Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sauron · 01-06-2007, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

hatsoff,
I would reject the notion that any person can start with 'nothing.'

There are two positions:

1. God does not exist
2.God does exist

There are more positions than that, pardner. The fact that you are unaware of the other positions only shows how badly reasoned your christianity must be.

Edited to add: here are a few:

3. More than one god(s) exist - such as all the Roman gods;
4. God used to exist, but no longer does;
5. God exists, but his attributes are different than what you think they are - for example, he may not be omniscient or eternal;
6. God exists, but he isn't the God you think he is - he is some other god, such as Zeus;
7. God exists, he is the God you think he is, but some other group (Mormons, Muslims, Jews, Bahaii, etc.) are the ones correctly interpreting his commands, instead of you and your church;

Christians like black-and-white, binary choices. However, the real world almost never works that way.

Quote:

I hold number two. Plenty hold number one. No one is truly objective.

If it is true that nobody is 100% objective, that is not an excuse to pick your sources based upon who makes you feel good. Just because you can't be 100% objective, you still have a burden to try and be as objective as humanly possible.

Sauron · 01-06-2007, 05:14 PM

Here's another glaring biblical failure in archaeology:

there is zero evidence for any Hebrews in Egypt (i.e., the time of Moses, the Exodus, etc.). If there were 2.5 million Hebrews serving as slaves, allegedly freed, wandering in Sinai for 40 years, there ought to be some evidence.

Nope. From Finkelstein and Silberman, The Bible Unearthed:

Quote:

According to the biblical account, the children of Israel wandered in the desert and mountains of the Sinai peninsula, moving around and camping in different places, for a full forty years. Even if the number of fleeing Israelites (given in the text as six hundred thousand) is wildly exaggerated or can be interpreted as representing smaller units of people, the text describes the survival of a great number of people under the most challenging conditions. Some archaeological trace of their generation-long wandering should be apparent. However, except for the Egyptian forts along the northern coast, not a single campsite or sign of occupation frm the time of Ramesses II and his immediate predecessors and successors has ever been identified in Sinai. And it has not been for lack of trying. Repeated archaeological surveys in all regions of the peninsula, including the mountainous area around the traditional site of Mount Sinai, near Saint Catherine's Monastery, have yielded only negative evidence: not even a single sherd, no structure, not a single house, no trace of an ancient encampment. One may argue that a relatively small band of wandering Israelites cannot be expected to leave material remains behind. But modern archaeological techniques are quite capable of tracing even the very meager remains of hunter-gatherers and pastoral nomads all over the world. Indeed, the archaeological record from the Sinai peninsula discloses evidence for pastoral activity in such eras as the third millennium BCE and the Hellenistic and Byzantine periods. There is simply no such evidence at the supposed time of the Exodus in the thirteen century BCE.

The conclusion -- that the Exodus did not happen at the time and in the manner described in the Bible -- seems irrefutable when we examine the evidence at specific sites where the children of Israel were said to have camped for extended periods during their wandering in the desert (Numbers 33) and where some archaeological indication -- if present -- would almost certainly be found. According to the biblical narrative, the children of israel camped at Kadesh-barnea for thirty eight of the forty years of the wanderings. The general location of this place is clear from the description of the southern border of the land of Israel in Numbers 34. It has been identified by archaeologists with the large and well-watered oasis of Ein el-Qudeirat in eastern Sinai, on the border between modern Israel and Egypt. The name Kadesh was probably preserved over the centuries in the name of a nearly smaller spring called Ein Qadis. A small mound with the remains of a late Iron Age fort stands at the center of this oasis. Yet repeated excavations and surveys through the entire area have not provided even the slightest evidence for activity in the Late Bronze Age, not even a single sherd left by a tiny fleeing band of frightened refugees.

Ezion-geber is another place reported to be a camping place of the children of Israel. Its mention in other places in the Bible as a later port town on the northern tip of the Gulf of Aqaba has led to its identification by archaeologists at a mound located on the modern border between Israel and Jordan, halfway between the towns of Eilat and Aqaba. Excavations here in the yeras 1938-1940 revealed impressive Late Iron Age remains, but no trace whatsoever of Late Bronze occupation. From the long list of encampments in the wilderness, Kadesh-barnea and Ezion-geber are the only ones that can be safely identified, yet they revealed no trace of the wandering Israelites.

Sauron · 01-06-2007, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

David,
Ironically, even those dating the book incorrectly at 165 A.D. still have failed to get rid of all the prophecy.

