addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwchatcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrosseditemptyheartexportfacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgoogleimagesinstagramlinklocation-pinmagnifying-glassmailminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1outlookpersonplusprice-ribbonImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruseryahoo

Re: [KC-Midtown-FreeThinkers] Dear Religion - >>>>>>>>>>­>> I'm sorry, but I don't believe in Revolution.

From: Fred
Sent on: Thursday, August 16, 2012 10:12 PM
Getting a bit out of our field here on the Jericho thing, for both you and for me, but my experience tells me that people looking for inconsistencies will find them, and people looking for corroborations will find them.  Being a skeptic myself, I'm actually more impressed whenever I see an archeological or historical corroboration, and there are plenty of them.

I've been a reader of Biblical Archeology Review (which usually tries to give both sides of archeological disagreements) since I was young , and here's a one-paragraph summary of how they dealt with this in an article titled:  "Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho?"

After the death of Kenyon in 1978, her notebooks and raw data were published in 1980-83. The archaeologist Bryant G Wood has examined her data and concluded that she was mistaken in her dating. He reports his conclusions in an article, "Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A new look at the archaeological evidence" in the March-April 1990 issue of the BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY REVIEW, pages 44-59. It appears that Kenyon dated the fall of City IV at the beginning of the Late Bronze I period [masked] BC), because her diggings were completely lacking in pottery imported from Cyprus, commonly found in other sites of that period. But, as, Wood points out, the other sites were on established trade routes. Jericho was not. Moreover, the area that Kenyon excavated was in the low-rent quarter of Jericho, where luxuries like imported pottery were unlikely to be plentiful. So, Wood summarizes: "She based her dating on the fact that she failed to find expensive, imported pottery in a small excavation area [two 26-foot by 26-foot squares] in an impoverished part of a city located far from major trade routes!" (p 50) If we forget about imported pottery, and look at the local product, we find that there is an abundance of Late Bronze I pottery there. (Kenyon saw it, but apparently had already settled on the earlier date, and somehow the message did not get through.) The dates from local pottery are confirmed by funeral scarabs which bear the names of pharaohs and so can be explicitly dated. We also have a lump of charcoal from the fall of the city, dated by Carbon-14 tests as 1410 BC, give or take 40 years. Thus the fall of City IV seems fixed at about 1400 BC.

I'm not sure what to make of this myself (and the situation is actually more complex because many scholars use the Egyptian chronologies to date the Joshua conquest to 1290 BCE), but I think firm conclusions have not yet been reached on this one.

To say that deism is more credible than a revealed God because it asserts so little is almost a tautology: it's merely acknowledging that it's easier to believe something simple than to believe something complex - which has nothing to do with the truth of the matter. 

Many of us would find the notion of divine revelation equally incredible, compared with deistic indifference, whether or not divine revelation ever actually occurred.

And I for one do see God at work in the universe today - I see it in the nuclear fusion that controls the radiation of energy from our sun, I see it in the continuous evolution of the living world, I see it in the processes that create stars and the material for new worlds, I see it in the drama of human life.  I see all that deistic big bang initial conditions stuff as mere prelude.


On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Josh Hyde <[address removed]> wrote:
Figure I'll toss my hat into the ring.

While I can't speak for Iggy, the reason I don't believe in the Abrahamic god because the Bible has, as I'm sure you're aware, internal inconsistencies and factual inconsistencies (e.g., the Battle of Jericho[1]), and, so, as verifiable parts of the Bible have apparently been proven false, I can't accept its "un-falsifiable" portions (as defined by the principle of NOMA) such as the divinity of Jesus or the existence of God.

I think I agree with Iggy in that deism seems more credible to me than, say, Christianity because it asserts so little about a god figure. The explanation of why we don't see that god at work in our universe today is because that god left pretty much at the beginning of the universe.


On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Fred <[address removed]> wrote:
What I thought.  No answer.  You're "pretending to know what you don't know" and can't apply the same standards to your view that you ask me to use to support mine.

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Kansas City Skeptic <[address removed]> wrote:

Your gnosticized new agey self made home brewed version of Xinaity reminds me of arguments like this.

When you click on this comic click "Zoom in"

So Iggy, how do you know that a "creator/cosmology designer" would do all this designing and then take no interest in the results?  And what kind of "variables" have you tested with "controls" to tell you that the Judeo-Christian god, in particular, is false?

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Kansas City Skeptic <[address removed]> wrote:
Fred wrote>>>>>>>> So most of what you say is arguing with a straw man version of Christianity, not mine.

Fred, you need to stop pretending to know what you don't know. Or rather pretending to know that it's OK to create your own version of Christianity in light of complete and utter probabilistic world and uncertainties that reign the world.

At best, your "creator/cosmology designer" exists but what is the probability of him/her/it being a Judeo Christian god? You don't have a variable to test and have any controls.

Hence, you are arguing for why circles are not squares or rather in your case that cycles are ellipses with two foci in the same location - god and scientific understanding of the universe. 

Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Fred ([address removed]) from KC Midtown FreeThinkers.
To learn more about Fred, visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]

Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Josh Hyde ([address removed]) from KC Midtown FreeThinkers.
To learn more about Josh Hyde, visit his/her member profile

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy