Half of American atheists believe in life after death

Religions > Atheism > Half of American atheists believe in life after death

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 15 of 35

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Happy Guy"
Date:	30 Oct 2003 01:51:17 AM
Object:	Half of American atheists believe in life after death

Americans Describe Their Views About Life After Death
October 21, 2003

(Ventura, CA) Despite the constant flux in many dimensions of
Americans? lives, a new study from the Barna Research Group of
Ventura, California, shows that most people have retained surprisingly
traditional views about life after death. Although the lifestyles,
values, and self-perceptions of most adults have undergone significant
change ? and millions of Americans have embraced many elements of a
postmodern worldview ? the vast majority continues to believe that
there is life after death, that everyone has a soul, and that Heaven
and Hell exist. However, more than 50 million adults are uncertain
regarding their personal eternal fate.
The Afterlife
Belief in life after death, like the existence of God, is widely
embraced: 8 out of 10 Americans (81%) believe in an afterlife of some
sort. Another 9% said life after death may exist, but they were not
certain. Just one out of every ten adults (10%) contend that there is
no form of life after one dies on earth.
Moreover, a large majority of Americans (79%) agreed with the
statement ?every person has a soul that will live forever, either in
God?s presence or absence.?
Evangelicals, born again Christians, and Elders (ages 58 and older)
were the most likely segments to embrace the idea of life after death.
Those least likely to believe in life after death were Hispanics,
Busters (ages 20-38), residents of the West, atheists and agnostics,
those associated with a faith other than Christianity, and unchurched
adults ? although more than two-thirds of each of these groups accept
the existence of an afterlife.
Heaven and Hell
The survey also explored peoples? views of Heaven and Hell. In all,
76% believe that Heaven exists, while nearly the same proportion said
that there is such a thing as Hell (71%). Respondents were given
various descriptions of Heaven and asked to choose the statement that
best fits their belief about Heaven. Those who believe in Heaven were
divided between describing Heaven as ?a state of eternal existence in
God?s presence? (46%) and those who said it is ?an actual place of
rest and reward where souls go after death? (30%). Other Americans
claimed that Heaven is just ?symbolic? (14%), that there is no such
thing as life after death (5%), or that they are not sure (5%).
While there is no dominant view of Hell, two particular perspectives
are popular. Four out of ten adults believe that Hell is ?a state of
eternal separation from God?s presence? (39%) and one-third (32%) says
it is ?an actual place of torment and suffering where people?s souls
go after death.? A third perspective that one in eight adults believe
is that ?Hell is just a symbol of an unknown bad outcome after death?
(13%). Other respondents were ?not sure? or said they that they do not
believe in an afterlife (16%).
Destinations
Most Americans do not expect to experience Hell first-hand: just
one-half of 1% expect to go to Hell upon their death. Nearly
two-thirds of Americans (64%) believe they will go to Heaven. One in
20 adults (5%) claim they will come back as another life form, while
the same proportion (5%) contend they will simply cease to exist.
Even though most Americans believe in life after death and the
existence of the soul, not everyone is clear about their own ultimate
destination. One in every four adults (24%) admitted that they have
?no idea? what will happen after they die. Those who felt their
eternal future is undefined were most likely to be Hispanics, singles,
men, atheists and agnostics, residents of the West, and 18- and
19-year-olds (i.e., young adults who also happen to be the first
members of the Mosaic generation to enter adulthood).
Among those who expect to go to Heaven, there were differences in how
they anticipate such an end would be attained. Nearly half of those
who say they are Heaven bound (43%) believe they will go to Heaven
because they have ?confessed their sins and accepted Jesus Christ as
their savior.? Others felt they will get to Heaven because ?they have
tried to obey the 10 Commandments? (15%) or because ?they are
basically a good person? (15%). Another 6% believed their entrance to
Heaven would be based upon the fact that ?God loves all people and
will not let them perish.?
One of the intriguing findings from the research is that education and
income are negatively correlated with belief in Heaven and Hell. In
other words, the more education a person gets or the more income they
earn, the less likely they are to believe that Heaven or Hell exists.
While most high-income households and college graduates maintain
belief in Heaven and Hell, the finding reinforces the popular notion ?
and, indeed, Jesus? teaching ? that people of economic means and those
with considerable education struggle to embrace biblical teachings on
such matters.
The New Views
Although a comparison of current beliefs to those held over the past
two decades shows that Americans? views about life after death have
been relatively stable over time, new perceptions about the hereafter
are being grafted into the traditional perspectives. For instance,
nearly 1 in 5 adults (18%) now contends that people are reincarnated
after death. And one-third of Americans (34%) believe that it is
possible to communicate with others after their death. As evidence
that this belief is gaining traction, consider that nearly half of all
Busters (48%) embrace the concept of communication with the dead,
while just 35% of Boomers (39-57) and 15% of Elders (ages 58+) do so.
Contradictions Reign
George Barna, the president of the company that conducted the
research, pointed out that ?Americans? willingness to embrace beliefs
that are logically contradictory and their preference for blending
different faith views together create unorthodox religious
viewpoints.? For instance, he noted that among born again Christians -
who believe that they will experience eternal existence in Heaven
solely because they have confessed their sins to God and are depending
upon Jesus Christ to spare them from eternal punishment or rejection -
10% believe that people are reincarnated after death, 29% claim it is
possible to communicate with the dead, and 50% contend that a person
can earn salvation based upon good works.
?Many committed born again Christians believe that people have
multiple options for gaining entry to Heaven. They are saying, in
essence, ?Personally, I am trusting Jesus Christ as my means of
gaining God?s permanent favor and a place in Heaven ? but someone else
could get to Heaven based upon living an exemplary life.? Millions of
Americans have redefined grace to mean that God is so eager to save
people from Hell that He will change His nature and universal
principles for their individual benefit. It is astounding how many
people develop their faith according to their feelings or cultural
assumptions rather than biblical teachings.?
The California-based researcher indicated that born again Christians
are not the only ones confused about what happens after death. Many of
those who describe themselves as either atheistic or agnostic also
harbor contradictions in their thinking. ?Half of all atheists and
agnostics say that every person has a soul, that Heaven and Hell
exist, and that there is life after death. One out of every eight
atheists and agnostics even believe that accepting Jesus Christ as
savior probably makes life after death possible. These contradictions
are further evidence that many Americans adopt simplistic views of
life and the afterlife based upon ideas drawn from disparate sources,
such as movies, music and novels, without carefully considering those
beliefs. Consequently, the labels attached to people ? whether it be
?born again? or ?atheist? may not give us as much insight into the
person?s beliefs as we might assume.?
Research Methodology
The data described in this report are based on national telephone
surveys among random samples of 1000 or more adults (age 18 or older)
living within the 48 continental states conducted in September 2003,
October 2002, and October 2001. The maximum margin of sampling error
associated with each sample of 1000 adults is �3 percentage points at
the 95% confidence level. (There are other types of error besides
sampling error that may also be present in surveys.) All of the
interviews were conducted from the Barna Research Group telephone
interviewing facility in Ventura, CA. The distribution of the survey
respondents coincided with the geographic dispersion of the U.S. adult
population according to Census Bureau estimates. Multiple callbacks to
each respondent were used to increase the probability of obtaining
data based on a reliable sample of adults.
?Born again Christians? were defined in these surveys as people who
said they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is
still important in their life today and who also indicated they
believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had
confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior.
Respondents were not asked to describe themselves as ?born again.?
?Evangelicals? are a subset of born again Christians in Barna surveys.
In addition to meeting the born again criteria, evangelicals also meet
seven other conditions. Those include saying their faith is very
important in their life today; believing they have a personal
responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with
non-Christians; believing that Satan exists; believing that eternal
salvation is possible only through grace, not works; believing that
Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; contending that the Bible
is accurate in all that it teaches; and describing God as the
all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and
still rules it today. Being classified as an evangelical is not based
upon church attendance or the denominational affiliation of the church
they attend. Respondents were not asked to describe themselves as
?evangelical.?
The Barna Research Group, Ltd. is an independent marketing research
company located in southern California. Since 1984 it has been
studying cultural trends related to values, beliefs, attitudes and
behaviors. This research was funded solely by Barna Research as part
of its regular tracking of the social, religious and political state
of the nation and its churches.
If you would like to receive a bi-weekly update on the latest research
findings from the Barna Research Group, you may subscribe to this free
service at the Barna Research web site (www.barna.org) by providing
your e-mail address in the section of the home page that offers The
Barna Update.

http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PagePressRelease.asp?PressReleaseID=150&Reference=A
.

User: "Roy Jose Lorr"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	16 Nov 2003 06:01:59 PM

Elroy Willis wrote:

Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:

Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism

zamboni30000@knowspamatyahoo.com wrote:

It really pisses the fundies off when you know their book better than
they do, eh. It's sad really. I mean the buy-bull is all they have, a
single book of fiction...It's like basing your life on Harry Potter
books(at least those have continuity). Facts, science, truth and
evidence is what we have.

No contest.

They don't really want to know about their book, either. They learn the
words backwards and forwards but they never look at the backgrounds of
the stories.

And whenever someone points out the background of one of the stories,
all too often, into the proverbial sand their heads go.

My mom is a prime example. She's got all sorts of study guides and
parallel translations but would never touch "Asimov's Guide to the
Bible" or "The Bible Unearthed".

My own mother won't talk to me about the page I put up about Lucifer.
She saw the name Lucifer and got afraid of it or something. Maybe she
read parts of it, but she doesn't wanna talk about it, because she
actually believes there's a war going on in some heaven somewhere, and
that I might be a Satan worshipper or will burn in hell if she reads
the whole page or something. Weird stuff. We usually just avoid the
subject of religion whenever we talk or get together, which is fine
with me.

She bombarded me with all kinds of miracle stories when she found out
I didn't believe in some god, but those have pretty much subsided for
the time being.

Revealing stuff, Elroy... keep it coming.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.

User: "Roy Jose Lorr"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	16 Nov 2003 05:53:16 PM

Fred Stone wrote:

Elroy Willis wrote:

Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism

zamboni30000@knowspamatyahoo.com wrote:

No contest.

They don't really want to know about their book, either. They learn the
words backwards and forwards but they never look at the backgrounds of
the stories.

And whenever someone points out the background of one of the stories,
all too often, into the proverbial sand their heads go.

My mom is a prime example. She's got all sorts of study guides and
parallel translations but would never touch "Asimov's Guide to the
Bible"

Whenever I want a good laugh, I crack open my copy. His
science fiction is less of a joke than his biblical history but
only marginally.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	16 Nov 2003 07:06:37 PM

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

Elroy Willis wrote:

Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism

zamboni30000@knowspamatyahoo.com wrote:

No contest.

They don't really want to know about their book, either. They learn the
words backwards and forwards but they never look at the backgrounds of
the stories.

And whenever someone points out the background of one of the stories,
all too often, into the proverbial sand their heads go.

My mom is a prime example. She's got all sorts of study guides and
parallel translations but would never touch "Asimov's Guide to the
Bible"

Whenever I want a good laugh, I crack open my copy. His
science fiction is less of a joke than his biblical history but
only marginally.

Prove it.
--
Fred Stone
Illegitimi non Carborundum
.

User: "The Holy Kafir"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	17 Nov 2003 06:24:56 PM

"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:vrg7of6j7urkbf@news.supernews.com...

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

Elroy Willis wrote:

Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism

zamboni30000@knowspamatyahoo.com wrote:

No contest.

They don't really want to know about their book, either. They learn

the

words backwards and forwards but they never look at the backgrounds of
the stories.

And whenever someone points out the background of one of the stories,
all too often, into the proverbial sand their heads go.

My mom is a prime example. She's got all sorts of study guides and
parallel translations but would never touch "Asimov's Guide to the
Bible"

Whenever I want a good laugh, I crack open my copy. His
science fiction is less of a joke than his biblical history but
only marginally.

Prove it.

*laugh*
.

User: "Roy Jose Lorr"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	16 Nov 2003 05:44:09 PM

Elroy Willis wrote:

Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism

zamboni30000@knowspamatyahoo.com wrote:

No contest.

They don't really want to know about their book, either. They learn the
words backwards and forwards but they never look at the backgrounds of
the stories.

And whenever someone points out the background of one of the stories,
all too often, into the proverbial sand their heads go.

You fundie atheist make up backgrounds as you go. Not an
ounce of truth in them.
Willy, I'm not surprised to see you align yourself
with the fundie atheist morons, you being a fundie
atheist yourself.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.

User: "Elroy Willis"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	17 Nov 2003 09:51:43 AM

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:

Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism

zamboni30000@knowspamatyahoo.com wrote:

They don't really want to know about their book, either. They learn the
words backwards and forwards but they never look at the backgrounds of
the stories.

And whenever someone points out the background of one of the stories,
all too often, into the proverbial sand their heads go.

You fundie atheist make up backgrounds as you go. Not an
ounce of truth in them.

Yeah, right.

Willy, I'm not surprised to see you align yourself
with the fundie atheist morons, you being a fundie
atheist yourself.

Actually I don't mind being called a fundie atheist, so if you thought
it was gonna upset me, you lose.
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.

User: "Roy Jose Lorr"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	17 Nov 2003 01:33:13 PM

Elroy Willis wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:

Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism

zamboni30000@knowspamatyahoo.com wrote:

No contest.

They don't really want to know about their book, either. They learn the
words backwards and forwards but they never look at the backgrounds of
the stories.

And whenever someone points out the background of one of the stories,
all too often, into the proverbial sand their heads go.

You fundie atheist make up backgrounds as you go. Not an
ounce of truth in them.

Yeah, right.

Willy, I'm not surprised to see you align yourself
with the fundie atheist morons, you being a fundie
atheist yourself.

Actually I don't mind being called a fundie atheist, so if you thought
it was gonna upset me, you lose.

Yeah, right.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	16 Nov 2003 05:52:07 PM

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

Elroy Willis wrote:

Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism

zamboni30000@knowspamatyahoo.com wrote:

No contest.

They don't really want to know about their book, either. They learn the
words backwards and forwards but they never look at the backgrounds of
the stories.

And whenever someone points out the background of one of the stories,
all too often, into the proverbial sand their heads go.

You fundie atheist make up backgrounds as you go. Not an
ounce of truth in them.

Tell that to the archaeologists and historians who have pieced these
backgrounds together over decades of patient research.
--
Fred Stone
Illegitimi non Carborundum
.

User: "Roy Jose Lorr"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	16 Nov 2003 06:08:25 PM

Fred Stone wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

Elroy Willis wrote:

Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism

zamboni30000@knowspamatyahoo.com wrote:

No contest.

They don't really want to know about their book, either. They learn the
words backwards and forwards but they never look at the backgrounds of
the stories.

And whenever someone points out the background of one of the stories,
all too often, into the proverbial sand their heads go.

You fundie atheist make up backgrounds as you go. Not an
ounce of truth in them.

Tell that to the archaeologists and historians who have pieced these
backgrounds together over decades of patient research.

Here's your chance to present some of these 'patiently
researched backgrounds' instead of just claiming their
existence. You may wish to start with researched
evidence that camels didn't exist in egypt as you claim
until the 7th century bce.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	16 Nov 2003 07:07:40 PM

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

Elroy Willis wrote:

Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism

zamboni30000@knowspamatyahoo.com wrote:

No contest.

They don't really want to know about their book, either. They learn the
words backwards and forwards but they never look at the backgrounds of
the stories.

And whenever someone points out the background of one of the stories,
all too often, into the proverbial sand their heads go.

You fundie atheist make up backgrounds as you go. Not an
ounce of truth in them.

Tell that to the archaeologists and historians who have pieced these
backgrounds together over decades of patient research.

"The Bible Unearthed" Finkelstein and Silberman.
--
Fred Stone
Illegitimi non Carborundum
.

User: "Roy Jose Lorr"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	16 Nov 2003 10:30:56 PM

Fred Stone wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

Elroy Willis wrote:

Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism

zamboni30000@knowspamatyahoo.com wrote:

No contest.

They don't really want to know about their book, either. They learn the
words backwards and forwards but they never look at the backgrounds of
the stories.

And whenever someone points out the background of one of the stories,
all too often, into the proverbial sand their heads go.

You fundie atheist make up backgrounds as you go. Not an
ounce of truth in them.

Tell that to the archaeologists and historians who have pieced these
backgrounds together over decades of patient research.

"The Bible Unearthed" Finkelstein and Silberman.

How about supplying a citation from their book that
backs up your nonsensical claim about the non
existence of camels in the area lived in by the
Israelites in Moses' time.... Thought not.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.

User: "Elroy Willis"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	17 Nov 2003 09:16:56 AM

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Fred Stone wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:
Here's your chance to present some of these 'patiently
researched backgrounds' instead of just claiming their
existence. You may wish to start with researched
evidence that camels didn't exist in egypt as you claim
until the 7th century bce.

"The Bible Unearthed" Finkelstein and Silberman.

How about supplying a citation from their book that
backs up your nonsensical claim about the non
existence of camels in the area lived in by the
Israelites in Moses' time.... Thought not.

I don't have that book, but from:
http://ancientneareast.tripod.com/Arabia.html
"5000 - 3000 BC
Important differences are that cattle as well as sheep and goats were
herded and that the camel had not yet been domesticated."
"In the 11th century BC land routes through Arabia were greatly
improved by using the camel as a beast of burden and frankincense was
carried from its production centre at Qana to Gaza in Egypt. The camel
caravans also carried gold and other precious goods which arrived in
Qana by sea from India."
When exactly do you think Moses was alive, assuming he existed?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	17 Nov 2003 09:35:37 AM

Elroy Willis wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Fred Stone wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

Fred Stone wrote:

"The Bible Unearthed" Finkelstein and Silberman.

How about supplying a citation from their book that
backs up your nonsensical claim about the non
existence of camels in the area lived in by the
Israelites in Moses' time.... Thought not.

I don't have that book, but from:

http://ancientneareast.tripod.com/Arabia.html

"5000 - 3000 BC
Important differences are that cattle as well as sheep and goats were
herded and that the camel had not yet been domesticated."

"In the 11th century BC land routes through Arabia were greatly
improved by using the camel as a beast of burden and frankincense was
carried from its production centre at Qana to Gaza in Egypt. The camel
caravans also carried gold and other precious goods which arrived in
Qana by sea from India."

When exactly do you think Moses was alive, assuming he existed?

http://academic.reed.edu/Humanities/Hum110/kerr/class/bible/bib-time.html
(All dates BCE, except where noted)
c. 1850 Abraham leaves Mesopotamia for Canaan Gen 12
c. 1700(?) Jacob and twelve sons settle in Egypt Gen 46
c.1280-1250 Moses leads Israelites our of Egypt Exod 13-15
after 1250 Joshua leads the conquest of Canaan Josh 1-24
c. 1200-1030 Judges: Israel is a twelve-tribe confederacy Judg 1-21
**************
Note that the Bible stories of Abraham and Jacob and sons mention camels
as being herded and used as pack animals.
--
Fred Stone
Illegitimi non Carborundum
.

User: "Elroy Willis"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	17 Nov 2003 10:02:03 AM

Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Fred Stone wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

"The Bible Unearthed" Finkelstein and Silberman.

How about supplying a citation from their book that
backs up your nonsensical claim about the non
existence of camels in the area lived in by the
Israelites in Moses' time.... Thought not.

Sounds about 500 years or so too early, if the above info is correct.
Assuming Moses existed around 1200 BC, I don't see a problem with
there being camel caravans at that time. At the time of Abraham and
Jacob seems to be a problem, however.
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	17 Nov 2003 10:17:18 AM

Elroy Willis wrote:

Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Fred Stone wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

"The Bible Unearthed" Finkelstein and Silberman.

How about supplying a citation from their book that
backs up your nonsensical claim about the non
existence of camels in the area lived in by the
Israelites in Moses' time.... Thought not.

I don't have that book, but from:

http://ancientneareast.tripod.com/Arabia.html

"5000 - 3000 BC
Important differences are that cattle as well as sheep and goats were
herded and that the camel had not yet been domesticated."

"In the 11th century BC land routes through Arabia were greatly
improved by using the camel as a beast of burden and frankincense was
carried from its production centre at Qana to Gaza in Egypt. The camel
caravans also carried gold and other precious goods which arrived in
Qana by sea from India."

When exactly do you think Moses was alive, assuming he existed?

http://academic.reed.edu/Humanities/Hum110/kerr/class/bible/bib-time.html

(All dates BCE, except where noted)

c. 1850 Abraham leaves Mesopotamia for Canaan Gen 12

c. 1700(?) Jacob and twelve sons settle in Egypt Gen 46

c.1280-1250 Moses leads Israelites our of Egypt Exod 13-15

after 1250 Joshua leads the conquest of Canaan Josh 1-24

c. 1200-1030 Judges: Israel is a twelve-tribe confederacy Judg 1-21

**************

Note that the Bible stories of Abraham and Jacob and sons mention camels
as being herded and used as pack animals.

Sounds about 500 years or so too early, if the above info is correct.

Assuming Moses existed around 1200 BC, I don't see a problem with
there being camel caravans at that time. At the time of Abraham and
Jacob seems to be a problem, however.

In the Joseph story in particular, he is sold as a slave to caravaneers
carrying "spices, balm, and myrrh" Gen 37:25. That was, coincidentally,
some of the main products of the lucrative Arabian caravan trade the
flourished under the Assyrians in the 8th and 7th century BCE.
--
Fred Stone
Illegitimi non Carborundum
.

User: "Elroy Willis"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	17 Nov 2003 11:03:42 AM

Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:

Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in alt.atheism

"The Bible Unearthed" Finkelstein and Silberman.

How about supplying a citation from their book that
backs up your nonsensical claim about the non
existence of camels in the area lived in by the
Israelites in Moses' time.... Thought not.

Yeah, frankincense as well. Even though those things were being
traded before that time, they weren't being carried around in large
camel caravans.
I found this bit from of all places, a Mormon site:
http://www.mormonscience.org/Public/Articles/Reincarnation-Resurrection/Egypt/EncycloZine%20A%20Look%20at%20Ancient%20Egypt.htm
"Did you know...
We frequently associate people riding on top of camels with Egypt,
however, there were no domesticated camels in Africa until after the
Persian conquest of Egypt, and the camel was not used as a beast of
transport until the Arab invasions of the seventh century AD, long
after the zenith of the Egyptian kingdom"
What I find interesting is that a Christian site would reveal such a
fact. It would seem to undermine the credibility of their own dogma
from my pov.
I read a half dozen or so other websites which say basically the same
thing -- camels weren't domesticated and used as pack animals until
1200 BC at the earliest.
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.

User: "Roy Jose Lorr"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	17 Nov 2003 01:15:06 PM

Elroy Willis wrote:

Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:

Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in alt.atheism

"The Bible Unearthed" Finkelstein and Silberman.

How about supplying a citation from their book that
backs up your nonsensical claim about the non
existence of camels in the area lived in by the
Israelites in Moses' time.... Thought not.

I don't have that book, but from:

http://ancientneareast.tripod.com/Arabia.html

"5000 - 3000 BC
Important differences are that cattle as well as sheep and goats were
herded and that the camel had not yet been domesticated."

When exactly do you think Moses was alive, assuming he existed?

http://academic.reed.edu/Humanities/Hum110/kerr/class/bible/bib-time.html

(All dates BCE, except where noted)

c. 1850 Abraham leaves Mesopotamia for Canaan Gen 12

c. 1700(?) Jacob and twelve sons settle in Egypt Gen 46

c.1280-1250 Moses leads Israelites our of Egypt Exod 13-15

after 1250 Joshua leads the conquest of Canaan Josh 1-24

c. 1200-1030 Judges: Israel is a twelve-tribe confederacy Judg 1-21

**************

Note that the Bible stories of Abraham and Jacob and sons mention camels
as being herded and used as pack animals.

Sounds about 500 years or so too early, if the above info is correct.

Assuming Moses existed around 1200 BC, I don't see a problem with
there being camel caravans at that time. At the time of Abraham and
Jacob seems to be a problem, however.

Yeah, frankincense as well. Even though those things were being
traded before that time, they weren't being carried around in large
camel caravans.

I found this bit from of all places, a Mormon site:
http://www.mormonscience.org/Public/Articles/Reincarnation-Resurrection/Egypt/EncycloZine%20A%20Look%20at%20Ancient%20Egypt.htm

"Did you know...
We frequently associate people riding on top of camels with Egypt,
however, there were no domesticated camels in Africa until after the
Persian conquest of Egypt, and the camel was not used as a beast of
transport until the Arab invasions of the seventh century AD, long
after the zenith of the Egyptian kingdom"

What I find interesting is that a Christian site would reveal such a
fact. It would seem to undermine the credibility of their own dogma
from my pov.

I read a half dozen or so other websites which say basically the same
thing -- camels weren't domesticated and used as pack animals until
1200 BC at the earliest.

Numbers of sites parroting hearsay without evidence is
hardly a measure of accuracy in reporting.
Think of how many of your atheist comrades lied when they
answered [no] to the question: "Do you wish death were not
an issue?"
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.

User: "Elroy Willis"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	17 Nov 2003 01:51:53 PM

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:

<snip>

I read a half dozen or so other websites which say basically the same
thing -- camels weren't domesticated and used as pack animals until
1200 BC at the earliest.

Why don't you pony up with some cites and documentation which says
that camels were domesticated and used in caravans during the time
in question, which is around 1700 BC or so.
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.

User: "Roy Jose Lorr"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	17 Nov 2003 02:30:11 PM

Elroy Willis wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:

<snip>

I read a half dozen or so other websites which say basically the same
thing -- camels weren't domesticated and used as pack animals until
1200 BC at the earliest.

Numbers of sites parroting hearsay without evidence is
hardly a measure of accuracy in reporting.

Think of how many of your atheist comrades lied when they
answered [no] to the question: "Do you wish death were not
an issue?"

Why don't you pony up with some cites and documentation which says
that camels were domesticated and used in caravans during the time
in question, which is around 1700 BC or so.

First, camel up with some solid evidence that the ancient Hebrews
were unaware of camels in the time of Moses, as was falsely asserted
by a member of your fundie atheist cabal. Then we can pick up on
your straw dog by going to google and typing the keywords: camel,
dromedary, archeology, paleontology.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.

User: "Elroy Willis"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	18 Nov 2003 10:14:19 AM

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:

<snip>

I read a half dozen or so other websites which say basically the same
thing -- camels weren't domesticated and used as pack animals until
1200 BC at the earliest.

I'm not sure why you're dragging that up, but I'd guess you're trying
to change the subject. It also sounds like you might not actually
understand the position of most atheists with regards to dying and
being dead.

Why don't you pony up with some cites and documentation which says
that camels were domesticated and used in caravans during the time
in question, which is around 1700 BC or so.

First, camel up with some solid evidence that the ancient Hebrews
were unaware of camels in the time of Moses, as was falsely asserted
by a member of your fundie atheist cabal.

I won't support Fred on that one. Maybe he meant to say Abraham or
Joseph instead of Moses in his original statement, I don't know.

Then we can pick up on your straw dog by going to google and typing
the keywords: camel, dromedary, archeology, paleontology.

Only one hit from:
http://www.google.com/search?q=camel+dromedary+archeology+paleontology
http://evolution-facts.org/c13c.htm
"The earliest camels appear to go back to 2000 B.C. for the one humped
dromedary, and 1500 B.C. for the two humped Bactrian camel."
No mention of them being domesticated at that time, or being used as
pack animals.
Is that the only reference you could find?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.

User: "Roy Jose Lorr"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	18 Nov 2003 02:24:03 PM

Elroy Willis wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:

<snip>

I read a half dozen or so other websites which say basically the same
thing -- camels weren't domesticated and used as pack animals until
1200 BC at the earliest.

Numbers of sites parroting hearsay without evidence is
hardly a measure of accuracy in reporting.

Think of how many of your atheist comrades lied when they
answered [no] to the question: "Do you wish death were not
an issue?"

I'm not sure why you're dragging that up, but I'd guess you're trying
to change the subject.

I brought it up to show that people with a questionable
religious/political agenda to promote usually have little
respect for the truth.

It also sounds like you might not actually
understand the position of most atheists with regards to dying and
being dead.

I understand the atheist position very well, thank you.
Their position is no different than the natural positions
of all human beings. Unless of course you believe
that atheists transcend the human condition.

Why don't you pony up with some cites and documentation which says
that camels were domesticated and used in caravans during the time
in question, which is around 1700 BC or so.

First, camel up with some solid evidence that the ancient Hebrews
were unaware of camels in the time of Moses, as was falsely asserted
by a member of your fundie atheist cabal.

I won't support Fred on that one. Maybe he meant to say Abraham or
Joseph instead of Moses in his original statement, I don't know.

Makes no difference.

Then we can pick up on your straw dog by going to google and typing
the keywords: camel, dromedary, archeology, paleontology.

Only one hit from:
http://www.google.com/search?q=camel+dromedary+archeology+paleontology

http://evolution-facts.org/c13c.htm

"The earliest camels appear to go back to 2000 B.C. for the one humped
dromedary, and 1500 B.C. for the two humped Bactrian camel."

No mention of them being domesticated at that time, or being used as
pack animals.

Doesn't mean the weren't.

Is that the only reference you could find?

My fault. Try again, this time omit the word "dromedary".
You should get ten pages.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.

User: "Elroy Willis"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	19 Nov 2003 09:08:03 AM

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in alt.atheism

First, camel up with some solid evidence that the ancient Hebrews
were unaware of camels in the time of Moses, as was falsely asserted
by a member of your fundie atheist cabal.

I won't support Fred on that one. Maybe he meant to say Abraham or
Joseph instead of Moses in his original statement, I don't know.

Makes no difference.

Why not?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.

User: "Roy Jose Lorr"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	19 Nov 2003 02:18:22 PM

Elroy Willis wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in alt.atheism

First, camel up with some solid evidence that the ancient Hebrews
were unaware of camels in the time of Moses, as was falsely asserted
by a member of your fundie atheist cabal.

I won't support Fred on that one. Maybe he meant to say Abraham or
Joseph instead of Moses in his original statement, I don't know.

Makes no difference.

Why not?

Camels existed for Abraham and Moses.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.

User: "Elroy Willis"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	20 Nov 2003 09:52:16 AM

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in alt.atheism

First, camel up with some solid evidence that the ancient Hebrews
were unaware of camels in the time of Moses, as was falsely asserted
by a member of your fundie atheist cabal.

I won't support Fred on that one. Maybe he meant to say Abraham or
Joseph instead of Moses in his original statement, I don't know.

Makes no difference.

Why not?

Camels existed for Abraham and Moses.

If you say so. It's obvious you're just gonna believe what you wanna
believe, despite any contrary evidence.
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.

User: "Roy Jose Lorr"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	24 Nov 2003 03:21:19 PM

Elroy Willis wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in alt.atheism

First, camel up with some solid evidence that the ancient Hebrews
were unaware of camels in the time of Moses, as was falsely asserted
by a member of your fundie atheist cabal.

I won't support Fred on that one. Maybe he meant to say Abraham or
Joseph instead of Moses in his original statement, I don't know.

Makes no difference.

Why not?

Camels existed for Abraham and Moses.

If you say so. It's obvious you're just gonna believe what you wanna
believe, despite any contrary evidence.

I'm still waiting for you to produce a stitch of
viable 'contrary evidence'.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.

User: "Elroy Willis"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	25 Nov 2003 08:09:22 AM

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in alt.atheism

First, camel up with some solid evidence that the ancient Hebrews
were unaware of camels in the time of Moses, as was falsely asserted
by a member of your fundie atheist cabal.

I won't support Fred on that one. Maybe he meant to say Abraham or
Joseph instead of Moses in his original statement, I don't know.

Makes no difference.

Why not?

Camels existed for Abraham and Moses.

If you say so. It's obvious you're just gonna believe what you wanna
believe, despite any contrary evidence.

I'm still waiting for you to produce a stitch of
viable 'contrary evidence'.

I read enough articles to convince me that camels weren't domesticated
and used in caravans at the time of Abraham. I won't really dispute
the idea they might have been used during the time of Moses, assuming
he existed at all, around 1200 BC. Stretching that back to 1900 BC is
going a little to far, according to most scholars.
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.

User: "Roy Jose Lorr"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	25 Nov 2003 11:12:37 AM

Elroy Willis wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in alt.atheism

First, camel up with some solid evidence that the ancient Hebrews
were unaware of camels in the time of Moses, as was falsely asserted
by a member of your fundie atheist cabal.

I won't support Fred on that one. Maybe he meant to say Abraham or
Joseph instead of Moses in his original statement, I don't know.

Makes no difference.

Why not?

Camels existed for Abraham and Moses.

If you say so. It's obvious you're just gonna believe what you wanna
believe, despite any contrary evidence.

I'm still waiting for you to produce a stitch of
viable 'contrary evidence'.

I read enough articles to convince me that camels weren't domesticated
and used in caravans at the time of Abraham.

If the number of articles read is the criteria for accuracy then
I've read enough articles to convince me that hitler was a saint.

I won't really dispute
the idea they might have been used during the time of Moses, assuming
he existed at all, around 1200 BC. Stretching that back to 1900 BC is
going a little to far, according to most scholars.

Scholars? You mean those that rummage through garbage
piles for bits of detritus to add to their personal mound?
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.

User: "Elroy Willis"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	26 Nov 2003 07:12:32 AM

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in alt.atheism

I'm still waiting for you to produce a stitch of
viable 'contrary evidence'.

I read enough articles to convince me that camels weren't domesticated
and used in caravans at the time of Abraham.

If the number of articles read is the criteria for accuracy then
I've read enough articles to convince me that hitler was a saint.

The majority of articles about Hitler don't say he was a saint. The
majority of articles I read regarding camels being domesticated and
used as pack animals around 1900 BC said that there's just no solid
evidence to back up the claim.

I won't really dispute the idea they might have been used during the
time of Moses, assuming he existed at all, around 1200 BC. Stretching
that back to 1900 BC is going a little to far, according to most scholars.

Scholars? You mean those that rummage through garbage
piles for bits of detritus to add to their personal mound?

Better than those that rummage through the same old texts, day in,
day out, to try to find the truth.
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.

User: "Roy Jose Lorr"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	26 Nov 2003 09:41:22 AM

Elroy Willis wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in alt.atheism

I'm still waiting for you to produce a stitch of
viable 'contrary evidence'.

I read enough articles to convince me that camels weren't domesticated
and used in caravans at the time of Abraham.

If the number of articles read is the criteria for accuracy then
I've read enough articles to convince me that hitler was a saint.

The majority of articles in this world confess belief in
God. By your criteria you must be a "believer"... sad.

I won't really dispute the idea they might have been used during the
time of Moses, assuming he existed at all, around 1200 BC. Stretching
that back to 1900 BC is going a little to far, according to most scholars.

Scholars? You mean those that rummage through garbage
piles for bits of detritus to add to their personal mound?

Better than those that rummage through the same old texts, day in,
day out, to try to find the truth.

There is only one text that orders my philosophy.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.

User: "Elroy Willis"
Title: Re: Let's take a poll here...	28 Nov 2003 07:58:29 AM