tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post5930952077147279184..comments2023-10-05T08:25:13.232-04:00Comments on Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: The Hittites: Atheist "DagoodS" Claims Christian Apologists Lied About How Biblical Critics Once Doubted Their Historical ExistenceDave Armstronghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-13674753071780411082011-01-16T02:28:32.450-05:002011-01-16T02:28:32.450-05:00Test (new profile pic).Test (new profile pic).Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-33373307747544694532011-01-15T21:01:55.390-05:002011-01-15T21:01:55.390-05:00More comments of DagoodS in his combox:
Hittites ...More comments of DagoodS in his combox:<br /><br />Hittites and skeptics are not probative of…anything. (We can look at numerous past instances of people being incorrect based upon limited information.) I like to use it as an example of how Christians repeat canards without ever doing the research. I am certain somewhere in my blog writing I was incorrect; I don’t know why Dave Armstrong picked these two or three particular sentences instead.<br /><br />And then failed to demonstrate they were incorrect!<br /><br />*shrug* It appears this is the only way Dave can fathom doing on-line apologetics. He has been arguing with other internet apologists who perform similarly, and apparently thinks this the way it is done. Curiously, in person he is much nicer (you literally would not recognize it was the same person!) Another demonstration of the difference between what is considered courteous in-person as compared to on-line. <br /><br />(1-14-11)<br /><br />Sigh.<br /><br />Dave Armstrong, I wondered how you would respond. You had a few choices--e.g. write another invective-laced blog entry, put a comment on your own, etc.<br /><br />And one choice you had was to post a comment here. However the one thing you absolutely, positively <b>should not do</b> was come here without that name—the name of this one (1) “prominent skeptic (professor, etc.).” Even if you had to first search 1,000 libraries and wait 20 years—you should never have posted a comment here without that name.<br /><br />Because the simplest, most prudent response to any possible comment you could make is this: “Who is the ‘prominent skeptic (professor, etc.)’ that stated ‘Hittites didn’t exist’?” <br /><br />(1-14-11)<br /><br />I replied to the last:<br /><br />"How melodramatic. We do live in an instant culture, don't we?"<br /><br />(1-15-11)<br /><br />It should be great fun to see what happens now. I can predict it, almost certainly, I think, but I won't say what he's gonna do next because then he wouldn't do it just because I said he would. LOL I think he'll go one of two ways, but neither will fly. One is illogical, and the other is inconsistent with his own rhetoric. <br /><br />If I'm right I'll let y'all know.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-74949599733620738292011-01-15T20:46:16.849-05:002011-01-15T20:46:16.849-05:00Added more stuff today )8:45 PM EST Saturday) and ...Added more stuff today )8:45 PM EST Saturday) and a summary/conclusion at the end, with the results of what I found.<br /><br />DagoodS is now decisively refuted.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-9949596983975286812011-01-15T11:50:20.186-05:002011-01-15T11:50:20.186-05:00There are lots of parallels between biblical mater...There are lots of parallels between biblical material and non-Hebrew cultural factors. Why that would be regarded by anyone as somehow a disproof of anything in Christianity is the mystery.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-35016873228792369862011-01-14T21:47:01.839-05:002011-01-14T21:47:01.839-05:00Today we know that the Hittites wrote suzerainity ...Today we know that the Hittites wrote suzerainity treaties with their vassal states and that those treaties resemble in many ways the Biblical "covenant" between Yahweh and his people in the Old Testament. A Hittite king also wrote some moving prayers to his god to lift a plague that he assumed was sent to his people by their god as punishment. Sound familiar?Edwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-85429706506945615322011-01-14T20:13:49.287-05:002011-01-14T20:13:49.287-05:00I added more material to the end of the post, abou...I added more material to the end of the post, about higher critics (8:15 PM EST Thursday). I'm getting very close to identifying specific statements.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-62682001107387060382011-01-14T14:16:17.032-05:002011-01-14T14:16:17.032-05:00I posted on DagoodS' blog, below a number of s...I posted on DagoodS' blog, below a number of silly combox statements made by his cronies:<br /><br />------------<br /><br />It could actually be a fun dialogue without the pseudo-paranoid schtick. :-)<br /><br />You're the one who basically called Christian apologists <i>en masse</i> a pack of liars. But when I turn the tables and call you on it (and this ain't over yet) then it turns into an avalanche of non sequitur nonsense and insult.<br /><br />I swear at times that you must be merely playing and doing a parody of a caricature of the "angry condescending atheist." But then I keep reading and you appear to be serious.<br /><br />What a waste of a mind and notable intelligence . . . <br /><br />In the future, perhaps you'd be well-advised to simply refrain from making the dumb, sweeping statement (thus setting yourself up for a fall). It was the very extremity of the statement that drove my intellectual curiosity, in order to disprove it. This mentality did indeed occur. It's just a matter of documenting it with more specificity. No biggie. I'm gonna go hit some major libraries this very day.