|
On April 18 2012 09:20 Chargelot wrote:I guess the OP is voting for Obama this election. (Yes, I know it says he's from Aus) Show nested quote +So no, Exodus never happened, and by extension that undermines all of the Abrahamic faiths. Fantastic news! I'll alert the media and the Nobel organization. I will not endeavor to prove or disprove anything mentioned in the Bible; I couldn't care less if the whole thing was false or true. However, to the best of my knowledge, the Sinai deserts have not been excavated wholly and completely. 60,000km^(2) is a lot of land to dig up so that one could find evidence of life from ~4000-5000+ years ago.
zalz, speaking in absolutes about ancient history is kind of narrow-minded. Near Eastern history literally needs to be rewritten every five years. For a long time, the kingdom of Yamkhad in N. Syria was entirely unknown, because it simply didn't leave behind any written material. This is kinda problematic because it was probably the most powerful kingdom at the time, but we pretty much only know about it through references from texts in more peripheral areas. Another example would be the Sumerians, who we didn't know existed for a while; when ANE studies first started, it was thought that "writing" only went as far back as the Akkadians. Obviously untrue, (Sumerians invented writing for the record) which we discovered when we found whole cuneiform tablets we couldn't read (and it also helped to notice that cuneiform is ill-suited to Akkadian, which is a Semitic language). Elamite history to this day is still badly known, and there are like seventeen different theories about how the "Indo-Europeans" got to Anatolia, all supported by archaeology or linguistic paleontology or both, and everyone keeps arguing about it. -__-
Ancient history's flooded with blank pages that are only filled when we find actual written evidence about events. For instance, can we actually find archaeological (as opposed to textual) evidence for the forced deportations that were carried out by the Hittites in Anatolia (or by the Neo-Assyrians and Neo-Babylonians in the Middle East proper, and yes, Nebuchadnezzar did in fact conquer and deport the population of Jerusalem)? Lol, let me tell you, it's very, very hard. What does one "look" for in the archaeological record in that case if entire communities are simply uprooted and settled in a new area and assimilate? We only know about these because they're mentioned in historical annals or royal inscriptions or found in royal art. I can give many more examples of events/existences of peoples mentioned in texts that can't be found in the archaeological record and that are only mentioned in a handful of texts (or even just one text!), but I'll stop here.
I'm not saying Exodus is true or untrue; I'm not even up-to-date on the debate, since I have very little interest in the topic (tbh, I have not read the Bible, what I know about it is what l've encountered through references, and I'm not overly fond of Biblical interpretation/studies since they tend to take the Bible as the text to study when it should be looked at within the entire Near Eastern context, which a lot of them don't do), but you need to be very, very careful about dismissing texts right off even if what they say is improbable. There are truths in the Bible, there are very clear fabrications in it, and then there are some things that maybe did happen but are exaggerated, etc., and it's just difficult to separate one from the other sometimes.
Anyways, my two cents. (Unwanted, I'm sure.)
|
On April 17 2012 22:47 adwodon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 22:28 PetitCrabe wrote:Woah I'm not sure if OP is trolling or not. In any case, this is a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Don't ever say you are smart, because you are never smart enough. Do what you have to do, and let the others judge whether you are smart or not. One of my favourite effects. Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 22:33 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:On April 17 2012 16:48 CecilSunkure wrote:On April 17 2012 16:32 Vod.kaholic wrote:On April 17 2012 16:08 Jerubaal wrote:On April 17 2012 16:07 Vod.kaholic wrote:
Can we judge people on there spelling to? too* Yes. I sea what you did their. Edit to fix spelling. There* I also think this is a good idea. i don't think your getting it You're* How do you know were not the ones who don't get it?
*We're.
|
On April 18 2012 11:31 TORTOISE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 22:47 adwodon wrote:On April 17 2012 22:28 PetitCrabe wrote:Woah I'm not sure if OP is trolling or not. In any case, this is a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Don't ever say you are smart, because you are never smart enough. Do what you have to do, and let the others judge whether you are smart or not. One of my favourite effects. On April 17 2012 22:33 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:On April 17 2012 16:48 CecilSunkure wrote:On April 17 2012 16:32 Vod.kaholic wrote:On April 17 2012 16:08 Jerubaal wrote:On April 17 2012 16:07 Vod.kaholic wrote:
Can we judge people on there spelling to? too* Yes. I sea what you did their. Edit to fix spelling. There* I also think this is a good idea. i don't think your getting it You're* How do you know were not the ones who don't get it? *We're.
Quit trolling, his grammar is probably better then yours.
|
On April 18 2012 05:49 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 04:59 rezoacken wrote:On April 17 2012 16:04 Jerubaal wrote:
Here's the tl;dr:
'I'm an ideologue and anyone who doesn't agree with me is an idiot.'
This is the complete opposite of intellectualism. Really quoted for truth and should have been /thread. I strongly do not believe in religion stories but still I respect people that do as long as they try not to convince other of their pov. For me respect is when you don't try to convince or disregard others in a subject that is 100% personal and with no known "truth", rejecting other views is contrary to being smart (works both ways). You respect people by never challenging their beliefs? What a strange world we live in when allowing those we know to dwell in unfounded superstition is considered to be a sign of respect. You cannot demand that someone believes as you do, but there is nothing respectful about never challenging a person's beliefs. If their beliefs are well reasoned they will hold and become stronger for it, if they are build without reason they deserve to fall. Is demanding reason from religion considered converting? Rejecting other views is not contrary to being smart. The essence of stupidity is the lack of reason that motivates the rejection or acceptance of a belief, regardless of its whether it is religious or pseudo-scientific. This demand that religion must be respected, and the tribute of this respect must be paid in silence on the matter, is but the last, though the most poisonous, attempt to strangle healthy dialogue. First you couldn't speak on pain of death. Now you can't speak on pain of breaking social conduct. What we must do is speak, and in that regard, religion and its cries for respect continue to be a thorn in the side of rational discourse.
Don't you think that Preaching and your challenges are the same thing then?
When the beliefs are grounded so fundamentally different, you aren't listening to their reasons because you cannot understand them. You are searching for a more logical reason while their reasons aren't necessary so.
It doesn't make them more stupid than you are in any way.
I agree that with other things like view points, you could argue and have a nice debate. But with religion? you simply cannot. Similar to love:
In Hong Kong, a lot of girls only look for guys who has a house and a car. If you ever talk about love to them, they won't get it because they live in a materalised world. How could a lover explain it to them when the feeling differs from everyone?
|
On April 18 2012 03:35 Chill wrote:
If you're so smart why were you banned from the strategy forum? ololol
I think that this statement sums it up right here.
|
On April 18 2012 12:41 PenguinWithNuke wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 03:35 Chill wrote:
If you're so smart why were you banned from the strategy forum? ololol I think that this statement sums it up right here.
This got me cracking up... hard.
I don't have any religion, and the only news I watch/read are the headlines that appear on ninemsn.com.au, you know, news that makes you laugh a lil inside when your reading by yourself.
You get to know one's intelligence within the first 5 minutes of talking to them. How well one speaks (the words they use) is usually a good sign of their level of education.
|
On April 18 2012 09:14 zalz wrote:
So no, Exodus never happened, and by extension that undermines all of the Abrahamic faiths.
There's more to the abrahamic faiths than this. You don't understand what religion is if you think this "undermines" them. Nobody cares whether or not the stuff is historical.
|
On April 18 2012 13:30 sam!zdat wrote:
Nobody cares whether or not the stuff is historical.
Did you ask everyone?
|
the young turks is not a news show it is partisan political propaganda. poorly done at that.
|
On April 18 2012 15:34 BenBuford wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 13:30 sam!zdat wrote:
Nobody cares whether or not the stuff is historical. Did you ask everyone?
clever.
|
On April 18 2012 13:30 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 09:14 zalz wrote:
So no, Exodus never happened, and by extension that undermines all of the Abrahamic faiths. There's more to the abrahamic faiths than this. You don't understand what religion is if you think this "undermines" them. Nobody cares whether or not the stuff is historical.
Nobody cares? Nobody?
I would argue that the non-existence of a major prophet like Moses could reasonably be called "flawed". Moses is a pretty big deal in Christianity and Islam as well. Especially Islam which argues that its book is without flaw. Making references to a non-existent character as fact does not seem flawless.
But did I suggest that religion will fall apart after this? No. It undermines faith, but it does not destroy faith. If people always forced themselves to be honest and reasonable, religion would be gone by tommorow.
I argue that people should use reason and logic to build their worldview, I never said that is the only way that people build their worldview. The result is a lot of flawed views, religion being the biggest and most obviously false.
People can believe a lot of things. Even if you found a magic videotape that shows everything in the Bible is false, people would still believe. So yes, it undermines faith, but that isn't the same as making it go away.
Don't you think that Preaching and your challenges are the same thing then?
When the beliefs are grounded so fundamentally different, you aren't listening to their reasons because you cannot understand them. You are searching for a more logical reason while their reasons aren't necessary so.
It doesn't make them more stupid than you are in any way.
I agree that with other things like view points, you could argue and have a nice debate. But with religion? you simply cannot. Similar to love:
In Hong Kong, a lot of girls only look for guys who has a house and a car. If you ever talk about love to them, they won't get it because they live in a materalised world. How could a lover explain it to them when the feeling differs from everyone?
Preaching and challenging a persons view is not the same. Preaching is just projecting your worldview out into the ether without dialogue. To challenge is to engage in dialogue.
Fundamental beliefs are the beliefs we hold true for no other reason than that we consider them true. Perhaps that is because they are mandated from an invisible source like religion, or perhaps they are simply so forced into society over the ages that they are nearly impossible to challenge.
But they can be challenged and they can be deconstructed. Take for example women's rights. Some 200 years ago there would be very few people that would considering raping your wife a bad thing, it was your right as a husband to receive sex. Now, skip 200 years, and how much further are we? In the west, women are nearing absolute equality.
Now, I don't know about women in Hong Kong, but I will assume you are right about them placing material value above emotional feelings.
So how could a lover (someone that places emotional feelings above the rest) explain his side of the argument to a materialist (someone that favors material posesions over emotional feelings).
First, you would have to wonder what is more important. Is love truly the most important thing? Or have you only been told that numerous times? Think of all the reasons why love is more important, then try your best to disprove those reasons, truly give it your all.
Now you do the same for materialism. Try to remove your bias and think of all the reasons why these women would want materials over love. Proceed to try and undermine every reason you managed to discover.
Now you have a deeper understanding of the two positions and you can try to see which one is truly better. Perhaps you will change your mind, but if you don't, you will be better equiped to tear down this position in the future.
The only problem is emotions run very deep. Uprooting a persons faith can take a very long time because their views are anchored in so deep and are also a part of their identity. Emotion runs even deeper.
You can make a rational argument for love, but whether that will cultivate a genuine feeling of love in a person? I think a transformation like that is something that just takes a generation.
Fantastic news! I'll alert the media and the Nobel organization. I will not endeavor to prove or disprove anything mentioned in the Bible; I couldn't care less if the whole thing was false or true. However, to the best of my knowledge, the Sinai deserts have not been excavated wholly and completely. 60,000km^(2) is a lot of land to dig up so that one could find evidence of life from ~4000-5000+ years ago.
You don't think Jewish historians would love to find evidence? That they didn't try? But even they have given up and said that it probably didn't happen.
But the majority of christians don't even read the Bible, so I make no illusions that disproving a story they never even read will do much to shake up a faith that gives them a very practical sense of community every Sunday morning.
|
I should clarify. I don't really give a shit about religion. I'm only interested in the texts.
|
On April 18 2012 16:24 sam!zdat wrote:
I should clarify. I don't really give a shit about religion. I'm only interested in the texts.
What do you mean by only being interested in the texts?
As cultural heritage? As moral guidance?
The Bible and other books should never dissapear from human knowledge, simply because they have had such a profound impact on human history, regardless of whether they are true or not, we can't disagree with that.
