Battle of the New Atheism

[Hurlshort]

Is it known whether Abraham and Moses actually existed?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Historically, there is no reason to doubt their existence. Even if the stories of their lives are exaggerated, there is enough archeological evidence to support the time and places as accurate. It makes little sense to completely fabricate an individual and spread the stories across the world and over the centuries. The odds are much greater that these individuals existed. Of course, over time you need to account for events being exaggerated or altered. Much of what we know about these figures was passed down through oral traditions. With Muhammad, the Qu'ran was completed 15 years after his death, so we have a much more accurate account of his life. Abraham and Moses (and I'm not a theological scholar so I could be wrong) is going to be less accurate because the written records available are written much later than their lifetime.

[Krookie]

I'm going to ignore what everyone else is saying and just throw in my two cents.

 

I believe in God, and Jesus Christ. I believe in Heaven, and Hell.

I believe the Bible isn't 100% right.

I believe that there  are others out there, just like us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You do not have any sensible evidence for backing this up unless your are one of the very few chosen god has chosen to reveal himself to, and even then I'd still question you. I think ill stick to the consistent natural world history then some guy saying he believes in something that just states it without reason why he does so.

 

Belief through faith is jumping into an abyss of unreason. taking this unreason and applying it to the real world is dangerous, it has restricted Gay rights, stem cell research, Abortion, education and its gone all the way to even infect the presidency.

 

There is no proof of a soul, god, devil, angels, heaven, hell, or of the bible being 100% correct.

 

THere is proof of evolution, the physical brain, the here and now, and what the mind wants to believe, it will. especially with a book so incoherent that it can make out whatever it wants.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I believe in God, and Jesus Christ. I believe in Heaven, and Hell.

I believe the Bible isn't 100% right.

[kumquatq3]

Religion and humanity are tied together. You can look at almost every major event in history, whether it's good or bad, and find the influence of religion.

 

Greed, hate, and humanity are tied together too. Doesn't mean their good. Not that I'm slapping religion with that label, but I disagree with that point as proof to anything.

 

Religion has done great harm, but the argument can be made that it has done even greater good.  Religion is the first set of laws.  It's the original code of conduct.  Can a civilization grow and succeed without religion? 

 

The first set of laws were interesting, they had a prologue and a closing that basically were prayers to the gods chiefly cursing those that neglect or destroy the law.

 

Some of those laws being: If any one buy a male or female slave, and before a month has elapsed the benu-disease be developed, he shall return the slave to the seller, and receive the money which he had paid.

 

If a slave say to his master: "You are not my master," if they convict him his master shall cut off his ear.

 

If he hire an ass for threshing, the hire is twenty ka of corn.

 

If any one steal a water-wheel from the field, he shall pay five shekels in money to its owner.

 

If any one find runaway male or female slaves in the open country and bring them to their masters, the master of the slaves shall pay him two shekels of silver.

 

Mostly stuff dealing with dowry's, slaves, what crime results in what body part or child being killed (Good news! Faulty roofing only got your first born son killed!), payment for ox rental, etc

 

Is the first written laws we know of important? Surely. Greater Good? You decided.

 

I just have faith in something greater.  It is almost impossible to explain, hence the plethora of different religions in our world.  I believe the human spirit is far too complex to dismiss as an act of science. 

 

Science? Nah. Nature. It's awe inspiring to me to see things play out, step by step. What works moves on. What doesn't eventually fails.

 

Do I believe that God spoke to Abraham, Moses, and Muhammad?  I believe that the human spirit can achieve amazing things.  Whether the stories are true or not, no one can dismiss the impact these humans had on the history of man.

 

I know there is a respectable argument that a guy named Jesus existed at some point. However, as for Moses, their isn't a shred of evidence outside the religious texts. You think that 600,000+ people walking through the desert for 40 years would leave some sort of trail.