<br /><br />Serious research that investigates the opinion of 150 years ago takes a little time. Or didn't you know that (so you think mocking and waxing ridiculous is in order until I can produce some names)?Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-83689470626250148102011-01-14T12:14:19.657-05:002011-01-14T12:14:19.657-05:00More material along the lines of the "Christi...More material along the lines of the "Christians are a bunch of ignorant liars" mentality:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.askwhy.co.uk/truth/880MoreChristianLies.php" rel="nofollow">"Christian Liars—Paul L Maier,"</a> by Dr. M D MageeDave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-12121242866692467672011-01-14T08:43:58.191-05:002011-01-14T08:43:58.191-05:00"It turns out that even the most negative of ...<i>"It turns out that even the most negative of the criticisms in the nineteenth century was not that the Hittites had no existence but, rather, that the Hittites weren't as 'significant' as the Bible indicates.</i><br /><br />Well, the Bible doesn't give us much reason to think they were "significant" at all. Kirby is misrepresenting what we've already established the critics back then were saying about the Hittites. They didn't just say the Hittites weren't as significant as the Bible indicates, but some doubted their very existence.<br /><br /><i>"Thus, there is a legend here. It is the legend about 'the liberal critics,' those opponents of the Bible whose hammers fall in futility against the anvil of the Bible.</i><br /><br />That's no mere legend -- the hammers of the liberal critics, of the Modernists, the biblical minimalists, etc., do fall in futility against the anvil of the Bible.<br /><br />But this here is the true issue underlying this dispute: not the specific names of the Hittite skeptics of the 1800s, but the effort of modern skeptics and atheists to discredit Christian apologetics. They have assailed the Bible on many fronts, and among their attacks have been attempts to discredit what the Bible relates about ancient history and ancient peoples. Time after time, however, evidence has been uncovered that agrees with or confirms the biblical narrative -- so the skeptics had to retreat on the Hittite front, on the Belshazzar front, etc. Today they can no longer doubt or deny the historicity of the Hittites, so instead they are reduced to niggling word mincing over the way modern Christian apologists have been telling the story of how the truth defeated them and showed them to be fools.Confiteborhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17951083063448447552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-43563964307577576102011-01-14T08:18:19.066-05:002011-01-14T08:18:19.066-05:00You've already gotten pretty close to fulfilli...You've already gotten pretty close to fulfilling DagoodS's requirement that you provide names of people who were skeptical of the existence of the biblical Hittites, with Newman. When no extrabiblical evidence of their existence was available, denying the historical character of the biblical testimony amounted to questioning or even denying their existence. Note that Cheyne reduced most of the biblical evidence to the realm of legend and fiction, even after it could no longer be denied that the Hittites were a real people. If one were to mistreat the historical evidence in the Bible in that fashion prior to the confirmatory archaeological discoveries, it would be an attempt to eliminate all available evidence of the Hittites' existence as a people.Confiteborhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17951083063448447552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-75343473466538896062011-01-14T03:40:53.515-05:002011-01-14T03:40:53.515-05:00DagoodS obviously picked up these notions from the...DagoodS obviously picked up these notions from the article he cites in his latest reply, by Peter Kirby. It states:<br /><br />"It turns out that even the most negative of the criticisms in the nineteenth century was not that the Hittites had no existence but, rather, that the Hittites weren't as 'significant' as the Bible indicates.<br /><br />"Thus, there is a legend here. It is the legend about 'the liberal critics,' those opponents of the Bible whose hammers fall in futility against the anvil of the Bible. When it comes to the nineteenth century opinion of critics who denied the existence of the Hittites, it is a legend that has developed because of its congeniality to apologetic concerns."<br /><br />----------<br /><br />In other words, Christians are lying through their teeth because these skeptics did not exist, so sez Kirby and DagoodS.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-28849668596657730352011-01-14T02:17:32.138-05:002011-01-14T02:17:32.138-05:00DagoodS has now replied and belittles my paper rep...DagoodS has now replied and belittles my paper repeatedly for not producing actual names of these skeptics who denied that the Hittites existed:<br /><br /><a href="http://sandwichesforsale.blogspot.com/2011/01/with-enemies-like-this-who-needs.html" rel="nofollow">With Enemies like this; who needs Friends?</a><br /><br />YAWN<br /><br />As I stated in the paper itself:<br /><br />"I can keep looking and nail down particular sources and documentation. I'm sure this is possible. . . . If DagoodS or other atheists wish to dispute our claim, I have many friends and acquaintances, including lots of academics, and I'm quite confident that if we pool our efforts we can provide further particular proof and "name names" if they want to make an issue out of it. I would even welcome that challenge."