Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dark Jedi · 02-17-2004, 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde
No I don't. Don't at all. The Egyptian Book of the Dead can tell us LOTS of things about ancient Egyptian society. Even though it is arguably a "religious" book. Ditto with the "religious" books of other ancient peoples.

When the "religious" book in question tells us explicitly about major sustained contact between two peoples (here the Egyptians and the Hebrews) and there are NO other major written sources which deal at length with that contact, one has to make do with what is available.

Only anti-religious prejudice prevents Sauron and company from seeing that. Just as on the political forum partisan prejudice prevents him from seeing the true nature of public support for Dean and Kerry.....

Cheers!

Shouldn't there be an infidels "Godwin's Law" that says:
"You have lost the argument when you invoke the 'you must have faith to have faith' clause." ?

ANd, I have not yet checked up on the presidential hopefuls out there. However, every fundie I have run across absolutely hates Kerry. As far as I am concerned, that's a primary feature I like in a President....

leonarde · 02-17-2004, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Shouldn't there be an infidels "Godwin's Law" that says:
"You have lost the argument when you invoke the 'you must have faith to have faith' clause." ?

1) No one here (certainly not me) invoked "faith", using that word or any word or phrase that is a synonym.

2) There's a difference between saying "Put your prejudices aside, to the extent possible, when making an evaluation about history/archaeology/politics!" and saying "Have faith!".

Does that really have to be pointed out????? If so, things have come to an awful pass around here.....

Cheers!

leonarde · 02-17-2004, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde
I'm sorry, "stuff" doesn't quite cut it. You'll have to be WAY more specific.

Cheers!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Archaeological evidence. That wasn't so hard now was it?

I knew you could do it!

Cheers!

leonarde · 02-17-2004, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Narrative taken from tales told by Ignorant Mineral Age Goat Herders (TM) doesn't count for much without supporting evidence.

Tell me, what distinguished scholar of Near Eastern history did you get this little aphorism from???? Your claim to be a big history buff is belied by the dismissive way you have with narratives with which you don't want to agree......

Cheers!

leonarde · 02-17-2004, 05:47 AM

Quote:

You do have grave linguistic problems. Did you note the passive implied in "problems set for you"? Of course not. I in no way gave any indication of what the agent for the act of setting was.

Puhleeeze, don''t try to weasel out of things by claiming that an unknown "agent" set some "problems" for me!!! An unknown agent who just happened to whisper in your ear what those "problems" were. I ain't buying.

Cheers!

Doctor X · 02-17-2004, 05:48 AM

"Try, dear Zyrkov, to cultivate a sense of humor!"

I am still waiting for evidence.

--J.D.

leonarde · 02-17-2004, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Alas, Sauron's reading skills have failed him as much as his skills as ... an historical linguist.....

-- it might eventually dawn on you that you set yourself the problems.

I "set" myself no "problems". Oh, I forgot! You're of the 'mindreaders' here, aren't you?

Cheers!

leonarde · 02-17-2004, 05:51 AM

Quote:

"Try, dear Zyrkov, to cultivate a sense of humor!"

I am still waiting for evidence.

Me too! But I've been a member since March of 2002 and there is no evidence of (intentional) humor here.....

Cheers!

Doctor X · 02-17-2004, 05:54 AM

Evidently you have never read on of Magus's posts. . . .

However, I am still waiting for evidence that supports the historicity of the Exodus-Conquest and rebuts the evidence summarized from the archaeology which argues against it.

--J.D.

leonarde · 02-17-2004, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde
instead we have (mostly ) preemptory dismissal of ANY POSSIBLE historical basis of the Biblical account of the Exodus. Big mistake and NOT what even the author quoted is doing.....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The dismissal is not preemptory. [...]

Boy, do you need to re-read this thread again! Starting with page one. It's just another boys-hanging-out-in-BC&H--showing-off-their-prejudices thread. It has a long lineage in the archives......Then there's the old chestnut about the "Goat Herders"; do you really expect me to believe that this is NOT a dismissive characterization?????
If so, you can forget about the Hebrew and the ancient Egyptian: youses speak an English with which I am not familiar.....

Cheers!

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

02-17-2004, 05:48 AM	#196
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	"Try, dear Zyrkov, to cultivate a sense of humor!" I am still waiting for evidence. --J.D.

02-17-2004, 05:54 AM	#199
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Evidently you have never read on of Magus's posts. . . . However, I am still waiting for evidence that supports the historicity of the Exodus-Conquest and rebuts the evidence summarized from the archaeology which argues against it. --J.D.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.