Actually, the dating is 165 BC, not AD.

Quote:

Even if Daniel wrote in 165, the fact is he predicts things that would happen over 195 years later. They happened.

No.

Quote:

The predictive prophecy cannot be undone.

Probably because it didn't happen in the first place?

hatsoff · 01-06-2007, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

hatsoff,
I would reject the notion that any person can start with 'nothing.'

There are two positions:

1. God does not exist
2.God does exist

I hold number two. Plenty hold number one. No one is truly objective.

That's a false dilemma. First of all, why don't you think a person can reserve judgment untill he reviews evidence, as opposed to collecting evidence to support a pre-conceived belief? Second, why have you ignored the possibility of ignorance?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

Well, in fact, no one can really be an athiest.

That's an interesting one! Perhaps you mean that nobody has a good reason for being atheist. I'd buy that.

Quote:

No one can know that God does not exist.

Not absolutely, no--although they can believe that they know, which is often what atheists do.

Quote:

People really are agnostic, they believe, based on the evidence, that God does not exist, but they cannot know it in the aboslute sense.

They should be, perhaps, but there are definitely non-agnostics in the world. You're living proof.

Quote:

Those moral things you noted btw, cannot be explained by evolution.

?

Quote:

As to the evidence, it is left up to the reader to decide. I am comfortable in the evidence I have read and studied. I am particularly comfortable in the fulfillment of prophecy that I can observe (Dan. 2/Acts 2).

That it is up to the reader to decide doesn't mean that any such decision is correct or justified.

mdd344 · 01-06-2007, 05:27 PM

Sauron,
Yes, b.c. I meant. But what do you mean by "no." Daniel clearl predicted the church, and it clearly was established. Now why would you say 'no'? Upon what basis?

Sauron · 01-06-2007, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

Sauron,
Yes, b.c. I meant. But what do you mean by "no." Daniel clearl predicted the church, and it clearly was established. Now why would you say 'no'? Upon what basis?

What makes you you think that Daniel predicted the church?

mdd344 · 01-06-2007, 05:33 PM

Sauron,
In my original post I go into a lengthy discussion of it. In short, Daniel did predict the church when he interpreted Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the statue. The rock cut out of the mountain without hands, which would be a kingdom that lasted forever, was the church. See Dan. 2. It would be set up in the days of the Romans, which it was (A.D. 29).

hatsoff · 01-06-2007, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

Sauron,
Yes, b.c. I meant. But what do you mean by "no." Daniel clearl predicted the church, and it clearly was established. Now why would you say 'no'? Upon what basis?

You'll have to enlighten me, but what do you mean by "predicted the Church"? Are you saying that the author of Daniel predicted the eventual rise of Christianity? If so, can you please explain how? Because you're apparently making some kind of mistake if you believe that, and if you lay out your reasoning I can probably show you where.

Smullyan-esque · 01-06-2007, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

God demands that we know who is and who is not following His Word and avoid those who will not repent of it.

You realize that, by being in this forum, you are associating with many, many people who "will not repent of it" (to use your words). Why are you ignoring God's demand by still being here?

Sauron · 01-06-2007, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

Sauron,
In my original post I go into a lengthy discussion of it. In short, Daniel did predict the church when he interpreted Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the statue. The rock cut out of the mountain without hands, which would be a kingdom that lasted forever, was the church. See Dan. 2. It would be set up in the days of the Romans, which it was (A.D. 29).

Well, except it doesn't say that. You're interpreting imagery that way, but Daniel doesn't say that.

What's more, we have no supporting evidence that this exchange between Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar actually ever occurred.

Finally, someone else gave a different interpretation of this dream imagery, one that pointed to Islam.

So I'd say that you are quite a distance from a solid claim here.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-06-2007, 05:27 PM	#315
mdd344 Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Arkansas Posts: 402	Sauron, Yes, b.c. I meant. But what do you mean by "no." Daniel clearl predicted the church, and it clearly was established. Now why would you say 'no'? Upon what basis?

01-06-2007, 05:33 PM	#317
mdd344 Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Arkansas Posts: 402	Sauron, In my original post I go into a lengthy discussion of it. In short, Daniel did predict the church when he interpreted Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the statue. The rock cut out of the mountain without hands, which would be a kingdom that lasted forever, was the church. See Dan. 2. It would be set up in the days of the Romans, which it was (A.D. 29).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.