Sounds fair. Just wondering. All I am trying to point out is that it's not two camps separated by a wall... It's a wide area.
And I don't really know what you meant by that second quote of mine. I think I've always been clear that stuff like divine intervention and stuff cannot be proven. My main argument was that you just cannot dismiss any historicity of the biblical narratives off hand... or even by looking at the text only and ditching it because one doesn't like it.
Originally posted by queeq
you just cannot dismiss any historicity of the biblical narratives off hand... or even by looking at the text only and ditching it because one doesn't like it.
No one has dismissed it because they don't like christianity, they have dismissed it because it doesn't stand up to scrutiny when relaying the stories that serve as the foundation for chistianity. At least, the documentary has not been made that does so.
Originally posted by queeq
Sorry. I don't understand what you're saying. What does that mean for the historicity of the biblical narratives then, you think?
That they are largely unfounded and are only circumstantially supported by the archaeology. Which supports the idea that they are largely made-up and highly embellished for the purpose of furthering the Jewish religion, and later the christian religion that was founded on it.
This is why it is no more out of the question to dismiss the Jewish and christian religions as it is to do so with the Greek or Roman religions. All three, and others, cite specific historical events that "prove" their god(s) exist in their claimed form and function and are interested in the daily events of humans and intervene and interact with humanity.
Well, I agree that there is no way to prove any divine intervention. However, just like it's interesting to consider the possibilities of a real David and Solomon, they same goes for wondering if there ever were a real Romulus and Remus (founders of Rome) and a real Battle of Troy. In other words: do people make things up out of thin air. I personally don't think so, at least not in the sense of inventing great events in detail and claiming they're historical. I think people's used real events and characters and molded them to bring out some religious message. Does the way these character's are sued define their historicity? IMHO I think that's a bit too easy. It's a bit like dismissing Mohammed as a historical character because we have a picture of him with a bomb in his turban (the infamous Danish cartoon). He prolly never had a bomb in his turban, yet the man did exist.
Originally posted by queeq
Well, I agree that there is no way to prove any divine intervention. However, just like it's interesting to consider the possibilities of a real David and Solomon, they same goes for wondering if there ever were a real Romulus and Remus (founders of Rome) and a real Battle of Troy. In other words: do people make things up out of thin air. I personally don't think so, at least not in the sense of inventing great events in detail and claiming they're historical. I think people's used real events and characters and molded them to bring out some religious message. Does the way these character's are sued define their historicity? IMHO I think that's a bit too easy. It's a bit like dismissing Mohammed as a historical character because we have a picture of him with a bomb in his turban (the infamous Danish cartoon). He prolly never had a bomb in his turban, yet the man did exist.
The bible rarely goes into great detail.
That you think the stories of the bible are real is nothing new. I've been saying that for a while. You've been denying that's your position, however. So finally owning that position is new.
Okay, Mohammad existed. So did Imhotep and Confucius. So, since all these folks existed, does that mean their religions are as valid and true as chrisianity?
Existence alone doesn't validate a religion of course. Faith does that I think.
But to ditch the Bible as a fairytale book because it talks about religion, that goes abit far IMHO. The Egyptians talked a lot about the influence of their gods, it still doesn't dismiss everything they wrote on their walls and papyri.
Maybe in a few thousand years there's a whole new religion everyone adheres to. And then reading our convo's they might dismiss your very existence because you denied any validation for religion at all. That's largely a matter of opinion, faith and personal experience. And luckily those differ among people.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Aidon Dodson is a contributor to “Doman of Man: A New Theory of Ancient History,” a website, the purpose of which is to reconcile archaeology with The Bible.
Here's how you debate. This man has a long standing expertise on Egyptology, you pick out one little "contribution" that you don't like and condemn his credibilty.
Look at his main body of work:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/s?ie=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books-uk&field-author=Aidan%20Dodson&page=1
And that's just his popular books, I didn't even include his scientific publications.
And you still think this guy is FOS??? You have absolutely no idea whta you're talking about. You use a demagogic debating style that make you more of a hypocrite than you accuse me of being.