 

Plus, the Ancient Egyptians were fantastic record keepers. Texts, sculpture and artifacts testify to a sophisticated culture. There is no evidence for the existence of Moses. Although he is portrayed as an influential member of the Egyptian royal household, he is not mentioned in any Egyptian record. Nor is there any evidence to support the idea that the Jews were ever held captive in Egypt or that they made any exodus from the country under Moses

Edited October 28, 2006 by kumquatq3

[kumquatq3]

Is it known whether Abraham and Moses actually existed?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Historically, there is no reason to doubt their existence.

 

I completely disagree, see above post.

 

I would say there is nothing to support the story as fact or Moses as a real person (close to the person in the story)

[Pidesco]

Is it known whether Abraham and Moses actually existed?

 

Historically, there is no reason to doubt their existence. Even if the stories of their lives are exaggerated, there is enough archeological evidence to support the time and places as accurate. It makes little sense to completely fabricate an individual and spread the stories across the world and over the centuries. The odds are much greater that these individuals existed. Of course, over time you need to account for events being exaggerated or altered. Much of what we know about these figures was passed down through oral traditions. With Muhammad, the Qu'ran was completed 15 years after his death, so we have a much more accurate account of his life. Abraham and Moses (and I'm not a theological scholar so I could be wrong) is going to be less accurate because the written records available are written much later than their lifetime.

 

I don't think there's any archaeological evidence for the Exodus.

[metadigital]

Is it known whether Abraham and Moses actually existed?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Historically, there is no reason to doubt their existence. Even if the stories of their lives are exaggerated, there is enough archeological evidence to support the time and places as accurate. It makes little sense to completely fabricate an individual and spread the stories across the world and over the centuries. The odds are much greater that these individuals existed. Of course, over time you need to account for events being exaggerated or altered. Much of what we know about these figures was passed down through oral traditions. With Muhammad, the Qu'ran was completed 15 years after his death, so we have a much more accurate account of his life. Abraham and Moses (and I'm not a theological scholar so I could be wrong) is going to be less accurate because the written records available are written much later than their lifetime.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't think there's any archaeological evidence for the Exodus.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I know there is no archeological evidence for the Exodus. But that isn't what you asked; you asked if it was reasonable to conclude that Moses and Abraham ever existed.

 

As there are three major faiths based upon Abraham, he probably did exist. Whether he tried to decapitate his son is a moot point; why he would want to, either because he thought god was buzzing his personal pager or not, is another completely separate question.

[Xard]

Or maybe God really contacted him (w00t)

[Dark Moth]

I know there is no archeological evidence for the Exodus. But that isn't what you asked; you asked if it was reasonable to conclude that Moses and Abraham ever existed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

http://www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm?q...s*listing*title

 

Not a confirmation of the Exodus in any way, but you might find this of interest. It deals with archealogical, historical, and geographic evidence.

 

Edit: Here's a better link.

http://www.biblio.com/books/7026095.html

Edited October 28, 2006 by Dark Moth

[kumquatq3]

As there are three major faiths based upon Abraham, he probably did exist.

 

At least 2 religions have Hercules and Odysseus. In those stories they often visit factual places iirc.

 

Would you assume because there are stories about them, statues even, that they actually existed in any form that resembles the story?

[Hurlshort]

Can anyone tell me why Hebrews would make up the story of the Exodus? What is the point of that? It is one thing to doubt that the exodus took place exactly like the story says, but it is another to doubt that there was some type of exodus.

 

I am completely willing to admit that biblical stories are probably exaggerated. But it seems fairly close-minded to discount them altogether.

[Dark Moth]

As there are three major faiths based upon Abraham, he probably did exist.

 

At least 2 religions have Hercules and Odysseus. In those stories they often visit factual places iirc.

 

Would you assume because there are stories about them, statues even, that they actually existed in any form that resembles the story?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just out of curiosity Kum, have you actuallly researched this yourself? Abraham, I mean.

[kumquatq3]

http://www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm?q...s*listing*title

 

Not a confirmation of the Exodus in any way, but you might find this of interest.  It deals with archealogical, historical, and geographic evidence.

