Do you believe in God?

[Imari]

And as far as Logic, being human is more than Logic,it is faith. if you have been in any relationship it definitely is not based on Logic.

Are those the only two things, logic and faith?

Explain how being in a relationship is based on faith. If you stop believing in the other person, do they disappear? That'd be helpful for breaking up.

 

[dxld]

Are those the only two things, logic and faith?

Explain how being in a relationship is based on faith. If you stop believing in the other person, do they disappear? That'd be helpful for breaking up.

You gotta believe the other won't be cheating on you.

I'm not going to argue much tonite, it's Christmas Eve where I'm at...

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!

 

[Imari]

You gotta believe the other won't be cheating on you.

Not at all. Some people live in open relationships. Some people are into wife swapping and the like. There's no necessity for them to believe anything of the sort.

Even in a stereotypical relationship, there's no need to believe your partner isn't cheating. Either you have reason to suspect that they are cheating (or you know that they are) or you don't. If you have no reason to think that they're cheating, why do you have to believe anything?

It's remarkably similar to the God thing. Without evidence, why would you make any assumption about your partner's fidelity at all? You can't know, unless you handcuff yourself to your partner 24/7 (and that'd make a fine relationship). And yet with no evidence of cheating, the most sensible thing is to behave as if there was no cheating going on. Which is exactly what most people do. No need for belief, you simply act according to what evidence you have available to you.

 

[Denur]

You gotta believe the other won't be cheating on you.

You may be confusing "believe" with "trust". Here is an interesting read for you.

It’s “I Trust You” Vs “I believe in you”. What is the difference? For quite some time, people have been asking about the thoughts of this. What does it take to trust? And what does it take to believe. Does it necessarily follow that if we trust we believe, or vice versa?

According to Merriam-webster.com, Trust is the assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something, while believe is to accept something as true, real or possible. The keyword here is “Reliance”. You most likely rely on the things or people you trust not on the things you believe. I will not go into deeper contextual or linguistic perusals rather just allow me to share a short story to point out the difference.

This story is about Jean Francois Gravelet also known as “Charles Blondin”. He is a French tightrope walker who is best known for his numerous breathtaking tightrope walks 1100 ft across and 160 ft above the spectacular Niagara Falls. His most notable performances included crossing the tightrope with his eyes blindfolded, on another occasion he crossed on stilts and on another he even had stopped half way to cook and eat an omelet.

It is also through these performances that he taught the world one of the greatest distinction in life.

In one of his Niagara Falls exhibitions he decided to push a wheelbarrow over the tightrope, he performed it over the eyes of more than a thousand petrified audiences and like all the other previous treks, the wheelbarrow crossing was successful and greatly applauded. After the feat, he told the crowd “I will cross again going to the other side, but this time I will carry a man on the wheelbarrow”. He then asks them, “Who among you believe I can do it?!!”

The crowd shouted and cheered affirmations, it was like all of them claimed they believe in him. All of them were thrilled and all of them were excited to see the next trek.

Then Blondin said “Now, if you believe I can do it, who among you will volunteer to ride the wheelbarrow. Anyone please raise your hand?”

Guess what? Everyone was silenced; nobody among the thousands who believe raised his hand, nobody wants to ride in the wheelbarrow.

You believed in him after seeing him but will you trust him enough to lay your life in his hands?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

You gotta believe the other won't be cheating on you.

I'm not going to argue much tonite, it's Christmas Eve where I'm at...

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!

I second that.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!

 

[TB]

I wish every day was Christmas Eve.

 

[Dotini]

I second that.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!

The pagan in me wants to mutter, "Bah humbug!"

But instead I'll join today in company with my family in a positive spirit of faith, love and trust in each other, with best wishes to the rest of world, from animist to Zoroastrian.

 

[DQuaN]

I am currently in the countryside. There are clear skies. I have been outside for half an hour in the freezing cold, staring at the stars. It is illogical that a god would make all these wondrous possibilities of life and question. The real answer is going to be more breathtaking and wonderful than any religious text could ever try to describe. I stared at these stars with my grandmother-in-law who is a devout christian and we both took in the beauty of what they were for different reasons.

We both enjoyed it together.

Merry Christmas everyone.

 

[LeMansAid]

The real answer is going to be more breathtaking and wonderful than any religious text could ever try to describe.

A statement of a principal that can and should rest in the hearts of believers and non-believers alike.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I don't suppose any day soon you'd care to share what you found so convincing? Usually when people make claims like this we at least expect them to explain why. Presumably there's not the same level of "proof" required in this thread as most of the rest of the forum, but you could at least explain your reasoning.

Otherwise you really are just saying "You guys are wrong, and I'm right. But I won't tell you why. Neener neener neener." That's not a recipe for a productive discussion.

What is so convincing is the acquisition of the Holy Spirit.
That is the new birth.
Its a spiritual dimension and only receivable personally, individually.
That is why it is evidential by subjective testimony only.
And Jesus Christ is the only one who offers it.

I feel like I'm insulted being compared to SCJ. I find his posts dull and boring. He may be a good guy in person, but he is as boring as a Junior College Computer Science Teacher.

As a surviving minority veteran of this thread, I have found patience to be, not just a virtue, but a necessity as well.
Since to a great degree this is a investigative exercise, to quote Sherlock Holmes:

"Patience Watson and all will be revealed"

Exactly - hence why taking every word of the Bible as the literal truth is not possible.

Since it is obviously possible for the Bible to be true, then it can be taken as such.
If GOD is who he says he is, and he wrote the Bible as he says he did, then it is literally true.
Since as part of that he declares he cannot lie.

Of course, the big problem with holding a belief that is not based on any evidence at all is that it might just be completely and utterly wrong...

As I said in the beginning of this round, there is plenty of evidence.
But it is all subjective testimony evidence.
There is no objective evidence established either way.
For or against.
That obviously puts the subject in a individually evaluative category.
Uninfluenced, by objective factors.

Whether you can be proved wrong or not is irrelevant... by adopting a position of belief, the possibility exists that you could be wrong... conversely, by adopting the position of no belief (in God), the atheist cannot be wrong. The analogy with the coin toss is that you have chosen to gamble, and I have chosen not to. You can make the wrong choice - I can't.

You have it ass backwards TM.
You not only can be wrong, you are wrong, at least to some degree.
Just like all the rest of us, you found yourself, in this multi dimensional, mysterious, complexity called life, having absolutely nothing to say about it and knowing nothing about it.
Each person is an independant agent, having been bestowed with "Dominion" from the very beginning.
In that respect, you are right, you get to choose your own fate.
Or your own eventual reality, where there is no GOD to influence your circumstance.
If you are convinced there is no GOD, then that is precisely what you shall have.
That is not a very wise choice, but you can have it that way, if you want.
Thats not GOD's preference, but he will honor it.
All of that is also why, relationship with him is not found in Science or objective evidence.
It is all relationally based. Just like the term, "invitation only".
That has nothing to do with Science.
You can accept or decline.

You may be confusing "believe" with "trust". Here is an interesting read for you.

An excellent example of "percieved reality", versus "actual reality".
"Belief" and "trust" are actually the same.
If you really "believe", then you really "trust".
The test of risking your own life, is what proves the reality of your belief.
Or do you believe it to that extent.

 

[Imari]

What is so convincing is the acquisition of the Holy Spirit.
That is the new birth.
Its a spiritual dimension and only receivable personally, individually.
That is why it is evidential by subjective testimony only.
And Jesus Christ is the only one who offers it.

So what you're saying is no, you won't share.

Since it is obviously possible for the Bible to be true, then it can be taken as such.
If GOD is who he says he is, and he wrote the Bible as he says he did, then it is literally true.
Since as part of that he declares he cannot lie.

It's not obvious to me how it can be true. Would you like to explain further?

If we take what you say as correct, that God "wrote" the bible (through human agency, but still) and that it is literally true since he cannot lie, how do you resolve the contradictions?

http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

There are parts of the bible that has conflicting statements where they cannot both be true, unless you're in some wacky alternate universe where Joseph has two fathers.

You have it ass backwards TM.
You not only can be wrong, you are wrong, at least to some degree.

No, he can't be wrong. You're AGAIN mixing up atheism and non-theism.

If I say "I don't know if there is a God", how can that be wrong? I mean, unless I met up with him for pizza the other day and I'm just lying about it, but you already accept that there's no objective evidence for God so it can't be that.

You can accept or decline.

Bzzt. You're assuming that he's there. Which from your standpoint is fine, but not for the decision making process of an atheist.

If it's in question whether there is a God (or gods) there or not, as there obviously is for many of us, the question is not whether to accept or decline. The question is "is there anyone actually there"? Only if the answer is yes does it make any sense to accept or decline.

If the answer is maybe, then the answer is "well, I'll keep waiting until I see something that convinces me either way, otherwise I'm just wasting my time".

 

[Dotini]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/24/atheism-is-an-intellectual-luxury-for-the-wealthy/

An interesting article from an elite newspaper on atheism.

 

[Imari]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/24/atheism-is-an-intellectual-luxury-for-the-wealthy/

An interesting article from an elite newspaper on atheism.

I agree with the conclusion that Dawkins is an ass. He is intentionally an ass, that's his whole schtick. I cringe every time I see the guy, because I think he's the worst possible type of advocate. I wonder sometimes if he isn't anti-atheism and he's just doing his best to discredit it by being a dick.

Then again, people like the preacher described at the start of the article are basically the same from the opposite end of the spectrum, so Dawkins is probably just a regular atheist asshole.

I also agree with the idea that atheists very much shouldn't try to dissuade people of their faith. If people ask, by all means educate them. But if people are finding benefits from their faith, then I see no point in messing with something that's working for them.

This thread being an exception, people come here specifically to debate their faith (or lack of it).

It's very easy to intellectually tear most people's faith to pieces, if for the simple reason that they mistakenly think it's based on the same sort of logical reasons as everything else in their lives, and they apply those principles to enunciating and defending it. But it doesn't really do them any good, it just annoys them.


I'm not sure that "luxury for the wealthy" is helpful in any way though. Anyone who reasons their way out of an established system is likely to have higher intelligence, simply because it's a requirement for the critical thinking needed. It's by no means a given though that everyone of higher intelligence chooses to throw away their beliefs.

Then there's the thing of when the world is ****ing you over, religions like Christianity offer a lot to look forward to. If you live a good life, you will be rewarded later even if your life sucks now, and God will probably try and make your life suck a little less now too.

What does atheism offer? Pretty much nothing. Sucks that your life is bad, unless you get lucky you're probably stuck like that and then you die. I hardly think it's surprising what people in extreme situations would tend towards. Humans need hope, or they tend to either roll over and die or just go mental.

So atheism really only starts becoming an attractive option when you're not living hand to mouth. I'm not sure "wealthy" is the best way to describe that because it goes straight to the fat cat, Bill Gates type images. It's an option for anyone who is not living paycheck to paycheck, which is a sizable proportion of Western society.

It tends to indicate that religion is something which filled a void in people's lives. Back in the good old days when you had grandkids by the time you were 30 and were dead by the time you were 40, societies that had a solid religion to keep their heads up probably did better than those that didn't. Or at least the people were less miserable.

Nowadays, the majority of people in Western societies can have their physical needs met one way or another without too much strife (relatively), and so the need for that kind of emotional support isn't as strong, which is why you start to see the group of people renouncing it altogether growing.

Atheism is simply another option, one that is uniquely suited to what is an increasingly common lifestyle. It's not innately difficult to understand, it's probably simpler than almost every other belief system out there. There's no costs involved. You don't need to be wealthy or intelligent, it just tends to appeal to those types of people.

I think content of the article is good, but the title is about as helpful as an article entitled "Catholicism is a luxury for homosexual pedophile Italians." It's a shame when publications go for the shocking headline on an otherwise thoughtful piece.

 

[DK]

The first thing I thought when I saw that headline as, "That's bollocks! My family is working-class and my Dad, my eldest brother and myself are atheists!"

EDIT: How in the name of His Noodly Appendage did "are" become "aegis"?

 

[LeMansAid]

The firs thing I thought when I saw that headline as, "That's bollocks! My family is working-class and my Dad, my eldest brother and myself aegis atheists!"

Plenty of people around the world could only dream of what that "working class" situation would likely entail.

As for the article, I think that in a stereotypical sense at least, "the wealthy" have their gods. They're called therapists.... and I'm being quite serious about that.

We are all a mess of reactions to human history as a whole, and our very own personal history. Atheist or not, I struggle to see how any of us can be genuinely pragmatic, logical, and clear of thought, being in one moment without consideration of any other moment. I am nowhere near to being a fresh, untainted human, and without that I'd never be so egotistical as to think I could describe a God, or lack of.

*I reserve the right to be egotistical about anything and everything else.

 

[Imari]

Atheist or not, I struggle to see how any of us can be genuinely pragmatic, logical, and clear of thought, being in one moment without consideration of any other moment.

Certainly not, but we can try and that's sort of the point. Giving up before you've started simply because perfection is unattainable is just stupid. There's nothing wrong with being pretty pragmatic, logical and clear of thought. It's better than most people manage.

As for the article, I think that in a stereotypical sense at least, "the wealthy" have their gods. They're called therapists.... and I'm being quite serious about that.

Elaborate on this please, in what sense are therapists like gods?

(I think I see where you're going with it, but I'm not sure I want to put words in your mouth.)

 

[orimarc]

Well, they give them "sacrifices" (money), they "talk" to them, expecting the answer to "how to be saved"...and, once in a blue moon, one of them may impregnate their wife!

 

[Imari]

Well, they give them "sacrifices" (money), they "talk" to them, expecting the answer to "how to be saved"...and, once in a blue moon, one of them may impregnate their wife!

All of which is also true when you buy your friend a beer and talk about your troubles.

 

[dxld]

[/QUOTE]

Smashing. But we're talking about the kind that is. You know, the kind that the Hebrews were supposed to be in Egypt but for which there's no evidence. The ones you were asked about.

In the time-frames of 1888-1890 and once more in 1914, W.M. Flinders Petrie excavated the ancient Egyptian town of Kahun. What curious things he found were mud bricks mixed with straw, just as described in the Bible when the Hebrew slaves were using mud and straw to make bricks. Petrie also found under the workers/slaves houses small boxes, boxes which contained the bones and remains of babies aged up to 7 months old, possibly the male babies of the Hebrew slaves that Pharaoh had ordered killed because the Hebrews were growing in population. These burial customs under ones place of living were not typical of Egyptians, they were more typical of Asiatics(People of Asia Minor not of Africa or Egypt), people such as the Hebrews.

Brick fragment composed of mud and straw

boxes containing infant skeletons, some contained 2 or 3 remains

 

[Touring Mars]

Thats not GOD's preference, but he will honor it.

How you know this is, quite literally, beyond me.

I am not convinced there is no God, nor I am convinced there is a God. As @Imari already said, I don't have it 'ass backwards' at all. When it comes to the question of 'Does God exist?', the answer 'I don't claim to know either way' cannot be wrong.

I agree with the conclusion that Dawkins is an ass.

I don't.

Richard Dawkins can be strident, but his reasoning is solid. Dawkins is polite and articulate, but he can also be blunt and unflinching. He does not pull his punches when it comes to dealing with fundamentalist religion, however, but I've never seen Dawkins be anything other than firm but fair, even with the most blinkered (and often downright rude) opponents. Often, Dawkins falls foul of 'Don't shoot the messenger' syndrome. Alot of people don't like what Dawkins says about God, religion, faith etc., and arguably this is where Dawkins comes across at his most strident. But as well as being a passionate biologist, Dawkins is/was also a champion of the public understanding of science, and as such, this has brought him into direct conflict with religious fundamentalists who have fought (and continue to fight) tooth and nail to force their beliefs into classrooms the world over, purposefully masquerading as science. And they don't like it when people stand up to them. Dawkins is a champion in this regard - he says what has to be said.

I reckon the article that @Dotini linked to does Dawkins and atheists a misservice. In my view, and I reckon it is closely allied with that of Dawkins, a real understanding of the universe will always be superior to belief in every way possible, hence why separating belief from knowledge is so critical. Science can offer people real hope (a cure for their disease, for example), while religious faith, in stark contrast, promises the world and delivers nothing (there is precisely zero evidence that praying works, for example). For me, a solitary piece of real hope will always be superior to an infinite supply of false hope.

 

[Scaff]

In the time-frames of 1888-1890 and once more in 1914, W.M. Flinders Petrie excavated the ancient Egyptian town of Kahun. What curious things he found were mud bricks mixed with straw, just as described in the Bible when the Hebrew slaves were using mud and straw to make bricks. Petrie also found under the workers/slaves houses small boxes, boxes which contained the bones and remains of babies aged up to 7 months old, possibly the male babies of the Hebrew slaves that Pharaoh had ordered killed because the Hebrews were growing in population. These burial customs under ones place of living were not typical of Egyptians, they were more typical of Asiatics(People of Asia Minor not of Africa or Egypt), people such as the Hebrews.

Brick fragment composed of mud and straw
View attachment 92943
boxes containing infant skeletons, some contained 2 or 3 remains
View attachment 92942[/quote]

Which once again is only proof of people living in the area, not of slavery.

The use of mud and straw to make bricks is not exactly limited to a single culture, but is actually a rather common-place method of manufacture. As such it only proves that people made houses out of mud and straw bricks. It doesn't show who they were and certainly doesn't indicate they were slaves.

Neither does buried child remains, given that infant mortality rates in this time period were high its not exactly odd to find buried remains, and while the practice is not Egyptian that does then prove Jews and Slaves. These are massive leaps that you are making, simply to try and fit facts to an end result you want, rather than looking at the fact and what they do and do not tell us.

The facts you have presented at present simply say that non-Egyptian buried infants, it doesn't prove who they were or what social status they held, and certainly is not proof of the 1 to 2 million people claimed in the bible.

 

[dxld]

The use of mud and straw to make bricks is not exactly limited to a single culture, but is actually a rather common-place method of manufacture. As such it only proves that people made houses out of mud and straw bricks. It doesn't show who they were and certainly doesn't indicate they were slaves.

Neither does buried child remains, given that infant mortality rates in this time period were high its not exactly odd to find buried remains, and while the practice is not Egyptian that does then prove Jews and Slaves. These are massive leaps that you are making, simply to try and fit facts to an end result you want, rather than looking at the fact and what they do and do not tell us.

The facts you have presented at present simply say that non-Egyptian buried infants, it doesn't prove who they were or what social status they held, and certainly is not proof of the 1 to 2 million people claimed in the bible.

The sources that I found these facts from said they were the houses of slaves who worked on the pyramids. Not only that, but the artifacts they found were Phoenician like pottery, Phoenecians do have links to the Hebrews especially in their Alphabet. The Town of Kahun also showed high evidence of a massive desertion of the town, which correlates to the Hebrew Exodus of slaves.
Papyrus documents were also found containing a Will which were to transfer Slaves from a Parent to a Son. (A Will is proof of Slavery)
Look up the town of Kahun and the work of W.M Flinders Petrie and you will find more interesting facts.

 

[Famine]

The sources that I found these facts from said they were the houses of slaves who worked on the pyramids.

Great. What evidence do they cite?

Not only that, but the artifacts they found were Phoenician like pottery, Phoenecians do have links to the Hebrews especially in their Alphabet.

Great. Why is this evidence of Hebrew slavery?

The Town of Kahun also showed high evince of a massive desertion of the town, which correlates to the Hebrew Exodus of slaves.

And also a number of other things.

Papyrus documents were also found containing a Will which were to transfer Slaves from a Parent to a Son. (A Will is proof of Slavery)

Where's this evidence?

Look up the town of Kahun and the work of W.M Flinders Petrie and you will find more interesting facts.

It's your claim to defend. You look it up and post the evidence.

 

[Touring Mars]

My 5 year old nephew almost brought a tear to my eye the other day whilst playing with his Fisher Price Noah's Ark.

My family is largely irreligious, and hence my nephew has not received any direct religious instruction from us. He has, however, started to learn a bit about Christianity at school, thanks to visits from the local Christian ministry, which is a little disturbing but never mind. But given that he is too young to be expected to understand the implications of the story of the Ark, whenever he has asked us any questions about it, we have limited ourselves to telling him about the content of the story, and not our opinions about how true it is.

Anyway, bearing in mind that my nephew had no prompting whatsoever, he reliably informed us the other day that 'this couldn't happen'... somewhat bewildered, we asked him what he meant. He told us that it would be too dangerous to put all the animals on the same boat, because they would try to eat each other, and/or eat the people on the boat.

At this point, I caved in and asked him what he thought would happen if Noah tried to put dinosaurs on the Ark and he looked at me as if I was crazy...

So there you have it. My five year old nephew, who started school less than 6 months ago, has already figured something out that will doubtless bring him into direct conflict with our friendly local evangelicals. I find it positively amazing that a 5 year old child can deduce that there is a problem with the story of Ark, in spite of being told that story by his own family and now also in school.

 

[Brett]

Science can offer people real hope (a cure for their disease, for example), while religious faith, in stark contrast, promises the world and delivers nothing (there is precisely zero evidence that praying works, for example). For me, a solitary piece of real hope will always be superior to an infinite supply of false hope.

This right here. 👍

 

[homeforsummer]

So there you have it. My five year old nephew, who started school less than 6 months ago, has already figured something out that will doubtless bring him into direct conflict with our friendly local evangelicals. I find it positively amazing that a 5 year old child can deduce that there is a problem with the story of Ark, in spite of being told that story by his own family and now also in school.

The thing is, I suspect most kids of similar age would come to similar conclusions if not indoctrinated by their parents. Kids are surprisingly adroit at figuring out such things when left to their own devices.

I deduced from a pretty young age that Santa Claus wasn't real, since the concept of someone delivering presents to everyone in the world and fitting down a bunch of chimneys was patently unrealistic. It takes the barest of logic to come to such conclusions and kids do have that logical ability.

I went to a Catholic school, too (two in fact - primary and secondary) but I have vivid memories of being in year three - what's that, 6-7 years old? - and finding it odd that we were required to pray to something completely intangible.

Stories of miracles too seemed rather unrealistic, and I remember largely tolerating because I did quite enjoy the songs at Easter and Christmas (Easter songs are particularly upbeat). That, and despite not believing in god even at that age, I didn't really have the knowledge to be able to challenge teachers etc on the subject.

But all of that can be undone because children are largely conditioned to believe what their elders tell them, even if it's a load of bollocks. If you have both your parents feeding you god stories from a young age then it's going to be decades before they're at the age where once again they're able to come to their own conclusions.

 

[dxld]

Great. What evidence do they cite?Great. Why is this evidence of Hebrew slavery?And also a number of other things.Where's this evidence?It's your claim to defend. You look it up and post the evidence.

I can't take you by the hand and bring you the evidence all the time. I told you who excavated the place, and I told you the Town. But if I must here...

Here is one place you can find the Egyptian Wills.
http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/texts/index.htm

Here is the specific page.
http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/texts/kahun/45.htm

Here is a portion of the text translated to English. it lists the transfer of Servants to the wife of a man named Sahu.

(SETTLEMENT, subsequent to the death of the above testator probably). "Year 2, Paophi, day 12. | Settlement made by the sub-priest of Sepdu, lord of the east, Uah. I make a settlement to my wife, | a woman of the eastern aide (of the Nile ?), Sit-sepdu-sheftuf, called Teta, of all property which my brother | the Sahu, the peh ab of the architect Ankh-ren gave to me, each thing according to its place (i.e, wherever it is to be found ?) from among what he gave to me. She may give it | to any whom she pleases of her children whom she shall (?) bear to me. (Also) I give to her the servants (Amu), three persons | which my brother the Sahu, the peh ab of the architect, Sekhemren, gave to me. She may give it (sic) to any of her....

And here is another slave Contract

Here is the translation

“I am your servant from this day onwards, and I shall pay 2,5 copper-pieces every month as my slave-fee before Soknebtunis, the great god,”

The papyri is from the temple city of Tebtunis, as translated by egyptologist Dr Kim Ryholt of the University of Copenhagen.

 

[BobK]

And where in those contracts does it say the slave/servant in question was Jewish? I looked carefully and couldn't find it. You have been asked, repeatedly, to show evidence of Jewish slaves in Egypt, which you keep avoiding by going off on a tangent (in one case bringing up the Holocaust, for some bizarre reason). Nobody's denying there were Jews/Hebrews in ancient Egypt. I don't think anybody would doubt that there were slaves in ancient Egypt. What has not been demonstrated is that there were over a million Jewish slaves in ancient Egypt.

So when are you going to provide non-Biblical evidence for them? Or are you going to keep dancing around this and other questions you've been asked, never giving an actual answer, only irrelevancies?[/B]

 

[Famine]

I can't take you by the hand and bring you the evidence all the time.

If you cannot provide evidence, don't make the claims.

 

[dxld]

If you cannot provide evidence, don't make the claims.

you asked me for proof of slaves, I gave you proof of slaves, you asked for Jews that resided in Egypt, I gave you photos with ancient early Hebrew writing on those egyptian artifacts, which shows they did reside in Egypt. I tied the killing of Hebrew infants in the bible with the numerous boxes found underneath the houses of slaves in Egypt. Yes there was a high Egyptian infant death rate among Egyptians, but that was because of the strange medical practices of Egyptians during pregnancy. The high infant deaths of Egyptians may be one of the main reasons why the Hebrew Slave population increased in number, so this was the reasoning behind the killing of Hebrew infants.

I provided you with various types of evidence and here is more.

here is another Egyptian Tablet which mentions Israel.



a portion of the text is translated as The Canaan has been plundered into every sort of woe:
Ashkelon has been overcome;
Gezer has been captured;
Yano'am is made non-existent.
Israel is laid waste and his seed is not;
Hurru is become a widow because of Egypt.

what this means is Egypt and Israel were enemies.

It is called the Merneptah Stele. description found on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah_stele


a papyrus now kept in the Brooklyn Museum labled Broooklyn 35,1446. Lists the names of Slaves, out of the 95 list, 48 of the Names were of Hebrew Origin, including the name of Shiprah, who was a Hebrew midwife slave mentioned in the Bible.