<br /><br />There is no rush on this. I have many irons in the fire at the moment, trying to make myself financially stable after losing my part-time job on 12-31-10. <br /><br />It shouldn't be that difficult to track down these skeptics. I'm in the Detroit area: we have many major libraries (e.g., Univ. of Detroit, Sacred Heart Seminary, Wayne State U., U of M-Dearborn, Public "Main" Library). I have lots of friends I can ask for help in this regard. I can contact departments of archaeology at seminaries.<br /><br />It just so happens that this particular phenomenon is now so ancient (mid-19th century) that it has proven very difficult to find the actual names on the Internet. It will take scouring some old obscure academic books and some big libraries.<br /><br />But it can and will be done. The archaeologists I have already cited were no dummies. They knew what they were talking about. <br /><br />DagoodS insists on making an even bigger fool of himself by making this challenge. So we'll go out and find these people. What does he say after that? What will his game be then? Perhaps he will go spastic and descend to pure insult, like famous atheist John Loftus? Yet another angry atheist who has nothing to say (but insults) when confronted with undeniable fact?<br /><br />We'll see, won't we? I think it'll be fun. I love libraries. I used to work in the medical library at Wayne State, and I sold used books for a while (love the old books as well). So it'll be a blast to go rummage through a bunch of ancient ones, to see what our esteemed atheist friends and other skeptics were saying about the Hittites before archaeology made their existence unquestionable for any rational person, by 1907 at the latest.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-44413512117661191312011-01-13T12:17:09.903-05:002011-01-13T12:17:09.903-05:00I think it would definitely help to show a quote f...<i>I think it would definitely help to show a quote from an actual atheist.</i><br /><br />This rest heavily on the fact that in the 19th century atheists were very rare. There were many liberal Christian scholars but very few professed atheists. What is the difference? Not that much. Their thinking is very much the same. Just atheists are more honest and more blunt. I actually like them a lot better. <br /><br />But it seems that distinction is now being used to disavow errors in the school of thought. It was not atheists but those other guys. Just own it. Sometimes atheists go too far in attacking the bible's historical accuracy. Is that so hard to admit?Randyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16751516602395247675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-31746074119146596142011-01-12T17:21:32.614-05:002011-01-12T17:21:32.614-05:00I have now added so much new material to the origi...I have now added so much new material to the original paper (5:15 PM EST on Tuesday) that its size has doubled.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-212776867552991442011-01-12T14:31:59.088-05:002011-01-12T14:31:59.088-05:00Well, if he is gonna define words to his own likin...Well, if he is gonna define words to his own liking, rather than the dictionary or standard definitions (like he did with "contradiction") then that would be one thing.<br /><br />It's still refuted, because we all know what he was driving at: he thinks Christians lie about folks denying that the Hittites existed. He knows that the Christians didn't mean strictly atheists, but anyone who denies the trustworthiness of the Bible. The key is the latter attitude, not atheism vs. theism.<br /><br />He (and you) can't escape this <i>faux pas</i> by sophistically playing around with words again.<br /><br />But DagoodS uses the term with a wider range, too. E.g., he calls the Apostle Paul before his conversion a "skeptic" (and he was Jewish theist):<br /><br />"If Paul, within the 1 ½ years of after Christ’s death, was not persuaded then, why should I be now? If the only thing that could convince such a well-placed skeptic was a miracle, shouldn’t this raise questions as to the viability of the facts? . . . <br /><br />"If Paul didn’t learn what Christians were saying until after he became a Christian, he was in no position (despite being a skeptic) to refute it!<br /><br />"Here is our perfect skeptic—Paul. He either knew the gospel message or did not, prior to becoming a Christian."<br /><br />("Early Challenges to Christianity" -- 10-12-09)<br /><br />A "skeptic" is one who questions something. It's not synonymous with "atheist." DagoodS knows this himself. So you will have to find a more effective defense.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-9462516845845008122011-01-12T14:08:47.968-05:002011-01-12T14:08:47.968-05:00Yes, DagoodS used the term "skeptic" but...Yes, DagoodS used the term "skeptic" but what matters is what he meant by the use of that term. You say it includes liberal Christians, but you'd have to check with DagoodS and see if that is the way he meant it. If he's using it interchangeably with atheist/agnostic, as is often the case, then what you have offered would not falsify what he said.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-6634748567572938332011-01-12T13:57:28.596-05:002011-01-12T13:57:28.596-05:00It seems like a look in Professor F. W. [Francis W...It seems like a look in Professor F. W. [Francis William] Newman's "History of the Hebrew Monarchy" might be fruitful, and could point you to other orientalists who denied or doubted the historicity of the biblical Hittites.Confiteborhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17951083063448447552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-69956585509558336702011-01-12T13:41:49.517-05:002011-01-12T13:41:49.517-05:00Francis William Newman (1805-1897) was indeed the ...Francis William Newman (1805-1897) was indeed the younger brother of Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman. That was impressive that you noticed that. It never occurred to me, and Cardinal Newman is one of my biggest intellectual and spiritual heroes.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_William_NewmanDave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-7752796623995569432011-01-12T13:36:23.306-05:002011-01-12T13:36:23.306-05:00Hi Jon,
