Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aupmanyav · 02-24-2013, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenesisNemesis

But why would they die for a lie?

People do that. There were crusaders and there are mujahidins. Getting killed gets them 72 houris in heaven.

credoconsolans · 02-24-2013, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarhyn

Honestly, I don't see a problem with the idea that the Sodom and Gomorrah stories represent an actual event in history.

We have extensive evidence that certain myths had roots in actual events; There was a very large flood that wiped out a lot of the area bordering the Euphrates river. It's referenced in a lot of cultures, and many of ancient cultures who lived in the area thought it was the end of the world. Even cultures that lived near relatively near there imported flood myths. As it turns out, from what I've been told by sources in archeology more keen to know than myself, it was just a year with lots of flooding, where one guy jacked another guy's boat and rode out the flood with a large store of grain and animals. There is a reality associated with it, but it's not the reality presented.

As per this story, I don't see any reason why survivors wouldn't think such an event meant the wrath of god(s) being brought down on a city. We have objective proof that meteors make landfall and can wipe out a city or kill/injure its residents. We've seen it happen a number of times in only the last 200 years. You'd expect one to have taken out some fairly large population center at some point in 10k years of recent human history

Then you just mix in the moral prejudices of the survivors, and what they remember from before the event. What starts out as a guy entertaining some friends and having some asshole try to break into his place, and either getting fed up with it and moving, or going with his family to visit friends nearby when the city gets wiped out, and when one of his family members is either left behind (his wife most likely) or gets hit by a piece of spalling or additional space debris turns into "Me and my family, we lived in a wicked place where them weirdos tried raping everyone, and god told us to leave so we did, and the city got blown up by almighty Dog."

It's essentially a survivor story colored by personal prejudice and bad memory.

I don't even have to go that far.

All that could happen is in the distant past, some meteorite hit or airburst over a certain part of the middle east and destroyed a few villages, killing many people.

Of course, everyone was terrified. The locals around the area of destruction beseeched their religious leaders what could have caused such devastation and could they expect the same? Of course, to calm everyone, the religious people might have had to spin the destruction in a positive and moralistic manner.

The village was destroyed by god, yes. But that was because the inhabitants were evil. They deserved it and had it coming.

That's the only way such destruction could have happened in a just universe, right?

The people in the villages that were wiped out didn't actually have to do anything evil. They were just demonized because their villages were hit.

Or maybe not even that. Maybe no one thought bad thoughts about the victims. The survivors just abandoned the area and left the ruins.

Hundreds or thousands of years later, people would travel past the area and see the ruins and ask, "What happened there?"

Cut to tales told around the campfire.

The stories may have started months or even years later. All someone had to ask was 'why'?

ThePainefulTruth · 02-25-2013, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skepticalbip

The purpose and aim of the search was to "prove" that the bible is a historically accurate accout.

A majority of archaeologists are out to find the Truth, not prove the Bible. Yes, there are those that do, but look at the archaeology that has stuck over the last 200 years and that which hasn't. No archaeologist is claiming any supernatural element of a story to be true that I know of anymore--because the evidence is so at hand and undeniable, unlike the more removed evidence for evolution or cosmological physics.

Quote:

The "truth" of the bible is assumed to be unquestionable. The assertions in the article use the same logic that true believers in bigfoot apply in their search to verify the "truth" of bigfoot accounts. Any unexplained tuft of hair or scat found in the Pacific Northwest is "proof" of bigfoot. Odd depressions in soil is "bigfoot prints".

You have obviously not read the article, and are dismissing ALL possible historical elements of the Bible out-of- hand--thus equating that method with those who believe it all to be literally true, out-of-hand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by credoconsolans

All that could happen is in the distant past, some meteorite hit or airburst over a certain part of the middle east and destroyed a few villages, killing many people.

It would have killed all the people around ground zero. It sterilized the place so completely, it remained uninhabited it for 700 years, and Jericho on the other side of the valley, for 200 years.

