For JoC: I Picked One

35 posts / 0 new
Last post
arakish's picture
For JoC: I Picked One

JoC: "Okay, let's make this easier, of all the morally reprehensible things in the Bible, choose one. It need not be the most morally reprehensible one. Maybe pick one which shows undoubtedly the evilness of the God of the Bible. Just pick one."

Ok. I'll be the first to cave in.

***gets out my role playing game dice rolling table***
*** checks text file "AllFaces-NoVerses.txt"***
***1053 lines (oh well, I'll just have to forget about the last 53 lines)***
***picks 3 d10s for making a 1-1000 roll***
***rattle of dice***
***result = 541***
***using the line numbering feature in my text editor of choice***
***541 = blank line (bummer, means I have to re-roll)***
***rattle of dice***
***re-roll***
***result = 492***
***492 = a verse under the topic of Genocidal/Ethnic Cleanser***

And laugh all you want and poopoo the hell out this. I care not. It was the only way I was going to be able to pick one.

My topic: Genocidal and Ethnic Cleansing

Absolutely... Reprehensible. Repugnant. Abhorrent. Abominable. Disgusting. Distasteful. Creepy. Foul. Hateful. Despiteful. Revolting. Objectionable. Horrid. Loathsome. Nauseating (where is my ondansetron?). Offensive. Revulsive.

I think that is enough. Besides, I am starting to smell wood burning...

You know, my wife used to call me a walking thesaurus. And when I heard that said in Guardians of the Galaxy, I had to rewind about 20 minutes because of what I had missed from ROFLFMAO. Another thing she said about me, "You are a walking plethora of encyclopedic factoids."

Never forget this statement I made because anything you say may be negated by this statement (Reference Link, Sun, 08/05/2018 - 12:41):

arakish: "History is always written by those who win the war. When two peoples rise into conflict, sometimes the loser is annihilated. Or, at least, decimated and demolished. The victors shall always write and rewrite the history of the conflict to glorify and deify their own cause, while they also criticize, belittle, ridicule, disparage, marginalize, vilify, and villainize the foe upon which the victors have committed repugnant genocide. What is written, yet unverified, history than an agreed upon myth, legend, fable?"

And this statemeny made by Greensnake (Reference Link, Sun, 08/05/2018 - 23:08):

Greensnake: "Don't you realize that all you know about these wars is from the biased pen of the authors? Once we make a reasonable correction for that bias, we are left with little viscous Bronze Age wars that would properly be condemned as genocidal today. That's like justifying the wars against the Native Americans because a book written by their conquerors portrays it as part of the glorious, God-given destiny of the United States."

(Hope you don't mind Greensnake...)

And do not forget that I shall use Tin-Man's post against you also..
Oooooooh..... NOW I see from where your confusion stems!..... *slapping my forehead with palm of hand*....
...to which you replied:

JoC: "I see. So basically, you responded to my post without reading it. All well and good. Have a good day to you."

(Reference Link)

(Hope you don't mind Tin-Man...)

rmfr

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

JoC's picture
Finally!

Finally!

My topic: Genocidal and Ethnic Cleansing

Absolutely... Reprehensible. Repugnant. Abhorrent. Abominable. Disgusting. Distasteful. Creepy. Foul. Hateful. Despiteful. Revolting. Objectionable. Horrid. Loathsome. Nauseating (where is my ondansetron?). Offensive. Revulsive.

Didn't we already talk about this though?

Just so we're exactly on the same page, we're talking about the conquest into the land of Canaan, right?

I'll pose to you a parallel but related question. Just to see if we have any common ground. By ethnic cleansing you mean completely wiping out of old customs? Or do you mean simply the wiping out of all people who hold a certain custom. The reason I pose this question is this: some customs are just evil and should obviously be weeded out completely from the human gene pool. Certain actions I hope we both agree on would be the following:

- Child/Human Sacrifice
- Incest
- Murder
- Rape

Do we agree at least on these items - that these actions should be weeded out of society by all costs.

I think I've shown that the Canaanites practiced at least child sacrifice so let's start the conversation from there.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ JoC

@ JoC

"I think I've shown that the Canaanites practiced at least child sacrifice so let's start the conversation from there."

Yes they did, and so did the ancient Israelites, Jeremiah, an Israelite prophet, mentioned many times that Israelites have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in fire as offerings to Baal (Jer. 19:5). and it is recorded in the bible that they were at least very familiar with the practice, through the legend of Abraham and Jepthah's daughter (Jud. 11:29-40) ...and probably practiced it, until they didn't. BUT we have no way of knowing that they all did give it up.

Your contention that the wars fought by the tribes of El were solely motivated at stamping out the Canaanites ritual practice of "passing the child through the fire" is doubtful at best. I have already made the point it wasn't just the Canaanites that bore the brunt of the genocidal tribes of El, it was others who in no way have been accused of child sacrifice such as the Hittites or Akelemites.
Your claim is based on archaeological facts that child cremation and probably sacrifice was practised throughout the territories of the Canaanites and Israelites in ancient times. It seems more like the "German soldiers bayoneting Belgian babies' story that enraged British feeling in the First World War. Please cite the evidence that the Hittites practised ritual child sacrifice also the other tribes mentioned in that nasty verse in Deuteronomy.

