'13-10-17, 06:49 Oldskeptic	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus CharlesChandler wrote: OK folks, I have presented the bulk of the "evidence" that I have, for whatever that's worth. But I learned a long time ago to not bother jumping through hoops for people who are taking an argumentative stance, because I have never witnessed any of them actually change their position. Either people are open minded, and are willing to exchange information and ideas, or they already have all of the opinions that they ever care to possess. Since people like that rarely offer useful information, and never in a useful way, I'm not going to spend any time in a back-n-forth like that. If anybody has any new information, please PM me. Otherwise, I'm moving on. Cheers! Fucking cowards and zealots retreat when their ideas are examined. Who the fuck here was closed minded? You put forward a farfetched idea on a skeptic web site and take umbrance when it is questioned? You need thicker skin my friend if you plan to take your show on the road. Maybe you should reevaluate your own position rather than accuse others of being stuck in theirs?
'13-10-17, 06:58 Agrippina	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus Indeed. I remember that incident very clearly because the only time we saw pork was at my grandmother's annual new year lunch. We weren't allowed to eat it, but my mother did and she brought a piece home with her which then landed in the bin. There was another time when I bought ham to make sandwiches for our lunch the next day (this was before I had kids). It was perfectly fresh, because we'd eaten some of it the night I bought it, but the next day, having been kept for a few hours in my desk at the office, I had it for my lunch, and landed up in hospital because of food poisoning. Needless to say, I've never eaten ham again. Which goes to show that even cured pork can become dangerous in the right heat conditions. I hear what you're saying about other meats, however I've never had other meats go off in the heat, but then I haven't driven around for three hours with meat in the car, certainly not in January, so I can't really say. My point is that when superstitious people have one bad experience, they tend to see it as "law." We also know that people of that time were extremely superstitious and made laws based on complete nonsense. This reminds me of the argument I once had here about circumcision. My contention was that it's possible that one infection became a long story about how sand flies under the right conditions and lack of hygiene could've caused something unpleasant, and then prompted people to notice that cutting off the skin made cleaning a little easier. Who knows? Why otherwise would people be happy about cutting off bits of skin. The idea is being used now to prevent HIV infection here. People are being encouraged to be circumcised because it's claimed that it helps prevent HIV infection. Again, it could become a religious thing - something superstitious people will blindly follow. Tell them "god said it" and they'll do anything, no matter how stupid.
'13-10-17, 06:59 Agrippina	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus Oldskeptic wrote: CharlesChandler wrote: OK folks, I have presented the bulk of the "evidence" that I have, for whatever that's worth. But I learned a long time ago to not bother jumping through hoops for people who are taking an argumentative stance, because I have never witnessed any of them actually change their position. Either people are open minded, and are willing to exchange information and ideas, or they already have all of the opinions that they ever care to possess. Since people like that rarely offer useful information, and never in a useful way, I'm not going to spend any time in a back-n-forth like that. If anybody has any new information, please PM me. Otherwise, I'm moving on. Cheers! Fucking cowards and zealots retreat when their ideas are examined. Who the fuck here was closed minded? You put forward a farfetched idea on a skeptic web site and take umbrance when it is questioned? You need thicker skin my friend if you plan to take your show on the road. Maybe you should reevaluate your own position rather than accuse others of being stuck in theirs? Indeed.
'13-10-17, 14:32 MrFungus420	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus CharlesChandler wrote: OK folks, I have presented the bulk of the "evidence" that I have, for whatever that's worth. It's worth the scare quotes. You haven't presented evidence, you made conjectures. CharlesChandler wrote: But I learned a long time ago to not bother jumping through hoops for people who are taking an argumentative stance, because I have never witnessed any of them actually change their position. Considering the stuff that you posted here as "evidence", I'm not surprised that you haven't seen anyone change their mind. Here's a free clue: It isn't because all of them were closed-minded. It's because your argument, while verbose, isn't the least bit convincing. CharlesChandler wrote: Either people are open minded, and are willing to exchange information and ideas, or they already have all of the opinions that they ever care to possess. Since people like that rarely offer useful information, and never in a useful way, I'm not going to spend any time in a back-n-forth like that. If anybody has any new information, please PM me. Otherwise, I'm moving on. Cheers! Wow, talk about arrogant... Everybody else must be closed-minded because they haven't been convinced by you. The problem is with every person with whom you deal, it can't be you...
'13-10-17, 16:47 JVRaines	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus CharlesChandler wrote: OK folks, I have presented the bulk of the "evidence" that I have, for whatever that's worth. Wink-wink, nudge-nudge, grin-grin, say no more, say no more.
'13-10-17, 19:37 Oldskeptic	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus Just in case you decide to peek back in, Charles, I have a story for you that may explain why I take your accusations a bit personally resent them: In college in 1976 I took a two semester upper level course called the history of western civilization. There was a paper required to be written at the end of course on any subject covered in the course. I decided on writing about a natural explanation for the the exodus and part of my premise was that Jews took mono-theism out of Egypt. Sound familiar? I explained the pillar of fire at night and smoke during the day as a volcanic eruption on Crete which caused heavy rains and hail because of ash clouds. Because of the heavy rains red clay washed into the Nile and colored it like blood. The heavy concentration of clay in the Nile drove the frogs out of the river and they died bringing the plague of flies which spread disease, and so on and so forth. My idea was that these catastrophes weakened Egypt to the point where it could not feed everyone and so drove its Jewish slaves out of Egypt. These slaves where led and taught by an Egyptian Jew Thutmose and took the mono-theism of Egypt at the time with them. Thutmose became Moses in Hebrew. The paper was long and I thought very well researched. Professor Campbell said it was very well written, and he was tempted to give me an A except for the fact that there was no evidence that there were ever Jewish slaves in Egypt or that there was an exodus. So, I was trying to explain naturally something that never really happened. He also pointed out that the Egyptian mono-theism and the Jewish were nothing alike and that I wasn't the first person to think that there was a connection. So Charles, my point is that after listening to professor Campbell and doing some further research I changed an opinion that I had a lot invested in. And you telling me that I am closed minded and unwilling to change my stance really pisses me off.
'13-10-18, 00:16 CharlesChandler	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus Professor Campbell was (basically) correct in saying that there were never any Hebrew slaves in Egypt, and that there is no (archaeological) evidence of an Exodus. I have clearly stated that twice already, in post #20, and which I quoted in post #30: CharlesChandler wrote: I'm contending that the "Exodus" might have been just Ramose and a few courtesans who were forced into exile when Horemheb reinstated the Amun cult. There is no archaeological evidence of this "Exodus", in the Sinai or in Canaan, because it might have been a relatively small number of people involved, and the trail would be indistinguishable from a migrating Bedouin tribe. Maybe three times make a charm.
'13-10-18, 00:33 Oldskeptic	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus CharlesChandler wrote: Professor Campbell was (basically) correct in saying that there were never any Hebrew slaves in Egypt, and that there is no (archaeological) evidence of an Exodus. I have clearly stated that twice already, in post #20, and which I quoted in post #30: CharlesChandler wrote: I'm contending that the "Exodus" might have been just Ramose and a few courtesans who were forced into exile when Horemheb reinstated the Amun cult. There is no archaeological evidence of this "Exodus", in the Sinai or in Canaan, because it might have been a relatively small number of people involved, and the trail would be indistinguishable from a migrating Bedouin tribe. Maybe three times make a charm. Way to miss the point!
'13-10-18, 03:23 CharlesChandler	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus Oldskeptic wrote: Way to miss the point! Oh, OK. Well, I was trying to be polite, but it sounds like you're begging me to lay it out for you, so I'll oblige you. Here's what I "thought" you said. Please correct me where I'm wrong. Back in 1976, you used to be open-minded, and you came up with a novel explanation for the Plagues. Furthermore, you used the naturally-caused Plagues as a natural motivation for the Exodus, instead of just the excuse for the pharaoh to finally give in and let the Hebrews go, which I assume was also novel. Your professor smacked you down for reasons that had little to do with your central thesis. You didn't say that your thesis relied on the fact that the Hebrews were slaves, the way the Biblical account does. And unless you explicitly specified that there had to be enough people on the supposed Exodus to leave an archaeological trail, that too was secondary to your central thesis. Nevertheless, if you disagree with a professor, you're liable to get smacked down for whatever reason the professor can find, central or otherwise. This thesis is wrong because it has a misspelled word, and that one is wrong because it didn't follow the indentation guidelines. Professors are good like that. You were such a coward that you never considered the possibility that your thesis was correct (which remains to be demonstrated, but that's not the point). Then you sheepishly adopted your professor's view, not because of any truth value, but because he/she had the nerve to smack you down for reasons that had nothing to do with your central thesis, and because you're a coward. What you learned from this is that if you take the position of a professor, whether you're a professor or not, you can dismiss a thesis on secondary points, or even for things that the author definitely refutes. It doesn't matter — specious is specious. And because he/she did it to you, to your face, now you can do it to me over the Internet, without even using your real name, the way a coward would. And if I'm not willing to waste my time arguing with someone who doesn't understand critical reasoning or common courtesy, I'm a fucking coward. Or I'm not thick-skinned enough. But since you used to be open-minded, before your tender little feelings got hurt because you didn't get an excellent grade in return for all of your hard work, I have no right to make a statement (politely not directed straight at you) that some people are not open-minded enough to listen to what I'm actually saying. AND you feel entitled to be self-righteous about it, because you settled on the mainstream view, and the best you can understand about critical reasoning is that if you agree with the mainstream (i.e., argumentum ad populum), you can be as rude as you want to those who do not, and that's just good reasoning. Shame on you. People like you give critical reasoning a bad name. You're not a skeptic. You're an elitist, and not even a good one at that. Your professor surely was more polite. Did I miss anything (aside from the re-run of a TV show that I've already seen, and opted this evening not to watch again, in lieu of giving some elitists some back-atcha)?
'13-10-18, 04:57 Agrippina	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus Jesus, I am simply overwhelmed with the amount of smug, self-satisfied, arrogance that seems to be infiltrating the forum this week.
'13-10-18, 05:02 Oldskeptic	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus CharlesChandler wrote: Oldskeptic wrote: Way to miss the point! Oh, OK. Well, I was trying to be polite, but it sounds like you're begging me to lay it out for you, so I'll oblige you. Here's what I "thought" you said. Please correct me where I'm wrong. [list] [*]Back in 1976, you used to be open-minded, and you came up with a novel explanation for the Plagues. Furthermore, you used the naturally-caused Plagues as a natural motivation for the Exodus, instead of just the excuse for the pharaoh to finally give in and let the Hebrews go, which I assume was also novel. [*]Your professor smacked you down for reasons that had little to do with your central thesis. You didn't say that your thesis relied on the fact that the Hebrews were slaves, the way the Biblical account does. And unless you explicitly specified that there had to be enough people on the supposed Exodus to leave an archaeological trail, that too was secondary to your central thesis. Nevertheless, if you disagree with a professor, you're liable to get smacked down for whatever reason the professor can find, central or otherwise. This thesis is wrong because it has a misspelled word, and that one is wrong because it didn't follow the indentation guidelines. Professors are good like that. No smack down, Professor Campbell was a gentle giant, very interested in his students education. He has remained a hero of mine, and a role model. I didn't mention, because I didn't think it important, that I received a B+ for the paper even though there factual errors; more than the two that I mentioned. My paper did hinge on there being a large population of Jewish slaves in Egypt because I was treating the story as historically accurate, but trying to explain what happened without reverting to God. Again there was no smack down, it was guidance and mentoring. In fact I became one of Professor Campbell's TAs after that. [*]You were such a coward that you never considered the possibility that your thesis was correct (which remains to be demonstrated, but that's not the point). Then you sheepishly adopted your professor's view, not because of any truth value, but because he/she had the nerve to smack you down for reasons that had nothing to do with your central thesis, and because you're a coward. Did you miss the part where I wrote that I did some more research before I changed my mind? Professor Campbell made me question my hypothesis which led me to discovering my mistakes and changing my opinion.
'13-10-18, 06:25 MrFungus420	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus Alright, let's see how fucking simple we can make this because you need it. CharlesChandler wrote: [*]You were such a coward that you never considered the possibility that your thesis was correct (which remains to be demonstrated, but that's not the point). Then you sheepishly adopted your professor's view, not because of any truth value, but because he/she had the nerve to smack you down for reasons that had nothing to do with your central thesis, and because you're a coward. If there were no Jewish slaves in Egypt, then the story about the plagues is just that, a story. If they never happened, then any conjecture about how they might have happened is automatically WRONG. Slaves = Exodus = plagues = thesis. No slaves = no Exodus = no plagues = no thesis. Is that simple enough for you to understand or do you need it explained in one-syllable words?
