Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 245060 comments on the Webbunny tumblelog story from Jul 18, 2009, titled Atheism requires as much faith as religion?. In it, Webbunny tumblelog reports that:

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Webbunny tumblelog.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#127920 Oct 5, 2012
timn17 wrote:
Haha, wow, light, your "source" believes in the parting of the red sea. Is there no limit to his, and your, madness?
hahaha, that's great, we picked up on the same inanity.

:)

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#127921 Oct 5, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
hahaha, that's great, we picked up on the same inanity.
:)
Haha that we did:) It was definitely good for a laugh.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#127922 Oct 5, 2012
EMS Servant wrote:
I find it interesting that light brings data from various sources to support his arguments but your rebuttal is that it's all false but there is nothing cited to substantiate it. If you are going to say what he is posting is false perhapse you may want to cite some credible sources to back up your assertions so they don't look like simple conjecture or name calling "your a liar and a poopie head!"
Let's take a look at what I posted:

"Among Biblical scholars and archaeologists it is almost axiomatic that the Israelites entered Canaan about 1230–1220 B.C. In terms of archaeological periods, this would be towards the end of the Late Bronze Age, for which the Generally Accepted Date (GAD) is 1550–1200 B.C. Yet there are enormous problems with this dating. In recent decades an increasing number of scholars have recognized that if we accept the GAD of 1230–1220 B.C. for the Israelite entry into Canaan, we must reject the Biblical account of Israel’s conquest of Canaanite cities. This is because the Biblical account conflicts so strongly with the archaeological record. The Bible describes the Israelite conquest of Canaan at length and refers to a number of cities encountered by Joshua and his armies. In almost every case the archaeological evidence is inconsistent with the Biblical evidence—if we date the Israelite entry into Canaan to the GAD of 1230–1220 B.C."

http://davelivingston.com/davelivingston/arti...

They go on to demonstrate where the editors of the Bible have anachronistically added cities and happenings. For example:

"The Bible tells us that Joshua gave Hebron to Caleb at the time of the conquest (Joshua 14:13– 15, 15:13–14; Judges 1:20). At Hebron, excavations in the 1960s produced only scanty remains from between the end of the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1550 B.C.) and a late phase of Iron Age I (11th century B.C.) and no evidence of occupation in the 13th century B.C"

and

"On their march to Canaan, the Israelites were opposed by the king of Arad (Numbers 22:1,b33:40), yet Tel Arad was abandoned from the end of the Early Bronze Age (third millenniumbB.C.) until the Iron Age.7 No Late Bronze Age settlement was found. The late Professor
Yohanan Aharoni’s suggestion that Canaanite Arad lay at Tel Malhata, about eight miles to thebsouthwest of Tel Arad, does nothing to solve the problem, for there is no evidence of a settlement between the end of the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1550 B.C.) and Iron Age II (tenthbcentury B.C.)."

There's lots more. I also posted a link that discussed the paper your posted. It also discredited the Exodus story. I further posted a discussion about the workers of the Pyramids by THE archaeologist doing the onsite digging:

http://www.ekt.bme.hu/CM-BSC-MSC/WhoBuiltTheP...

And, I've posted discussions by archaeologists about how they treat the Bible as any other historical mythology: not as 100% accurate, but as something that can shed light on the past but also may be misleading.

So...no. Modern archaeology does not support Biblical literally. It shows that the Bible is a mythology designed to forge an identity and unity for the ancient Hebrew people. Over the years it was edited repeatedly as the times changed to keep their Holy book relevant.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#127923 Oct 6, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
(...snip...)Assuming the Exodus took place in 1445 then 40 years of wandering gets you to 1405 BC for the destruction of Jericho. http://allanturner.com/pharaoh.html
There was a more recent, thorough and complete excavation performed at Jericho. The link you give above does not utilize that data. This is something I see frequently at apologetics sites. They will ignore and often won't cite conflicting data, or the accepted and more accurate data that is clear.

It's disingenuous. It's misleading.

But I've come to expect it. In discussing the bible, I attempt to use Christian approved sources, along with trying to determine those sources are actually following an *a posteriori* scientific method, in which conclusions are subservient to the data; The conclusion is reached after the data or facts have been observed. Only data or fact that can be verified are utilized.

Opposed to an *a priori* method.<=(not preferable)

Anyway...

QUOTING:
"John Garstang conducted excavations at Jericho from 1930 to 1936. He found a destruction layer corresponding to the termination of City IV, and dated it to ca. 1400 B.C. This worked out well for traditional biblical chronology. However, in the 1950's, Kathleen Kenyon conducted further excavations at Jericho and concluded that the destruction of Garstang's City IV should be dated ca. 1550 B.C., not ca. 1400 B.C. In fact, Kenyon found no evidence at all of occupation of Jericho ca. 1407 B.C.
http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/products/...

But, then another "apologist archaeologist" came forward with a different interpretation. His name is Bryant Wood.

QUOTING:
"Wood has attempted to redate the destruction of Jericho City IV from the end of the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1550 B.C.) to the end of the Late Bronze I (c. 1400 B.C.). He has put forward four lines of argument to support his conclusion. Not a single one of these arguments can stand up to scrutiny. On the contrary, there is strong evidence to confirm Kathleen Kenyon's dating of City IV to the Middle Bronze Age. Wood's attempt to equate the destruction of City IV with the Israelite conquest of Jericho must therefore be rejected. http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/products/...

No surprise there, and it was rejected. Now, before you yell: "REVISIONIST AGENDA!"... There is no agenda, unless you consider arriving at an accurate conclusion an agenda.

QUOTING:
"Settling the Dispute

It is clear that the question is one of chronology. When was City IV Jericho destroyed? The scholarly consensus says ca. 1550 B.C., Wood says ca. 1400 B.C. What source can we turn to to settle this dispute?

In fact, radiocarbon is such a source. In the early 1990's, when Wood first published his claims, there was only one radiocarbon measurement available for City IV. It was from a piece of charcoal dated by the British Museum to 1410 plus or minus 40 years B.C.(...)The corrected date for the charcoal sample from City IV turned out to be consistent with Kenyon's ca. 1550 B.C. date for the City IV destruction.

The corrected date no longer supported Wood's proposal, but it was insufficient to falsify the proposal. Radiocarbon dates on charcoal give the date the wood grew, not the date it was burned.

To be consistent with Bryant Wood's proposal, the wood which burned to produce the charcoal sample would need to have been cut from a living tree 150 years prior to the destruction.

Of course, this is not impossible."
http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/products/...

One more quote from a different source concerning Bryant Wood.

"Each of Wood’s arguments is flawed: At each point he is either wrong, does not take account of previously published data or his argument is simply irrelevant." http://members.bib-arch.org/publication.asp...

There is no proof of the biblical "Exodus".

<*winks* at Hiding>

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#127924 Oct 6, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's take a look at what I posted:
"Among Biblical scholars and archaeologists it is almost axiomatic that the Israelites entered Canaan about 1230–1220 B.C. In terms of archaeological periods, this would be towards the end of the Late Bronze Age, for which the Generally Accepted Date (GAD) is 1550–1200 B.C. Yet there are enormous problems with this dating. In recent decades an increasing number of scholars have recognized that if we accept the GAD of 1230–1220 B.C. for the Israelite entry into Canaan, we must reject the Biblical account of Israel’s conquest of Canaanite cities. This is because the Biblical account conflicts so strongly with the archaeological record. The Bible describes the Israelite conquest of Canaan at length and refers to a number of cities encountered by Joshua and his armies. In almost every case the archaeological evidence is inconsistent with the Biblical evidence—if we date the Israelite entry into Canaan to the GAD of 1230–1220 B.C."
http://davelivingston.com/davelivingston/arti...
They go on to demonstrate where the editors of the Bible have anachronistically added cities and happenings. For example:
"The Bible tells us that Joshua gave Hebron to Caleb at the time of the conquest (Joshua 14:13– 15, 15:13–14; Judges 1:20). At Hebron, excavations in the 1960s produced only scanty remains from between the end of the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1550 B.C.) and a late phase of Iron Age I (11th century B.C.) and no evidence of occupation in the 13th century B.C"
and
"On their march to Canaan, the Israelites were opposed by the king of Arad (Numbers 22:1,b33:40), yet Tel Arad was abandoned from the end of the Early Bronze Age (third millenniumbB.C.) until the Iron Age.7 No Late Bronze Age settlement was found. The late Professor
Yohanan Aharoni’s suggestion that Canaanite Arad lay at Tel Malhata, about eight miles to thebsouthwest of Tel Arad, does nothing to solve the problem, for there is no evidence of a settlement between the end of the Middle Bronze Age (c. 1550 B.C.) and Iron Age II (tenthbcentury B.C.)."
There's lots more. I also posted a link that discussed the paper your posted. It also discredited the Exodus story. I further posted a discussion about the workers of the Pyramids by THE archaeologist doing the onsite digging:
http://www.ekt.bme.hu/CM-BSC-MSC/WhoBuiltTheP...
And, I've posted discussions by archaeologists about how they treat the Bible as any other historical mythology: not as 100% accurate, but as something that can shed light on the past but also may be misleading.
So...no. Modern archaeology does not support Biblical literally. It shows that the Bible is a mythology designed to forge an identity and unity for the ancient Hebrew people. Over the years it was edited repeatedly as the times changed to keep their Holy book relevant.
Yeah, but.........I need this thread to keep going. So stop with your wonderfully elegant refutation of Biblical "facts". It's demonic.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#127925 Oct 6, 2012
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, but.........I need this thread to keep going. So stop with your wonderfully elegant refutation of Biblical "facts". It's demonic.
Oh, alright. I renounce my evil ways. Buddha caused Exodus.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#127926 Oct 6, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, alright. I renounce my evil ways. Buddha caused Exodus.
Buddha loves Luther Campbell.

