whether the book of Exodus is historical or legend or mythology or a mix of all of them.

On the other hand, the tactics you have shown in this debate are leading me to disdain *you*.

I didn't change the subject. I asked you the question twice, which you have evaded. You have basically accused a large majority of Jews to be liars, fabricating much of their ancient history.

I get that you say you have this deep intellectual respect for "Judaism". So have you been treated poorly by Jews, do you hate Israel- what?

 

[Polymath257]

WHAT other written records? You haven't shown any other contemporary documents, just attacked the Bible.

I didn't change the subject. I asked you the question twice, which you have evaded. You have basically accused a large majority of Jews to be liars, fabricating much of their ancient history.

I get that you say you have this deep intellectual respect for "Judaism". So have you been treated poorly by Jews, do you hate Israel- what?

I have NOT accused anyone of being a liar. The standards of history were not the same at that time. The goals were different: moral teaching rather than historical accuracy. They created a history like most ancient cultures did: a legend for how they arose that gives their society cohesion.

No, I have not been treated poorly by Jews. If anything, the exact opposite is true. I have found Jews just like everyone else: some good, some bad, most just trying to survive and love their family and friends. But that doesn't fit into *your* narrative, now does it?

As for Israel and the Palestinians (which I consider to be irrelevant to the previous discussion), I find both sides to be acting atrociously. Neither side is particularly in the right and both sides have committed horrible atrocities. The world would be a better place if they could learn to get along. It's sad.

 

[Grumpuss]

I have NOT accused anyone of being a liar. The standards of history were not the same at that time. The goals were different: moral teaching rather than historical accuracy. They created a history like most ancient cultures did: a legend for how they arose that gives their society cohesion.

An evasive way of saying the Jews created a web of lies. I'm not sure if you're blaming any of them for the Bible, but you are saying it's less valuable as a historical document than dirt with nothing in it.

No, I have not been treated poorly by Jews. If anything, the exact opposite is true. I have found Jews just like everyone else: some good, some bad, most just trying to survive and love their family and friends. But that doesn't fit into *your* narrative, now does it?

Hey, only you know the truth for sure.

As for Israel and the Palestinians (which I consider to be irrelevant to the previous discussion), I find both sides to be acting atrociously. Neither side is particularly in the right and both sides have committed horrible atrocities. The world would be a better place if they could learn to get along. It's sad.

So... you're saying that you do find Israel to be a bad guy, but that you don't equate Jews worldwide with criticisms of Israel? And that Palestinians are equally bad? Is Zionism a good, worthwhile thing, or should Jews abandon this thought?

 

[Polymath257]

An evasive way of saying the Jews created a web of lies. I'm not sure if you're blaming any of them for the Bible, but you are saying it's less valuable as a historical document than dirt with nothing in it.

Again, there is a whole lot more than simply dirt with nothing in it. But you want to ignore that. But yes, every written document is subject to textual and archaeological criticism. NONE are taken at face value.

In the case of the Biblical books of Genesis and Exodus, we *know* that the stories were written well after the times they claim to describe. They are, at best, legends that may well have some historical value, but mostly as a way to understand the thinking of some people in the early 1st millennium.

Hey, only you know the truth for sure.

And you will only believe what you want.

So... you're saying that you do find Israel to be a bad guy, but that you don't equate Jews worldwide with criticisms of Israel? And that Palestinians are equally bad? Is Zionism a good, worthwhile thing, or should Jews abandon this thought?

No, I don't consider criticisms of Israel to be the same as criticisms of Judaism. I also don't consider criticisms of Putin's Russia to be the same as criticisms of the Russian people. Or criticisms of Trump's America to be the same as criticisms of Americans. The politics is different than the people, even in a democracy.

In international situations, dividing between 'good guys' and 'bad guys' is usually way too simplistic. Is Israel as bad as Hamas? No. Not even close. Has it performed atrocities? Yes, clearly. Did it think those atrocities necessary for self-preservation? In many cases, yes. Have the Palestinians committed many atrocities? Yes. Did they think them necessary for self=preservation? In many cases, yes. Are they equally bad? I really don't know.

And, truthfully, placing blame has only made the cycle of violence continue. Both sides have valid complaints. So both sides have to get over it and learn to be peaceful.

If you really want to place blame, put it on the British during WWI.

 

[Thief]

Lately I've seen a **** ton of posts attacking atheism, with screwy logic at best, but usually incoherent either way.

Now, I get why atheists attack religion. They see it as a threat, and sometimes they are right. But not always. But at least their reasoning has some basis in fact. Now when theists attack atheists... usually it's accusing them of being liars, or saying that somehow it "doesn't make sense". I dunno, it seems if I had to place a bet, I'd probably side with atheism 4 out of 5 times.

I've seen a lot of the old classic arguments, a lot of them even I didn't dare touch when I was a theist myself. but nowdays it seems as if the fundamentalist christian rhetoric is now too mainstream. People accusing atheists of being atheists so they can sin, that they only are atheists because something bad happened to them or that somehow they are just in denial.

But it seems to me, that if your religion is so apparent (let's ignore that you were probably brought up to believe in it or at least it's the dominant spiritual force where you live) then it wouldn't have all these atheists around. Maybe, just maybe, them being so open about it, the fact that many left religion because they learned more about it, maybe that scares you. Because you realize deep down you've had doubts yourself, and are often just going through the motions. It seems that some types of theists are obsessed with the atheist. Their fixation on how wrong they are, is a reflection of their own projection. Kind of like how the strongest homophobic preachers were often caught with other men.

I dunno, just my two cents. It isn't particularly my fight, I'm not an atheist or theist, but still. You can't really disprove atheism, other than to prove theism. Theism can't be disproved because there is always another possible way for there to be a god, but that doesn't mean it's correct, and at a certain point it's not reasonable to believe anymore when enough versions of it's been disproven (as have many in the past). Where you draw that line is subjective, and there will always be some who are theists and atheists.

And I don't see anything wrong with that. What I do see wrong, is people attacking each other with strawmen.

got here late....didn't read the entire thread.

has anyone posted a remark you would not consider to be a straw man technique?

 

[Grumpuss]

Again, there is a whole lot more than simply dirt with nothing in it. But you want to ignore that. But yes, every written document is subject to textual and archaeological criticism. NONE are taken at face value.

In the case of the Biblical books of Genesis and Exodus, we *know* that the stories were written well after the times they claim to describe. They are, at best, legends that may well have some historical value, but mostly as a way to understand the thinking of some people in the early 1st millennium.

Like...what!? You keep throwing the word, "archaeology" around, but fail to present any actual findings. I looked into it, and the biggest smoking gun is apparently the absence of pig bones.

And you will only believe what you want.

Did I say you were lying?

No, I don't consider criticisms of Israel to be the same as criticisms of Judaism. I also don't consider criticisms of Putin's Russia to be the same as criticisms of the Russian people. Or criticisms of Trump's America to be the same as criticisms of Americans. The politics is different than the people, even in a democracy.

In international situations, dividing between 'good guys' and 'bad guys' is usually way too simplistic. Is Israel as bad as Hamas? No. Not even close. Has it performed atrocities? Yes, clearly. Did it think those atrocities necessary for self-preservation? In many cases, yes. Have the Palestinians committed many atrocities? Yes. Did they think them necessary for self=preservation? In many cases, yes. Are they equally bad? I really don't know.

And, truthfully, placing blame has only made the cycle of violence continue. Both sides have valid complaints. So both sides have to get over it and learn to be peaceful.

If you really want to place blame, put it on the British during WWI.

The Jews deserve a place to live. The Palestinians deserve a place to live. But let's be honest: the Arabs would still want to kill all the Jews, regardless, even if they weren't boxed into a country slightly larger than New Jersey. Murderous ideology abounds in the Middle East.

I tend to think that the Jews have suffered enough over the centuries and the current mock outrage over "Islamophobia" assumes an equal amount of hardship. It's interesting that Antisemitism has moved from conservatives to liberals; apparently we can talk about a Kurdish or South Sudanese state, but Israel is some kind of insult to many people.

 

[Polymath257]

Like...what!? You keep throwing the word, "archaeology" around, but fail to present any actual findings. I looked into it, and the biggest smoking gun is apparently the absence of pig bones.

No, the biggest smoking gun is the evidence of the culture already there before the supposed exodus. No modern scholar considers the story of Exodus to be actual history.

Did I say you were lying?

No, but you definitely implied it.

The Jews deserve a place to live. The Palestinians deserve a place to live. But let's be honest: the Arabs would still want to kill all the Jews, regardless, even if they weren't boxed into a country slightly larger than New Jersey. Murderous ideology abounds in the Middle East.

Not all Arabs will want that even if their leaders do. Just like not all people in Israel think that settlements in the occupied territories are justified.

I tend to think that the Jews have suffered enough over the centuries and the current mock outrage over "Islamophobia" assumes an equal amount of hardship. It's interesting that Antisemitism has moved from conservatives to liberals; apparently we can talk about a Kurdish or South Sudanese state, but Israel is some kind of insult to many people.

Ultimately, I think that nationalism based on ethnicity or religion is a dangerous concept. If the Kurds get their own state and kick out all non-Kurds, that would be a serious problem. If they don't give full rights and responsibilities to non-Kurds in their territory, that would be a problem.

I don't consider the existence of Israel as any sort of insult.

Why you have this obsession with this topic and my opinions on it is beyond me. The question at hand is the nature of what actually happened in a distant past, not what is going on today. Is the Exodus story a valid account of what happened historically or is it not? The evidence is that it is not. As far as I am concerned that has no bearing on the current issues of the region.

 

[Grumpuss]

No, the biggest smoking gun is the evidence of the culture already there before the supposed exodus. No modern scholar considers the story of Exodus to be actual history.

"Evidence of the culture"? You mean, prone to leave Israel and be taken as slaves?