Quote:

Of course, everyone was terrified. The locals around the area of destruction beseeched their religious leaders what could have caused such devastation and could they expect the same? Of course, to calm everyone, the religious people might have had to spin the destruction in a positive and moralistic manner.

Yes, the "Why?" syndrome. Leaders of revealed religion have no reasonable explanation for why an interactive God would not help the good and harm the bad. The Book of Job is supposed to explain it, but it only kicks the can down the road. There is no explanation because God, if He exists, doesn't interact--ever, in any way.

Quote:

The village was destroyed by god, yes. But that was because the inhabitants were evil. They deserved it and had it coming.

Of course. It had to be that way if God is interactive. But the painful Truth is it was just bad luck.

Quote:

That's the only way such destruction could have happened in a just universe, right?

The only justice is man made.

Quote:

The stories may have started months or even years later. All someone had to ask was 'why'?

That, and demand proof for any answer than wrong place at the wrong time.

skepticalbip · 02-25-2013, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePainefulTruth

Quote:

Originally Posted by skepticalbip

The purpose and aim of the search was to "prove" that the bible is a historically accurate accout.

A majority of archaeologists are out to find the Truth, not prove the Bible. Yes, there are those that do, but look at the archaeology that has stuck over the last 200 years and that which hasn't. No archaeologist is claiming any supernatural element of a story to be true that I know of anymore--because the evidence is so at hand and undeniable, unlike the more removed evidence for evolution or cosmological physics.

You are throwing in a red herring. I said nothing about "supernatural". I said "historically accurate". The fact that the site has been declaired to be SODOM is damned good evidence that the biblical account of a city named SODOM being destroyed by fire is taken as "TRUTH". Where the hell else did that name, Sodom, come from? An unbiased, objective archeologist would describe it as "a city" being destroyed by fire.

Quote:

The "truth" of the bible is assumed to be unquestionable. The assertions in the article use the same logic that true believers in bigfoot apply in their search to verify the "truth" of bigfoot accounts. Any unexplained tuft of hair or scat found in the Pacific Northwest is "proof" of bigfoot. Odd depressions in soil is "bigfoot prints".

You have obviously not read the article, and are dismissing ALL possible historical elements of the Bible out-of- hand--thus equating that method with those who believe it all to be literally true, out-of-hand.

I have read the article. That is why I can see their arguments and conclusions use the exact same illogical method of "interpreting" findings as those who accept all the "bigfoot accounts" use for what they find as proof of bigfoot. What the bigfoot hunters find (hair, scat, footprints) can have many other explanations but they believe the "bigfoot accounts" so it is BIGFOOT, just as for this article it is SODOM. The "supernatural" does not come into either of thses "beliefs", at least not in the arguements presented.

ThePainefulTruth · 02-25-2013, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skepticalbip

I have read the article. That is why I can see their arguments and conclusions use the exact same illogical method of "interpreting" findings as those who accept all the "bigfoot accounts" use for what they find as proof of bigfoot. What the bigfoot hunters find (hair, scat, footprints) can have many other explanations but they believe the "bigfoot accounts" so it is BIGFOOT, just as for this article it is SODOM. The "supernatural" does not come into either of thses "beliefs", at least not in the arguements presented.

What illogical methods then? Where's the flaw(s)? Asserting this to be equivalent with bigfoot is no argument at all, other than an emotive one.

Bacillus anthracis · 02-25-2013, 09:17 AM

These are just fancy fisherman's stories--the old "I caught a fish that was this big and weighed 20 pounds."

Ten years later the same guy will have developed the story into "It was a dark and stormy day as the waves crashed like thunder onto the shores of the Maine coastline. We were just about to head in when the Skipper eyed a bite on my line. It was only until I took hold of the pole that I realized I may have had the legendary Devil' Dolphin on me line..."

Give that story two thousand years and a man of pure heart will have wrestled Satan from the depths of Hell and saved the world.

ThePainefulTruth · 02-25-2013, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skepticalbip

I have read the article. That is why I can see their arguments and conclusions use the exact same illogical method of "interpreting" findings as those who accept all the "bigfoot accounts" use for what they find as proof of bigfoot. What the bigfoot hunters find (hair, scat, footprints) can have many other explanations but they believe the "bigfoot accounts" so it is BIGFOOT, just as for this article it is SODOM. The "supernatural" does not come into either of thses "beliefs", at least not in the arguements presented.

What illogical methods then? Where's the flaw(s)? Asserting this to be equivalent with bigfoot is no argument at all, other than an emotive one.

ThePainefulTruth · 02-25-2013, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bacillus anthracis

These are just fancy fisherman's stories--the old "I caught a fish that was this big and weighed 20 pounds."

Ten years later the same guy will have developed the story into "It was a dark and stormy day as the waves crashed like thunder onto the shores of the Maine coastline. We were just about to head in when the Skipper eyed a bite on my line. It was only until I took hold of the pole that I realized I may have had the legendary Devil' Dolphin on me line..."

Give that story two thousand years and a man of pure heart will have wrestled Satan from the depths of Hell and saved the world.

And archaeology is the act of applying science to the story to see what, if anything, is factual or at least a reasonable possibility.

skepticalbip · 02-25-2013, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePainefulTruth

Quote:

Originally Posted by skepticalbip

I have read the article. That is why I can see their arguments and conclusions use the exact same illogical method of "interpreting" findings as those who accept all the "bigfoot accounts" use for what they find as proof of bigfoot. What the bigfoot hunters find (hair, scat, footprints) can have many other explanations but they believe the "bigfoot accounts" so it is BIGFOOT, just as for this article it is SODOM. The "supernatural" does not come into either of thses "beliefs", at least not in the arguements presented.

What illogical methods then? Where's the flaw(s)? Asserting this to be equivalent with bigfoot is no argument at all, other than an emotive one.

It was explained. That is the trouble with people who are so damned positive that what they believe is "TRUE". They can't see anything outside their narrowly blinkered vision. You can see the fallacy in the "logic" of the "TRUE BELIVERS" of the bigfoot stories and they can see the same fallacy in the "logic" of this article. However neither can see the same idiocy in their own beliefs because they are convinced they "KNOW THE TRUTH" - it can't be questioned.

Deepak · 02-25-2013, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePainefulTruth

Quote:

Originally Posted by skepticalbip

I have read the article. That is why I can see their arguments and conclusions use the exact same illogical method of "interpreting" findings as those who accept all the "bigfoot accounts" use for what they find as proof of bigfoot. What the bigfoot hunters find (hair, scat, footprints) can have many other explanations but they believe the "bigfoot accounts" so it is BIGFOOT, just as for this article it is SODOM. The "supernatural" does not come into either of thses "beliefs", at least not in the arguements presented.

What illogical methods then? Where's the flaw(s)? Asserting this to be equivalent with bigfoot is no argument at all, other than an emotive one.

Here are the problems I see. The article is in a publication about biblical historicity and the majority of the text talks about whether this is the location of Sodom, and very little time talking about the supposed evidence of the destruction. It starts off by talking about how good the geographic information in the Bible is, when it really is pretty bad.

As a picture they included a discolored rock, instead of the fused pottery which would have been much more compelling. They claim that they used microprobe analysis to determine the temperature that the glass formed under, but by my layman's understanding this sort of analysis would only tell us what the chemical composition is (note that EMPA is notoriously bad at doing even this with certain types of glasses).

Oh, and no pictures or description of the findings at the official site http://www.tallelhammam.com/Recent_Discoveries.html

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

02-25-2013, 09:17 AM	#46
Bacillus anthracis Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Southern California Posts: 1,610	These are just fancy fisherman's stories--the old "I caught a fish that was this big and weighed 20 pounds." Ten years later the same guy will have developed the story into "It was a dark and stormy day as the waves crashed like thunder onto the shores of the Maine coastline. We were just about to head in when the Skipper eyed a bite on my line. It was only until I took hold of the pole that I realized I may have had the legendary Devil' Dolphin on me line..." Give that story two thousand years and a man of pure heart will have wrestled Satan from the depths of Hell and saved the world.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.