quote:

---

Unless you're making the case that they've excavated the entire desert, then you cannot say that they've proven it false by not finding anything.

---

They have done extensive excavations. With the type of population we are talking about it's very unlikely they missed it.

quote:

---

you know, its perfectly acceptable to say that you don't believe because you want to see evidence of it first.

---

Sure. But it's more than just an absence of evidence it's evidence against.

quote:

---

But its a leap of faith to claim that it is false or disproven.

---

That is what the evidence strongly points to. That is the opinion of archaeology.

quote:

---

Its also intellectually dishonest to deny us our leap of faith while taking yours.

---

It's not a leap of faith-I have evidence you don't.

quote:

---

Edit: as far as the towns go, I don't see that as a deal breaker as they could have been named to give the audience context.

---

Of course you don't. Nothing would prove that to you because you aren't concerned with the evidence. What about the fact they left to a place still under egyptian control? What about the complete absence of any evidence of an increase in population in canaan? What about the complete absence of any egyptian culture coming into canaan (e.g. pottery and such you would expect from moving)?

Actually reseach the historicy of the exodus. Beleiving in it is mere wishful thinking. Here is a discussion thread about it with lots of links:

http://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/rtbur/did_the_exodus_actually_happen/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#Archaeology

Aggrad08, are you jesusonadinosaur, because it looks like you copied right from him.

same. And one more account.

Reddit sucks

Aggrad,

'Israel in Egypt: The Evidence For the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition' by James K. Hoffmeier is a good read if you are interested in researching both sides of the argument. Despite your statement that there is no evidence for the Exodus of Israel, this book would state otherwise. Check it out.

http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Egypt-Evidence-Authenticity-Tradition/dp/019513088X

Something this thread has made me think about is how we know what sources are true/legitimate and which ones aren't.

Most of us probably believe that the Holocaust actually happened, but most likely none of us were there. All we have to consider is black and white photos, some people claiming to have been there and some writings, but how do we know that all those people didn't just conspire to make up the story?

Take the Exodus for example. None of us were there. None of us were even there when certain artifacts were found (or found and destroyed which could easily be the case). We have a bunch of artifacts with funky writings, but how are you and I supposed to know what the writing means. We trust archaeologists to piece it all together for us but how do you know that we can trust them...especially when we have some suggesting one thing and others suggesting another?

In the same light, we have 66 books in the Bible (supposedly) written by several different authors over several thousand years that all point to the same God. There are several other "secular" historians who also mention the life and death of Christ. Why is it that the Bible is the one considered false/fake/fiction while we accept other sources to be true?

The thing is, it takes a certain level of faith to believe anything is true or false. Hebrews 11:1 even says, "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

diehard,

quote:

---

However, with God, you are not innocent. You have sinned, just as it says in Romans 3:23. The punishment for that sin is death (Romans 6:23). Therefore, God is justified to punish you with Hell. However, God loves us and demonstrated that to us by sending his son, Jesus, to pay that price for us. (Romans 5:8).

---

As a human being, God has assured that I will be a sinner, and created the punishment rules. There is absolutely nothing I could have done about that. That’s how he created me. I had no choice in the matter. Again, like the gangster, he created the situation I am in. He is therefore culpable for any harm to which he exposes me in the afterlife.

vm_boy,
is your last post serious? are you equating doubting the holocaust with doubting something we know didn't happen over 2,000 years ago?

quote:

---

However, God loves us and demonstrated that to us by sending his son, Jesus, to pay that price for us.

---

How does that show your god's love for us?

Caapu,

Yes, my post is serious. What gives you the confidence to make the statement (rephrasing your post) "I know the Holocaust happened and I know the Exodus did not happen."? I'm claiming that you have put faith into some sort of evidence (pictures, museum exhibits, websites, videos, research papers, etc.) and accepted them to be true. In the same way, you have also put faith into believing other evidence is false. As an example, [I found a website that said the sky was green yesterday in Antarctica]. Is that true or false? Did I really find a website that said that? If I did or didn't find that website, was the sky green in Antarctica yesterday? Does Antarctica even exist? How do you know?