No, but you definitely implied it.

Hey, if you were lying, it's mostly to yourself.

Not all Arabs will want that even if their leaders do. Just like not all people in Israel think that settlements in the occupied territories are justified.

Arabs are particularly susceptible to the whims of their leaders. These are a people who seem to prefer monarchy, oligarchy and theocracy over free society and democracy.

Ultimately, I think that nationalism based on ethnicity or religion is a dangerous concept. If the Kurds get their own state and kick out all non-Kurds, that would be a serious problem. If they don't give full rights and responsibilities to non-Kurds in their territory, that would be a problem.

So you reject the idea of a Jewish state, per UN Resolution 3379?

I don't consider the existence of Israel as any sort of insult.

Should Israel exist?

Why you have this obsession with this topic and my opinions on it is beyond me. The question at hand is the nature of what actually happened in a distant past, not what is going on today. Is the Exodus story a valid account of what happened historically or is it not? The evidence is that it is not. As far as I am concerned that has no bearing on the current issues of the region.

Just trying to see where your animosity towards Jews comes from. You deny their history per the Bible in much the same way others deny or minimize the impact of the Holocaust.


...do you think the Holocaust is a myth or was overblown?

 

[Polymath257]

Just trying to see where your animosity towards Jews comes from. You deny their history per the Bible in much the same way others deny or minimize the impact of the Holocaust.

WHAT?????

I deny the history per the Bible because of the work of historians and archeologists that have shown it to be wrong.

...do you think the Holocaust is a myth or was overblown?

No, it was not a myth nor is it overblown. It shows just how depraved humans can be in how they treat other humans. And that it happened in an 'advanced' nation is even more horrific and depressing.

Look, I have very good friends (who I consider to be family) whose families were decimated in the Holocaust. One dear friend's father had to hide in a coal room under some stairs. His aunt was picked up by a patrol while attempting to find good in the garbage. She died in Auschwitz.

If you continue in this way, this discussion is ended. You have insulted me and I have tolerated it for too long.

 

[Polymath257]

"Evidence of the culture"? You mean, prone to leave Israel and be taken as slaves?

Huh??

Hey, if you were lying, it's mostly to yourself.

Arabs are particularly susceptible to the whims of their leaders. These are a people who seem to prefer monarchy, oligarchy and theocracy over free society and democracy.

They haven't gone through the process of the Renaissance and are still under the thrall of religious extremism.

So you reject the idea of a Jewish state, per UN Resolution 3379?

Should Israel exist?

Should any country?

Just trying to see where your animosity towards Jews comes from.

Enough. I don't have animosity to the Jews. While you seem to think that a historical critique is the same as a denigration, that is simply not the case.

Judaism is no worse than any other religion and is better than most. I have far, far more problems with fundamentalist Christianity, but any sort of fundamentalism (which tends to deny the humanity of those who disagree) is problematic.

Now, if you want to discuss the historicity of the Exodus and Biblical texts, we can continue.

But if you are going to continue to insult me, this discussion is over.

 

[Grumpuss]

WHAT?????

I deny the history per the Bible because of the work of historians and archeologists that have shown it to be wrong.

Hitler used "science" to prove the genetic supremacy of Germans over Jews too.

You have yet to actually list any contemporary historians that contradict the Bible's account. Instead you just poke holes in the Bible authors and Herodotus.

No, it was not a myth nor is it overblown. It shows just how depraved humans can be in how they treat other humans. And that it happened in an 'advanced' nation is even more horrific and depressing.

Look, I have very good friends (who I consider to be family) whose families were decimated in the Holocaust. One dear friend's father had to hide in a coal room under some stairs. His aunt was picked up by a patrol while attempting to find good in the garbage. She died in Auschwitz.

If you continue in this way, this discussion is ended. You have insulted me and I have tolerated it for too long.

And yet, you dislike Jews and their quest for a home state. So much so that you'll call the Bible inaccurate, opportunistic propaganda, not to say "lies".

Most people would see the truth in the Bible, in historical events and geographic places and then lend more credibility to other claims made there. Sodom and Gomorrah existed and were destroyed. Egypt took slaves and brutalized them. Joshua conquered Judea and Israel. The Romans held Israel as a protectorate and killed Jesus as a subversive. Et cetera.

 

[Polymath257]

Hitler used "science" to prove the genetic supremacy of Germans over Jews too.

You have yet to actually list any contemporary historians that contradict the Bible's account. Instead you just poke holes in the Bible authors and Herodotus.

And yet, you dislike Jews and their quest for a home state. So much so that you'll call the Bible inaccurate, opportunistic propaganda, not to say "lies".

Most people would see the truth in the Bible, in historical events and geographic places and then lend more credibility to other claims made there. Sodom and Gomorrah existed and were destroyed. Egypt took slaves and brutalized them. Joshua conquered Judea and Israel. The Romans held Israel as a protectorate and killed Jesus as a subversive. Et cetera.

This discussion is over. You are now ignored.