Buddha love you long time.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#127927 Oct 6, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
Jewish scholars freely acknowledge that but you creatoinists are science and history deniers, so it's part of your religion to dismiss evidence.
You seem to believe the universe created itself which is logical absurdity. If that makes me a denier of Science then i wear your indictment as a badge of honor. You also believe in life on other planets out there somewhere. SETI is still waiting for that magical signal!
Ah...the Egyptian sources also discredit the Bible's passages.
What Egyptian source discredits Bible passages.
Well, when the writers add cities that they knew about that could not have existed during the happenings of their writing then, yes, we dismiss the writing as fantasy.
This is where you discredit yourself. That is easily explained. Take New York for example. It was initially New Amsterdam [?]. Some scribe probably changed the name so the audience would know the location. Not some extinct city no one knew of. Critics come along and say the city did not exist at that time so it is late dated. It's hyper criticism and garbage.
Yes, and then I apologized and admitted my mistake, while noting that scholars have said "you have to have faith to connect those two stories."
You got to have faith the universe created itself or life came from inert elements. Now who is anti science? Now who believes in miracles?
You've never posted a non-apologetic opinion that uses actual evidence to back up your beliefs.
I make use of academics -
Selective. Most of your posts are opinion. Most come from apologetic websites who have academics on them. They cite sources. They do research. Do you look at the sources?
many of whom are Jewish and whom you would assume would have vested interests in supporting their Holy writings. That they don't is telling:
Many are atheist.
1. they're more honest than you and your religion
You start with the premise Christianity is a lie and Christians are liars and go from there. If Fred the drunk down the street was an atheist and could pontificate your points then Fred would have more credibility with the crowd here than a Biblical scholar who believed the Exodus happened. Enough of your wrapping yourself around all the honest scholars and all that claptrap. They are all over the board on this one. All you have to do is look at Scripture. 1 Kings 6:1. Establish the time Solomon started to build the Temple and back date it 480 as it says in the text! Then you have the time of the Exodus. Not 146 or so years after that date!
2. they have higher standards in evidence based research
3. they're critical thinkers and can separate religious versus scientific knowledge
Then why can't they do the math?
I even posted material from the Jewish government acknowledging that the Bible isn't accurate and discussing what that means to their identity as a nation.
You aren't even capable of engaging in such a learned discussion.
It has more to do with my position than my capacity. Learned discussion. Go learn that things cannot create themselves.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#127928 Oct 6, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
"Fringe historians often compare the content of this papyrus with Exodus, the second book of the Bible [1]. Similarities between Egyptian texts and the Bible are easily found, and it is reasonable to assume Egyptian influence on the Hebrews, given their at times close contacts. But to conclude from such parallelisms that the Ipuwer Papyrus describes Egypt at the time of the Exodus, requires a leap of faith not everybody is willing to make."
http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/texts/ipu...
No ''leap of faith'' is required. All one has to do is compare the Exodus account with this Egyptian text to see the obvious similiarities. The river to blood is in both. What is the Egyptian author describing? Slaves revolting. What event is the Egyptian describing? The land dark. All this and more jibes with the Exodus account.''Not everyone is willing to make'' subsequently means many are willing to make. If not everyone is willing to make then who is willing to make? That is what happens when an authentic document is produced which jibes with Exodus account. It is dismissed! Explained away. No one know the date!(Appeals to ignorance!) Any number of excuses and hiding asks how does the document add validation to the Exodus accounts?

Since: Jan 12

USA

#127929 Oct 6, 2012


Middle East sources confirm the Bible time after time.


Babylon and the Bible
by Professor Walter J. Veith, PhD

Two hundred years ago, scholars doubted whether Babylon ever existed. The only record could be found in the Bible. Critics used the story of Babylon, and what they called its "non-historic kings," to discount Scripture. However, Babylon was discovered and excavated in 1898.

We know today that Babylon was one of the first cities in the world, and founded by Nimrod, great-grandson of Noah (Genesis 10:9-10). Archaeologists have found his name on many inscriptions and tablets, while a massive head of Nimrod has been excavated near Calah on the Tigris River.
http://amazingdiscoveries.org/S-deception_arc...


Sumeria is located in the Land of Kish (Kush or Cush) founded by son of Noah's son Ham.


"Kish was occupied beginning in the Jemdet Nasr period (3100 BC), gaining prominence as one of the pre-eminent powers in the region during the early dynastic period.

The Sumerian king list states that it was the first city to have kings following the deluge, beginning with Jushur."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kish_%28Sumer%29


"Cush, son of Ham. The Empire of Kush to the south of Egypt is known from at least 1970 BC, but this name has also been associated by some with the Kassites who inhabited the Zagros area of Mesopotamia, the Sumerian city of Kish in the Land of Kish."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Noah#Ham...


"The Sumerian Kish, the first city established in Mesopotamia after the Flood, took its name from the man known in the Bible as Cush. The first kingdom established after the Flood was Kish, and the name "Kish" appears often on clay tablets. The early post-Flood Sumerian king lists say that "kingship descended from heaven to Kish" after the Flood."


continues:
http://davelivingston.com/nimrod.htm
and
http://www.noahs-ark.tv/noahs-ark-flood-creat...

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#127931 Oct 6, 2012
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_21711191/co...

A description of why they think dark matter exists.

To fit their model.

You wouldn't have those continuous issues if you changed your model. The model is based on gravity, and particles that mysteriously produce it.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#127932 Oct 6, 2012
Col Klink wrote:
Middle East sources confirm the Bible time after time.
Babylon and the Bible
by Professor Walter J. Veith, PhD
Two hundred years ago, scholars doubted whether Babylon ever existed. The only record could be found in the Bible. Critics used the story of Babylon, and what they called its "non-historic kings," to discount Scripture. However, Babylon was discovered and excavated in 1898.
We know today that Babylon was one of the first cities in the world, and founded by Nimrod, great-grandson of Noah (Genesis 10:9-10). Archaeologists have found his name on many inscriptions and tablets, while a massive head of Nimrod has been excavated near Calah on the Tigris River.
http://amazingdiscoveries.org/S-deception_arc...
Sumeria is located in the Land of Kish (Kush or Cush) founded by son of Noah's son Ham.
"Kish was occupied beginning in the Jemdet Nasr period (3100 BC), gaining prominence as one of the pre-eminent powers in the region during the early dynastic period.
The Sumerian king list states that it was the first city to have kings following the deluge, beginning with Jushur."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kish_%28Sumer%29
"Cush, son of Ham. The Empire of Kush to the south of Egypt is known from at least 1970 BC, but this name has also been associated by some with the Kassites who inhabited the Zagros area of Mesopotamia, the Sumerian city of Kish in the Land of Kish."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Noah#Ham...
"The Sumerian Kish, the first city established in Mesopotamia after the Flood, took its name from the man known in the Bible as Cush. The first kingdom established after the Flood was Kish, and the name "Kish" appears often on clay tablets. The early post-Flood Sumerian king lists say that "kingship descended from heaven to Kish" after the Flood."
continues:
http://davelivingston.com/nimrod.htm
and
http://www.noahs-ark.tv/noahs-ark-flood-creat...
Wally Veith?

The nutritionist and Seventh-Day-Adventist fundamentalist nutter?

Sheesh.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#127933 Oct 6, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> You seem to believe the universe created itself which is logical absurdity.
Wonderful. You have made a positive claim. Now back it up with evidence, or at least mathematical models.