I'll tell you...I made that all up about Antarctica. But how can you know for sure? I already lied once...or did I?

Touchdown,

By sending His son to pay the punishment in our place, he is able to offer us his inheritance. He wants us to be in his presence in Heaven. Through Christ's sacrifice we have been rescued from the eternal punishment that is Hell.

Here's another good example to demonstrate the fact that you put faith into some things and not others. On this website (http://xkcd.com/1037/) there is a cartoon about a tornado with the word "Dallas" in the 3rd pane. True or False? How do you know?

look. There is no evidence for the exodus. You call it faith its not. I didn't go and edit the wiki page for crying out load. I didn't go and tamper with the research of archaeologist.

The jews didn't come out of egypt. The story is anachronistic and not supported by any evidence despite the fact that such a fantastic story, if true, would certainly be difficult to hide historically. The evidence says it's a myth. Take it or leave it. But you are operating on blind faith. The jews came out of canaan. They were not in egypt. The land they "fled" to was still part of egypt at the time.

quote:

---

By sending His son to pay the punishment in our place, he is able to offer us his inheritance. He wants us to be in his presence in Heaven. Through Christ's sacrifice we have been rescued from the eternal punishment that is Hell.

---

Well first of all, your god is supposedly the one who created the rules of the universe. He determined what is and isn't a sin, and also what the punishment for that sin is. You do not show love by trapping someone in a building, setting it on fire, and then showing up at the window with a ladder and "saving" them only if they worship you. To call that "love" is psychotic.

Secondly, why is it such a big deal that god sent his son to die for our sin? Assuming your god/Jesus are the same being, then god did absolutely nothing noteworthy by sending himself to get tortured for a little bit and then die. The 30 years god spent living as a human is an insignificant blip considering that god is eternal. Every time I hold a door for someone I sacrifice more than what god/Jesus did because I had to sacrifice a few seconds of my finite lifespan. God could create an infinite amount of "sons" if he wanted to. Sacrificing one isn't a big deal.

Well said TD. When all is said and done the supposed "sacrifice" of Jesus was a trivial gesture/ploy contrived by a magician.

The suffering of Jesus pales in comparison to the suffering experienced by of thousands of real people every day on this earth.

Maybe I can explain it like this. Take weight lifting and physics as an example. Imagine you're trying to do a bench press. You can only get to heaven when the weight is racked, where that weight is sin. God could have easily set it up so that the weight was racked, but that would have accomplished nothing. No work would have been done. No strength would have been built. No love could have been displayed. The only way for the work to be done is by taking the weight off the rack and putting it on our chest. Now, we aren't strong enough to push that weight back up and rack it. We can try to obey the Law but we will eventually fail. The only one strong enough to rack that weight is God, so he sent his son Jesus to become 100% man and 100% god so that he could be our spotter...so that he can demonstrate his strength. Now, you can say that God is sadistic or that he doesn't exist and refuse that help. You can even deny the existence of that weight. But in either case the weight still exists and you still need the help.

Now let's say I'm wrong. Let's say there is no sin or there is no God to help. By believing that it does exist, does that put me at any disadvantage compared to someone else who doesn't believe it exists? If there is no sin or God, then we're both in the same boat.

God is certainly no extortionist. You want your kids to love you, I assume, and if they go their own way and tell you "Screw YOU" on a regular basis, then you would eventually disown them too, and let them fend for themselves in the world.

You would let them fend for themselves in the world so they can gain perspective and come back to you after hardship.

Your god just sends them to eternal punishment and decides he could care less about them at that point and never wants them to return.

[This message has been edited by Boboguitar (edited 4/7/2012 12:28p).]

"There is no evidence for the exodus."

There isn't any known corroborating evidence. The fact that it is mentioned in the bible, does in fact consistute a historical reference.

quote:

---

The fact that it is mentioned in the bible, does in fact consistute a historical reference.

---

And the evidence indicates that the story was written well after the supposed events. It contains no evidence where evidence would be expected, and has evidence against it. The bible mentioning it does nothing to invalidate the evidence we have. The story strains credulity (without any miracles even) to begin with. The complete lack of evidence solidifies it further. The anachronisms and poor historical understanding of the writers further damages and already poor case.



[This message has been edited by Aggrad08 (edited 4/7/2012 1:09p).]

There is mercy now, bobo, if you choose to accept it. After death, there is justice...Deal with it..

No need to since I don't believe in made up fairy tales.

Just that you recignize that he's nothing like a father, he will cut ties and forget about you for eternity, that isn't love, that isn't justice, that's stupidity.

I'm not attempting to debate your conclusion drawn upon by your evaluation of the facts. I am simply pointing out that the statement made was factually incorrect. Some historians now believe they have discovered the city of Troy as mentioned in ancient Greek mythology. The location was discovered utilizing evidence from the Iliad and other sources of historical writing. If you apply logic that your evaluations discredit the Bible as theological truth and therefore also it as a historical reference, most likely you must apply this to Greek Mythology (unless you have concluded that Greek Mythology is historical truth). I am not informed enough as a historian to debate whether the site of the ancient city of Troy has truly been discovered, my point is simply that the Bible is itself a piece of evidence that may be used in someone's evaluation of history.

That's a dangerous game. Because then, logically, you can use the Book of Mormon in the same fashion.

And then things get weird, man.

old books aren't evidence they are hearsay that may lead to evidence

All history is "old books". I am not stating that the conclusions drawn by AgGrad are wrong. I think it is good practice to seek multiple sources of evidence when making an evaluation. I was merely stating that the Bible is a highly scrutinized source of history. One could hardly argue that the Bible does not definitively identify the history of Hebrew slavery in other time periods/regions. An example would be the slavery under Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon. If one uses the Bible as a basis for a historical claim, it should be examined with as much legitimacy as any other history until it is proven to be false.

I must proclaim ignorance on the Book of Mormon. I see no reason as to why some of the text could not be considered historical.

diehard

quote:

---

But we can't agree on this without all the facts. Take killing someone. Sure, on a base level, we can agree that's wrong. But what if we find out that's done during war (on the battlefield), or in defense of yourself or someone else...then is it wrong? And what about things like abortion or assisted suicide where its completely plausible for people to disagree on the morality of it?

---

Sure, killing is very often justified. But when can extortion in the cases of a gangster or a God ever be justified? Are there any other details you need to know? I’ve shown how God is clearly acting as an extortionist via the gangster analogy (actually, the analogy isn't even necessary to understand God's behavior. it's clear in itself). Are you telling me that God is justified in being an extortionist because he has higher goals that he’s just not telling us?

quote:

---

Without knowing the reasons for God bringing hitler into the world, how can you declare it immoral?

---

What possible morally good reason could there be for bringing an evil maniac into the world? Is God so lacking in creativity that the only way he can make his point is by slaughtering innocents?

I know the Holocaust happened because I met a woman who survived it.

quote:

---

I'm not attempting to debate your conclusion drawn upon by your evaluation of the facts. I am simply pointing out that the statement made was factually incorrect. Some historians now believe they have discovered the city of Troy as mentioned in ancient Greek mythology. The location was discovered utilizing evidence from the Iliad and other sources of historical writing. If you apply logic that your evaluations discredit the Bible as theological truth and therefore also it as a historical reference, most likely you must apply this to Greek Mythology (unless you have concluded that Greek Mythology is historical truth). I am not informed enough as a historian to debate whether the site of the ancient city of Troy has truly been discovered, my point is simply that the Bible is itself a piece of evidence that may be used in someone's evaluation of history

---

I don't think you get it. The bible was used as a piece of reference to look for evidence of the event. No such event is mentioned otherwise. The fact is they looked and where there should be evidence they found nothing. I keep telling you this but you don't seem to hear. It isn't just and absence of evidence e.g. troy, it is evidence against. You trying to make a comparison to the holocaust shows a complete lack of understanding.

