theists attack atheism because they are insecure

[DavidFirth]

How so? Isn't that circular reasoning. I mean, sure, if you assume that scripture is "God breathed", then God must exist. But, since there is no evidence for that, why do you think that the verse makes God's existence obvious?

There is plenty of evidence for it. Archaeological finds confirm the Exodus account and there are no archaeological finds that contradict the Bible. Prophecies that came true and the fact that no man has ever proven an inconsistency in the Bible lends credence.

 

[leibowde84]

Well, atheism is also based on faith that no god exists since they can't see one, hear him, etc.

That is strong atheism. Weak atheism, which probably applies to most atheists, is based on a "lack of" or being "without" a belief in the existence of God or gods. Some incorrectly label it "agnosticism", but that is not what the term actually means. Agnosticism deals with knowledge of God. There are agnostic theists, agnostic atheists, etc.

 

[leibowde84]

Archaeological finds confirm the Exodus account

Can you support this?

 

[DavidFirth]

In particular,, many theists are just butts.

Opinion noted.

 

[DavidFirth]

Can you support this?

You've got Google, right? It's easy to search for it.

 

[DavidFirth]

That is strong atheism. Weak atheism, which probably applies to most atheists, is based on a "lack of" or being "without" a belief in the existence of God or gods. Some incorrectly label it "agnosticism", but that is not what the term actually means. Agnosticism deals with knowledge of God. There are agnostic theists, agnostic atheists, etc.

Agreed.

 

[leibowde84]

There is plenty of evidence for it. Archaeological finds confirm the Exodus account and there are no archaeological finds that contradict the Bible. Prophecies that came true and the fact that no man has ever proven an inconsistency in the Bible lends credence.

There actually is no archeological evidence supporting the story of Exodus. If it really happened, one would think that evidence would be easy to find. But, there is none.

 

[leibowde84]

You've got Google, right? It's easy to search for it.

We are told that these people spent 40 years wandering around in the desert — they escaped, as slaves from Egypt, and so forth. There is not a shred of archaeological or historical evidence, outside of the Bible, that this is even true! That it ever even happened! You would think that if a people spent 40 years wandering around in the desert they'd leave some archaeological evidence? There's absolutely none. There's no evidence that somebody named Moses even existed.
—Michael Shermer[1]

 

[DavidFirth]

There actually is no archeological evidence supporting the story of Exodus. If it really happened, one would think that evidence would be easy to find. But, there is none.

This is a good start.

The Bible Unearthed

Try some of these links as well.

archaeological evidence for the exodus - Google Search

 

[leibowde84]

This is a good start.

The Bible Unearthed

There is nothing in here that describes any archeological evidence supporting the existence of Moses or the exodus of the Jews from Egypt.

 

[DavidFirth]

There is nothing in here that describes any archeological evidence supporting the existence of Moses or the exodus of the Jews from Egypt.

It does support the places in the text, though.

You are cherry picking out the parts that you know aren't there. What about what is there? Were it not for the Biblical text those places would have never been identified or even thought to have existed at all.

 

[leibowde84]

This is a good start.

The Bible Unearthed

Try some of these links as well.

archaeological evidence for the exodus - Google Search

EVIDENCE OF THE EARLY ISRAELITES
The Bible chronology puts Moses much later in time, around 1450 B.C.E. Is there archeological evidence for Moses and the mass exodus of hundreds of thousands of Israelites described in the Bible?
We have no direct archeological evidence. "Moses" is an Egyptian name. Some of the other names in the narratives are Egyptian, and there are genuine Egyptian elements. But no one has found a text or an artifact in Egypt itself or even in the Sinai that has any direct connection. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. But I think it does mean what happened was rather more modest. And the biblical writers have enlarged the story.

[For more on Moses and the Exodus, see Carol Meyer's interview.]

Is there mention of the Israelites anywhere in ancient Egyptian records?
No Egyptian text mentions the Israelites except the famous inscription of Merneptah dated to about 1206 B.C.E. But those Israelites were in Canaan; they are not in Egypt, and nothing is said about them escaping from Egypt.

 

[leibowde84]

It does support the places in the text, though.

You are cherry picking out the parts that you know aren't there. What about what is there? Were it not for the Biblical text those places would have never been identified or even thought to have existed at all.

But, that doesn't provide evidence for the Exodus from Egypt. It merely shows that places named in the Bible actually exist, which should be expected whether or not the exodus actually took place.

That resembles the absurd argument that physical locations actually existing in the New Testament somehow support events described in the New Testament. Just because the writers got locations right in no way supports the events having actually taken place.

So, what evidence is there that the Exodus actually took place in the way described in the Old Testament?

 

[Polymath257]

You've got Google, right? It's easy to search for it.

The problem is that archaeological finds do NOT support the Exodus account. In fact, the bulk of the evidence (including the times when it is supposed to have happened and what Egypt controlled at those times) show that it was impossible.

 

[leibowde84]

The problem is that archaeological finds do NOT support the Exodus account. In fact, the bulk of the evidence (including the times when it is supposed to have happened and what Egypt controlled at those times) show that it was impossible.

He claimed that archaeological evidence proves that the Exodus took place, yet he has failed to present any archaeological evidence that even supports it. Frustrating, to say the least.

 

[DavidFirth]

EVIDENCE OF THE EARLY ISRAELITES
The Bible chronology puts Moses much later in time, around 1450 B.C.E. Is there archeological evidence for Moses and the mass exodus of hundreds of thousands of Israelites described in the Bible?
We have no direct archeological evidence. "Moses" is an Egyptian name. Some of the other names in the narratives are Egyptian, and there are genuine Egyptian elements. But no one has found a text or an artifact in Egypt itself or even in the Sinai that has any direct connection. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. But I think it does mean what happened was rather more modest. And the biblical writers have enlarged the story.

[For more on Moses and the Exodus, see Carol Meyer's interview.]

Is there mention of the Israelites anywhere in ancient Egyptian records?
No Egyptian text mentions the Israelites except the famous inscription of Merneptah dated to about 1206 B.C.E. But those Israelites were in Canaan; they are not in Egypt, and nothing is said about them escaping from Egypt.

I said that archaeological evidence that supports the Exodus has been found. I did not say anything was proven and I did not say that this proves anything.

A lack of the Israelites anywhere in ancient Egyptian records proves nothing. Lack of evidence does not prove something did not happen.

 

[DavidFirth]

The problem is that archaeological finds do NOT support the Exodus account. In fact, the bulk of the evidence (including the times when it is supposed to have happened and what Egypt controlled at those times) show that it was impossible.

You're wrong. The evidence found shows that it could have happened. You can't prove it either way, you certainly cannot prove that it was impossible, though I am sure some die hard people attempt to do just that.

 

[leibowde84]

I said that archaeological evidence that supports the Exodus has been found. I did not say anything was proven and I did not say that this proves anything.

A lack of the Israelites anywhere in ancient Egyptian records proves nothing. Lack of evidence does not prove something did not happen.

This is what you said ...

Archaeological finds confirm the Exodus account and there are no archaeological finds that contradict the Bible.

Can you provide archaeological evidence that "confirms the exodus account"?

 

[DavidFirth]

This is what you said ...
Can you provide archaeological evidence that "confirms the exodus account"?

I already have. Didn't you read it?

 

[leibowde84]

I already have. Didn't you read it?

You have not provided any archaeological evidence that confirms the exodus story. You've merely provided that places named in the Bible actually existed. But, that in no way confirms the Exodus story. It merely confirms that places named in the exodus story existed.