 

Edit:  Here's a better link.

http://www.biblio.com/books/7026095.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Just a link to a book cover, no overview or anything, can you fill us in?

[kumquatq3]

Can anyone tell me why Hebrews would make up the story of the Exodus?  What is the point of that?  It is one thing to doubt that the exodus took place exactly like the story says, but it is another to doubt that there was some type of exodus.

 

I am completely willing to admit that biblical stories are probably exaggerated.  But it seems fairly close-minded to discount them altogether.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Why make up Paul Bunion and his big Blue Ox or John Henry.

 

Entertainment? Morality tails?

 

Maybe it would be close minded to discount their message, but not their "facts".

[Hurlshort]

At least 2 religions have Hercules and Odysseus.  In those stories they often visit factual places iirc.

 

Would you assume because there are stories about them, statues even, that they actually existed in any form that resembles the story?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hercules and Odysseus were likely famous Greek warriors that, through oral traditions, became legendary figures. We have plenty of more recent figures that have become legends. Davy Crockett is an example.

 

Sure, there is a chance that Odysseus is a completely fabricated character, but fiction usually reflects the truth. We can prove the Trojan wars happened, so it's not outrageous to think that famous generals arose.

[kumquatq3]

As there are three major faiths based upon Abraham, he probably did exist.

 

At least 2 religions have Hercules and Odysseus. In those stories they often visit factual places iirc.

 

Would you assume because there are stories about them, statues even, that they actually existed in any form that resembles the story?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just out of curiosity Kum, have you actuallly researched this yourself? Abraham, I mean.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As I said last page, i can't speak to Abraham off the top of my head. Metas post wasn't talking about evidence, other than the guy appears in various texts. I was simply showing that isn't a basis for belief alone.

[Dark Moth]

http://www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm?q...s*listing*title

 

Not a confirmation of the Exodus in any way, but you might find this of interest.  It deals with archealogical, historical, and geographic evidence.

 

Edit:  Here's a better link.

http://www.biblio.com/books/7026095.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Just a link to a book cover, no overview or anything, can you fill us in?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here's an Amazon link with a description, this should help.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Exodus-Story-Behind-...t/dp/0062509691

 

Unfortunately I have not read the whole book, only parts, as the copy I first found was in my school's library. Basically the guy deals with the geogrpahic evidence for some natural disaster that may have happened around the time of the Exodus and accounted for many of the occurences in the book. He explains it more in terms of a natural occurance than some form of divine influence. The book is based on some concepts like a volcanic eruption and ensuing natural causes that may have caused the plauges, the Hebrews actually not crossing the Red Sea but some other body of water, etc. There are some things in there that contradict Biblical teaching, but I thought someone who might want to learn more about it might want to take a look at it.

[kumquatq3]

At least 2 religions have Hercules and Odysseus.  In those stories they often visit factual places iirc.

 

Would you assume because there are stories about them, statues even, that they actually existed in any form that resembles the story?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hercules and Odysseus were likely famous Greek warriors that, through oral traditions, became legendary figures. We have plenty of more recent figures that have become legends. Davy Crockett is an example.

 

Sure, there is a chance that Odysseus is a completely fabricated character, but fiction usually reflects the truth. We can prove the Trojan wars happened, so it's not outrageous to think that famous generals arose.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yep, that's possible, and it is actually my point.

 

However, that would likely mean these people are so far removed from the legends that speak of them that the fact they lived is meaningless. As the people being spoken of only bear a passing resemblance to them.

 

The tails live on for entertainment or because of a precieved social value.

[Hurlshort]

The tails live on for entertainment or because of a precieved social value.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Perceived social value is entirely correct. It seems like we can both agree that the facts of their lives are less important than the message these stories bear.

[kumquatq3]

The book is based on some concepts like a volcanic eruption and ensuing natural causes that may have caused the plauges, the Hebrews actually not crossing the Red Sea but some other body of water, etc.  There are some things in there that contradict Biblical teaching, but I thought someone who might want to learn more about it might want to take a look at it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is actually what I thought, as I've heard it before. The thought it wasn't the Red sea, but some marsh that was prone to evaporation at times of the year, etc.

 

However, the crossing of the red sea is important because it is supposed to depict a miracle. Crossing a marsh isn't much of a miracle.

 

and I think another argument is that the Egyptians wouldn't record a loss (even tho they recorded other losses.)

 

Penn & Teller did a Bull**** episode on it

[metadigital]

As there are three major faiths based upon Abraham, he probably did exist.

At least 2 religions have Hercules and Odysseus. In those stories they often visit factual places iirc.

 

Would you assume because there are stories about them, statues even, that they actually existed in any form that resembles the story?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's an equivocation fallacy; but for the sake of your argument, yes, I would assume that they actually did exist. Whether their existence resembles what we have in stories today is irrelevant.

[kumquatq3]

The tails live on for entertainment or because of a precieved social value.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Perceived social value is entirely correct. It seems like we can both agree that the facts of their lives are less important than the message these stories bear.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I didn't say message here. I also said entertainment. Entertainment purposes can be seen as a social value.

 

However, if the stories are false, and are repeated for the message, what message is really being sent if all the miracles and such are false?

 

Is Paul Bunion told because it has a deep message? Not only that, I don't believe it's a American myth. It was borrowed from another culture iirc.

[metadigital]

Can anyone tell me why Hebrews would make up the story of the Exodus?  What is the point of that?  It is one thing to doubt that the exodus took place exactly like the story says, but it is another to doubt that there was some type of exodus.

 

I am completely willing to admit that biblical stories are probably exaggerated.  But it seems fairly close-minded to discount them altogether.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure. I can.

 

 

The story of Exodus is a metaphor about the transition of humans (the Hebrews) moving from a pantheon to a single God. The Hebrew God being one that is not confined to a geography (like Poseidon was God of the Water) or events (Poseidon was God of Storms); the Hebrew god can move through a desert as a burning bush.

 

See? metaphor

n noun a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable. ⇒a thing regarded as symbolic of something else.

 

DERIVATIVES

metaphoric adjective

metaphorical adjective

metaphorically adverb

 

ORIGIN

C15: from French m

[kumquatq3]

As there are three major faiths based upon Abraham, he probably did exist.

At least 2 religions have Hercules and Odysseus. In those stories they often visit factual places iirc.

 

Would you assume because there are stories about them, statues even, that they actually existed in any form that resembles the story?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's an equivocation fallacy; but for the sake of your argument, yes, I would assume that they actually did exist. Whether their existence resembles what we have in stories today is irrelevant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So you assume Hercules existed.

 

However, you are incorrect, the stories resembling the reality of the person is VERY important.

 

If Hercules is half God, don't you think you're worshiping the wrong Gods?

[Dark Moth]

The book is based on some concepts like a volcanic eruption and ensuing natural causes that may have caused the plauges, the Hebrews actually not crossing the Red Sea but some other body of water, etc.  There are some things in there that contradict Biblical teaching, but I thought someone who might want to learn more about it might want to take a look at it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is actually what I thought, as I've heard it before. The thought it wasn't the Red sea, but some marsh that was prone to evaporation at times of the year, etc.

 

However, the crossing of the red sea is important because it is supposed to depict a miracle. Crossing a marsh isn't much of a miracle.

 

and I think another argument is that the Egyptians wouldn't record a loss (even tho they recorded other losses.)

 

Penn & Teller did a Bull**** episode on it

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, the body of water in the book is not a marsh. That also, as you said, would not be much of a miracle. Also, ever hear of Nefertiti?

[metadigital]

So you assume Hercules existed.

 

However, you are incorrect, the stories resembling the reality of the person is VERY important.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To whom?

If Hercules is half God, don't you think you're worshiping the wrong Gods?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who said I was worshipping any gods?