The bible makes references to supposed real events that didn't happen. They Iliad makes references to a real event that did likely happen and makes the story more fantastic and mythical. Some myths are more legendary versions of real events. Some are just made up completely.

quote:

---

I was merely stating that the Bible is a highly scrutinized source of history. One could hardly argue that the Bible does not definitively identify the history of Hebrew slavery in other time periods/regions. An example would be the slavery under Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon. If one uses the Bible as a basis for a historical claim, it should be examined with as much legitimacy as any other history until it is proven to be false.

---

The Babylonian captivity was real. It is supported by actual evidence. And that is the time in which much of the bible (OT) was actually written and compiled. Many holy books make references to real historic events. They also make false claims. The exodus happens to be a false claim.

The bible shouldn't be considered true until shown false any more than any other book. We don't consider myths true until proven false. We consider them flase until proven true. Your example with troy shows this. With a complete lack of evidence we supposed it false. Now there is evidence found and we figure some true. With the babylonian captivity we have evidence that supports it so we consider it true. With the exodus we have evidence that contradicts it so we suppose it false.

Holy books can be the basis to investigate a claim, they are never presupposed as true without evidence by anyone outside of that religion.

"You trying to make a comparison to the holocaust shows a complete lack of understanding."

Who was this statement intended for? It would appear that you quoted my post. I made no reference to the holocaust. It appears that you do not agree with my statements of fact and there is no point in continuing this dialogue. I have intentionally tried not to inject my personal religious views into the subject matter of my comments, but it would appear that you think I am advocating for the Bible to be taken as truth. I was intending to convey the argument that the Bible cannot be ignored as source of historical account. The history written in your textbook is compiled from various sources, all of which are reviewed against other sources of history for accuracy and then a conclusion is drawn upon. You have personally come to the conclusion that the Exodus is not a true historical event. I'm not saying you are wrong. Many people do contend that the Exodus did in fact happen based on the history source known as the Bible. They may be wrong, they may be right. What cannot be disputed is the fact that the bible is used in compiling historical evidence just as the Iliad or the writings of Herodotus.

So I didn’t really read much, but do we have a bunch of unbelievers who are not satisfied denying that God exists, but they even go so far as to even deny that Jesus even existed?

Perhaps closing eyes, stomping their feet, and plugging of the ears, and shouting “there is no God” will help them?

"So I didn’t really read much"

Then why would we consider your comments?

quote:

---

So I didn’t really read much, but do we have a bunch of unbelievers who are not satisfied denying that God exists, but they even go so far as to even deny that Jesus even existed?

Perhaps closing eyes, stomping their feet, and plugging of the ears, and shouting “there is no God” will help them?

---

Not what you have at all. Everything you assumed is false.

quote:

---

What cannot be disputed is the fact that the bible is used in compiling historical evidence just as the Iliad or the writings of Herodotus.

---

The stories aren't considered historical. (Herodotus is hit or miss but better). They may indicate a place to look or investigate to see if the myths are associated with real events. But the myths themselves aren't given historical credence without evidence. You seem to think that we take these stories as true until we find evidence otherwise when in fact it's quite the opposite. The trojan war is a perfect example-without any evidence for or against it was considered myth since it was just a story. Now with evidence there is credence to the overall event-but obviously not the fun details that homer added in.

Maybe I watch the history channel too much, but I don't think you understand how history is compiled. Back in ancient times they didn't have history text books that broke down in chronological order the events of the world. Most of the information we have today about the ancient cultures has been collected from religious texts and burial sites. The Rosetta Stone, which most historians consider the key to understanding Egyptian hieroglyphs is an edict describing the divine right of the ruling regime of the time. It is thought to have first been displayed in a temple. I give this example, to illustrate the usefulness of religious artifacts in archaeology. Each person much chose to accept, reject, or further re-evaluate each piece of historical information when attempting to understand the past. The Bible is no different.