You are concentrating only on the Canaanites yet the bible mentions more than those ethnicities in the area that were all to be slaughtered. You cant offer up the argument that "they were all Canaanites" when the bible is very specific about who should be slaughtered and all their offspring But in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes,
17: but you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Per'izzites, the Hivites and the Jeb'usites, as the LORD your God has commanded;
18: that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices which they have done in the service of their gods, and so to sin against the LORD your God.

And history has noted that the tribes of El had already intermarried with most of them and none were destroyed to a man but continued to provide forced labor (so the bible tells us) for various projects....so why did they disobey god's commands? Because they were more humane than your god? Looks that way JoC.....god commands annihilation and genocide, the local tribes of El, already well integrated and intermarried, decline to muder their relatives and leave most of them alive...just using them as slaves and a source for wives...

In short JoC you trying, again to justify the words of your god and failing miserably.

It was humans in their humanity who refused to kill every single living thing.

Not your god who's idea of abomination wasn't 'child sacrifice' but that the other tribes were not worshipping him. After all god seems to have been quite ambivalent about child sacrifice, and also loved the smell of burning offerings and , when available, foreskins.

arakish's picture
@ JoC

@ JoC

"I think I've shown that the Canaanites practiced at least child sacrifice so let's start the conversation from there."

No you have not.

I have been researching this for the last two days (not including today Monday 06 August 2018). I have been searching the journal article/papers sites I am privy to (three of them) for such evidence. There are free ones online if you care to look for them.

Guess what I have found?

All of the archaeologists (i.e. – scientific) have FOUND ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE the Canaanites ever sacrificed any children. Adult human sacrifices, but NO CHILDREN. Thus, I shall grant you the Human Sacrifices.

As I have continued researching the only evidence I have found is ONLY IN CHRISTIAN BASED studies in which ALL of them base their research FROM the Bible or other books written by Christians. It has been proven the Bible is as accurate a historical text as Æsop's Fables. Additionally, the Bible is nothing more than a collection of plagiarized myths, legends, fables, far older than the Bible. Some by thousands of years.

Hmm...

For now. That's all I have. I shall continue to research until tomorrow. I have to go back into the field Wed-Fri. I will carry my PADD, but won't do any research on it. It ain't that great for doing such. Well, actually it kind of is. However, I store nothing on the cloud. All of my storage is onto optical disks at home.

FYI: Genocidal and Ethnic Cleansing is basically the same thing.

Ethnic and Genocidal Cleansing: Ethnic cleansing is similar to forced deportation or population transfer whereas genocide is the intentional murder of part or all of a particular ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. Some academics consider genocide as a subset of "murderous ethnic cleansing" (the Great Wiki).

Of course the Great Wiki gives a milder definition due to the Political Correctness mind virus that currently infecting our species. And here is my definition of Political Correctness: Political Correctness is a hypothesis created by cruel and heartless persons and spread by an uncaring and unscrupulous media in the belief that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by its clean end.

To me, they are same thing. The intentional annihilation, or at least complete decimation and subjugation, of a peoples due to religious differences. Genocidal is actually a misnomer since the Human Genome Project has proven beyond the shadow of any doubt that we are all HUMAN. Only one race/species. Thus, there is no geno- (genetic) difference between any humans. The prefix "geno-" comes from the Latin word "gens" which means people (humans). Thus, ultimately, this is only Ethnic Cleansing.

As I warned:

arakish: "History is always written by those who win the war. When two peoples rise into conflict, sometimes the loser is annihilated. Or, at least, decimated and demolished. The victors shall always write and rewrite the history of the conflict to glorify and deify their own cause, while they also criticize, belittle, ridicule, disparage, marginalize, vilify, and villainize the foe upon which the victors have committed repugnant genocide. What is written, yet unverified, history than an agreed upon myth, legend, fable?"

Greensnake: "Don't you realize that all you know about these wars is from the biased pen of the authors? Once we make a reasonable correction for that bias, we are left with little viscous Bronze Age wars that would properly be condemned as genocidal today. That's like justifying the wars against the Native Americans because a book written by their conquerors portrays it as part of the glorious, God-given destiny of the United States."

Thus, the Bible is the rewritten history of the Hebrew conquest of the Land of Canaan glorifying and deifying their own cause. And this occurred circa 1000 BCE, not the circa 1400 BCE as put forth by Biblical Scholars.

As a certain cinematic cyborg once said: "I'll be back."

rmfr

JoC's picture
"All of the archaeologists (i

"All of the archaeologists (i.e. – scientific) have FOUND ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE the Canaanites ever sacrificed any children. Adult human sacrifices, but NO CHILDREN. Thus, I shall grant you the Human Sacrifices."

- Btw, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And.... not even the one found in Salambo in Carthage? Btw, I thought we had this conversation already and you conceded that child sacrifice was rampant in the ancient world. Why do you backtrack now? I would even include that Israelites practiced child sacrifice as well (See Jephtha in the book of Judges; but of course you'd probably say that didn't actually happen). The major difference between those cultures and the Israeli culture was that Israel sought to ban these practices while others simply continued practicing them.

Your other claim that the Bible was written to glorify their own cause and all. That is a claim. However, if you read the Old Testament, you have the Patriarchs being sold as slaves, the Israelites being forced out of the promise land, which they were given. If these people were simply making all of this up, I ask you, why include so many embarrassing stories of how your nation came to be? I mean if you were lying about everything, why not make it look as if God had blessed your people so abundantly since the beginning of time? It simply does not make any sense at all.

calhais's picture
There is also a degree to

There is also a degree to which absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and as we go further back in the historical record, there is a natural tendency for the amount of evidence overall to decrease. Therefore, as we consider earlier and earlier points in history, the greater the degree to which it is true that absence of evidence fails to constitute evidence of absence.

Sheldon's picture
"some customs are just evil

"some customs are just evil and should obviously be weeded out completely from the human gene pool."

So if people behave in a way we find morally repugnant it's ok to completely extirpate those people? Wow, that's some moral code.

calhais's picture
Worldwide, it's a very common

I suspect that worldwide, it's a very common moral code among atheists and theists alike.

JoC's picture
That’s strawmaning my

That’s strawmaning my position. Say we know of a certain culture that commits horrible acts like child sacrifice. There does come a point where it becomes a moral duty on our part to intervene. It may be through non-violent means but if it comes to a point the only violent means will work, then that may be the only possible solution.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
JoC "moral duty on our part

JoC "moral duty on our part to intervene"
well, applause. Correct. But you are attributing these noble motives to the Tribes of El under what evidence? You are introducing a supposition with no factual basis whatsoever and then trying to justify passages in your book that command the ethnic cleansing of groups where there is no evidence for the practise you are condemning..

Ye gods, is there no end to your apologetic stance? You have no basis whatsoever to say that the the tribes of El were instructed and indeed, attempted to cleanse the area of all the inhabitants listed in Deuteronomy because the tribes of El disliked child sacrifice...none.

Just stop it.

JoC's picture
Of course. Fair enough. The

Of course. Fair enough. The only thing I’m espousing here is that this is a possibility. Given what we know about the laws of the Israelites during that time, it is a good candidate for what actually happened.

Of course there’s another theory that goes that they just wanted to grab the land for their own, which is a possibility as well.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ JoC

@ JoC

"Of course there’s another theory that goes that they just wanted to grab the land for their own, which is a possibility as well."

And the evidence that they grabbed the land, and let their relatives alone just using them as forced labor instead of obeying god's demands, indeed commands...lets do turn about.

Why did the Isrealites disobey god's clear command to leave not a breathing thing alive in Canaan? What was the punishment for disobeying this clear order for genocide and destruction? Did god change si mind? Did the isrealites that refuse to murder their Hittite and Jebusite wives, mother inlaws, nephews...did they get punished?

I look forward to your explanation JoC.

arakish's picture
Response to this post.

Response to this post.

@ JoC

"...absence of evidence is not evidence of absence..."

It is when absolutely no evidence can be found. Especially after decades of digging.

"Btw, I thought we had this conversation already and you conceded that child sacrifice was rampant in the ancient world."

And I completely retracted that. Reference Link. Hell, if I could, I would redact it using the strikethrough HTML tag. And this is the third time I have told you this FACT. Three strikes on this alone.

Remember this?

arakish: "Thus, I am now retracting my agreement with you about child sacrifices, etc. I am now stating that the invasion of the Land of Canaan by the Hebrews was a reprehensible and repugnant act of pure immoral genocide committed by a peoples just as bad as Hitler."

And, reiteration. I am COMPLETELY, TOTALLY, ABSOLUTELY, UTTERLY retracting all my agreements with you about child sacrifices. Why do I backtrack? Scientific Evidence disproving your preposterous claim. Why did I agree in the first place? Because RELIGIONS have spread the lies of child sacrifice and child cannabalism so prevalently throughout all societies. Now the burden of proof is on you to prove that child sacrifice was so prevalent. And DO NOT use the Bible or any other religious material. As Old Man has said (I paraphrase), "Why can't you look up the real history and take those blinders off? It is for your own good."

As far as I am concerned, scientific evidence SHALL ALWAYS have ultimate supremacy over any religious evidence. Remember what I said in previous post?

"As I have continued researching the only evidence I have found is ONLY IN CHRISTIAN BASED studies in which ALL of them base their research FROM the Bible or other books written by Christians. It has been proven the Bible is as accurate a historical text as Æsop's Fables. Additionally, the Bible is nothing more than a collection of plagiarized myths, legends, fables, far older than the Bible. Some by thousands of years."