But as moral guidance I would argue that they don't work.
So, could you clarify for me: in what way are you interested in the texts?
|
I'm interested in them as part of the history of ideas... which is really the only way to regard these texts with respect (I think most contemporary christians do great violence to the book they thump)
You realize there isn't a coherent moral philosophy in the collection of texts we call "the Bible," right? It's not clear to me how you can dismiss an entire corpus that was composed over a period of like a thousand years as a single entity.
If your point is that you can't directly import specific moral instructions across several millennia of human history, then that's both obvious and uninteresting. These texts contain some very deep thought and insight that is worth more consideration than I believe you have given them. Do you understand the context in the history of Greek philosophy that Paul, for example, was working in? (Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, etc...?) Even though I think that monotheism was an enormous dead-end in philosophy, these people were very smart and it does you very little good to dismiss the texts based on a contemporary religious tradition which really has nothing at all to do with them. The ideas in these texts are real.
And you can learn a great many important moral lessons from the Gospels in particular; if you've read these texts I don't see how you can possibly disagree.
|
On April 18 2012 09:14 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +Well no Exodus isn't a complete fabrication, but someone who hasn't studied Bible history wouldn't know that. Exodus is completely and utterly false from start to end. There is not a single shred of evidence to suggest that the jews were ever enslaved by the Egyptians, and there certainly isn't any evidence of a society surviving in the desert for 40 years. You can study Bible history all you want, but that won't make signs of a human society appear in the sands of the Sinai desert. There is no historical evidence to suggest that the exodus ever took place. In fact, the very absence of historical evidence suggests that it never took place. You can't wander around the desert for 40 years and not leave a trace, it isn't possible. The only way to defend the complete lack of evidence is by subscribing to the notion of a trickster god that places dinosaur bones and removes any traces of Jews living in the Sinai, just to 'test' peoples faith. Or get into that ridiuclous number mumbo jumbo where certain numbers are just numbers but other numbers are metaphors and other words are metaphors for numbers, all the way till they eventually stumble across some combination of words and numbers that does make their view work. So no, Exodus never happened, and by extension that undermines all of the Abrahamic faiths.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
There is actually one proof in stone called stone of Merneptah (1207 bc) who describes a people "who had been shut in." and was released. And in the end its mentioned "Israel is laid waste, his seed is not". Though these texts have a different concept of truth, and must not be taken as literary but read trough a cultural code during that time that greatly exaggerate. Though Israel is here understood as a people, and not a country, it shows that the people of Israel had been in and was known by Egypt.
|
im not going to get into this in much depth because what i have to say has already been said quite a few times, but the fact that your writing in a spoiler so you dont have to see people disagreeing with you kinda shows how closed minded you are. youre worse than fox.
|
On April 18 2012 17:17 ThePhan2m wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 09:14 zalz wrote:Well no Exodus isn't a complete fabrication, but someone who hasn't studied Bible history wouldn't know that. Exodus is completely and utterly false from start to end. There is not a single shred of evidence to suggest that the jews were ever enslaved by the Egyptians, and there certainly isn't any evidence of a society surviving in the desert for 40 years. You can study Bible history all you want, but that won't make signs of a human society appear in the sands of the Sinai desert. There is no historical evidence to suggest that the exodus ever took place. In fact, the very absence of historical evidence suggests that it never took place. You can't wander around the desert for 40 years and not leave a trace, it isn't possible. The only way to defend the complete lack of evidence is by subscribing to the notion of a trickster god that places dinosaur bones and removes any traces of Jews living in the Sinai, just to 'test' peoples faith. Or get into that ridiuclous number mumbo jumbo where certain numbers are just numbers but other numbers are metaphors and other words are metaphors for numbers, all the way till they eventually stumble across some combination of words and numbers that does make their view work. So no, Exodus never happened, and by extension that undermines all of the Abrahamic faiths. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is actually one proof in stone called stone of Merneptah (1207 bc) who describes a people "who had been shut in." and was released. And in the end its mentioned "Israel is laid waste, his seed is not". Though these texts have a different concept of truth, and must not be taken as literary but read trough a cultural code during that time that greatly exaggerate. Though Israel is here understood as a people, and not a country, it shows that the people of Israel had been in and was known by Egypt.
