The Bible's Buried Secrets part II; Atheist Myth debunked and Israel Finkelstein proven wrong.

[geo]

As for Robert Tulip, recalling Dr. McCoy's words to the Tier of the Ten Tribes I say, "his words are unimportant, and we do not hear them."

Stahrwe is a dangerous fool who has been indulged amazingly by Booktalk because Interbane and Frank love the front row seat at the workings of delusion. Now Stahrwe is posting shitty propaganda that slanders a great scholar in the title and content of a thread, and then gives the statement quoted here when called on it. Booktalk is being abused! This thread alone should be grounds to suspend Stahrwe for a month, if not take the ethical action of banning him completely.

Take a step back from the entertainment and consider the content. Dumbing down is one thing, but giving Stahrwe a platform to proselytize and preach about obsolete idiocy is actually socially harmful, legitimising his ideas as within the bounds of acceptable rational discourse.

Since Stahrwe does not hear my words, I feel at liberty to speak over his head. The key point in my previous post that he did not hear was that Stahrwe is "shamelessly ignoring evidence to fraudulently assert that a false conclusion has some evidentiary basis". Stahrwe is a fraud and huckster, as bad as Jimmy Swaggart and Oral Roberts. Booktalk would be far better off without him as he drives away intelligent members. What a sigh of relief many people would express if Stahrwe were banned.

I completely agree with Robert here. When you engage Stahrwe, the troll, in dialogue, you are giving him a platform from which to spout his nonsense. I will also say it's rather pathetic to see the smart folks here stoop to talk to someone who is so obviously crippled by his beliefs and has proven himself time and again to be impervious to rational debate. It's up to you guys to decide want kind of forum you want. And if you want to have these silly arguments with a Young Earth Creationist, by all means continue to bait him and carry on the argument that never ends.

[Randall R. Young]

But Robert, we NEED foils like stahrwe for contrast!

I, for one, don't think his preaching is likely to convince anyone of much of anything, other than the fact that stahrwe isn't very reasonable, thoughtful or original. After all, when was the last time he said anything we haven't all heard a thousand times before?

Also, his approach serves an unintended purpose: We all get a wonderful lesson in why a thinking person should never opt for fundamentalism. If we did, we might end up like him!

[lady of shallot]

Thank you Tat for the link to Hector Alvalos' Minnesota talk. It was so interesting. I didn't realize that Bible studies were done by other than religious people. Interesting what he said about all the students at Harvard divinity school.

Just before that we were watching on the history channel about Rhodinia and the ice blanket covering the world, destroying the marine life and then the volcanic eruptions that drove the continents apart and the fossil/s found in the Canadian Rockies, in the past century. I guess none of this information would penetrate the minds of the creationists. So sad, to be so wrong.

I have asked this before but does anyone know of any psychological studies done of people with such belief systems and how they navigate through other areas of their lives? I don't mean just religious people. I mean those who are so "brain washed"

In Alvalos talk he showed a chart depicting the numbers of Christians that read and were familiar with the Bible. In the overall population about 33% do not know the name of the first book of the Bible. One time on a cruise ship I was playing trivia with a woman who once had been a nun. She did not know the name of the last book of the Bible.

[tat tvam asi]

One interesting point made in video 1 has to do with the main problem with the Solomons Gates fallacy. Hector Avalos was a preacher who became atheist after discovering the truth about the bible. Archaeology is obviously the bibles worst enemy. The House of David thing is laughable in terms of hard evidence that proves any historicity. The NOVA program is aimed at introducing new ideas but trying cater to the religious audience by presenting these flimsly biblical archaeology finds as if they prove historicity. When contrasting this program with the Avalos lecture or even the newer program "The Bible Unearthed" by Finkelstein, it's pretty obvious as to what and to whom the NOVA program is catering to.

[stahrwe]

Take a step back from the entertainment and consider the content. Dumbing down is one thing, but giving Stahrwe a platform to proselytize and preach about obsolete idiocy is actually socially harmful, legitimising his ideas as within the bounds of acceptable rational discourse.

Suppose I told you that I have a friend who did an extensive survey in Israel near Jerusalem? He and a number of people walked a grid and picked broken pieces of pottery lying on the surface of the ground. A number of these pieces of pottery had the name Jesus written on them and some included crosses. My friend identified these pieces as coming from the mid to late first century and concluded that they proved the existence of a man named Jesus who had been crucified.

[stahrwe]

There are several instances recorded in the Bible where David, on the run from Saul manages to sneak up on Saul while he is distracted making dirt. Would you like me to produce Saul's dung for you as evidence of the Bible's historicity? Your demand is typical of you in many ways.

Without the dung, what do you have that justifies having belief over agnosticism? I doubt you'll find any evidence. I'm sorry, I truly am. That is not my fault and it's not your fault. It's simply the state of affairs. These things happened too long ago, and most evidence is now forever in the past. So we are stuck with being agnostic. It's not my choice and it's not your choice. It is the way it is. The correct stance towards a claim that lacks support is agnostic(we don't have enough information to convince us it's true).

I'm not saying David didn't sneak up on Saul. I'm not taking a position. Frankly, such an occurance is ordinary, and happens all over the world every day(with other people). If you asked me whether or not David snuck up on Paul, and told me my life depended on it, I might very well say "yes"! But even if I selected "yes" as my answer, that answer is still unjustified, because there is no support for the claim. It is merely a guesstimate. I estimate that people sneak up on each frequently enough that such an occurance is likely to have occurred at some point in the past. I would say "yes", which would only be supported by faith in this instance, since the only valid evidence-based position with the information we have(too little) is agnostic.



If you say that David snuck up on Saul, does that mean you believe it? Show me your evidence that's capable of moving you from being agnostic towards this claim. Or do you mean that you simply have faith that it's true, since you realize you have no evidence(and can't produce any)?

I have to admit that this was a bit of a trick question. Your devotion/obsession to evidence is both an advantage and a hinderance to you. Let's change the dynamic a bit and instead of David, Saul and dung let's suppose we are discussing a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. We are looking for ben Laden and suspect he is there but have only circumstantial evidence. By your standard we should be adnostic and refrain from acting until we have proof.

[stahrwe]

I completely agree with Robert here. When you engage Stahrwe, the troll, in dialogue, you are giving him a platform from which to spout his nonsense. I will also say it's rather pathetic to see the smart folks here stoop to talk to someone who is so obviously crippled by his beliefs and has proven himself time and again to be impervious to rational debate. It's up to you guys to decide want kind of forum you want. And if you want to have these silly arguments with a Young Earth Creationist, by all means continue to bait him and carry on the argument that never ends.

Most of my posts are not related to YEC. That is actually only a distraction as far as I am concerned. If you find my material repetitive, it is only because I am responding to repetitiveness. But I do challenge you on creativity. I propose that much of my material is original.

[Interbane]

I have to admit that this was a bit of a trick question. Your devotion/obsession to evidence is both an advantage and a hinderance to you. Let's change the dynamic a bit and instead of David, Saul and dung let's suppose we are discussing a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. We are looking for ben Laden and suspect he is there but have only circumstantial evidence. By your standard we should be adnostic and refrain from acting until we have proof.

There is no trick. And critical thinking does not hinder you. The next best "experiment" to see what was inside Abottabad was to send a person inside. Which meant whoever was inside would know. So it would have to be combined with the necessary force to kill him.. There was enough information to warrant this risky decision.

How many pieces of evidence do you think contributed to the decision? A half dozen? Two dozen? Hundreds? I saw 10 different photos from the air alone, along with handfuls of mug shots of the couriers, and other things they used to piece it together. Consider the decision Obama made. He didn't want to send in anything too destructive, because he couldn't be sure Osama was inside. This last "experiment" was needed, the body was needed.

[stahrwe]

I have to admit that this was a bit of a trick question. Your devotion/obsession to evidence is both an advantage and a hinderance to you. Let's change the dynamic a bit and instead of David, Saul and dung let's suppose we are discussing a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. We are looking for ben Laden and suspect he is there but have only circumstantial evidence. By your standard we should be adnostic and refrain from acting until we have proof.

There is no trick. And critical thinking does not hinder you. The next best "experiment" to see what was inside Abottabad was to send a person inside. Which meant whoever was inside would know. So it would have to be combined with the necessary force to kill him.. There was enough information to warrant this risky decision.

How many pieces of evidence do you think contributed to the decision? A half dozen? Two dozen? Hundreds? I saw 10 different photos from the air alone, along with handfuls of mug shots of the couriers, and other things they used to piece it together. Consider the decision Obama made. He didn't want to send in anything too destructive, because he couldn't be sure Osama was inside. This last "experiment" was needed, the body was needed.

Beautiful, How many pieces of evidence do we have to substantiate Christianity? Thousands of years, millions of converts and lives changed for the better, The Bible, missionaries, hospitals, schools on and on and on and on until it is overwhelming. Obama was 90+ percent certain even without seeing the actual man. Get the idea? It was all circimstantial evidence but it was enough to take a major risk.

[lady of shallot]

Obama was 90+ percent certain even without seeing the actual man. Get the idea? It was all circimstantial evidence but it was enough to take a major risk.

Millions and millions, and millions of people knew Osama Bin Laden was an actual PERSON before the compound was invaded and the evidence was much more than circumstantial of his presence in the compound.


Converts, missionaries, Bibles sold etc etc etc. proves absolutely nothing about the validity of a belief system, only about the believers who very sadly have been deluded and many, many of them have died for their delusions and none of them at all, not even a whisper of one has lived after they have died on earth. Not only that but many lives, in fact probably all have not been bettered at all, they have been lived in a fog of untruth at the very least.