MerryG Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Personally, I think it's high time we stopped feeding this troll. I'm all for open-mindedness and fair play, but some people just need banning. +1. I joined the chorus for banning him this morning. I think that, with this post (http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/60748-written-evidence-for-the-exodus/page-16#entry929681) he got in his Loon Balloon and flew so high that the lack of oxygen snuffed out what few brain cells he began with. Not to mention it demonstrated clearly that he's not here to talk to us, but only to "save" some mythical believers who'll come here especially to heed his call. Still, as long as he is here, I find it hard to ignore him. It's like ignoring a particularly gory traffic pileup while driving along the freeway. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Okay folks! Here is a transcript of the incredibly sound logic in SB's video except the names of the divine was changed to protect the non-existant. My commentary is in blue parentheses. Summary: Is it possible to establish some sort of a rational basis for the perspective that Odin spoke to the Vikings 3,000 years ago. Approaching religions as if they are not true is not objective. When you approach a religious group and ask why you should join them they offer a list of benefits (such as the ancient Israelites offering the benefit of not committing genocide on you if you but only follow their god) If you ask them can I derive these benefits from any other religion they will tell you "no" (for example the ancient Israelites would genocide you for following any other religion) which means that religion has "secret information". If you ask where they got that information they will tell you the revelation narrative. I got to say it is a very boring video where the author spends a lot of time assuming events described in the Bible are true. He doesn't even get in to the real stuff until 34 minutes in. At around 38 minutes he asserts that there is no record of Josiah's priests finding the law and presenting it to the people when that story is actually in the Bible. Of course the lie of Judaism started during the reign of Josiah when Josiah's priests "found" the "prophecy" that justified Josiah's military campaign and the "law of God" what justified Josiah's laws. Anyway I hit the wrong button and closed it by mistake so I'm not going to download that hour long thing again just to get the last 20 minutes. It was a huge waste of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 I find it amazing at how many people here will try and dismiss the logic of the video. Who here has ever heard a peer make an immediately falsifiable claim amongst them and yet an entire crowd of people believed them? If people here are demanding that you not watch the video its because they are a modern type of Pharisee-- they know that the logic presented in the video will bring any modern rationalist (who strictly obeys the rules of rationalism) to faith in Jesus as the Christ. No one has demanded that anyone not watch the video that Steve linked. I said in #308 that Steve is the one demanding that people watch his video. I and others are still waiting for answers to questions posed some time ago. I note that I also gave material that nullifies the major premise in Steve's argument for dating Acts before 64. Steve meanwhile is becoming more shrill in his "witnessing" on here. It's degenerating into "they believe not because their works are evil" sort of stuff. I hope that wavering Christians, who may be considering deconverting, have been following this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fernweh Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Personally, I think it's high time we stopped feeding this troll. I'm all for open-mindedness and fair play, but some people just need banning. +1. I joined the chorus for banning him this morning. I think that, with this post (http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/60748-written-evidence-for-the-exodus/page-16#entry929681) he got in his Loon Balloon and flew so high that the lack of oxygen snuffed out what few brain cells he began with. Not to mention it demonstrated clearly that he's not here to talk to us, but only to "save" some mythical believers who'll come here especially to heed his call. Still, as long as he is here, I find it hard to ignore him. It's like ignoring a particularly gory traffic pileup while driving along the freeway. If, and I do mean if the Facebook profile I found is him, then he might be a little high on opiates today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudhoney Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 This might be him: http://www.sbministries.org/members/sbm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted February 28, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted February 28, 2014 Personally, I think it's high time we stopped feeding this troll. I'm all for open-mindedness and fair play, but some people just need banning. +1. I joined the chorus for banning him this morning. I think that, with this post (http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/60748-written-evidence-for-the-exodus/page-16#entry929681) he got in his Loon Balloon and flew so high that the lack of oxygen snuffed out what few brain cells he began with. Not to mention it demonstrated clearly that he's not here to talk to us, but only to "save" some mythical believers who'll come here especially to heed his call. Still, as long as he is here, I find it hard to ignore him. It's like ignoring a particularly gory traffic pileup while driving along the freeway. Good people of Heathenville, the Lord Thy Mod hears your suffering and shall put an end to your weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. Let it be done! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerryG Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Praise the Flord! Oh, praise the Flord Most High!!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted February 28, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted February 28, 2014 Our Mod is an awesome Mod. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pratt Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 O for a thousand tongues to sing My dear Moderatir’s praise! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 That one (SteveBennett) was somewhat interesting. Basically, he claimed he wanted to apply the scientific method to whether certain sky fairies and related things exist. Richard Dawkins promotes this same approach in his book The God Delusion. However, SteveBennett didn't seem to know how to apply the scientific method to his chosen subject. When challenged, he chose to avoid this, among many other things. Unfortunately for him, his obvious narcissism, ego and need to control the conversation trumped any curiosity or inquisitiveness he may have had. That, and he was mostly full of shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milesaway Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centauri Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 That one (SteveBennett) was somewhat interesting. Basically, he claimed he wanted to apply the scientific method to whether certain sky fairies and related things exist. Richard Dawkins promotes this same approach in his book The God Delusion. However, SteveBennett didn't seem to know how to apply the scientific method to his chosen subject. When challenged, he chose to avoid this, among many other things. Unfortunately for him, his obvious narcissism, ego and need to control the conversation trumped any curiosity or inquisitiveness he may have had. That, and he was mostly full of shit. He was wearing thin. There was certainly a lot of wind in the sails, but the ship wasn't moving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 This was the opening post by BS... sorry, SB. I have no particular beef with what or how he posted, btw. Nope. What rankled me was the man's basic dishonesty. He had no intention of honoring anything but his own agenda, even though he wrote otherwise. Looking through all of the comments for this post http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/60710-question-for-non-christians-did-you-know/ Ok, the comments were from us, the members... not the Mods. That's the important point to keep in mind. I quickly realized a bit more organization would be needed in order to respond to all of the (many valid) points that were being raised. Raised by us members, not the Mods. So, in this forum, I would ask for your permission to address one single fact at a time in dealing with the body of evidence for the Exodus. Whose permission? Our permission. The permission of us members, not that of the Mods. I feel this is necessary, because there are many facts that require (in and of themselves) sincere consideration. And (with the moderator's permission), I will frequently update this post one fact at a time. "And with the Mods permission..." And means... additional to. In addition to. In other words, once he's got OUR permission, THEN with the permission of the Mods, he'll update. So, he can't update until he gets our permission. When he has that, then he can update. If we never give him permission (because he hasn't responded to all the many valid points we made) ...then he can never go on. It's that simple. At the end of every week, once discussion on the fact in point has run its course, a new fact will be added to this original post. Any that wishes to deviate from the fact in point are extended a sincere offer to contact me on Skype or in private messages. Best Wishes, Steve Once this was pointed out to him, he did his level best to get out of his own words. Posted 06 February 2014 - 07:32 AM This thread is not about getting... "somewhere". This thread is about dealing with the concerns of others and if they don't agree with you that their concerns have been properly addressed, then this thread goes... "nowhere". Sorry. If I promise people a scientific, linear, approach where one fact at a time is given an opportunity to be debated and disputed-- I have to keep that promise. Wrong! Your promise was made on the condition that you ask permission to proceed. Shall I post your own words again? Shall I keep on posting them until you admit that you require our permission? Or will you just retract your promise - so that you can go forging ahead as YOU want to? Posted 06 February 2014 - 07:50 AM Totally false! Well. To clarify, I am perfectly willing to concede that moderators may silence me at any time-- which is why I require their permission. But my promise is to continue with this approach-- pending my permissions are taken away. Looking through all of the comments for this post http://www.ex-christ...-did-you-know/ I quickly realized a bit more organization would be needed in order to respond to all of the (many valid) points that were being raised. So, in this forum, I would ask for your permission to address one single fact at a time in dealing with the body of evidence for the Exodus. I feel this is necessary, because there are many facts that require (in and of themselves) sincere consideration. And (with the moderator's permission), I will frequently update this post one fact at a time. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve, You looked thru the comments of other members, not the Mods. You chose to respond to all of the many valid points of the members, not the Mods. You asked permission of the members (not the Mods) to address one single fact at a time. Only after these three steps did you ask for the Moderators permission to frequently update. Posted 06 February 2014 - 07:50 AM Well. To clarify, I am perfectly willing to concede that moderators may silence me at any time-- which is why I require their permission. But my promise is to continue with this approach-- pending my permissions are taken away. That was not your promise! Stop lying! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Then he tries another way of wriggling out of his promise. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted 06 February 2014 - 08:16 AM Can we talk up in chat or on skype? No. Do it here or not at all. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And then another dodge. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted 06 February 2014 - 08:17 AM Ahh. So I should bring it to the arena? Posted 06 February 2014 - 08:20 AM Counterquestion. Why is it that a godless atheist has to fight to keep a (so-called) truth-loving Christian, honest? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . . . SB's own words betray him as what Centauri calls, "A bulldozer for Jesus". Nothing stands in his way, not even his won promises. And, seeing as he couldn't and wouldn't be held accountable, couldn't and wouldn't hold to his own written promise, scripture has something very relevant to say about SteveBennett's spiritual condition. Galatians 5 : 22 & 23, NIV. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. From what we've seen, that one doesn't apply to him. . . . However, the last words deserve to come from Margee, who nailed him. Posted 06 February 2014 - 08:20 AM Sooo.. take my rebuttal one point at a time. I don't see the problem. Yes, he will find a problem sweetheart. You cannot or will not ever convince these type of people of anything but their own observations. These type of people have to be right. They close their eyes to any other suggestions and see only what they want to see. . . . Thanks, BAA 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raoul Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Looking through all of the comments for this post http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/60710-question-for-non-christians-did-you-know/ I quickly realized a bit more organization would be needed in order to respond to all of the (many valid) points that were being raised. So, in this forum, I would ask for your permission to address one single fact at a time in dealing with the body of evidence for the Exodus. I feel this is necessary, because there are many facts that require (in and of themselves) sincere consideration. And (with the moderator's permission), I will frequently update this post one fact at a time. At the end of every week, once discussion on the fact in point has run its course, a new fact will be added to this original post. Any that wishes to deviate from the fact in point are extended a sincere offer to contact me on Skype or in private messages. Best Wishes, Steve ---------- Before one even looks at the facts: Remember to always back up and look at the forest, not just the trees. What does that mean exactly? It means that history always begins and ends with two things and two things only-- texts, and artifacts (that's honestly it). How we regard the these texts and artifacts is very much a modern day issue (I will eventually raise a separate forum specifically for that subject). But none of us here, 3000 years after the fact, stands a chance at offering any legitimate input with regard to what actually happened before we were born. Therefore our focus should not be on any secondary sources or present day philosophies or catch phrases (ad novitatem fallacy). A truly interested investigator trains their mind to "suck out" the primary sources, and "discard" the commentary (this is because commentary or previous judgments can begin to color subsequent facts that we haven't even learned yet). Even as I write, I encourage you to do the same. Take a separate sheet of paper and list the facts, then look up these primary sources, and do your OWN analysis! Don't just google search for secondary sources that offer analysis to agree with you and then walk away (same goes for you Christian:rolleyes:). --- Step 1) Read the Exodus text, specifically look for empirically testable details. Discard everything else (remember we're being historians, here-- not preachers or anti-bible antagonists). Step 2) Ask, "has anyone credibly tested these details yet?" (For example. Mr. Ron Wyatt doesn't fit the established criteria for credible