Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mdd344 · 01-06-2007, 07:04 PM

Kosh,
I remember now. I think that was part of Bill Cosby's stand up routine. Funny. I am glad you helped me remember that.

mdd344 · 01-06-2007, 07:06 PM

Hatsoff,

You stated, "Because it seems like the author was trying to make predictions that he could not possibly make."

Now you know I think you are a fine person. But really. Is this not an example of a lack of objectivity? Haven't you just done what people accuse me of, that is making up your mind as to something someone by human standards could not do and then making all claims otherwise go away?

hatsoff · 01-06-2007, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

Hatsoff,

You stated, "Because it seems like the author was trying to make predictions that he could not possibly make."

Now you know I think you are a fine person. But really. Is this not an example of a lack of objectivity? Haven't you just done what people accuse me of, that is making up your mind as to something someone by human standards could not do and then making all claims otherwise go away?

No. I don't believe in natural laws just for the heck of it. They are backed up by incredibly strong evidence.

EDIT: I did not choose to believe in natural laws first, then look for evidence to support it. In fact, I was raised to believe the opposite, and only when I was 22 or so was I finally convinced that natural laws hold true. It's actually a little embarrassing, now that I reflect on it, but that is the power of indoctrination.

Sauron · 01-06-2007, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

Sauron,
You do (hear crickets chirping) if you keep using silence as your foundation for belief that all this lack of 'findings' prove the Bible is erroneous. I really would have thought you would not have gone down that road, given your desire to be logical and back up what you claim with evidence.

Why wouldn't I "go down that road"? As I've explained several times, you misunderstand what "argument from silence" means.

Quote:

From "http://www.equip.org/free/DA111.htm"
The author is Dr. Paul Maier
Originally published in the Christian Research Journal, volume 27, number 2 (2004).

Yes, and the problem - as usual - is that you quote an apologetic source, someone with a predetermined position that they are pushing. So now we have to slog through the long process of pointing out why your new source is no better than your previous sources. (Hint: do you think it might have been wiser to try and quote from an actual archaeologist?)

About this specific topic, Meier gives us his guesses:

Quote:

No Israelite Sojourn in Egypt or Exodus Therefrom? Critics make much of the supposed “fact” that there is no mention of the Hebrews in hieroglyphic inscriptions, no mention of Moses, and no records of such a mass population movement as claimed in the biblical account of the Exodus from Egypt. This “fact” is questionable. The famous Israel Stele (an inscribed stone or slab) of Pharaoh Merneptah (described more fully below) states, “Israel — his seed is not.”

But this stele only proves that the Egyptians knew of a people / tribe that called itself "Israel". It doesn't do anything to prove that the Hebrews were in bondage in Egypt. Only a novice would make such a glaring mistake - a novice, or an apologist.

Quote:

Furthermore, even if there were no mention whatever of the Hebrews in Egyptian records, this also would prove nothing, especially in view of the well-known Egyptian proclivity never to record reverses or defeats or anything that would embarrass the majesty of the ruling monarch. Would any pharaoh have the following words chiseled onto his monument: “Under my administration, a great horde of Hebrew slaves successfully escaped into the Sinai Desert when we tried to prevent them”?

Fortunately, archeology does not rely solely upon written records. There are campsites, household artifacts, shards, records from neighboring civilizations, burial sites, etc. The problem here is that no matter what line of investigation you care to indulge in, the result is always the same: zero evidence for any Hebrews in Egypt.

Quote:

No Exodus? It is true that few remains of encampments or artifacts from the Exodus era have been discovered archaeologically in the Sinai, but a nomadic, tribal migration would hardly leave behind permanent stone foundations of imposing buildings en route. Hardly any archaeology is taking place in the Sinai, and if this changes, evidence of migration may very well be uncovered. Again, beware of the argument from silence.

The problem, of course, is that the Sinai has been extensively searched for such evidence - and not just recently, either. Sinai has been a favorite digging site for well over a century. Thus, sadly proving that Meier is not up to date on the archaeology of the region.

Meier tries to use a flood story as a "proof" for the bible:

Quote:

]A Common Flood Story. Not just the Hebrews (Gen. 6–8), but Mesopotamians, Egyptians, and Greeks all report a flood in primordial times. A Sumerian king list from c. 2100 BC divides itself into two categories: those kings who ruled before a great flood and those who ruled after it. One of the earliest examples of Sumero-Akkadian-Babylonian literature, the Gilgamesh Epic, describes a great flood sent as punishment by the gods, with humanity saved only when the pious Utnapishtim (AKA, “the Mesopotamian Noah”) builds a ship and saves the animal world thereon. A later Greek counterpart, the story of Deucalion and Phyrra, tells of a couple who survived a great flood sent by an angry Zeus. Taking refuge atop Mount Parnassus (AKA, “the Greek Ararat”), they supposedly repopulated the earth by heaving stones behind them that sprang into human beings.

However, there was *not* a common flood story. The civilizations listed here had very different versions of that story. talkorigins.org maintains a list of worlwide flood stories, and shows many cultures with different versions, or no flood story at all.

Meier is so inexperienced and uninformed as to repeat the christian old wive's tale about the Hittites, which I already shot down earlier in this very thread:

Quote:

The Existence of Hittites. Genesis 23 reports that Abraham buried Sarah in the Cave of Machpelah, which he purchased from Ephron the Hittite. Second Samuel 11 tells of David’s adultery with Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite. A century ago the Hittites were unknown outside of the Old Testament, and critics claimed that they were a figment of biblical imagination. In 1906, however, archaeologists digging east of Ankara, Turkey, discovered the ruins of Hattusas, the ancient Hittite capital at what is today called Boghazkoy, as well as its vast collection of Hittite historical records, which showed an empire flourishing in the mid-second millennium BC. This critical challenge, among many others, was immediately proved worthless — a pattern that would often be repeated in the decades to come.

Meier has misrepresented the state of archaeology, jumbled a collection of archaeological items together, and waved a magic wand. And since you're unwilling to examine evidence that bothers your religious beliefs, you swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

hatsoff · 01-06-2007, 07:19 PM

Sauron, wasn't there some Egyptian pharaoh who embraced a mysterious foreign religion? It is said that might be Judaism.

Sauron · 01-06-2007, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cjack

And yes, sometimes "because something hasn't been found yet" can indeed mean it doesn't exist. Here's an example:
[...]
In all our explorations, we've not seen a single sign of Lowell's canals, nor anything like the creatures he imagined to have built them. It isn't that they haven't been found yet. They simply don't exist.

Indeed. That points out another reason why mdd344 has misunderstood the term "argument from silence". I could claim "there's a blue crystal fairy hiding in my refrigerator. It's been spoiling all the food, and souring the milk."

Or, someone could say "the Russians are building invisible airplanes to attack the United States". You can't see them, they don't show up on radar, they don't leave a jet trail i the sky, and they run on a new kind of jet fuel that leaves behind no traces. "

mdd344 would have to accept both of these things, even though there's no evidence for either one. Why? Because - hey, his version of "argument from silence" says that a lack of proof cannot be used to rule something out.

That's the problem with debating someone who has just learned a new term from a bad source, I suppose.

Sauron · 01-06-2007, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

Sauron, wasn't there some Egyptian pharaoh who embraced a mysterious foreign religion? It is said that might be Judaism.

Indeed there was. Akhenaton. A website on his new capital, at Amarna:
http://www.amarna.co.uk/

From my text on the Memphis-Thebes prophecy:

Quote:

During the reign of Pharaoh Akhenaton, he moved the imperial capital to a new city that he built halfway between Memphis and Thebes. He called the city Akhetaton, marked today by the modern Tell el-Amarna. Religious life centered on the monotheistic worship of the god Aton (or Atun):

In their new home, Akhenaton, Nefertiti, and their six daughters gave themselves over to the new "truth." Their family life was open to the public. They worshiped the Aton in a temple open to the sunlight. The newly made nobles and officials gave their devotion to Akhenaton and Nefertiti.

This was not some "weekend cottage" that the pharaoh built for a vacation spot. Pharaoh Akhenaton and his queen, the famous Nefertiti, built an entire capital city there in the desert, and conducted the affairs of the Egyptian empire from there:

The new city at Amarna must have had charm. Officials lived in spacious villas with trees, pools, and gardens. Indoors the walls were painted in the free flowing new art, with marsh scenes near the floor and floral bouquets near the ceiling. Amarna art ranged from the very gracious, such as the famous bust of Nefertiti, to the grotesque. Everything was lively. Probably the elegant fragility of the portrait of Nefertiti displeased the traditionalists. Instead of presenting a solidity that might last forever, it gave a delicate and fleeting impression. The new "truth" came down to earth. The prime minister was shown running in front of the king's chariot, an exertion that would have been unthinkable in the staid old times. Scenes of the busy market and the soldiers' guardroom, with lively comments of the people, are depicted. Present-day viewers of this ancient art feel as though they were there.

However, worship of Atun fell out of favor after the death of Akhenaton. Political intrigue and corruption were afoot; there was also resentment from the priests and devotees of the old gods, who rejected the monotheism of Aton. Shortly after the death of Akhenaton, his son-in-law, Tutankhaton, ascended the throne. To show deference to the older pantheism of Egypt, the son-in-law was forced to change his name to Tutankhamen, and embrace the worship of Amon. He moved the capital back to Thebes, and restored privileges to the old gods. The splendid city of Akhetaton was razed to the ground by another pharaoh:

After Akhetaton's abandonment, Horemheb razed the city and Ramses II reused the stone blocks of its temples for his work at nearby Hermopolis.

mdd344 · 01-06-2007, 07:30 PM

Sauron,
Let's make this easy.

1.Has all of the evidence that can be found, been found, in the middle east and Egypt?

Now if you answer yes, you are clearly going to be wrong. If you answer no, then you must admit that lack of evidence does not in and of itself prove or even hint that the Bible is in error.

Did you see what you did btw? I gave a source, a journal, and comments. And you roundly dropped them because he was an 'apologist.' That is the bias to which I referred earlier.

You cannot make this argument you are making. It doesn't wash. I may not know much, but I know that.

spin · 01-06-2007, 07:32 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

This simplistic analysis lacks the core position:

3. Evidence doesn't permit one to hold either of the above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

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

This person goes beyond the evidence and hopes everyone else does. That's why objectivity is beyond him.

One cannot start with the view that there is, or is not, a god. One starts uncommitted then, if interested, looks for an objective test which will yield the existence of a god if the criteria for the test are met.

==o0o==

I've been reading this thread in the forlorn hope that it might come back on track, but I don't think Daniel is a going concern in the thread any longer.

spin

Kosh · 01-06-2007, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdd344

Sauron,
Let's make this easy.

1.Has all of the evidence that can be found, been found, in the middle east and Egypt?

Now if you answer yes, you are clearly going to be wrong. If you answer no, then you must admit that lack of evidence does not in and of itself prove or even hint that the Bible is in error.

I do believe you have just created a false dichotomy.

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

01-06-2007, 07:04 PM	#341
mdd344 Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Arkansas Posts: 402	Kosh, I remember now. I think that was part of Bill Cosby's stand up routine. Funny. I am glad you helped me remember that.

01-06-2007, 07:06 PM	#342
mdd344 Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Arkansas Posts: 402	Hatsoff, You stated, "Because it seems like the author was trying to make predictions that he could not possibly make." Now you know I think you are a fine person. But really. Is this not an example of a lack of objectivity? Haven't you just done what people accuse me of, that is making up your mind as to something someone by human standards could not do and then making all claims otherwise go away?

01-06-2007, 07:19 PM	#345
hatsoff Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Rockford, IL Posts: 740	Sauron, wasn't there some Egyptian pharaoh who embraced a mysterious foreign religion? It is said that might be Judaism.

01-06-2007, 07:30 PM	#348
mdd344 Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Arkansas Posts: 402	Sauron, Let's make this easy. 1.Has all of the evidence that can be found, been found, in the middle east and Egypt? Now if you answer yes, you are clearly going to be wrong. If you answer no, then you must admit that lack of evidence does not in and of itself prove or even hint that the Bible is in error. Did you see what you did btw? I gave a source, a journal, and comments. And you roundly dropped them because he was an 'apologist.' That is the bias to which I referred earlier. You cannot make this argument you are making. It doesn't wash. I may not know much, but I know that.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.