[split] Shhh! No talking in the Resource Library.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-05-2017, 12:01 PM (This post was last modified: 29-05-2017 01:03 PM by DLJ.)
[split] Shhh! No talking in the Resource Library.
Hello, new here, I got to say really nice resources, I have a question though, is this information Backed by evidence (Especially Bucky Ball's Posts) Archaeological or otherwise, Because right now more then ever it seems like everyone is revising history and not in the good way, I just want to make sure.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2017, 01:23 PM (This post was last modified: 28-05-2017 01:45 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Atheist / Agnostic Informational Resource Library
(28-05-2017 12:01 PM)OmniConsUme Wrote:  Hello, new here, I got to say really nice resources, I have a question though, is this information Backed by evidence (Especially Bucky Ball's Posts) Archaeological or otherwise, Because right now more then ever it seems like everyone is revising history and not in the good way, I just want to make sure.

How exactly, is "everyone revising History, and not in a good way " ? What is "good way" ?
I stand by everything I ever wrote.
Archaeology and other scholarship has discovered almost all the bullshit religionists ever taught is false.




Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2017, 06:54 PM
RE: Atheist / Agnostic Informational Resource Library
(28-05-2017 01:23 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(28-05-2017 12:01 PM)OmniConsUme Wrote:  Hello, new here, I got to say really nice resources, I have a question though, is this information Backed by evidence (Especially Bucky Ball's Posts) Archaeological or otherwise, Because right now more then ever it seems like everyone is revising history and not in the good way, I just want to make sure.

How exactly, is "everyone revising History, and not in a good way " ? What is "good way" ?
I stand by everything I ever wrote.
Archaeology and other scholarship has discovered almost all the bullshit religionists ever taught is false.




Technically, you revise history when new information is found. The Problem is right now is people seem to be revising history not when new information is found but in order to further their own cause.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2017, 07:01 PM (This post was last modified: 28-05-2017 07:05 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Atheist / Agnostic Informational Resource Library
(28-05-2017 06:54 PM)OmniConsUme Wrote:  
(28-05-2017 01:23 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  How exactly, is "everyone revising History, and not in a good way " ? What is "good way" ?
I stand by everything I ever wrote.
Archaeology and other scholarship has discovered almost all the bullshit religionists ever taught is false.




Technically, you revise history when new information is found. The Problem is right now is people seem to be revising history not when new information is found but in order to further their own cause.

I believe the term you're looking for is not "revise history" but "uncover new facts that need to be incorporated into our knowledge about history". Call it a minor quibble, if you will, but I think the difference is important.

If you can think of an example of "not when new information is found...", I'd be curious to know what in the nine hells you're talking about.

The guy being cited in the video, above, for instance, is (quote) "the Jacob M. Alkow Professor of the Archaeology of Israel in the Bronze and Iron Ages at Tel Aviv University. Finkelstein is widely regarded as a leading scholar in the archaeology of the Levant and a foremost applicant of archaeological data in reconstructing biblical history."

If you think that the head professor of the archaeology of ancient Israel at Tel Aviv University, himself an Israeli, is "revising history to suit an agenda", I'd be reeeeeeeeeeeally curious to hear you build a case for that proposition.

Edit to Add: Sorry if I sound harsh, but this kind of thing raises my ire. Mainly, the people I hear objecting to versions (or "revisions", as you put it) of history they dislike are not objecting to the facts or new discoveries, but with the fact that they like the manufactured version of history that the priest class has told for centuries, and don't like that the actual discoveries on the ground conflict with those stories.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
28-05-2017, 07:13 PM (This post was last modified: 28-05-2017 07:29 PM by OmniConsUme.)
RE: Atheist / Agnostic Informational Resource Library
(28-05-2017 07:01 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(28-05-2017 06:54 PM)OmniConsUme Wrote:  Technically, you revise history when new information is found. The Problem is right now is people seem to be revising history not when new information is found but in order to further their own cause.

I believe the term you're looking for is not "revise history" but "uncover new facts that need to be incorporated into our knowledge about history". Call it a minor quibble, if you will, but I think the difference is important.

If you can think of an example of "not when new information is found...", I'd be curious to know what in the nine hells you're talking about.

The guy being cited in the video, above, for instance, is (quote) "the Jacob M. Alkow Professor of the Archaeology of Israel in the Bronze and Iron Ages at Tel Aviv University. Finkelstein is widely regarded as a leading scholar in the archaeology of the Levant and a foremost applicant of archaeological data in reconstructing biblical history."

If you think that the head professor of the archaeology of ancient Israel at Tel Aviv University, himself an Israeli, is "revising history to suit an agenda", I'd be reeeeeeeeeeeally curious to hear you build a case for that proposition.

Edit to Add: Sorry if I sound harsh, but this kind of thing raises my ire. Mainly, the people I hear objecting to versions (or "revisions", as you put it) of history they dislike are not objecting to the facts or new discoveries, but with the fact that they like the manufactured version of history that the priest class has told for centuries, and don't like that the actual discoveries on the ground conflict with those stories.





The New Japanease First Party is now basically saying the war crimes during the Imperial Period Didn't Happen.

Plus Holocaust Deniers.
Le Pen especially.

Plus the our own Church,

Both Parties in the US right now,
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2017, 07:32 PM
RE: Atheist / Agnostic Informational Resource Library
(28-05-2017 06:54 PM)OmniConsUme Wrote:  
(28-05-2017 01:23 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  How exactly, is "everyone revising History, and not in a good way " ? What is "good way" ?
I stand by everything I ever wrote.
Archaeology and other scholarship has discovered almost all the bullshit religionists ever taught is false.




Technically, you revise history when new information is found. The Problem is right now is people seem to be revising history not when new information is found but in order to further their own cause.

Unfortunately for you, all kinds of new information has been found.
The fact is, most religious stories, which may have been accepted as history, in fact were nothing but made up stories.
We now know the actual history. The things that have been revised, are the myths. and fiction.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2017, 07:39 PM
RE: Atheist / Agnostic Informational Resource Library
(28-05-2017 07:32 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(28-05-2017 06:54 PM)OmniConsUme Wrote:  Technically, you revise history when new information is found. The Problem is right now is people seem to be revising history not when new information is found but in order to further their own cause.

Unfortunately for you, all kinds of new information has been found.

I'm not trying to attack you guys, actually. In fact I like History, But more and More, I go into a random room and people say something that contradicts history, in politics, in society, and in war. I just getting a little sad, and a little hesitent now.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2017, 07:39 PM
RE: Atheist / Agnostic Informational Resource Library
(28-05-2017 07:13 PM)OmniConsUme Wrote:  
(28-05-2017 07:01 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I believe the term you're looking for is not "revise history" but "uncover new facts that need to be incorporated into our knowledge about history". Call it a minor quibble, if you will, but I think the difference is important.

If you can think of an example of "not when new information is found...", I'd be curious to know what in the nine hells you're talking about.

The guy being cited in the video, above, for instance, is (quote) "the Jacob M. Alkow Professor of the Archaeology of Israel in the Bronze and Iron Ages at Tel Aviv University. Finkelstein is widely regarded as a leading scholar in the archaeology of the Levant and a foremost applicant of archaeological data in reconstructing biblical history."

If you think that the head professor of the archaeology of ancient Israel at Tel Aviv University, himself an Israeli, is "revising history to suit an agenda", I'd be reeeeeeeeeeeally curious to hear you build a case for that proposition.

Edit to Add: Sorry if I sound harsh, but this kind of thing raises my ire. Mainly, the people I hear objecting to versions (or "revisions", as you put it) of history they dislike are not objecting to the facts or new discoveries, but with the fact that they like the manufactured version of history that the priest class has told for centuries, and don't like that the actual discoveries on the ground conflict with those stories.





The New Japanease First Party is now basically saying the war crimes during the Imperial Period Didn't Happen.

Plus Holocaust Deniers.
Le Pen especially.

Plus the our own Church,

Both Parties in the US right now,

All totally irrelevant to the topics at hand, here.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2017, 07:42 PM
RE: Atheist / Agnostic Informational Resource Library
(28-05-2017 07:39 PM)OmniConsUme Wrote:  
(28-05-2017 07:32 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Unfortunately for you, all kinds of new information has been found.

I'm not trying to attack you guys, actually. In fact I like History, But more and More, I go into a random room and people say something that contradicts history, in politics, in society, and in war. I just getting a little sad, and a little hesitent now.

Yet you have in fact not even mentioned ONE KNOWN HISTORICAL FACT, that you think has been contradicted here. It appears you know very little of the history of the ancient Near East.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2017, 07:44 PM
RE: Atheist / Agnostic Informational Resource Library
(28-05-2017 07:13 PM)OmniConsUme Wrote:  



The New Japanease First Party is now basically saying the war crimes during the Imperial Period Didn't Happen.

The motives of the New Japanese First Party are obvious: they consider the war crimes of the Imperial Period are an embarrassment to their sense of national pride/identity, and want to try to pretend they're not really there. The facts haven't changed, only their willingness to be honest about them.

Dr. Finkelstein is the exact opposite of that. He has every reason to try to prop up the raison d'etre of the current Israeli state, and yet his findings have compelled him to admit that most of what we read in the Hebrew scriptures (which we now know were written nearly 500 years after the Davidic period) are fabricated or greatly, greatly embellished. He should be denying these things, if what you claim is going on here is actually true, but instead he is admitting his findings honestly, despite the fact that the current Likud Party administration would prefer to base their claims to the land for the nation of Israel on the scriptural account, so his position could land him in potential hot water.

As I said, this is the opposite of your claim.


(28-05-2017 07:13 PM)OmniConsUme Wrote:  Plus Holocaust Deniers.
Le Pen especially.

Plus the our own Church,

Both Parties in the US right now,

Again, these people either have "preferred identity" issues that compel them to employ alternative facts that are easily disproved by serious academia, or else they are people who lie by profession (politicians). None of this has anything to do with serious scholarship on the subject of Biblical archaeology. Indeed, many people in the field of theology and/or Biblical history tend to shade things in favor of the traditional account, but most of the ones who are serious academics do not, and readily admit to the things we talk about here on this board.

I've watched Bucky's posts for a couple of years, now, and I've observed that he prefers to link people (most of the time) to religious scholars like Finkelstein, rather than to atheist scholars, because if they're honest academics, the end result of their research is generally useful to his points on how twisted most people's idea has become about what the Bible says and why (and how they fail to match the facts discovered via archaeology).

If you're going to make the accusation that we're shading things, you'd best bring something other than "well, some people do lie about it" as evidence that what we're saying or citing is untrue.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: