Reply #43: You never give up, do you?

[Zhade]

"Wrong - True that Myth rarely begins as WRITTEN history - and indeed
written history, as we have noted in such places as Egypt, can be a bunch of lies - or if you like - 3 and 4 thousand year old "political" statements/spin.

Not sure what things from Egypt "we've" noticed - I don't recall having that discussion with you - but yes, myths are often told and retold, with lots of morphing and changes, before written down.


"There is no set theory concept that says history is excluded from myth."

I have no idea what you mean by 'set theory concept', as you tend to make up definitions for terms, but in any case I never made that argument, so it's a strawman I won't waste time addressing.


"We are agreed that "evidence" and "lack of evidence" are judgment calls - adding the words "you are biased toward accepting/rejecting" does not change that."

Um, no. I never agreed with you on that. In fact, the discussion of evidence being some sort of judgment call never really surfaced, so another irrelevant part of your reply.

Now that you've mentioned such a possibility for the first time, I will address that briefly to say that no, evidence is not a judgment call. How an stone is structured is an informed observation by a qualified geologist, and a layperson's ignorance of same disqualifies him from overriding the informed observations and the veracity of that evidence. In other words, if one is too ignorant to support an argument that the geologist is wrong, the "judgment call" that he is wrong is going to be flawed due to that ignorance.

Evidence is something that can be witnessed by more than one person, with the sometime exception of eyewitnesses - and of course no believers alive eyewitnessed the alleged events of their personal belief system's myths.


"I like that you are not making that "argument" and then you mention additional reasons why "made out of whole cloth" is an option."

Another falsity - I did not mention reasons why it is an option, only that it could be an option.


"As to retranslation and mistranslation, the dead sea discover seemed to put to rest the idea of great error developing over time from the process used to bring the information forward in time."

Says you. Pony up some evidence to support your claim.


"Greek, to this day, has multiple meanings for the same word - as does English. There is no "proof" of a mistranslation of the words used 2000 years ago - although there is multiple opinions as to such items as "virgin"."

Again, so you say. Please offer evidence of these multiple opinions, if you expect that claim to be taken as true.


"Why do you demand proof of the history?"

Well, I would say I demand evidence, not proof, and that because without evidence, I can't be certain it actually happened. I mean, duh. That's really not obvious to you?


"Science will provide that proof eventually is not good enough for you?"

I'm actually unsure what this part of the question means. You'll have to rephrase it, as I can't puzzle out what you mean.


"We now have a plausible if not a good "great flood" theory - the Med rising over the height of the natural barriers and flooding inland, and for the parting of the Red Sea being the effect of "nature" whacking the island of Thera. I do not care if they literally happened, you do, so these new science findings I suspect may be challenges to your atheist faith."

I. Do. Not. Have. An. Atheist. Faith. I have NEVER made the positive claim that "god does not exist". You are ascribing an argument to me that I never made, and thus distorting my position. It is intellectually dishonest, because you already know that it is not an argument I made.

Saying "I don't believe in aliens" is NOT the same as saying "I believe it is proven aliens do not exist". The former is a statement made due to lack of evidence for aliens, the other is an affirmative (and faith-based) claim.

Once again, I have never made that claim, because I am honest enough to realize that, as I cannot possibly know all knowledge in the universe, I cannot make that positive claim. Where I differ from you is that I don't make the opposite positive claim, also without evidence for its validity. If I HAD made that claim at some point in my life, you would be justified in saying I had "atheist faith" that there is no god. You'd be right. You're not, because I've never said the words you put in my mouth. Nor do I think that affirmative claim to be true. Maybe one day we'll actually have evidence for some god or gods. Since we don't at this point, I no more believe in them than I do Santa Claus.

You have been told - repeatedly - that your description of our atheism is arrogant and wrong. Why do you continue to attempt to define our atheism for us? Do I define your worldview for you? No. I would appreciate the same courtesy in reverse - I assume you've seen Skinner's thread on respect.

Now, as to the 'plausible theory' - yes, I am aware that a large-scale flood (possibly from a tsunami) may likely be the inspiration for countless Great Flood myths, including the biblical one. I'm glad you're not dim enough to think a worldwide flood wiping out all but a handful of humans and an impossible amount of animals on a boat literally happened.

(Note: I do think there was another mistranslation for "Reed Sea" to "Red Sea". It's how I recall it, anyway. If you feel so inclined, Google can find it. I'm not really pressing that point, as it's late).


"As to Bible mentioned events not existing outside the Bible, I posit that is still a matter up for discussion."

I'm always up for an honest discussion - which starts with mutual respect for the other person. I do not sense such respect from you, as you continually refuse to allow us atheists to define ourselves. Hell, when AZ gets offended, you should take a friggin' hint.


"But we...are both against "people try to legislate or somehow force their beliefs onto others.""

Yes. That is a good thing.


"I am also cool with your beliefs, indeed as Frank S said 30 years before Lennon, if Lennon ever said it, "Whatever gets you through the night".

You haven't been exposed to my beliefs, really.


"But please do not insult my intelligence by assuming I would accept your subjective personal experiences as actual evidence of the veracity of your belief in no God - no matter how you may try to reword that belief so as to claim it really is a "no belief", as you amuse us by arguing for the correctness of "no belief"."

Again with the willfully wrong arrogance. Don't believe there's no god, just don't believe in unproven gods. Haven't had any experiences to 'confirm there is no god' - how does one have an experience of nothingness?

No matter how amusing you find it to mock those who wish to define themselves, you are still wrong and will always be wrong.


"Truly it is sad that you have no concrete answer to your question. Perhaps noting the cognitive dissonance inherent in choosing a side in any debate is the beginning of wisdom?"

Haven't chosen a side - I have a position by default on the one side simply due to the fact that I don't believe in unproven gods. See, it's not specific to your god. I don't believe in the unproven Muslim myths, or Hindu, or Inuit, or whatever. So you see, I don't believe there is no god, I lack a belief in all of the unproven gods to date.


"Or if you prefer, stay with I'm right, your wrong, let's discuss why you are so stupid ("cognitive dissonance") and choose to be wrong. Whatever floats your boat."

Calling me stupid right to my face? Suggesting that I am wrong in how I define myself? Your arrogance never ceases.