701
A real headache to argue over
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2024
701 points (98.9% liked)
Atheist Memes
5626 readers
1 users here now
About
A community for the most based memes from atheists, agnostics, antitheists, and skeptics.
Rules
-
No Pro-Religious or Anti-Atheist Content.
-
No Unrelated Content. All posts must be memes related to the topic of atheism and/or religion.
-
No bigotry.
-
Attack ideas not people.
-
Spammers and trolls will be instantly banned no exceptions.
-
No False Reporting
-
NSFW posts must be marked as such.
Resources
International Suicide Hotlines
Non Religious Organizations
Freedom From Religion Foundation
Ex-theist Communities
Other Similar Communities
!religiouscringe@midwest.social
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm thinking, since it wasn't written down until centuries after it supposedly happened, that the most likely answer is that it was just bullshit.
The closest evidence we have to David even existing is a tablet caved by someone who [may have] claimed to be of the House of David.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_stele
Oral history is significantly more accurate than you're making it out to be.
There is no reason to assume oral history with no corroborating evidence is true and the lack of corroborating evidence is good reason to be skeptical.
The entire Bible is oral history. I assume you don't place similar validity in the Garden of Eden and the Tower of Babel.
I didn't say that oral history is 100% accurate. I said it's more accurate than you assume, which based on what you said seemed to be "it's all made up."
That is simply a lie.
I said "the most likely answer" is that it was bullshit due to only being oral history without any corroborating evidence. I did not even remotely imply that all oral history is made up.
Your basis for discounting it is "it wasn't written down." That's all oral tradition. I wasn't trying to argue with you, I just wanted to see an amendment to your statement that recognized that this sentence is inaccurate. Seeing as you're rolling back on it, I'll take it as such.
Yet again, "most likely answer" does not imply in any way that all oral history is made up. That's simply a lie.
I recognized nothing I said as inaccurate. That is another lie.
Stop lying.
I didn't say it did! I said that you're overly discounting oral history.
That is another lie. You said I assumed it was all made up.
This is what you said:
Absolutely nothing I said indicated that all oral history was made up, as I demonstrated by quoting it.
Just tell the truth for one fucking post.
Oh no, that dastardly word seemed is being ignored in my quote!
Sort of like those dastardly words "most likely" which is what your "seemed" was linked to?
Because I doubt you're so stupid that you think "most likely" means "every other possibility is wrong."
Again, what I said:
What you said:
Actually all my comments were peer reviewed by a liguist with experience in oral histories and they said my statements were accurate and clear, and that yours were definitely discounting oral history as a whole with your statement. I'll not be commenting any more as you seem fixed on a bad faith argument.
Wow. Virtually every comment you made had at least one lie and you have the temerity to say that.