Absence of evidence is most certainly the evidence of absence in some cases.
If you claim there is a planet in a very specific point in space, but nobody can find any trace of its gravity, the absence of that evidence suggests the absence of the planet.
You can't travel through a desert for 40 years with an entire civilization and not leave a trace, it can't be done. Not one person lost a sandal? Not one person dropped a urn? Not one child ran off to sketch on a rock? None of that? What? Did Moses order them to avoid leaving any evidence on punishment of death?
Because if he did, they would also have to have eaten the body and used the bones after, because you won't find any of those either, which is peculiar when you consider the claimed size of this migration, anywhere from 600.000 people to 3 million.
Forty years. An entire generation died out in those desert, but they didn't leave any trace?
Not to mention that for some reason, the Egyptians didn't feel the need to mention a small event like more than half of the people living in their country getting up and moving.
"Hey Pharaoh, we just lost 3 million slaves, want us to write that down?"
"Nah, its no biggie. Why would we record a small event like half of the population migrating and the loss of our entire slave work force. Please, go back to recording crop yields, let the trivial stuff remain off the records."
"Maybe I'll just write it in my diary."
"You will do no such thing. Not a soul in Egypt will ever mention this! Got it?"
In this particular case, yes, the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence. It is impossible for this many people to spend 40 years in a desert and not leave a trace.
"Maybe they didn't look for it in the right place, its a big desert."
When even Jewish historians start to give up, we should start to realize that it probably didn't happen.
|
On April 18 2012 02:39 Boblion wrote:
Lol i just used it as an obvious example. I have never talked about an "absolute" wtf. It is so annoying to discuss with you. You are always trying to put words in my mouth.
Also let's be clear once for all. If you have a "good job" with a "nice salary" it means that you are enjoying it and it is good for you which is completly different than taking a beating and suffering ! Now if your boss is a complete jerk it means that your job isn't "good" anymore and you should do something about it. If you stay and you become the bitch then yea you are submissive. It is a matter of CHOICES and of WILL.
I can't believe you don't understand stuff like this. You are always trying to make things more complicated than they really are.
And your example is wrong, because you're arbitrarily dividing the world between those who submit and those who don't while almost everyone eventually submits to someone or something to different degrees.
Maybe that wife took a beating, but maybe she's Rihanna and she's not really sad about her life overall.
I mean, maybe you're a hippie and you believe that you would easily stand up to your boss and give up a 100k salary just because you're "not his bitch", but many people will gladly overcome humiliation to maintain their situation, at all levels.
Of course it's a matter of choice, a matter of will not so much, you can simply not mind that much to be under the orders of someone. I don't see your point there (is there one anyway?).
On April 18 2012 02:39 Boblion wrote:
Words for words ! Smart is being clever ! Smart is being witty ! Smart is being bright !
But what is being clever ? What is being witty ? What is being bright ?
Since "smart" is a synonym of "intelligent, you have your own answer :
On April 18 2012 02:39 Boblion wrote:
Being intelligent doesn't mean shit if you are still a bum.
If you say that a bum can be "intelligent" but not "smart", then you're obviously using very different definitions for both while it is commonly aknowledged that they have similar definitions. In short, you're defending a poorly defined "concept" you once thought about that makes "smart" a synonym of "power".
Some say that knowledge is power, but to quote a clever girl, "power is power".
|
zalz, would you say that your entire philosophy is founded on reason and logic? And that any philosophy or religion which is not is false?
|
On April 18 2012 19:42 zalz wrote:
Absence of evidence is most certainly the evidence of absence in some cases.
It is not.
Applying a scientific method to a metaphysical question is the dumbest thing pseudo-sienctific atheists do.
Science is a rigorous method to understand the universe. It loses its very meaning if you use to determine things such as what is right and what is wrong, because you lose the essential rigorous aspect.
PS : I'm an atheist myself so don't start one of those stupid "neenerneener" contests with me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