I think it would definitely help to show ...Hi Jon,<br /><br /><i>I think it would definitely help to show a quote from an actual atheist. DagoodS did make a sweeping claim, meaning it's very easy to disprove. It's interesting that after your digging you did manage to find some obscure sources (obscure to me, they may be familiar to you) and yet no quote from an atheist.</i><br /><br />I never claimed that it was just atheists who said this. I used the term "skeptics" or "critics" -- that can include liberal Christians, etc. Specifically limiting this mentality to atheists was never my intention and I didn't state the argument as such. DagoodS' own term was "skeptic" in his sweeping (false) statement.<br /><br />My beef with DagoodS is his claim that Christians are systematically lying about this phenomenon. They are not, because it actually happened. It's not a myth. So I turned the tables: DagoodS is lying about others supposedly lying.<br /><br /><i>Looks like Newman is the brother of Cardinal Newman. Do I have him right?</i> <br /><br />Possibly; dunno; I'd have to look it up.<br /><br /><i>That's your first quote. He was a theist, not an atheist. Does that make him a skeptic? Maybe that's a gray area.</i> <br /><br />A biblical skeptic is an area that includes theists and atheists (and agnostics) alike. Their commonality is that they aren't :orthodox."<br /><br /><i>Your next source is from someone that goes by "Reverend." Is that an atheist? Then there are the Christian sources.</i><br /><br />More non sequiturs, as explained. DagoodS said "skeptic" not "atheist."<br /><br />You are making the same tired argument that I already addressed: "we can't trust a Christian source." Presumably you will trust scholarly sources, even if the person is a dreaded Christian. That's the name of the game: scholarship.<br /><br /><i>We atheists do find that Christians like to attack positions held by sort of liberal Christians and attribute them to us.</i> <br /><br />Well, I'm sure atheists said this, too. The more skeptical of the Bible one is, that would include atheists on the spectrum.<br /><br /><i>I was talking at our meeting last time about the swoon theory, twin theory, hallucination theory etc related to the resurrection. People such as WL Craig prominently rebut these claims. And it's probably true that skeptics get taken in by Craig's argument and presume they must defend these claims, so they try. Hence you could probably find skeptics defending these positions. But in fact these theories were initially put forward by Christians.</i> <br /><br />Of course. That's why liberal Christian are the scourge of the earth: because it is a dishonest, betwixt-and-between position. I don't even waste time dialoguing with theological liberals.<br /><br /><i>Rationalists that wanted to preserve the inerrancy of Scripture despite the fact that they thought miracles were too implausible. So these claims are attributed to us atheists and we're told that we are morons. I don't subscribe to any of these views and I don't know any skeptics that do. Some skeptics do argue that a hallucination interpretation is more plausible than a resurrection interpretation (and I would agree with that) but we don't actually think this is what happened.</i> <br /><br />Interesting observations, but off-topic. I was responding strictly to what DagoodS said. He has already been refuted, and the case would get stronger if we took further time to track down individual citations that certainly exist out there somewhere.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6422857.post-21436436479317903852011-01-12T10:24:20.290-05:002011-01-12T10:24:20.290-05:00I think it would definitely help to show a quote f...I think it would definitely help to show a quote from an actual atheist. DagoodS did make a sweeping claim, meaning it's very easy to disprove. It's interesting that after your digging you did manage to find some obscure sources (obscure to me, they may be familiar to you) and yet no quote from an atheist.<br /><br />Looks like Newman is the brother of Cardinal Newman. Do I have him right? That's your first quote. He was a theist, not an atheist. Does that make him a skeptic? Maybe that's a gray area. Your next source is from someone that goes by "Reverend." Is that an atheist? Then there are the Christian sources.<br /><br />We atheists do find that Christians like to attack positions held by sort of liberal Christians and attribute them to us. I was talking at our meeting last time about the swoon theory, twin theory, hallucination theory etc related to the resurrection. People such as WL Craig prominently rebut these claims. And it's probably true that skeptics get taken in by Craig's argument and presume they must defend these claims, so they try. Hence you could probably find skeptics defending these positions. But in fact these theories were initially put forward by Christians. Rationalists that wanted to preserve the inerrancy of Scripture despite the fact that they thought miracles were too implausible. So these claims are attributed to us atheists and we're told that we are morons. I don't subscribe to any of these views and I don't know any skeptics that do. Some skeptics do argue that a hallucination interpretation is more plausible than a resurrection interpretation (and I would agree with that) but we don't actually think this is what happened.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.com