From Belief to Doubt, and Beyond

[POI]

In a prior posting, I attempted to challenge 'minimal facts' Christians here --> (viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40714&start=20). As with many topics, it went virtually nowhere, in regard to Christian interaction. I guess my hypothesis, in that thread, remains unchallenged. These types of Christians only wish to argue unfalsifiable stuff to protect their beloved belief(s). Thus. let's instead try another approach....

For Debate: In regard to the Bible, how many falsified stories must a reader encounter, before the Bible is deemed untrustworthy?

[POI]

The reason, again, I raise the Exodus, is because it should leave behind mounds of findings.

Sorry, I don't see any good reason to assume so.

Likely because you are not really looking. You didn't watch the video, did you? If you should happen to, please tell me why the video presents no good reason.

[TRANSPONDER]

The reason, again, I raise the Exodus, is because it should leave behind mounds of findings.

Sorry, I don't see any good reason to assume so.

Likely because you are not really looking. You didn't watch the video, did you? If you should happen to, please tell me why the video presents no good reason.

Ut's to be expect that they don't want tro know, if you presnt plain facts or at least unarguable logic, when they run out of denial they just ignore it. They think by refusing to admit anything, they have won.

We know how it works and there is no point in getting steamed at extremist unreason, the debates are more for those looking in and want to hear both sides.

[1213]

So yes there could be a case for an Exodus not leaving any trace.The better case is that Egypt pretty much during the whole new kingdom (1)controlled Sinai and Canaan. The hebrews could not have got away from them.

Thanks, but I don't have enough faith in you to believe that "Egypt pretty much during the whole new kingdom (1)controlled Sinai and Canaan. The Hebrews could not have got away from them".

[TRANSPONDER]

So yes there could be a case for an Exodus not leaving any trace.The better case is that Egypt pretty much during the whole new kingdom (1)controlled Sinai and Canaan. The hebrews could not have got away from them.

Thanks, but I don't have enough faith in you to believe that "Egypt pretty much during the whole new kingdom (1)controlled Sinai and Canaan. The Hebrews could not have got away from them".

You don't have to have Faith in me. I wouldn't expect you to, and maybe not trust what I say. But the fact is that Egyptology has shown when and how Egypt controlled the Sinai and Canaan. Obviously I would rather trust the findings of Egyptology than an old book that says the sun was made after the earth.

The only time when the hebrews might have had a free hand in Canaan was in the Amarna period when the vassal states were asking for military help and seemingly got ignored.

There may be a video explaining the artefacts that prove this.

This was already posted but I think it was said before it didn't et watched.



Incidentally I had a look at a rebuttal of this video. Disappointingly, it immediately appealed to evidence ift didn't yet have, and ignoring that all the evidence we do have is against the exiodus. In short faithbased bad apologetics.

[Diogenes]

For Debate: In regard to the Bible, how many falsified stories must a reader encounter, before the Bible is deemed untrustworthy?

One... or maybe one per book of the Bible. One thing Christian apologists have never been able to prove is that the selection of the canon was 'divine inspiration.' So... maybe each book or each author gets their own error before we dismiss their writing as human, not divine. If scripture is divine than it should be perfect. An omnipotent/omniscient God cannot err; he knows all... perfectly.

Of course, this perfection is just an unjustified claim, built on a torturous logic, that a creator god of all must be 'perfect.' There's no reason either logic or evidence would demand that conclusion. The big division in theology is between the 'god as being' and the 'god who is beyond being, who is "the very ground of being"' schools of thought. The mere 'being god' is like Raven or Odin, or Zeus or any of a thousand 'gods' men have imagined.

But the transcendent eternal, creative God who is beyond status as a mere 'being,' that is a claim unique to the Abrahamic religions... tho' perhaps that claim is just another version of religiocentrism. The 'mere being' god could be likened to a 'mad scientist' as he dabbles with creation, makes enormous errors, wipes everything out and starts over, bumbling his way thru his tribal god period until he is grudgingly pulled along by Jesus and others to recognize other tribes.

Anyway... we have many examples of falsified stories: Jesus' failure to return 'soon;' a 'God' who demands praise and worship, a god who is jealous and human in his frail emotional state, lashing out like an angry stepfather just because he has the power. Then there are the countless 'miracles' and other claims of impossible, supernatural events. It's all really too much.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. While I don't believe in the 'One shot win', it is true that one accepted wrong thing in the bible must open doubts about other dubious claims.

The sun made after the earth, the sun standing still, the talking donkey and the genetic change cause by striped sticks are pretty damning. So is the claim the demons cause illness, the contradiction of the nativity and the ones just as bad in the Resurrection. I have noted that the reponse is to argue like mad, try all manner of claims, that are refuted by science ir even the Bible, and then drop it and argue something else.

Just look at where I am on the Seder contradiction where the argument seems to be that if the Bible doesn't say that John contradicts the Synoptics, He doesn't contradict them, and working out the evidence is just opinion. But then I recall that an inscription of Ramesses V was dismissed as 'hearsay'. And of course we have seen that clear chattel slavery in the Bible was ignored and denied.

[1213]

You don't have to have Faith in me. I wouldn't expect you to, and maybe not trust what I say. But the fact is that Egyptology has shown when and how Egypt controlled the Sinai and Canaan. Obviously I would rather trust the findings of Egyptology than an old book that says the sun was made after the earth.
...

Why should i have faith in those people? Why you have faith in them? Because it fits to your world view?

To me archaeologists/historians are a disappointment. They really don't know much, but seem to make lot of assumptions.

[TRANSPONDER]

That's ok. You can reject science, research and the Experts. It is where Christian and Bible apologetiucs end up quite often - Faith -based rejection of science and indeed Reason. Your denial doesn't matter - browsers will see that you prefer an old book full of stuff like the daylight made before the sun was to the research, artefacts that tell us what was going on with Egypt's control over the Sinai mines and the vassal states of Canaan and their correspondence. We don't demand you know that stuff but it should be reasonable for you to credit that the experts do.
But if you don't. fine, but don't try to tell us that the Bible apologetics are based on science, because in the end they are based on rejection of it. They are also based on logical reasoning and, indeed denial of what the Bible actually says. Again, I am truly thankful that I don't have to do that to my brain.

I think it may be time for an on -topic deconversion story



I haven't watched this yet, but I left a couple where (I have noted this before) a couple of Christian polemicists are trying to debunk the deconversions and make them look like 'something in the church hurt them', when all I have ever seen were trying to explain the Problems that critics raise and realising they can';t. That takes a slightly open mind.

[1213]

....Faith -based rejection of science and indeed Reason....

You have misunderstood the issue here. There is no faith based rejection, I just lack the faith that you have for the people who claim to know.

[TRANSPONDER]

....Faith -based rejection of science and indeed Reason....

You have misunderstood the issue here. There is no faith based rejection, I just lack the faith that you have for the people who claim to know.

You are the one who has misunderstood, and Theists habitually misunderstand. They think that scientifically validated evidence counts for nothing. The science based technology they rely on daily is mere 'opinion' - only when it suits them and (They think) Some claims are matter of Faith - believe or not. Never mind the hypocritical and double - standard self -serving apologetics that claim science and logic as supporting them and then reject it as human opinion when it doesn't.

Faithbased denial of the materialist default (science) is why religious apologetics, being faithbased rather than on reason and evidence, is dead in the water from the start. It only gets by because denial has been so well propagandised that people believe it.