Originally posted by queeq
Here's how you debate. This man has a long standing expertise on Egyptology, you pick out one little "contribution" that you don't like and condemn his credibilty.
Look at his main body of work:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/s?ie=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books-uk&field-author=Aidan%20Dodson&page=1And that's just his popular books, I didn't even include his scientific publications.
And you still think this guy is FOS??? You have absolutely no idea whta you're talking about. You use a demagogic debating style that make you more of a hypocrite than you accuse me of being.
That is the entire point; his contribution to the site in question undermines his entire body of work.
Originally posted by Devil King
No, what he's doing is playing by the rules of science until he can get his doctorate; at which point he'll start screwing with facts and using his title to lend validity to the effort . . . At the very most it makes him willfully ignorant and deceptive; at the very least it makes him a liar.
No, what he's doing is playing by the rules of science until he can get his doctorate; at which point he'll start screwing with facts and using his title to lend validity to the effort . . . At the very most it makes him willfully ignorant and deceptive; at the very least it makes him a liar.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
That is the entire point; his contribution to the site in question undermines his entire body of work.
What a ridiculous statement. So he's proven to know his business... he uses his expertise in a field which you dsmiss out of hand, so eveyuthing he does is undermined? What a complete nitwittiness to reason that way. Just because you dismiss the entire subject altogether, you dismiss a scientists who knows a lot better than you what he's talking about. On what basis? I can see no other than your own bias, your agenda. That has nothing to dow ith science, no matter what DK says.
Correct.
Essentially, the argument is, "He's a Christian and can't be trusted, unlike our brilliant secular humanist scientists."
http://www.souder.house.gov/_files/IntoleranceandthePoliticizationofScienceattheSmithsonian.pdf
Hey, look, it's another one of those sources for my paper on creationism.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
http://www.souder.house.gov/_files/IntoleranceandthePoliticizationofScienceattheSmithsonian.pdfHey, look, it's another one of those sources for my paper on creationism.
No its not.
Originally posted by queeq
What a ridiculous statement. So he's proven to know his business... he uses his expertise in a field which you dsmiss out of hand, so eveyuthing he does is undermined? What a complete nitwittiness to reason that way. Just because you dismiss the entire subject altogether, you dismiss a scientists who knows a lot better than you what he's talking about. On what basis? I can see no other than your own bias, your agenda. That has nothing to dow ith science, no matter what DK says.
He contributes to a website, the purpose of which is to reconcile archaeology with The Bible, i.e. to interpret archaeological evidence to support The Bible. There is nothing objective or scientific about beginning with the conclusion that The Bible is an accurate description of the history of the world, and then selectively interpreting archaeological evidence to support this conclusion.
Originally posted by dadudemon
No it's not.You fail.
Try going to that link.
EDIT: WTF IS THIS SHIT.
I quoted the link. It's fine. I check the URL in the text. It's fine. I click on it. It goes to hell.
The page cannot be found
That strikes me as ironic.
Originally posted by queeq
What a ridiculous statement. So he's proven to know his business...
Originally posted by Devil King
He has admitted to (under oath) using the bible as the basis for his "scientific" research AND that it is the infallible word of god.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I did. I quoted sections of it in my research paper.EDIT: WTF IS THIS SHIT.
I quoted the link. It's fine. I check the URL in the text. It's fine. I click on it. It goes to hell.
Why don't you pray to see if God can work it out for you.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
He contributes to a website, the purpose of which is to reconcile archaeology with The Bible, i.e. to interpret archaeological evidence to support The Bible.
So what? A lot of scientists are asked to contribute. It's what's normal: you ask people from other fields to comment on your finds and conclusions. It doesn't automatically mean you agree with everything they say when you contribute. You just comment to what other people write: common practise in science. In fact. that's how it works: you publish, people respond (by request or not) and the debate goes on.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
There is nothing objective or scientific about beginning with the conclusion that The Bible is an accurate description of the history of the world, and then selectively interpreting archaeological evidence to support this conclusion.
There is nothing objective or scientific about beginning with the conclusion that The Bible is a false description of the history of the world, and then selectively interpreting archaeological evidence to support this conclusion.