testing-- though he is to be credited as the first (known) person to piece all of the primary sources together. Dr. Moller, and his international team of scientists present on site, were the first to establish a credible attempt to test where these primary sources actually lead us). Step 3) Ask, "are there additional tests outside the text that we can further formulate to test what the text, itself, is claiming?" How would the Egyptians have perceived the same events in their own language for example? Step 4) If no manner of testing can be established, move on (do not attempt any form of informal fallacy or mixing of issues). Focus on that which can be tested. (Bertrand Russell said: "If something is true then you should believe it, if its not then you shouldn't, and if you can't find out whether its true or whether it isn't then you should suspend judgment"). Note: always remember-- just because something has been tested once or twice, and passed, doesn't make it true. But after it passes test after test after test-- THEN it becomes far more likely true than not. ------------ So. . . what testable details does the Exodus text provide us? Let's begin. . . Testable fact #1: Genesis 37 - Exodus 1 claims that there was a peaceful immigration from Canaan to Egypt under Joseph's authority. This (technically) constitutes two testable facts: 1) That there was a peaceful immigration and 2) That this immigration was facilitated under Joseph's authority. We know that there was only one era in ancient Egyptian history when foreigners rose to power-- the Hyksos era-- so we should start our search there. What do we find #1? As to the claim of peaceful, foreigner immigration: Please google, "egyptian mural, Hyksos immigration" and you will get to see a series of murals depicting Hyksos (foreigners from Canaan and other Asiatic regions) immigrating into Egypt. The Hyksos era did indeed begin as a result of a peaceful immigration into Egypt (no one debates this). What do we find #2? As to the claim of peaceful, foreigner immigration: Manfred Bietak excavated the Hyksos capital, Avaris. There, his team found clearly Hebrew architecture. One particularly prominent building (prominent because of its superior size and central location) had three scarabs inside the structure with the inscription "Jacob Hr" (which translated means "Rock of Jacob"). Several other identical scarabs have been found scattered around Egypt and Canaan. See here: http://members.bib-arch.org/publication.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=14&Issue=1&ArticleID=16 To understand the significance of these scarabs, one must understand two things: 1) A scarab was the equivalent of a modern day police badge and 2) "Jacob" = "Israel". In other words, if your authority came from from a particular Pharoah, your scarab would have had that Pharoah's family name inscribed on it. If your authority came from Joseph, as described in Genesis 37- Exodus 1, then your scarab would have referred back to the promises made to Israel as your basis for authority. Again, remember, these buildings were found in the Hyksos capital (Avaris). And three of these scarabs were found *inside* this prominent Hebrew structured building. Many more were found scattered throughout Egypt and Canaan. Please be respectful in always referring everything back to the testable detail being discussed. Look at the facts as you cite? Here are the facts right out of the mouths of Israeli archeologists - after YEARS of trying to find proof of an exodus, they came up empty and admitted there was NO proof of any such thing. Case Closed! You xtian apologists sicken me with your incredibly perfidious dishonesty. You keep hawking this crap ONLY for one reason - you have to convince yourselves of your delusion because if you woke up from your fantasy, you'd probably die from shock of the reality around you instead of the grand voyeur in the sky. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thereisnoperfect Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Here is what I believe is the actual logic of SteveB: He starts with some flavor of conventional Christianity: God is good, people are bad, God sends Jesus to save people if them believe in him. This is axiomatic stuff, just assumed to be true, and is also stuff that is very much at the heart of Steve's identity and worldview. These axioms cannot be questioned, because that is too threatening. From there, he seems to proceed thus: 1) If God is good, then the way that God determines who goes to hell must be fair. (Unfair god would be a monster and not worthy of Steve's trust and devotion.) 2) If people could end up not believing for reasonable causes (most specifically, in our case, because the evidence (or lack) led them to a reasonable conclusion that belief was not justified), punishing them for that would be unfair. 3) Therefore, people cannot be unbelievers for reasonable causes. 4) Therefore, it must be impossible for the evidence to lead people to a nonbelief conclusion. 5) Therefore, if the evidence is considered without prejudice, it must always and inevitably lead one to belief. 6) However, some people do not believe. 7) Therefore, there must be some other reason why people do not believe. 8) And this must be something under their control, otherwise, again, god would be unfair. 9) Therefore, the evidence must always lead to belief, but the person's "heart" may be bad in some unspecified way that causes them to reject belief. This only became fully clear to me in his final meltdown, where he kept acting like the evidence could lead to only one place, and only the "heart" could cause you to reject faith. Then, in my view, Steve does all of his elaborate logical fallacies / evidence / it's simple / just watch the video stuff because he has concluded that exposure to (his) evidence can only lead to faith unless you have a resistant heart. This explains why he was unable to seriously engage with contradictory evidence, questions about his expertise in logic, etc. To my mind, this is the theory that best explains his observed behavior. Also: I am here writing down that 500 people saw Steve admit to this. Because it is written down, it is true. Therefore, there are 500 witnesses to this, and it would be easily falsifiable by people at the time. So if someone finds this document in a few hundred years and don't find anyone who contradicts it, it must be true. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Well SB is gone now but his type do crop up now and then so keep it in mind. These are the pseudo scholars. They will learn the names of fallacies just so they have objections to use against opponents. They will learn just enough logic to give their apologetics a facade. They have spent a great deal of time studying up on science looking for chinks in the armor so they can be very knowledgeable about obscure studies or events. And they are on a mission for God. Their agenda is to obey the Bible specifically to save the lost souls so they come here with a plan they think will work. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 In order to show that I'm not using proper methodology, all you would have to do is demonstrate one instance where the bible made a claim that archaeology was capable of testing-- and then the bible didn't pass that test. Here are two quickies, no time to cite the relevant verses: 1. The NT, incl. Jesus as he's portrayed, says that the Second Coming will be in the lifetime of the disciples. This has not occurred; 2 Peter tries to put spin on the problem of the non-event by redefining words (a clue that this text is quite late). The bible fails to pass this test. 2. the OT prophecied that the city of Tyre would become a wasteland - a bare rock, I think. this didn't happen. Remember, the traditional scientific method focuses on testable details. If you wouldn't mind, would you: 1) Cite what the text claims happened (or when it was suppose to happen). 2) What archaeology ought to dig up as a result of it actually happening. And, if its not too much trouble, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't mind starting a new thread. Too many threads already, I'm not starting another one! 1. We don't need archeology for the first one. Jesus says, "For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“ (Matthew 16: 27, 28) "This generation shall not pass away until all these things take place" is repeated: Matt. 24:34, Mk. 13:30, Luke 21:32. There are more verses; for more, cf. here: http://blacknonbelievers.wordpress.com/jesus-failed-prophecy-about-his-return/ The Second Coming did not happen within the lifetime of anyone in the audience to whom Jesus is portrayed as speaking. 2. I may be off in suggesting the example of Tyre; I don't know enough archaeological method to know what archaeologists would look for. In Ezekiel 26, it is prophesied that God is bringing Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon against Tyre. After a list of things N. will do to Tyre, the section on him (vv. 7-14) ends with the statement, "I will make you [Tyre] a bare rock; a drying place for nets shall you be" (NAB). Although N. took the city areas on the mainland, he never succeeded in taking the island citadel. Tyre never became "a bare rock" as a result of his invasion or afterwards, although the southern part of the island was described as bare rock in the earlier 19th cent., on which fishermen did spread nets. Anywhere there were fishermen, they did this; the entire place did not disappear, and the town had 3500 people in around 1860 [W.M. Thomson, The Land and the Book (London 1861) 168, description on 178]. The "bare rock" thing was not accomplished by Nebuchadnezzar, as Ezekiel wrote it would be. I don't know whether archaeologists might be able to excavate the island at the level of 586-573 BCE to see whether everything was leveled to bare rock, but I doubt it; we have literary sources and aerial photography and other means. In addition, v. 14 also says of Tyre, "never shall you be rebuilt." But even the island part underwent rebuilding, as archaeological excavations show: http://www.middleeast.com/tyre.htm I feel led to offer a little post-mortem from my own neck of the woods. Sorry for the length! But a lot of this stuff pertains to my areas of training. Steve had challenged us to offer biblical passages that can be falsified by archeology. I had offered one, Ezekiel's prophecy that Tyre will be completely destroyed. I offered a second, which does not even need archeology, sc. Jesus' prophecy that some of his audience would see the Second Coming. Steve merely deflected these at first, as one can see above, and after I elaborated, he never came back to answer either one. Then in #140 I offered a third case: a while up on this thread you asked for cases where the Bible asserts something testable. I offered two; haven't seen a response. Here's a third, which is out of my area: Jeremiah 43, 46 and elsewhere in that book prophecies that Nebuchadnezzar will come to lay waste utterly to Egypt and lead the Egyptians into captivity. As I understand it, this did not happen; Neb. did far less damage, and pharaoh Apries seems not to have been captured by him. Cf. this secondary source: http://books.google.... amasis&f=false I have read that Flinders Petrie excavated the pavement of which we read in the passage in Jeremiah, but the bulk of what Jeremiah prophecies appears not to have been fulfilled. Some more liberal interpreters may say that Jeremiah is using invective and poetic embellishment as standard elements of prophetic rhetoric, which aims at moral, political and theological messages more than at exact foretelling of the future. I am guessing that you do not share this sort of approach to prophetic texts in scripture. Steve never met any of these, as he also evaded BAA's repeated requests to consider Genesis 1:1. Back in #7 I had pointed out that Steve was not considering genre. The very presence of fabulous details like rods turning into snakes and fighting/devouring each other shows that Exodus is not history but something else. The foundation myth of Israel is a good characterization of it. As I remember, Steve first came on here to comment on my now-forgotten thread on the archaeology of Nazareth. He said, with an air of authority, a number of things that are either wrong or not proved. I by then had already known more about the archaeology of Nazareth and related questions. It was clear even at the outset that Steve does not approach bible-related questions as a scholar but as an apologist. I conclude by returning to one of SB's favorite topics, the dating of Luke/Acts prior to 64 CE. Steve insisted in large letters that there is no way that Luke could have ended his story w/o the death of Paul if Paul had died by the time of writing. First, let's ID some fallacies. 1) ad ignorantiam (= "I don't know how it could be any other way... ") 2) ignoratio elenchi, the root of all fallacies (= ignorance of what needs to be proved): Steve assumed that Acts is a historical account, not recognizing that that is the very point in question 3) petitio principii (= begging the question); see 2) I do not grant what he wants to beg, i.e. that Acts is out-and-out history or biography. Let's just call it an account about heroes, and allow that it contains a lot of facts about geography, political titles and famous personages. I'm not going to try to standardize Steve's argument, but its major premise is something like this: "if an account about a hero ends without including the close of the hero's saga, it was written before that close occurred." Example: Beowulf was not written before the death of Beowulf, because it portrays his death. The end of Deuteronomy was not [in its present form, at least - can't get into multiple authors/redactions problem] written before the death of Moses, because it mentions his death. BUT there are counterexamples that nullify the universal application of the major premise. 1. The Iliad's hero is Achilles, but the epic does not recount the final battles and death of Achilles (in fact it ends glorifying the death of Hector) 2. The Odyssey's hero is Odysseus, but the epic does not end with Odysseus' final journey and death 3. The Aeneid's hero is Aeneas, pre-founder of Rome, but the epic does not end with Aeneas' final battle and heroic death These don't count, Steve may say, because they do not purport to be history; they purport to be myth. As for Homer, that distinction is erroneous because it's anachronistic. Both Homeric epics begin by invoking the Muse, precisely because, as daughter of the goddess of Memory, she is to guarantee the poet's knowledge of long-ago deeds. But OK, let's pick something that, acc. to Steve, would count as history/biography: The Gospel of Mark. And how does that gospel end? Not with Jesus' fulfillment of his heroic quest. It ends with him dead and the women going away sorrowing. There is no resurrection, thus no climax of the saga!!! Since Mark can end his gospel without reaching the hero's finished mission, so Luke can end Acts without reaching Paul's finished mission. This is not a proof of a late date of Acts. It is an argument against the claim that only an early date of Acts is plausible. The argument for that claim does not go through because its major premise does not stand as a universal claim about heroic accounts. It won't help for SB to say that many manuscripts do contain an ending of Mark. 1) the endings' style (there are more than one ending in the manuscript tradition) differs from the rest of that gospel; 2) they are later MSS; 3) all I need is the likelihood that short gMark is authentic for my attack on SB's major premise to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raoul Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 I think MM summed it up quite aptly - they learn surface data as I call it - just enough to pull a con job for a while. Then, when confronted with immense amount of counter evidence/data, they resort to the 'filthy sinner who hates' their god mantra. They are utterly pathetic in their lame attempts to bring in the lost because THEY are the ones who disprove everything they posit by their strawmen, circular reasoning, fallacies, et.al. Thereisnoperfect describes him and, based on my experiences, most of the rest of them - they lose the arguments and go into a meltdown. Perhaps it's a psychological issue with them, I know it was with me. I probably knew, deep down somewhere, that the Atheists' arguments against my 'witnessing' were much more compelling and believable than any of the horseshit I was peddling. Lastly, Ficino - your last argument here, showing the fallacy of comparing their bible with other works such as Homer, et.al. - merits cutting and pasting it into a file I have which I've used with 'them' in the past. Thanks! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Okay folks! Here is a transcript of the incredibly sound logic in SB's video except the names of the divine was changed to protect the non-existant. My commentary is in blue parentheses. Summary: Is it possible to establish some sort of a rational basis for the perspective that Odin spoke to the Vikings 3,000 years ago. Approaching religions as if they are not true is not objective. When you approach a religious group and ask why you should join them they offer a list of benefits (such as the ancient Israelites offering the benefit of not committing genocide on you if you but only follow their god) If you ask them can I derive these benefits from any other religion they will tell you "no" (for example the ancient Israelites would genocide you for following any other religion) which means that religion has "secret information". If you ask where they got that information they will tell you the revelation narrative. I got to say it is a very boring video where the author spends a lot of time assuming events described in the Bible are true. He doesn't even get in to the real stuff until 34 minutes in. At around 38 minutes he asserts that there is no record of Josiah's priests finding the law and presenting it to the people when that story is actually in the Bible. Of course the lie of Judaism started during the reign of Josiah when Josiah's priests "found" the "prophecy" that justified Josiah's military campaign and the "law of God" what justified Josiah's laws. Anyway I hit the wrong button and closed it by mistake so I'm not going to download that hour long thing again just to get the last 20 minutes. It was a huge waste of time. Good work, mm, deconstructing the video. I watched most of it. The guy's main argument for the divine origin of Judaism is that all other religions start with individuals who make untestable claims of revelation, but Judaism is unique in claiming that its revelation was made to a group, i.e. to 3 million Israelites to whom God is portrayed as speaking at Mt. Sinai. The guy says that this claim can't be resolved as a lie, and that only of Judaism did such a thing happen. The number of people present is not relevant; what matters is that the revelation is supposed to have been made to a group and not to one individual, so that there's intersubjective verification of the story. The video guy is wrong that Judaism is unique in boasting a revelation made to a group. Christianity claims this, for crying out loud! Then there is the god Dionysos making himself known to the city of Thebes - not a revelation claimed by one preacher. There is the claim that crowds saw the miracle of Fatima. Google this phrase: "the goddess appeared to them" You'll get a bunch of hits. That's not even to get started on the fraudulent story that is Exodus. The guy's second argument boils down to this: since Moses, there never was a time when Jews did not have the Torah. So there never was a moment when anyone introduced it as a lie, retrojecting its origin into an uncheckable past. Therefore it's from God. I won't even start on the ignorance of history revealed by this argument. As I pointed out before re Steve Bennett, this guy too claims that all religions begin with an announcement of a new revelation, and that all claim to be the one true religion. Wrong. He does not consider traditional tribal/national religions that focus on practice rather than on a "message", biggest of which is Hinduism. So his model does not cover all religions, as he claims it does. Fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kris Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 I knew he was a dork when he used Ron Wyatt as a legitimate source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorPoet Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 Well SB is gone now but his type do crop up now and then so keep it in mind. These are the pseudo scholars. They will learn the names of fallacies just so they have objections to use against opponents. They will learn just enough logic to give their apologetics a facade. They have spent a great deal of time studying up on science looking for chinks in the armor so they can be very knowledgeable about obscure studies or events. And they are on a mission for God. Their agenda is to obey the Bible specifically to save the lost souls so they come here with a plan they think will work. Yes and Steve was guilty of the same type of things that many of these apologists are. Accusing us of logical fallacies, to be fair they are correct occasionally, but committing them themselves. Our former friend Steve repeatedly was guilty of begging the question and mere assertion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts