As stated, there are numerous other sites that discuss such topics as the flood.

It is okay if you don't want to support your claims.

Is Google too difficult for you? I'm not an archeologist so if you want to learn more about archeological evidence, I'm not the one to engage with. But of course, your intent isn't to learn something new. It's an attempt to derail the thread in the hopes of ultimately insulting a believer to make yourself feel superior. You are not. If you are genuinely interested, feel free to Google and engage in a debate with the experts.

It is common practice around here to support one's claims with more substantive posts than "google it".

Considering entire textbooks and dissertations can be written on this particular topic, I don't have the time to make such an elaborate post. What I find to be even more common practice and more fulfilling is doing ones own research on topics of interest. I recommend you try doing that. That is, of course, only if you are intellectually honest in your desire to learn. Which you are not.

No one asked for dissertations or books to be written. Not even elaborate posts. You could have given one example of a biblical story being supported by archeological evidence, cited that evidence and maybe provided a credible link or two. You instead chose to impugn my character.

I provided a link and you chose to ignore it. That link has numerous examples for you. If you find them insufficient for the particulars that you're looking for, you can do your own research on the subject.

Nobody on this forum is interested in arguments done by proxy, especially not 10 000 word essay proxies. If you want to argue by reference, provide a synopsis and state whether or not you largely agree. If not we have no way of knowing that you actually read what you link or if you are willing to stand by it, making debate meaningless.

As for the link you provided: The author of that article teaches at Gimlekollen NLA, a Christian school in Norway, he is not a historian nor is he an archaeologist, he holds a doctorate in media science. He is a prolific author of Christian works and and outspoken critic against atheism. The article is hosted at at a website that proselytizes Christianity.

So basically you linked a commercial.

You would have known this if you had done your research, instead you rode the high horse and demanded that others do your intellectual lifting for you. Poor form.

I'll make you a deal, boss. I'll start posting links to support a believers position written by atheists when you atheists start posting links supporting your position written by Christians. What's that? That doesn't make sense to do? Yeah, exactly.

You[ were the one earlier in the thread that posited that "you were not an archaeologist, therefore you would use links" (paraphrased).

So, you defer to credentials, you accuse others of being intellectually dishonest when they call you out for arguing by proxy, you tell other people to do research instead of asking you questions - but you couldn't even bothered to check that the credentials of your link's author lives up to your own claimed standards!

And if your "evidence" couldn't be accepted by someone who isn't a Christian, it's fairly weak evidence. Not that you would know, given that it is quite clear by now you haven't even read the link you provided. Which makes your insults towards Louis Cyphre completely hypocritical.

Do any of you posters have a Church of Scientology in your city? No anyone who's been there? Experiences?
I have to believe that there are some positive aspects in it's teaching in that any true "awakening" starts from within.

How do you explain the fact that people who HAVE done their research overwhelmingly discredit the historical accuracy of the bible? The page you linked to makes me think of this:

I'm with tame_deuces here. For instance, if I wanted to argue for my view of the historical Jesus, I would reference Christian thinkers like John P. Meier and N.T Wright as support for my view. It's easy to find people on your team that will argue for your conclusions, but if you want to persuade others, it is far more valuable to find someone on their team that can at least present your case.

Yes. I live close to one located in the cultural (and rather too accepting) hub that is Dominion Road, Auckland.

No.

A positive side? It would probably be fair to speculate that, like most religions, Scientology brings a sense of community and fellowship - at a price. I hear they're very welcoming but then that's to be expected of an institution that relies on donations. I'm only speculating here.

I would go along and report to you on what I discovered but I'm afraid they'll recognize me as a new face and "swamp" me ape-sh*t Mormon style. That's not to put down apes- I admire all animals and, of course, we ourselves come under the definition of an ape.

Actually, it's clear that YOU haven't read the source I provided and instead set out on a closed-minded attempt to discredit it. Had you actually read it, you'd know that the vast majority of it are quotations from archeologists and other sources. Which makes you calling me a hypocrite completely hypocritical.

Tell me, why haven't any of you read the source I provided?

Your method of argument is about as convincing as slapping someone with a textbook and yelling "you're wrong!"

The Bible Unearthed (Finkelstein and Silberman) is a fairly broad, thorough, accessible account of the current consensus on archaeology and the Jews / old testament. The consensus is not that Jewish messianic prophecies existed for thousands of years. There may well have been oral traditions, but the majority of the texts appear to have been composed in something like the 700s bce at the earliest. Not thousands of years before the origin of Christianity.

But what is more, Jews then and historians now do not unanimously agree that Jesus fulfilled prophecy. There is a strong case to be made, logically and historically, that both a) new stories are composed to fulfill popular prophecies, and b) that old stories/texts are combed through to cherry pick theretofore unknown/unnoticed "prophecy" that can then be claimed to have been fulfilled.

Just a very minor point in case: Jewish prophecy said a messiah (a warrior king) would come and he would be of the line of David. David's line was dead. Claiming that a guy who whose parents are not in the Davidian line was miraculously/magically made by god out of David's sperm is not particularly compelling because either 1) it is literally true, in which case who gives a crap what the prophecy says, a real live god came down and just worked magic in front of actual people and blotted out the sun for a couple hours and so on; people will believe and spread the word, or 2) it was mythology, made up (for virtuous or non-virtuous reasons), hallucinated, cobbled together overtime etc., in which case who gives a crap, because saying "god told us this guy is related to David, even though David's line ended already" is an obvious lie to tell/believe, because duh! there is a prophecy you've got to fulfill if you expect to get the Jews on board with you.


In the late 70s / early 80s a bunch of poker grinders and gamblers in Texas (and possibly other places) got into Church of Scientology. Most of them dropped it once the fad passed.

A guy I know who stayed with it reminds me of those guys you sometimes encounter preaching on the street or handing out tracts who say before they found Jesus they were into drink, drugs, and loose women, but now they lead good healthy productive lives. Well, I don't have those problems, thank you very much, I don't need your religion to give me that. The guy I'm thinking of said his life was going nowhere, living paycheck to paycheck, until he got into Scientology, and after that, it was like all the sidewalks were ever so slightly sloping down for him -- he always had a place to live, a car to drive, and cash on hand to play poker. Well, again, I am not a Scientologist, and I have no problems with lodging or transportation or having enough cash to play poker -- what else do you got?!

Did you read it yourself? Here's the conclusion of your source (bolded for clarity):

The fact that archaeological findings confirm that these texts are 'historical and geographical in character' gives ZERO support for any supposed supernatural events and miracles.

This part is rather ironic to say the least:

Didn't say it did. All that work to try to disprove something that wasn't being discussed. To get back on track, I was indicating that there is archeological evidence for the Bible and none for Scientology. If you bothered to read my posts rather than trying to jump on the atheist derail bandwagon, you would know this.

You said the following:

"A historical record of events" implies something rather different than there being archaeological evidence for events/places that occurred in the bible. Was the flood a historical event? Was the resurrection? The Exodus? The Mosaic covenant? The parting of the Red Sea?

Noone disputes that places mentioned in the bible existed/certain events described in the bible occurred. As Louis Cyphre mentioned, there is also archaelogical/geographical evidence for events/places in Harry Potter. Furthermore, by your standards, the Quran and the hadith are also historical records of events.

Can you provide your best case for any miraculous/supernatural event mentioned in the bible?

That's a loaded question and depends on what you consider to be miraculous or supernatural. Obviously, there won't be a lot of evidence for things such as Jesus turning water to wine and most other miracles are a matter of faith. But one major one for you would be the flood. Yes, I believe the flood really happened. Evidence is outlined here:

http://www.bibleinfo.com/en/question...ood-was-global

Not to mention the numerous other cultures and beliefs that speak of a great flood.

But now we're back to the whole "oh but even if a flood happened, that doesn't mean Noah and his ark were real" or "that doesn't mean it was global" or "that doesn't mean God made it happen" blah blah blah. So the problem is I can provide all the evidence available and non-believers will find any reason, no matter how outlandish or unreasonable, to ignore it. That's why this whole idea of "give me proof of miracles" is an atheist trap. I can tell you all kinds of miracles personally witnessed by a variety of sources but nothing will ever be enough to convince a non-believer of the truth. At least, nothing that I can convey via a poker forum.

And again trying to get back on track, what evidence is there of Scientology?

Where did all the water come from for a global flood? Where did it go afterwards?

And how big would a flood have to be to be defined as "great"? Two thousand years ago 20 miles away would be considered to be a big distance by some people. It's not hard to see how something like the 2004 tsunami could be viewed as a "great flood" be people living at the time. Add in a couple of thousand years worth of exaggeration and here we are.

And again trying to get back on track, what evidence is there of Scientology?[/QUOTE]

Only bloated numbers that put L. Ron Hubbard in the Guinness book of world records for most published authors.