A "gotcha" argument for Satan
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-05-2015, 09:55 AM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
(07-05-2015 12:47 PM)Plan 9 from OS Wrote:  
(07-05-2015 12:38 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You're begging the question of when did people leave Africa? Roots of languages have been traced to a source that is some thousands, not 100,000 or 1,000,000 years old. Again, this is where the Bible states something that science agrees with...

The earliest know written records are 5000 years old in Sumeria (3300 BC - 3000 BC). Are you sure you are not referring to written language? Or is Sumerian the mother tongue of origin in your opinion?

No matter which language tree you ascribe to, like these at https://www.google.com/search?q=tree+of+...0&bih=969, somehow the highly intelligent humans have language as 1) a recent development 2) one proto-language/source. Current science would thus tell me that the continents have been separated for eons of time, but that there were no humans on certain continents and no shipbuilding/ice age land bridges and language propagation until relatively recently--but we don't want to believe the Bible accounts or a Flood story.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2015, 11:41 AM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
(08-05-2015 09:55 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(07-05-2015 12:47 PM)Plan 9 from OS Wrote:  The earliest know written records are 5000 years old in Sumeria (3300 BC - 3000 BC). Are you sure you are not referring to written language? Or is Sumerian the mother tongue of origin in your opinion?

No matter which language tree you ascribe to, like these at https://www.google.com/search?q=tree+of+...0&bih=969, somehow the highly intelligent humans have language as 1) a recent development 2) one proto-language/source. Current science would thus tell me that the continents have been separated for eons of time, but that there were no humans on certain continents and no shipbuilding/ice age land bridges and language propagation until relatively recently--but we don't want to believe the Bible accounts or a Flood story.

What are you trying to say there? Why can't you just state whatever it is clearly?

North America was settled mostly from eastern asia about 12,000 - 15,000 years ago during the last ice age. Sea level was lower due to water locked up as ice so there was a Beringia land bridge.
There is evidence that they may not have been the first or only migration to the Americas.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
08-05-2015, 12:09 PM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
(08-05-2015 09:55 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(07-05-2015 12:47 PM)Plan 9 from OS Wrote:  The earliest know written records are 5000 years old in Sumeria (3300 BC - 3000 BC). Are you sure you are not referring to written language? Or is Sumerian the mother tongue of origin in your opinion?

No matter which language tree you ascribe to, like these at https://www.google.com/search?q=tree+of+...0&bih=969, somehow the highly intelligent humans have language as 1) a recent development 2) one proto-language/source. Current science would thus tell me that the continents have been separated for eons of time, but that there were no humans on certain continents and no shipbuilding/ice age land bridges and language propagation until relatively recently--but we don't want to believe the Bible accounts or a Flood story.

Not really sure what the Bible agrees with here? A singular language is not likely in a way that you seem it is.

With our origins in Africa it's plausible early ancestors of our species spoke in grunts, whistles, etc. It's when enough of them came together that most likely a language began to take shape. Otherwise, you most likely had tribes here and there speaking in all sorts of clicks and whistles that had unique meanings to that tribe but not the other.

As civilization spreads and more cultures begin to settle down in those locations, those languages are then refined.

The Bible story of God getting pissed and generating X amount of languages doesn't match up with what we find, unless you're claiming that the Bible is correct in assuming one initial starting language. If you disregard the most likely thousands of dead click and whistle languages humans used to communicate with, and only count the one singular language from a group of humans that banded together as the "first" language, then maybe.

I mean, I'm sure I can find the research on this but you're smart enough to use the internet on your own.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2015, 01:06 PM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
Reverse psychology at its finest. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2015, 02:07 PM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
(08-05-2015 09:52 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(07-05-2015 02:06 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  These:

Egyptian, Sumerian, Akkadian, Eblaite, Elamite, Hurrian all predate the founding of the city of Babylon.


I will also note that Akkadian developed after the fall of the Sumerian empire, so it's an example of a set of languages existing and developing before the founding of the city of Babylon in 1849 B.C.

Language developed naturally as people and culture spread across the Mesopotamian region, not as the result of a mythical confusion of languages by Enki, YHWH or any other deity.

Letter in Sumerian cuneiform sent by the high-priest Lu'enna, informing him the king of Lagash of his son's death in battle, c. 2400 BC

[Image: Letter_Luenna_Louvre_AO4238.jpg]

Seal impression from the tomb of Seth-Peribsen, containing the oldest known complete sentence in Egyptian, c. 2690 BC

[Image: Peribsen2.JPG]

Now, where's that citation?

From memory--though I guess we could look in Genesis 11--Babel was somewhere on the plains of Shinar, which city's construction halted as the tower was stopped and people were scattered. Babylon may have been named after Babel.

Repeating, do you have archaeology of an unfinished tower in the region you feel is Babel? Because that would be case for the Bible's truth--or perhaps you have an alternative interpretation.

Of course, I would say that if you insist Babylon was named after Babel, you'd be making a case for the Bible as accurate (in that one instance).

No, because the bible was written well after Babylon existed so it's likely that the biblical writer was making a political attack against a neighbor state. Political spin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2015, 02:31 PM (This post was last modified: 08-05-2015 02:58 PM by TheInquisition.)
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
(08-05-2015 09:52 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(07-05-2015 02:06 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  These:

Egyptian, Sumerian, Akkadian, Eblaite, Elamite, Hurrian all predate the founding of the city of Babylon.


I will also note that Akkadian developed after the fall of the Sumerian empire, so it's an example of a set of languages existing and developing before the founding of the city of Babylon in 1849 B.C.

Language developed naturally as people and culture spread across the Mesopotamian region, not as the result of a mythical confusion of languages by Enki, YHWH or any other deity.

Letter in Sumerian cuneiform sent by the high-priest Lu'enna, informing him the king of Lagash of his son's death in battle, c. 2400 BC

[Image: Letter_Luenna_Louvre_AO4238.jpg]

Seal impression from the tomb of Seth-Peribsen, containing the oldest known complete sentence in Egyptian, c. 2690 BC

[Image: Peribsen2.JPG]

Now, where's that citation?

From memory--though I guess we could look in Genesis 11--Babel was somewhere on the plains of Shinar, which city's construction halted as the tower was stopped and people were scattered. Babylon may have been named after Babel.

Repeating, do you have archaeology of an unfinished tower in the region you feel is Babel? Because that would be case for the Bible's truth--or perhaps you have an alternative interpretation.

Of course, I would say that if you insist Babylon was named after Babel, you'd be making a case for the Bible as accurate (in that one instance).

As always, you fail to understand evidence presented to you or you are deliberately misconstruing it. I will spell it out in bright red letters for you:

There is abundant proof for languages that existed long before Babel, Babylon, the Babylonian empire, whatever.

Now bigger red fonts:

This falsifies the Tower of Babel myth.

You made a bold statement about archeological evidence never refuting the bible, you are wrong.

Are you saying the city of Babel wasn't Babylon? Why are you doing this? Are you running from falsifiability like you did in the Noah's flood thread? Explain...

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheInquisition's post
08-05-2015, 03:17 PM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
(08-05-2015 02:31 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(08-05-2015 09:52 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  From memory--though I guess we could look in Genesis 11--Babel was somewhere on the plains of Shinar, which city's construction halted as the tower was stopped and people were scattered. Babylon may have been named after Babel.

Repeating, do you have archaeology of an unfinished tower in the region you feel is Babel? Because that would be case for the Bible's truth--or perhaps you have an alternative interpretation.

Of course, I would say that if you insist Babylon was named after Babel, you'd be making a case for the Bible as accurate (in that one instance).

As always, you fail to understand evidence presented to you or you are deliberately misconstruing it. I will spell it out in bright red letters for you:

There is abundant proof for languages that existed long before Babel, Babylon, the Babylonian empire, whatever.

Now bigger red fonts:

This falsifies the Tower of Babel myth.

You made a bold statement about archeological evidence never refuting the bible, you are wrong.

Are you saying the city of Babel wasn't Babylon? Why are you doing this? Are you running from falsifiability like you did in the Noah's flood thread? Explain...

I just read some of the apologetics for locating the Tower of Babel, holy Jesus mother-fucking Christ! It's just rambling speculation, they don't even know where the hell Shinar was or even if Babel is Babylon!

I made a mistake, I thought the bible actually referred to the city of Babylon, I see now that the myth writers of the bible wouldn't even be specific enough to use a real city. I gave the bible more credit than it deserved, it won't even reference real places in it's myths!

So I suppose Q isn't necessarily running from falsifiability, he's just ignorantly parroting apologists who are running from falsifiability.

My mistake was thinking the bible was using actual locations, and Q thinks that that lends credence to this myth! Facepalm

My point still stands, language was not the result of a deity confusing it, it was the result of cultural evolution over millenia.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2015, 03:42 PM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
Here's another example. The City of Troy was long to be a city of Legend. The setting for The Trojan war in the Iliad, and the Odyssey. However in resent years we have found this once mythological city. Now because we found this dose this confirm that there once lived an Achilles? Dipped into the river Styx to gain super human powers? Or confirm that the Greek Gods existed? No. All it proves is this city did. What we find from the dig will tell us more about the people that lived in the city. their methods for building.
Just like the Tower of Babel even if it was discovered isn't proof for the rest.

http://www.ancient.eu/troy/

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2015, 03:46 PM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
Just counter it with The greatest trick Loki has ever pulled is by fooling the world that him and the other gods don't exist.

It is every bit as valid as their claim.


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Shadow Fox's post
08-05-2015, 05:34 PM
RE: A "gotcha" argument for Satan
(08-05-2015 03:42 PM)Commonsensei Wrote:  Here's another example. The City of Troy was long to be a city of Legend. The setting for The Trojan war in the Iliad, and the Odyssey. However in resent years we have found this once mythological city. Now because we found this dose this confirm that there once lived an Achilles? Dipped into the river Styx to gain super human powers? Or confirm that the Greek Gods existed? No. All it proves is this city did. What we find from the dig will tell us more about the people that lived in the city. their methods for building.
Just like the Tower of Babel even if it was discovered isn't proof for the rest.

http://www.ancient.eu/troy/

Yep, just because David existed, it doesn't mean he actually slew Goliath and it sure doesn't prove all of the ridiculous miracle claims the bible makes.

As far as archeological refutation of the bible, many times it doesn't depend on what you find, but what you don't find.

We find no trace of anyone that ever lived over 200 years- so why believe the bible when it makes ridiculous claims of 500+ years for longevity?

This is enough to discount the creation and flood myth.

We find no mention of a large Jewish population in Egyptian records around the suspected time of Moses or any reference to first-born deaths or a mass livestock die-off. These kind of things would leave a large footprint upon history and there is none.

There's no reason to assume Moses is anything but a fable.

That doesn't leave a whole lot in the bible to support a belief in this particular deity, but it does build a strong case for a series of books that routinely exaggerate and outright lies about events.

This is what the bible ultimately proves, it's unreliable, it's cavalier with the truth, whoever wrote it was not concerned with the truth. It provides ample reason to disregard it as a source for truth -and that's exactly why biblical scholars dismiss it as literature.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: