-->
@SkepticalOne
It is when you back it up
Exodus: fact or fiction?
Posts
Total:
52
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Backing it up? I'm asking for evidence...who were those archeologists which found chariot wheels at the bottom of a sea?
-->
@SkepticalOne
who cares who
-->
@Dr.Franklin
who cares who
Anyone with intellectual integrity and genuine curiosity and that cares about the truth? What you're saying is basically the same as "This doctor says he cured Alzheimer's," link to crackpot CBD oil homeopathy website, someone asking you "Which doctor?" and you saying "Who cares, it's cured." It's not exactly compelling. Be better at this.
-->
@ludofl3x
What I mean is that the evidence counts, not the people
-->
@Dr.Franklin
This is clearly not true: it's the evidence and the people, particularly when you're making extraordinary claims. I bet you'd take your medical advice from a doctor, let's say, and not a guy raving on a street corner, right? You have to weigh the evidence in proportion to the claim it supports. For example, if I told you I climbed mount ararat and found what looked like a really old 8 x 8 beam up there, and then I said it's definitely Noah's Ark, would you just believe me, or would you want expert corroboration? if the answer is you'd want expert corroboration, then you have to qualify the experts. If the answer is you just believe me, then you don't even need to see the wood I found.
-->
@ludofl3x
ok, but you need to debunk the claim, not the person
-->
@Dr.Franklin
If the claims are made by persons not qualified as experts, then the claims are meaningless. No debunking is necessary.
-->
@SkepticalOne
wrong as per useual
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Debunk my claim then.
-->
@ludofl3x
what was your claim
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I found wood from Noah's Ark when I climbed Mt. Ararat.
-->
@ludofl3x
awesome
-->
@ludofl3x
Dr. Franklin: "awesome"Debunk my claim: I found wood from Noah's Ark when I climbed Mt. Ararat.
...basically, if he likes your claim - it MUST be true!
-->
@SkepticalOne
Exodus is right, They are Egyptian Chariots sunk because in the SeaI doubt this claim. I have only ever seen psuedo-experts whose religious beliefs would benefit from this claim utter it. In reality, it is not clear what 'sea' the Bible is referring to, so finding chariot wheels in an unknown sea is quite a trick...
I think the story of Exodus is true. It is difficult to demonstrate based on the lack of evidence found. Yet, the lack of evidence by itself does not prove it did not happen.
It is a myth that Jews seem in part to accept as part of their history. Personally I am not sure that I could dismiss someone's else culture just because I could not find evidence to support it.
As for the chariots found in the Red Sea, it would not matter if such items were found, the skeptics would dismiss them as either planted or from another culture. And that would be the end of it. After all can you imagine if so and so found some tomorrow? What self respecting scientist is actually going to go and have a look? They would look like a goose in the first place, suspecting that it was hoax. So none would go. Then some documentary making has been scientist will go along and have a cursory look - and make some wild claims on both sides - and then it would be posted on YouTube - and that would be the end of it - for several years. After that if anyone referred to it - they would be laughed at and ridiculed.
Hence it really is a waste of time trying to find something like this.
-->
@Tradesecret
You must also believe a lot of native people's versions of how things happened, no? Like you have to believe the story of Devil's Tower, right?It is a myth that Jews seem in part to accept as part of their history. Personally I am not sure that I could dismiss someone's else culture just because I could not find evidence to support it.
-->
@Tradesecret
Exodus is right, They are Egyptian Chariots sunk because in the SeaI doubt this claim. I have only ever seen psuedo-experts whose religious beliefs would benefit from this claim utter it. In reality, it is not clear what 'sea' the Bible is referring to, so finding chariot wheels in an unknown sea is quite a trick...I think the story of Exodus is true. It is difficult to demonstrate based on the lack of evidence found. Yet, the lack of evidence by itself does not prove it did not happen.
Alternate argument using same reasoning: "I think Tradesecret is a secret atheist. It is difficult to demonstrate based on the lack of evidence. Yet the lack of evidence by itself does not prove its not true."
If no evidence for Tradesecret's atheism exists, then why believe it?
-->
@SkepticalOne
Alternate argument using same reasoning: "I think Tradesecret is a secret atheist. It is difficult to demonstrate based on the lack of evidence. Yet the lack of evidence by itself does not prove its not true."If no evidence for Tradesecret's atheism exists, then why believe it?
Thanks for the laugh. Yet in that sentence I am not actually presenting an argument; merely positing an opinion and conceding I don't have an explanation. Only a default position.
The exodus is an arisen myth, as are most of the bible tales.
Something happened and was subsequently elaborated, for the purposes of a good meaty storyline.
-->
@ludofl3x
ludofl3xYou must also believe a lot of native people's versions of how things happened, no? Like you have to believe the story of Devil's Tower, right?
No, to answer your question. I don't believe a lot of people's versions of how things happened. However I am happy or content to suspend my judgment until sufficient evidence appears to prove or disprove. This is how science operates, does it not?
We suspend our judgment until sufficient evidence is produced to hold a position. Surely any self - respecting scientist would not hold to a default position before the evidence was in.
In the Exodus matter - there is a lack of evidence - v someone's cultural belief. In Australia the dreamtime is one of those situations. Were Australian scientists to dismiss such dreamtimes because of the lack of evidence then it would create a nightmare. Better to simply suspend one's judgment.
A lack of evidence can be and had been overturned in history. Quick example - the Hittites.
Once only known about from the Bible, dismissed because there was no evidence and considered a myth at best - and then lo and behold - someone found some evidence. Now it is conclusive that the Hittites existed despite once only thought only a joke.
-->
@Tradesecret
How do you pick which ones to believe and which ones you think are valid?I don't believe a lot of people's versions of how things happened. However I am happy or content to suspend my judgment until sufficient evidence appears to prove or disprove. This is how science operates, does it not?
No, it isn't to "Suspend your judgement", it is to maintain the proper neutral starting point. Clearly neither of which you're doing with the Exodus tale. You're seeing the lack of evidence, shrugging your shoulders at it, and then saying "but I'm pretty sure it was real because it's an old story and lots of people believe it." In this case, the lack of evidence isn't exactly like the paucity of evidence for, say, a multiverse, where it's theoretical, there are mathematical models that make it look like maybe it's possible, but we have to say we don't know. In THIS case, in the Exodus case, there's a lack of evidence for something THERE SHOULD BE EVIDENCE FOR if it happened: 600K people, apparently all of them too stupid to pick a direction, and wandering around as en entire culture in a desert for 40 years. It's in the same bucket of mythological tale as the global flood. If it happened, there would be evidence. There isn't any, when there should be plenty. Ergo, the lack of evidence is enough information to move from "unsure" or neutral into "probably not."
In Australia the dreamtime is one of those situations. Were Australian scientists to dismiss such dreamtimes because of the lack of evidence then it would create a nightmare. Better to simply suspend one's judgment.
Science in no way ignores mythology for reasons of "creating a nightmare." Unless I guess you're talking about climate science denial, but then they're not really doing science either. It's not suspend judgement, it's take the neutral position.
-->
@Tradesecret
The default position is not belief. Beliefs don't form in a vacuum...at least not justified belief.Thanks for the laugh. Yet in that sentence I am not actually presenting an argument; merely positing an opinion and conceding I don't have an explanation. Only a default position.