Please note the bold text... The only evidence where Apologists attempt to prove the Bible correct is only from the Bible. What is that? Circular Logic? Which has failed ever since it was first uttered.

In case you have not seen them, here are my definitions:

Absolutist — anyone belonging to and possessing an inexorable belief in any religion, especially the absolute Abrahamic religions — Judaism, Christianity, Islam — due to their absolutist beliefs system and is truly applicable to any inexorable religious believers, especially the worst subset, Apologists.

Apologist — a dastardly subset of the Absolutists who practices apologetics, which is the assumption of presupposed conclusions that have nothing to do with reason and rationality and actual information, creating irrational excuses and whatever conflicting ideas justifying their baseless assumptions, regardless of what the true facts are, using beguiling dialectical semantics, distorted and perverted data, emotional whiney-ass pleas, due to an indoctrination conditioning that is so ingrained they never question the veracity of the nonsense they offer, or why they need to defend their faith at all.

Some more further definitions:
ROI = Region Of Interest. Can also be referred to as AOI = Area Of Interest.

  • Ancient World — times from before 1400 BCE. 1400 BCE is the supposed beginning of the Hebrew nation and "true civiliztion." Ask any Absolutist and they'll you so.
  • Old World — 1400 BCE to 1 BCE. This is the rise of the greatest nation to ever eixst on Earth: Israel. Ask, they'll tell ya.
  • Middle World — 1 CE to 1850 CE. The industrial age is a good break point between Middle and New.
  • New World — 1850 CE to present.

I do it this way for Absolutist/Religionist versus Rationalist/Atheist arguments/debates. If you do not like it, that is your problem. At least I supply my definitions. No Absolutist ever does.

In the Old World, there is absolutely NO evidence of child sacrifices in the ROI and near the ROI of the Levant, except those committed by the Hebrews known as "foundational sacrifices." Assyrians and Persians (Babylonians) did some also. Foundational Sacrifices are where a child, sometimes a juvenile or a παρθενακος (virginal) female, was sacrificed and buried under the "foundation" stone of a new building so as to keep away any bad mojo. Sometimes, and there is such evidence, the sacrifice was buried alive into the stonework of the new building. And, the Irish Celts were still practicing "foundational sacrifices" when the Romans arrived in circa 100 to 200 CE. However, the Romans never invaded Ireland. They visited, but never invaded. The Romans felt the cost outweighed the benefit.

Yes. In the Ancient World (before 1400 BCE), there was rampant child sacrifice. However, it was NOT as prevalent as adult human sacrifices. Even in the Ancient World there is scientific evidence that shows that child sacrifices were actually rare (excepting the Meso-Americans). And I admit that the Meso-American cultures may have been quite sophisticated, they were still quite savage.

What was thought to be mass graves of those child sacrifices (by Absolutists) have since been proven to be necropoli, or graveyards, specifically for only children (by Archaeologists (in loads of National Geographic editions)). And this is actually surprising. It shows that even the Ancient World peoples treated their dead children with more reverence than their adult counterparts. Such information is easily available on the Great Wiki, if you choose to look.

I find it hilarious that achaeological expeditions that were supported by the "church" (during the Middle World and early New World) meant that the archaeologists, when finding a graveyard for children, that their first assumptions was "child sacrifices." Why was that? Then take an archaeological expedition supported by an actual non-religious university, or something like National Geographic, and their first assumption of a mass graveyard of children was just that, a graveyard for children. Why was that?

Religion has found that there is absolutely no objective hard empirical evidence that actually proves anything religion says is correct, especially the Abrahamic religions. And this is what drives the Absolutists completely wonko. And you Absolutists ask why we Atheists are so hostile. Why? Because we have to defend ourselves against your hostility. You Absolutists are the first ones who attack us. And when we defend ourselves, you cry "foul," and preach about how you are persecuted. How we are violating your rights to religious freedom.

"Your other claim that the Bible was written to glorify their own cause and all. That is a claim."

It is a statement of fact. Read all of the old and ancient historical texts about wars. The victors ALWAYS villianized, degradated, marginalized, and disparaged the losers so as to make themselves look more glorified and deified and justified in their actions. In more modern times, it is almost impossible for any nation to "lie" about the war they wage. Very good example is the Iraq War. Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Where are the terrorist training camps? Another good example was the Vietnam War. A lot of my friends lost their older brothers due to that fucked up fiasco. And I only missed being old enough to be sent there against my will by only a very few years.

I loved the way my mom stated her opinion about the Vietnam War, "It was a war that the United States should never have gotten involved in. However, the stupid civilians should not have treated our boys the way they did when they came back home." I only include these more modern wars as perfect examples of how in today's world, no nation can hide the reasons for that war and the results afterward. In elder times, it was infinitely easier to hide the true facts of a war with simple pen and paper.

"However, if you read the Old Testament, you have the Patriarchs being sold as slaves, the Israelites being forced out of the promise land, which they were given. If these people were simply making all of this up, I ask you, why include so many embarrassing stories of how your nation came to be?"

Indeed. Why would they lie about all that? To show that in the end God would bless them when they stopped disobeying him. God was "testing" their faith. I could say the same thing about any group of peoples. The difficult times are "god" showing its displeasure in disobeying its commands when in fact it was mainly due to the debaucheries of the ruling classes. Then when those were replaced with more humanitarian rulers, times would get better, and this proves "god" is pleased its commands are being obeyed. What a load of bullshit!

"I mean if you were lying about everything, why not make it look as if God had blessed your people so abundantly since the beginning of time? It simply does not make any sense at all."

Makes all the sense in the world if take the "deity" variable out of the equation. Think about it.

And here is something else to think about. How easy do you think it would be to completely rewrite history, when you have utterly destroyed all cities, killed all people, and all literature in that region, to suit your justification for having annihilated, or at least decimated and subjugated, a peoples during the time of the Hebrew invasion of the Land of Canaan? Especially, when the fastest form of communication across distances is by horse? Maybe a ship.

And here is another question: How do you know this "god" gave the land to the Hebrews? Do not use the Bible or any other religious material.

rmfr

calhais's picture
It is when absolutely no

Hey, admin, you heard the guy: let's get some strikethrough tags going here.

It is when absolutely no evidence can be found.

No. If you're suggesting that the complete absence of evidence for a historical event implies that the event didn't happen, then you're wrong. Rather, to prove an event didn't happen, you need evidence that something else happened that would have prevented it. Historical epistemology is trash, but it isn't bad enough to admit that the absolute absence of evidence implies the absence of the event.

At least I supply my definitions. No Absolutist ever does.

I don't care all that much about the particulars of the historical side of the argument here, but you're still saying a lot of dumb things. MW says you're an absolutist under the real definition of the word.

Nyarlathotep's picture
As far as strikethrough

As far as strikethrough support goes, if you post your request in Site Support it will be more likely to be noticed by the admin. In the short term there is a work around.

e̶x̶a̶m̶p̶l̶e̶

calhais's picture
Thanks, man.

Thanks, man.

JoC's picture
It seems to me our

It seems to me our disagreement comes from whether child sacrifice was prevalent in Canaanite culture. I described what you called child graves but the presence of charcoal and ash at these sites supports my position, not yours. But let’s say you’re right. Our other disagreement comes from the idea that my only other source for this is the Bible and yours comes from decades of archaeology in these sites.

Fair enough?

Again, this does not disprove my point. Archaeological evidence, even when done for decades doesn’t disprove what an ancient text claims. It’s actually quite possible that the remains where lost or they sinply haven’t been found yet. Some atheists quickly correct me (and they do so correctly) to say that scientific inquiry is based more on doubt.

Now to the Bible being the sole source for this, what makes you think that the Bible isn’t allowedto be the sole witness to these acts. Btw, the Bible isn’t the sole witness as I’ve mentioned before with other ancient writers but you wish to dismiss them so let’s move on. You’re operating on the assumption that the Bible is guilty or falsehood unless proven innocent. For any ancient document, we usually assume they’re innocent unless we find reason for the author to lie. As it stands, the quotes from the Pentateuch which mention Molech and child sacrifice to Molech have no reason to lie of about these things from happening.

You claim that it was included to justify the war on the Canaanites but you miss the fact that Exodus and Joshua (where the conquest of Canaan are mentioned) are two different books talking about different things and were most likely written hundreds of years apart from each other (though I don’t have data on this). What you’re claiming is that the writer of Genesis and Exodus somehow knew that an author years later (I’m not even claiming a hundread years later) would use their books to jusify a war om the Canaanites so they included slight hints in their writings making sure to paint the Canaanites in a bad light.

If that’s true, then hot damn, anything can be true now. I think this explanation is more miraculous than the idea that the authors sinply recorded what they observed.

arakish's picture
Dudes, I am reely tired.

Dudes, I am reely tired. Done took a flurazepam. May be slep for 12 hours? Spent first 3-day shift in the filed after two months from surgries and 12 hours driving hom. Put this togehter here and there over two days during breaks. Copy and pastd from my PADD. Bee back anothr day.

Before we start, my definitions.
Myth — a widely held traditional story, which is a culturally accepted early history of an ethnic group which attempts to explain natural phenomenon, social phenomenon, historical phenomenon, and frequently involves supernatural entities, beings, events, beliefs and ideas, but is usually, and generally, false.
Legend — 1) a classical, sometimes traditional, story regarding historical events; 2) a remarkably famous or infamous person or ethnic group; both of which may or may not be verifiable and usually unauthenticated.
Raze(d) — to tear down; to demolish; to completely destroy, to level to the ground.

It seems to me our disagreement comes from whether child sacrifice was prevalent in Canaanite culture. I described what you called child graves but the presence of charcoal and ash at these sites supports my position, not yours. But let's say you're right. Our other disagreement comes from the idea that my only other source for this is the Bible and yours comes from decades of archaeology in these sites.

Yes, it does. The presence of charcoal and ash supports my position of these sites having been razed in the ethnic genocidal cleansings. Everything destroyed, burned, and leveled to the ground (razed). Bible is not science. It is mythical history as written and rewritten by the victors. Archaeology is science. And I will trust archaeological evidence before I will trust any religious text. I may use religious texts to help guide me on where to look for archaeological evidence. And if I find archaeological evidence and prove the religious text, then that is acceptable. However, if I find no archaeological evidence, or find archaeological evidence that disproves the religious text, then that is also acceptable. You were incorrect about Carthage. Why then assume you are correct about the Land of Canaan? Specifically the Canaanites?

Again, this does not disprove my point. Archaeological evidence, even when done for decades doesn't disprove what an ancient text claims.

It does when it does not provide any evidence to support the religious text. If there is no evidence to support the religious text, then the religious text is not correct. It may not disprove it, but it also does not prove it.

In my viewpoint only, if there is no evidence, after decades of digging, to support the religious text, then the religious text is incorrect and is nothing more than myth and legend. Now if an archaeological expedition finds evidence proving my viewpoint wrong, then I shall gladly admit I was wrong. That is the whole premise of science. Science actually works on the premise of trying to prove its ideas wrong. Religion does not. Religion works on the premise that it is right and everything else is wrong.

And please remember this one point. My speciality in biblical history is mainly focused onto the Genesis Flood Story and the Exodus story. All others have been passing interests. Thus, even I am having to do some research. Please bear with me. Thanks.

It's actually quite possible that the remains where lost or they sinply haven't been found yet.

Or, there simply never were any remains to be found?

Some atheists quickly correct me (and they do so correctly) to say that scientific inquiry is based more on doubt.

And I have many doubts. I doubt that they never will not find any remains. In fact, I hope they do. That would mean the 30 years I spent researching this stuff was not for naught. I did spend years, mostly in the 1980s (perhaps not the best time) and the first two-thirds of the 1990s actually visiting the Levant region (museums and archaeological sites) at least once a year for at least two weeks hoping to see some evidence for the veracity of the Bible. Alas, I never found any. The only evidence I was discovering was actually disproving the stories in the Bible. Bummer.

Now to the Bible being the sole source for this, what makes you think that the Bible isn't allowed to be the sole witness to these acts.

Because it is mythical history written and rewritten by the victors. Remember what I said (emphases added):

arakish: (Sun, 08/05/2018 - 12:41):
"History is always written by those who win the war. When two peoples rise into conflict, sometimes the loser is annihilated. Or, at least, decimated and demolished. The victors shall always write and rewrite the history of the conflict to glorify and deify their own cause, while they also criticize, belittle, ridicule, disparage, marginalize, vilify, and villainize the foe upon which the victors have committed repugnant genocide. What is written, yet unverified, history than an agreed upon myth or legend?"

Greensnake: (Sun, 08/05/2018 - 23:08):
"Don't you realize that all you know about these wars is from the biased pen of the authors? Once we make a reasonable correction for that bias, we are left with little viscous Bronze Age wars that would properly be condemned as genocidal today. That's like justifying the wars against the Native Americans because a book written by their conquerors portrays it as part of the glorious, God-given destiny of the United States."

Remainder is moot.

================================================================================
================================================================================

Some Additional Interesting Information

Dude. You really need to study up on history.

BTW: This is the artifact (Merneptah Stele) I have seen in person (I actually typed prison, LOL). Further, all the below artifacts had a date range. I chose the date that makes the artifact oldest within those date ranges. Thus, making anything Hebrew/Israel as old as possible. Just so you Christians would not cry foul, I actually ceeded in favor for your cause. Honestly, and this is a Ripley's Believe It or Not, and I could care less which you do, I honestly spent 20 years researching (during vacations) spread across a time of 30 years trying to prove the Bible historically correct. Reason: I wanted to know from a scientific point of view why someone would put so much faith into something that has never been proven correct.

Merneptah Stele; Location: Cairo Museum; Found: 1896, Thebes; Date: circa 1200 BCE; Writing: Egyptian hieroglyphs.
Biblical archaeologist translate the set of hieroglyphs on Line 27 as "Israel." Ancient Egyptian archaeologists differ saying the hieroglyphs actually translate as "Jezreel," a city and valley in the Land of Canaan. This also constitutes the only record in Ancient Egyptian that mentions Jezreel/Israel.

I have to admit that I got the dates reversed in my Exodus to Nowhere essay. I am certain I flipped them between this artifact and when the Hebrew people actually came into being and the first mention of them in Egypt. The above artifact does not mention "hebrew" or "israel." It actually mentions "jezreel people," not "israel nation" as the biblical persons would have one believe. However, ALL archaeological evidence proves "hebrew" or "israel" was NEVER in the empire proper of Egypt (near the Nile). They may have been within Egypt's Sphere of Influence in the Levant, but the Hebrews/Israel did come into existence until around 850 to 800 BCE. Six hundred, SIX! hundred years after the dates given by biblical scholars for the Exodus (circa 1440 BCE).

Additionally, if I remember my biblical history correctly, was not Israel (Jacob) before the Exodus? And the Exodus was supposed to have begun in circa 1440 BCE? And this record is over 200 years younger? Moses supposedly died in 1400 BCE (just before the Hebrew Invasion), and later that same year Joshua began his campaign to rape the Land of Canaan? All of this going by what biblical scholars preach...

The next oldest Egyptian Artifact even mentioning anything about Israel is the Mesha Stele, (dated circa 850 BCE), written by the Moabites with reference to "house of David," constituting the earliest mention of a "David." This does not prove Israel was a nation, just there was a house/family with the name of "David" near the Moabites. Also see next two entries.

Saba's Stele (dated circa 800 BCE) details the accounts of an Assyrian army's campaign (see below) in Philistia circa 800 BCE, yet has no mention of any "Hebrew/Israel" nation/people in the Land of Canaan through which they would have had to march to get to Philistia. Strange.

Then there is the Nimrud Slab (dated circa 800 BCE) which details Adad-nirari III's Assyrian conquests of Palastu (Phillistia), Tyre, Sidon, Edom, and Humri. Humri is said to be the Akkadian translation for Hebrew (Israel). The earliest mentioning of Hebrew. I got that date wrong from another document since it stated the word Hebrew did not appear in the Assyrian (Akkadian) language until circa 1000 to 800 BCE. It was kind of right, just gave a broader date range.

Gezer Calendar dated circa 950 BCE is the earliest appearance of Paleo-Aramaic/Hebrew written language.

The walls of the tombs of Ahmose (dated circa 1500 BCE), son of Ebana, sometimes said to be the basis of the Moses myth, and Ahmose Pen Nekhbet (dated circa 1450 BCE) detail the earliest records of Egyptian control of the Land of Canaan. The Bible's depiction of Israel does not allow for Egyptian control over the Land of Canaan.

The Great Hymn to the Aten (dated circa 1400 BCE) is seen to possess strong similarities to Psalm 104 (circa 1440 to 585 BCE (Why such a huge range?)), which may be based on it. Of course, biblical achaeologists and biblical scholars refute this. I could care less. I thought it was interesting.

Ipuwer Papyrus (dated 1850 BCE (400 years before the supposed Exodus)) contains a poem that describes Egypt as afflicted by social anarchy and in a state of chaos. This archaeological evidence does not support the story of the Exodus, and most histories of ancient Israel no longer consider it relevant to the story of Israel's emergence. Nevertheless, the Ipuwer Papyrus is often put forward in popular literature as confirmation of the Biblical account, most notably because of its statement that "the river is blood" which naturally occurs due to iron rich sediments during the disastrous floods of the Nile. Additionally, it states that the social disruption may have actually been caused by the "arrival of Asiatic servants." Asiatic meaning Oriental? Wow.

Khirbet Qeiyafa shrines (oldest dated to circa 860 BCE) are cultic constructs many see as evidence of a "cult in Judah of David" and with features (triglyphs and recessed doors) which may resemble features in descriptions of the Temple of Solomon.

Ophel Inscription (dated circa 1100 BCE (300 years after the supposed Hebrew invasion cicra 1400 BCE)) is an inscribed fragment of a ceramic jar found near Jerusalem's Temple Mount by archeologist Eilat Mazar. It is the earliest alphabetical inscription found in Jerusalem written in Proto-Canaanite script. Some scholars believe it to be an inscription of the type of wine that was held in a jar.

Kuntillet Ajrud Inscriptions (dated circa 850 BCE) are inscriptions in Phoenician script including references to Yahweh. The earliest record of the mention of "yahweh." Still is 550 years after the supposed Hebrew Invasion circa 1400 BCE detailed in the book of Joshua.

Khirbet Beit Lei (dated circa 700 BCE) contains oldest known Hebrew writing of the word "Jerusalem." "I am YHWH thy Lord. I will accept the cities of Judah and I will redeem Jerusalem" And later, "Absolve us oh merciful God. Absolve us oh YHWH."

After this, artifacts just get younger. I chose the oldest ones found to date. Showing that the Hebrew/Israel nation did come into existence until many centuries after the dates put forth by biblical arhaeologists and biblical scholars.

If biblical scholars got all their dates wrong, then I am damned certain your Catholic scholars got all their dates wrong as well.

rmfr

uploaded from my PADD during break

Addenda: Just read that first paragraph I kind of wrote before uploading this just before going to bed. "slep" instead of "sleep". "filed" instead of "field". Gee whiz...

Diotrephes's picture
All of the biblical stories

All of the biblical stories are based on one or more of the Ten Commandments found in Exodus chapter 34. The war stories, genocides, ethnic cleansing, and other crimes against humanity illustrate the First Commandment in action Exodus 34:12-16. Most of the First Commandment is universal for all societies throughout history.

NewSkeptic's picture
@JoC

@JoC

Sorry if this is a bit off topic, but it seems to me we don't need these long posts in order to show that the god of the old testament is an evil mfer.

He commanded that everything be destroyed, men, women, children, infants and all animals. That alone should suffice. But Apologists suggest it was necessary to kill the people so that their ways couldn't corrupt the tribe’s ways. I'm not conceding that, but why kill the infants?

Imagine if you will, the moment one of the heroic members of the tribe impales an infant with his spear. What does your god feel at that moment? Pride in the impaler? Contemplation of a reward for a job well-done? How does the apologist rationalize this? Let me guess, the infants will grow up, hear stories of what happened and seek revenge. Quite a stretch, but imagine I concede even this bullshit. Why does the poor little puppy and kitten, along with all the livestock, need to be killed? That's just mean to be mean.

The god you believe in is a complete asshole and I almost hope you have to spend an eternity in worship. Given your understanding of the things that asshole did and does, it reflects extremely poorly on your morals that you take the knee for it.

calhais's picture
What does your god feel at

What does your god feel at that moment? Pride in the impaler? Contemplation of a reward for a job well-done?

I'm calling you out here. You're anthropomorphizing god in an uncalled for way.

NewSkeptic's picture
@calhais

@calhais

You don't have to just call out, scream out if you wish.

The (not so) good book anthropomorphizes your god all the time. He's a "jealous" god, remember. He's often angry. He "loves" you so much. I'm not doing anything different than that.

He can deal with me via eternal damnation, you'll have to deal with it via earthly means and without begging the question.

calhais's picture
I'm not doing anything

I'm not doing anything different than that.

Yes, you are--your anthropomorphization of god is not the same as the biblical anthropomorphization. You attributed to god `pride in the impaler' and `contemplation of a reward for a job well-done,' which is different than attributing to god jealousy, anger, or love.

You also suggested that we can always empathize with God when you asked, ``what does your god feel at that moment?'' The Bible does not make the attributions you gave and rather suggests that we cannot empathize with God universally: therefore, your anthropomorphization of god is uncalled for.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Calhais

@ Calhais

"I'm not doing anything"

Ahahahhahahahahaha and the prize for the funniest post this week goes to Calhais...LOL...oh man I spat my cornflakes on the keyboard reading this reply.
*still chuckling* Oh jeez *wipes eyes and keyboard* oh man " your anthropomorphization of god is not the same as the biblical anthropomorphization. You attributed to god `pride in the impaler' and `contemplation of a reward for a job well-done, which is different than attributing to god jealousy, anger, or love."' That is just brilliant *chuckles again while wiping cat*. Oh Boy. "its not the same" OH ROFLMAO * Wipes tears from trouser legs* That is a classic....

Looks like the "Adroit Avoidance" mega prize hitherto claimed by Breezy has a genuine contender.

calhais's picture
Horselaugh is for idiots.

Horselaugh is for idiots.

LogicFTW's picture
Yes, you are--your

Yes, you are--your anthropomorphization of god is not the same as the biblical anthropomorphization. You attributed to god `pride in the impaler' and `contemplation of a reward for a job well-done,' which is different than attributing to god jealousy, anger, or love.

If god is not real, as most atheist believe, then an atheist is simply anthropomorphizing a human made up idea. If god is real as most theist believe, then shouldn't this almighty god be able to handle a human anthropomorphizing it? Especially one that does not even believe in it? Why would such a god need you to defend it from a non believer anthropomorphizing it?

I don't believe any god is real, but if there was a real god, the whole human condition must be quite amusing to the god, just like an ant under the magnifying glass to us humans on a bright sunny day.

arakish's picture
Additionally, to prevent

Additionally, to prevent anthropomorphizing, God should ALWAYS be referred to as "it" not s/he since that is anthropomorphication.

rmfr

Diotrephes's picture
NewSkeptic,

NewSkeptic,

"The god you believe in is a complete asshole and I almost hope you have to spend an eternity in worship. Given your understanding of the things that asshole did and does, it reflects extremely poorly on your morals that you take the knee for it."

The biblical stories don't teach morals. They teach complete obedience and loyalty to the Boss ("God" or anyone who has power over you). It's actually more of a military code of conduct for civilians than anything else.

NewSkeptic's picture
WTF? That makes no sense at

WTF? That makes no sense at all. Continue on in your fantasy world.

NewSkeptic's picture
@Old Man

@Old Man

Let kitty know I'm sorry for my part in the corn flake fiasco. It really is impossible to predict the mental gymnastics these apologetic fools will jump through? The funny thing is I think it actually makes sense to him.

...and Calhais, I just want you to know that when rewards season comes around for 2018, I am going to personally nominate you for the prestigious Ken Hamm award. Congratulations!!!!

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ NewSkeptic

@ NewSkeptic

Its ok mate , Captain Cat forgives you...but you are now on my list of "no food or drink" when reading posts along with other alumni such as Tin Man, Cog, Chimp 3, and other accident causing humorists too numerous to mention!

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.