'13-10-18, 06:25 Oldskeptic	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus CharlesChandler wrote: Oldskeptic wrote: Way to miss the point! Oh, OK. Well, I was trying to be polite, but it sounds like you're begging me to lay it out for you, so I'll oblige you. Here's what I "thought" you said. Please correct me where I'm wrong. What you learned from this is that if you take the position of a professor, whether you're a professor or not, you can dismiss a thesis on secondary points, or even for things that the author definitely refutes. It doesn't matter — specious is specious. And because he/she did it to you, to your face, now you can do it to me over the Internet, without even using your real name, the way a coward would. I did not dismiss anything I questioned some of your assumptions. And that's pretty much all you have, assumptions. Secondary points are important if you are using them to support your initial proposition. I didn't go after you until you insulted me and everyone that did not agree with you. I went after some of your arguments. And if I'm not willing to waste my time arguing with someone who doesn't understand critical reasoning or common courtesy, I'm a fucking coward. Or I'm not thick-skinned enough. What you received on this thread was rational critique of your hypothesis. And no one, that I remember, was rude to you until you lashed out and quit the discussion. And yes, if you want to participate in these types of discussions you need to learn not to take criticism of your ideas personally. But since you used to be open-minded, before your tender little feelings got hurt because you didn't get an excellent grade in return for all of your hard work, I have no right to make a statement (politely not directed straight at you) that some people are not open-minded enough to listen to what I'm actually saying. I am open minded, and my feelings weren't hurt. You have the right to make any statement you want, but you don't have a right to have anyone agree with the statement. AND your feel entitled to be self-righteous about it, because you settled on the mainstream view, and the best you can understand about critical reasoning is that if you agree with the mainstream (i.e., argumentum ad populum), you can be as rude as you want to those who do not, and that's just good reasoning. I don't feel self-righteous at all, and I didn't settle on the mainstream view. What I "settled" on was far from the mainstream, I "settled" on an opinion that the exodus never happened, Moses might not have been a real person, and that the stories in Exodus were myths made up by herders that migrated into Canaan and eventually took over. The purpose of the myths was to justify their right to the land by claiming that their god gave it to them. Shame on you. People like you give critical reasoning a bad name. You're not a skeptic. You're an elitist, and not even a good one at that. Your professor surely was more polite. I assure you young man that I am a skeptic, and an old one at that, it says so right there in my online name. What exactly is a good elitist? Did I miss anything (aside from the re-run of a TV show that I've already seen, and opted this evening not to watch again, in lieu of giving some elitists some back-atcha)? Well you could have been reading Jared Diamonds Guns Germs and Steel or Steven Pinker's chapter about food taboos in How the Mind Works. Or maybe your time would have been better spent trying to find a citation for pigs and ducks living together causing bubonic plague? Or you could have done a quick google search and found out that Ramose's tomb is across the Nile from Thebes.
'13-10-18, 06:46 CharlesChandler	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus MrFungus420 wrote: If there were no Jewish slaves in Egypt, then the story about the plagues is just that, a story. If they never happened, then any conjecture about how they might have happened is automatically WRONG. Slaves = Exodus = plagues = thesis. No slaves = no Exodus = no plagues = no thesis. Is that simple enough for you to understand or do you need it explained in one-syllable words? This form of logic is known as an "undistributed middle", which is fallacious. If all Exodus stories required that the Hebrews be slaves, and that the Plagues occurred as the Bible describes, this reasoning would be legitimate. But that's not at all what I'm saying. Here's what I said in post #20, and which I quoted in post #30, and again in post #67: CharlesChandler wrote: I'm contending that the "Exodus" might have been just Ramose and a few courtesans who were forced into exile when Horemheb reinstated the Amun cult. There is no archaeological evidence of this "Exodus", in the Sinai or in Canaan, because it might have been a relatively small number of people involved, and the trail would be indistinguishable from a migrating Bedouin tribe. Maybe four times' a charm.
'13-10-18, 06:55 CharlesChandler	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus Oldskeptic wrote: No smack down, Professor Campbell was a gentle giant, very interested in his students education. He has remained a hero of mine, and a role model. I didn't mention, because I didn't think it important, that I received a B+ for the paper even though there factual errors; more than the two that I mentioned. [...] Again there was no smack down, it was guidance and mentoring. In fact I became one of Professor Campbell's TAs after that. Sounds like you fell in love.
'13-10-18, 07:07 CharlesChandler	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus Oldskeptic wrote: I didn't go after you until you insulted me and everyone that did not agree with you. I went after some of your arguments. I didn't direct my comments at you personally. Your rude and vulgar comments were directed at me personally. Oldskeptic wrote: What you received on this thread was rational critique of your hypothesis. No, you have critiqued your conception of what I'm saying, which is the opposite of what I'm saying. Oldskeptic wrote: I don't feel self-righteous at all, and I didn't settle on the mainstream view. You fell in love, and it clouded your judgement. Oldskeptic wrote: Or you could have done a quick google search and found out that Ramose's tomb is across the Nile from Thebes. That tomb was found empty, as was his other tomb at Amarna. The one at Thebes would have been built before Akhenaten moved the capital to Amarna, in the 5th year of this reign. After the shift, he had another one built. What does it prove, or even suggest, that there was one at Thebes?
'13-10-18, 07:32 Agrippina	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus And I don't suppose you've ever heard about three millennia of grave-robbing in Egypt being the reason why graves were found to be empty?
'13-10-18, 08:19 CharlesChandler	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus Agrippina wrote: There would still be records and archeological evidence. Which there isn't. It was merely the Hebrews in exile in Babylon making up stories so that their history would be greater than that of the people who took them into exile. Agrippina wrote: Jesus, I am simply overwhelmed with the amount of smug, self-satisfied, arrogance that seems to be infiltrating the forum this week. Agrippina wrote: I'm sorry you are leaving before you've actually learnt something new. What kind of twisted mind would flatly reject my hypothesis on the absence of archaeological evidence (which I acknowledge and account for), and then band-stand another hypothesis, for which there also is no archaeological evidence (i.e., the Babylonian captivity), and then accuse me of being arrogant? I didn't "learn anything new" because you haven't said anything. Agrippina wrote: And I don't suppose you've ever heard about three millennia of grave-robbing in Egypt being the reason why graves were found to be empty? The graves were typically robbed by the very next pharaoh. Tutankhamun's tomb was spared this because of the political in-fighting between his two immediate successors. The next pharaoh was Ay, who only ruled for 4 years, and thus hadn't begun work on his tomb, before being ousted by Horemheb, who was a commoner, but who Tut had promoted to a position second only to Ay, the primary vizier. When Horemheb became pharaoh, he did many things things to glorify Tut, since Tut had supplied Horemheb's only credentials by making him commander in chief of the army, and minister of foreign affairs. To prevent his patron's tomb from being robbed, Horemheb ordered construction projects that concealed its entrance, and the knowledge was lost to history until modern times. Anyway, I'm not attaching any significance to the fact that both of Ramose's tombs were found empty. I'm still wondering where Oldskeptic intends to go with that.
'13-10-18, 08:32 The_Metatron	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus CharlesChandler wrote: Oldskeptic wrote: No smack down, Professor Campbell was a gentle giant, very interested in his students education. He has remained a hero of mine, and a role model. I didn't mention, because I didn't think it important, that I received a B+ for the paper even though there factual errors; more than the two that I mentioned. [...] Again there was no smack down, it was guidance and mentoring. In fact I became one of Professor Campbell's TAs after that. Sounds like you fell in love. This is how you support your argument?
'13-10-18, 08:35 Agrippina	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus CharlesChandler wrote: Agrippina wrote: There would still be records and archeological evidence. Which there isn't. It was merely the Hebrews in exile in Babylon making up stories so that their history would be greater than that of the people who took them into exile. Agrippina wrote: Jesus, I am simply overwhelmed with the amount of smug, self-satisfied, arrogance that seems to be infiltrating the forum this week. Agrippina wrote: I'm sorry you are leaving before you've actually learnt something new. What kind of twisted mind would flatly reject my hypothesis on the absence of archaeological evidence (which I acknowledge and account for), and then band-stand another hypothesis, for which there also is no archaeological evidence (i.e., the Babylonian captivity), and then accuse me of being arrogant? I didn't "learn anything new" because you haven't said anything. The sort of mind that has been educated by a few decades of reading actual research and not merely expounding on the products of navel-gazing, armchair philosophy. Agrippina wrote: And I don't suppose you've ever heard about three millennia of grave-robbing in Egypt being the reason why graves were found to be empty? The graves were typically robbed by the very next pharaoh. Tutankhamun's tomb was spared this because of the political in-fighting between his two immediate successors. The next pharaoh was Ay, who only ruled for 4 years, and thus hadn't begun work on his tomb, before being ousted by Horemheb, who was a commoner, but who Tut had promoted to a position second only to Ay, the primary vizier. When Horemheb became pharaoh, he did many things things to glorify Tut, since Tut had supplied Horemheb's only credentials by making him commander in chief of the army, and minister of foreign affairs. To prevent his patron's tomb from being robbed, Horemheb ordered construction projects that concealed its entrance, and the knowledge was lost to history until modern times. Evidence for this please?