Thanks :)

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#127934 Oct 6, 2012
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> This is where you discredit yourself. That is easily explained. Take New York for example. It was initially New Amsterdam [?]. Some scribe probably changed the name so the audience would know the location. Not some extinct city no one knew of. Critics come along and say the city did not exist at that time so it is late dated. It's hyper criticism and garbage.
You're being ... ignorant here. New York, New Amsterdam didn't always exist. You know this, right? Once, a long time ago, there was no city where New York now stands.

The same thing is true of Jericho (and other cities mentioned in the Bible). Only, unlike you, our early Bible editors and writers weren't aware of that - they literally were ignorant. They assumed, incorrectly, that the cities they were aware of always existed.

Do you know how we know that? Cities are built upon previous dwellings, upon previous dwellings, upon previous dwellings and eventually upon the earth.

It was a very simple matter for archaeologists to just keep digging and dating Jericho. Eventually they, too, found the beginnings of the city - and guess what? They dated it.

No city existed where Jericho did when the Bible claims it was there.

Let's pretend you can think critically with regards to your own religion. I know you cannot, but let's pretend you can. You ask "why wasn't there a city when the Bible says there was, Hiding?" And I respond, "well, we both know that 3 different writers wrote Exodus. Later, one editor wove the stories together and tried to make the work. He didn't know that Jericho did not always stand where it was and so anachronistically (do you know what this word means???) added it."

Anachronistic means "putting items out of time or before their time." It's like writing a novel where the main character is listening to ABBA in 1940. That would be incorrect; an anachronistic error. Your Bible editors were anachronistic because they didn't have access to information the way we do. They just added whatever cities and details that they knew at the time - that's how Bible scholars can tell that it was edited (and edited poorly), out of time.

You're welcome.

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#127935 Oct 6, 2012
EMS Servant wrote:
<quoted text>
I have yet to see anyone mention anything regarding Leiden Payprus #344 aside the allegation that it is fiction. Was Leiden Payprus #344 already discussed? If so it shouldn't be that hard to list at least one historian who has come to that conclusion as I had requested.
"The association of the Ipuwer Papyrus with the Exodus as describing the same event is generally rejected by Egyptologists."

Stiebing, William H.(1989). Out of the Desert: Archaeology and the Exodus/Conquest Narratives. Prometheus. p. 121.

Since: Sep 08

Westcliffe, CO

#127936 Oct 6, 2012
A trailblazer is one that cuts a path for others to follow and develop. That path becomes an extension of the known universe to be explored, and the center of that known universe. New paths are then cut from those following it, but that first path becomes the most followed and heavily traveled and developed. Gets too big to abandon.

There is a certain inertial quality to that.

The same happens with scholarship. The first to study set the guidelines for others to follow. The followers build from that. If the first is off course a tad, you will have the following just push it further, right or wrong, the best way or not the best way. Inertia.

This happened with physics, and the disciplines derived from it, including cosmology. Newton, Faraday and Maxwell, Thompson, and Einstein. Newton established gravity as the base because of complex math. It became a puzzle for math heads more than observation. Thompson created the particle.

Physics doesn't want to change its base. Inertia. All of the training and data would have to be re-analyzed. You have little paths that have been cut leading to the desired destination, but the mass follows the most heavily traveled, even if it goes nowhere but to a mountain overlooking the destination. Almost but not quite.

Physics started out "spirit" based. It got sidetracked to "material" based. It will revert to "spirit" based, but with a greater understanding of "spirit".

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#127937 Oct 6, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you dear sir!:)
Dave is the ignorant foil we use to answer questions. Honestly, I'd like a somewhat more informed, less insane foil, but this is what we got stuck with. Answering his level is a bit insulting to the readers, since they'd generally have greater education and not be delusional, but oh well. Sorry readers.
The more inane Dave's comment, the more fundamental your answer needs to be, which is what most of us need to read.

Polymath's posts are aimed at the first year science student. He tells you that magnet aligned oppositely have less pull on a third object than magnets aligned alike. That's pretty elementary. But it needed to be said to Dave. Again and again, and to no benefit to him. But if you read the posts, you learn.

It's the same with your material. It varies from basic to intermediate. That's good.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#127938 Oct 6, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
"Fringe historians often compare the content of this papyrus with Exodus, the second book of the Bible [1]. Similarities between Egyptian texts and the Bible are easily found, and it is reasonable to assume Egyptian influence on the Hebrews, given their at times close contacts. But to conclude from such parallelisms that the Ipuwer Papyrus describes Egypt at the time of the Exodus, requires a leap of faith not everybody is willing to make."
http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/texts/ipu ...
lightbeamrider wrote:
No ''leap of faith'' is required. All one has to do is compare the Exodus account with this Egyptian text to see the obvious similiarities.
If you're a believer, you're free to ignore language differences, cultural meaning and historical times.
The river to blood is in both. What is the Egyptian author describing?
That drinking from the river doesn't quench thirst - i.e., there was no respite from the drought and hunger. That's apparently what it meant in Ancient Egyptian. It was figurative.
Slaves revolting. What event is the Egyptian describing? The land dark. All this and more jibes with the Exodus account.''Not everyone is willing to make'' subsequently means many are willing to make. If not everyone is willing to make then who is willing to make? That is what happens when an authentic document is produced which jibes with Exodus account. It is dismissed! Explained away. No one know the date!(Appeals to ignorance!) Any number of excuses and hiding asks how does the document add validation to the Exodus accounts?
Uh...the date is known - why do you need to lie?

Where did it say "all the Jewish slaves are leaving"? You think they'd notice a glaring detail such as that.

Or "all our firstborn children are dead. That sucks."

Or "wow. Our army just got wiped out when it thought, without much discussion, to chase the Israelites through an ocean that seemed to just part for them. In hindsight, that was a bad idea."

No, Lightbeam, you're the one reaching here - doing anything at all to support your religion. But that's exactly what we expect - no critical thinking, no self-reflexive thinking (and yes, I mean "reflexive" and not reflective. Look it up).

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#127939 Oct 6, 2012
Col. Klink. All your sources are fraudulent apologists.

Guess what, baby?

You know nothing!
Col Klink wrote:
Middle East sources confirm the Bible time after time.
Babylon and the Bible
by Professor Walter J. Veith, PhD
Two hundred years ago, scholars doubted whether Babylon ever existed. The only record could be found in the Bible. Critics used the story of Babylon, and what they called its "non-historic kings," to discount Scripture. However, Babylon was discovered and excavated in 1898.
We know today that Babylon was one of the first cities in the world, and founded by Nimrod, great-grandson of Noah (Genesis 10:9-10). Archaeologists have found his name on many inscriptions and tablets, while a massive head of Nimrod has been excavated near Calah on the Tigris River.
http://amazingdiscoveries.org/S-deception_arc...
Sumeria is located in the Land of Kish (Kush or Cush) founded by son of Noah's son Ham.
"Kish was occupied beginning in the Jemdet Nasr period (3100 BC), gaining prominence as one of the pre-eminent powers in the region during the early dynastic period.
The Sumerian king list states that it was the first city to have kings following the deluge, beginning with Jushur."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kish_%28Sumer%29
"Cush, son of Ham. The Empire of Kush to the south of Egypt is known from at least 1970 BC, but this name has also been associated by some with the Kassites who inhabited the Zagros area of Mesopotamia, the Sumerian city of Kish in the Land of Kish."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Noah#Ham...
"The Sumerian Kish, the first city established in Mesopotamia after the Flood, took its name from the man known in the Bible as Cush. The first kingdom established after the Flood was Kish, and the name "Kish" appears often on clay tablets. The early post-Flood Sumerian king lists say that "kingship descended from heaven to Kish" after the Flood."
continues:
http://davelivingston.com/nimrod.htm
and
http://www.noahs-ark.tv/noahs-ark-flood-creat...

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#127940 Oct 6, 2012
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
"The association of the Ipuwer Papyrus with the Exodus as describing the same event is generally rejected by Egyptologists."
Stiebing, William H.(1989). Out of the Desert: Archaeology and the Exodus/Conquest Narratives. Prometheus. p. 121.
Nicely said.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 23 min Brian_G 20,650
John 3:16 2 hr par five 93
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 3 hr Knowledge- 11,006
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 7 hr ChristineW 14,668
Atheists should stop feeding the stereotypes Sat NightSerf 18
News Si Robertson, 'Duck Dynasty' Star, Says Atheist... Fri thetruth 42
Atheists and the "Moses Syndrome" Fri Shizle 20
More from around the web