707
A real headache to argue over (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/atheistmemes@lemmy.world
109 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 2 years ago* (12 children)

I'm thinking, since it wasn't written down until centuries after it supposedly happened, that the most likely answer is that it was just bullshit.

The closest evidence we have to David even existing is a tablet caved by someone who [may have] claimed to be of the House of David.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_stele

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (11 children)

    Oral history is significantly more accurate than you're making it out to be.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    There is no reason to assume oral history with no corroborating evidence is true and the lack of corroborating evidence is good reason to be skeptical.

    The entire Bible is oral history. I assume you don't place similar validity in the Garden of Eden and the Tower of Babel.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    I didn't say that oral history is 100% accurate. I said it's more accurate than you assume, which based on what you said seemed to be "it's all made up."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    which based on what you said seemed to be “it’s all made up.”

    That is simply a lie.

    I said "the most likely answer" is that it was bullshit due to only being oral history without any corroborating evidence. I did not even remotely imply that all oral history is made up.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    I'm thinking, since it wasn't written down until centuries after it supposedly happened, that the most likely answer is that it was just bullshit.

    Your basis for discounting it is "it wasn't written down." That's all oral tradition. I wasn't trying to argue with you, I just wanted to see an amendment to your statement that recognized that this sentence is inaccurate. Seeing as you're rolling back on it, I'll take it as such.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago* (6 children)

    Yet again, "most likely answer" does not imply in any way that all oral history is made up. That's simply a lie.

    I recognized nothing I said as inaccurate. That is another lie.

    Stop lying.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (5 children)

    I didn't say it did! I said that you're overly discounting oral history.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    That is another lie. You said I assumed it was all made up.

    This is what you said:

    I didn’t say that oral history is 100% accurate. I said it’s more accurate than you assume, which based on what you said seemed to be “it’s all made up.”

    Absolutely nothing I said indicated that all oral history was made up, as I demonstrated by quoting it.

    Just tell the truth for one fucking post.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Oh no, that dastardly word seemed is being ignored in my quote!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    Sort of like those dastardly words "most likely" which is what your "seemed" was linked to?

    Because I doubt you're so stupid that you think "most likely" means "every other possibility is wrong."

    Again, what I said:

    I’m thinking, since it wasn’t written down until centuries after it supposedly happened, that the most likely answer is that it was just bullshit.

    What you said:

    I didn’t say that oral history is 100% accurate. I said it’s more accurate than you assume, which based on what you said seemed to be “it’s all made up.”

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Actually all my comments were peer reviewed by a liguist with experience in oral histories and they said my statements were accurate and clear, and that yours were definitely discounting oral history as a whole with your statement. I'll not be commenting any more as you seem fixed on a bad faith argument.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •