# GMA and the Pool of Siloam **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 14, 2005, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gma-and-the-pool-of-siloam/316923 "2005-08-14T02:23:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2005, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gma-and-the-pool-of-siloam/316923/21 "2005-08-14T22:05:35Z")
> [@Baldwin](#): > > **DrDeth** – as others have said, I’ve never seen an atheist (“hard-core” or otherwise) base his argument on an assertion of Biblical historical inaccuracies. The Search function works- if you havn’t seen one of the dozens of “Jesus didn’t really exist” threads in GD or Comments on Cecil’s Colums, then Search for one. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2005, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gma-and-the-pool-of-siloam/316923/22 "2005-08-14T22:19:51Z")
Although I agree I’ve seen the argument used on the SDMB against the validity of Christianity (but not in support of atheism), why should **Baldwin** be expected to research your thesis, **DD**? Also, how would a “Jesus never egzisted1!” thread validate your contention that it’s one of the “prime arguments” against religion? Seems to me, those generally depend on either the _extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence_ school of thought or on an examination of the hypocrisies and inconsistincies of religious doctrine and dogma. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2005, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gma-and-the-pool-of-siloam/316923/23 "2005-08-15T00:22:07Z")
> [@Baldwin](#): > > Even if I were a Christian, I think I’d feel that it doesn’t matter what is and isn’t literally factual in the Bible; that the ideas of Resurrection and redemption are important enough to embrace as faith regardless of whether they’re based on a specific factual event. > > Some legends are great even if they couldn’t be true. Isn’t there a bit of folklore in Jerusalem about a street corner where Jesus and Mohammed met and talked? Unfortunately, we don’t get to choose what other people think is important. Christians (most, anyway) believe their religion is a factual, objectively true one, and have no (conscious, at least) interest in comforting stories that aren’t true. And considering Jesus and Mohammed lived centuries apart … I’m kind of unclear on what the OP wanted. Do you expect a TV morning show to come on with “of course it may all be a collection of ancient myths with no grounding in fact whose followers are all deluded”? ---
**Author:** ![ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2005, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gma-and-the-pool-of-siloam/316923/24 "2005-08-15T00:40:59Z")
I’m pretty low-maintenance. I would’ve settled for something like: “The Pool of Siloam was recently discovered by **biblical archeologists** in Jerusalem, where \*\*it is believed \*\* that Jesus performed a miracle and returned sight to a blind man.” As opposed to what I recall, which was: “The Pool of Siloam, where Jesus cured a blind man, was recently discovered by archeologists.” Even though I don’t believe that a miracle was performed there, I’m interested in the discovery of historical sites, and I’m interested in archeology…as a science, and not as a tool for trying to advance theological views. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2005, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gma-and-the-pool-of-siloam/316923/25 "2005-08-15T00:53:25Z")
> [@furt](#): > > I’m kind of unclear on what the OP wanted. Do you expect a TV morning show to come on with “of course it may all be a collection of ancient myths with no grounding in fact whose followers are all deluded”? They should just announce the discovery of the pool and mention that it’s a site where John claims Jesus performed a miracle. What they should NOT do is suggest or insinuate that the discovery is evidence for the miracle itself (or even for the existence of Jesus). ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2005, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gma-and-the-pool-of-siloam/316923/26 "2005-08-15T00:57:37Z")
> [@](#): > > “The Pool of Siloam, where Jesus cured a blind man, was recently discovered by archeologists.” This kind of craven and irresponsible reporting is one of my pet peeves. They are reporting religious beliefs as if they were proven facts. I remember a while ago when some Palestinian radicals occupied the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem for a while. The US press kept reporting that the site was the birthplace of Jesus. I kept screaming “Cite” at the TV. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2005, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gma-and-the-pool-of-siloam/316923/27 "2005-08-15T03:56:03Z")
> [@xenophon41](#): > > Although I agree I’ve seen the argument used on the SDMB against the validity of Christianity (but not in support of atheism), why should **Baldwin** be expected to research your thesis, **DD**? Also, how would a “Jesus never egzisted1!” thread validate your contention that it’s one of the “prime arguments” against religion? . Because such debates are like the 'words that end in GRY" threads. Really, if he hasn’t seen one, then he’s a Newbie. There’s no “thesis” or “research”. Nor did I use the word “prime”. In fact, it’s a rather piss-poor argument- but it is used here fairly often, none the less. It’s a quite specious argument even, but it doesn’t stop the hard-core atheists from making it from time to time. Although, it is possible some of them are just trolling, I guess. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2005, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gma-and-the-pool-of-siloam/316923/28 "2005-08-15T04:09:32Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Because such debates are like the 'words that end in GRY" threads. Really, if he hasn’t seen one, then he’s a Newbie. There’s no “thesis” or “research”. Nor did I use the word “prime”. From [post #9](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6471674&postcount=9) of this thread > [@DrDeth](#): > > And, yes, in one way they’d be right. But in another, one of their **prime arguments** would be found to be groundless. > [@](#): > > In fact, it’s a rather piss-poor argument- but it is used here fairly often, none the less. It’s a quite specious argument even, but it doesn’t stop the hard-core atheists from making it from time to time. Although, it is possible some of them are just trolling, I guess. I’ve been posting here for almost three years and have been especially active in religion threads. I can’t recall a single poster ever trying to claim that the non-existence of Jesus or David would prove the non-existence of God. if I had seen such an argument, I would have corrected it myself. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2005, 9:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gma-and-the-pool-of-siloam/316923/29 "2005-08-15T09:59:25Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Because such debates are like the 'words that end in GRY" threads. Really, if he hasn’t seen one, then he’s a Newbie. There’s no “thesis” or “research”. Nor did I use the word “prime”. In fact, it’s a rather piss-poor argument- but it is used here fairly often, none the less. It’s a quite specious argument even, but it doesn’t stop the hard-core atheists from making it from time to time. Although, it is possible some of them are just trolling, I guess. Then it shouldn’t be difficult for you to link to two or three of these threads then, should it? In other words, cite? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2005, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gma-and-the-pool-of-siloam/316923/30 "2005-08-15T11:34:21Z")
Diogenes is incorrect in his categorical declaration that “There really is no such thing as Biblical archaeology.” There really is. That’s why Google gives 927,000 hits. That’s why there’s a Biblical Archaeology Society that publishes a Biblical Archaeology Review. I think what he meant to say was that some archaeologists don’t particularly like the label, and prefer the labels Near Eastern Archaeology and Syro-Palestinian archaeology. He is also incorrect in his categorical declaration that “Most people who search for Biblical sites or artifacts - or who seek to confirm Biblical events- are not credentialed archaeologists.” It would indeed be interesting to learn that credentialed archaeologists searching Israel and Palestine did not emerge until 1997, when Biblical Archaeologist changed its name to Near Eastern Archaeologist. His categorical declaration that “Legitimate archaeology is about examining what is found without preconceived assumptions or agendas” is prima facia absurd. Obviously no one would bother digging up anything at all if they were not expecting to find what they were looking for — be it the city of Troy, the pottery of Ming, or the tomb of Christ. Finally, his categorical declaration that Biblical archaeologists “are considered to be a nuisance by a lot of serious Israeli archaeologists” is, as you know, of course, absolutely meaningless. A lot of physicists consider string theorists to be a nuisance, but a lot don’t. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2005, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gma-and-the-pool-of-siloam/316923/31 "2005-08-15T11:53:18Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I’ve been posting here for almost three years and have been especially active in religion threads. I can’t recall a single poster ever trying to claim that the non-existence of Jesus or David would prove the non-existence of God. if I had seen such an argument, I would have corrected it myself. They didn’t have to add that “ipso facto”- as I said, it was clearly unspoken. \*\* This Year’s Model \*\* are you _really_ asking for a cite that “Did a Historical Jesus really exist?” threads have occured? Both\*\* DtC\*\* and **xenophon41** here have said they also have seen them. Do you deny they exist? Or are you just trying to be a jerk? :rolleyes: :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2005, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gma-and-the-pool-of-siloam/316923/32 "2005-08-15T11:59:20Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > **This Year’s Model \*\* are you _really_ asking for a cite that “Did a Historical Jesus really exist?” threads have occured? Both** DtC\*\* and **xenophon41** here have said they also have seen them. Do you deny they exist? Or are you just trying to be a jerk? :rolleyes: :dubious: I am asking for a cite that hard-core atheists on this board have started threads using the denial of the historicity of Jesus as one of their primary arguments. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2005, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gma-and-the-pool-of-siloam/316923/33 "2005-08-15T12:09:19Z")
Meanwhile, the latest in [Biblical cuisine.](http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=3715322) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2005, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gma-and-the-pool-of-siloam/316923/34 "2005-08-15T13:40:05Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Diogenes is incorrect in his categorical declaration that “There really is no such thing as Biblical archaeology.” There really is. That’s why Google gives 927,000 hits. That’s why there’s a Biblical Archaeology Society that publishes a Biblical Archaeology Review. I think what he meant to say was that some archaeologists don’t particularly like the label, and prefer the labels Near Eastern Archaeology and Syro-Palestinian archaeology. He is also incorrect in his categorical declaration that “Most people who search for Biblical sites or artifacts - or who seek to confirm Biblical events- are not credentialed archaeologists.” It would indeed be interesting to learn that credentialed archaeologists searching Israel and Palestine did not emerge until 1997, when Biblical Archaeologist changed its name to Near Eastern Archaeologist. His categorical declaration that “Legitimate archaeology is about examining what is found without preconceived assumptions or agendas” is prima facia absurd. Obviously no one would bother digging up anything at all if they were not expecting to find what they were looking for — be it the city of Troy, the pottery of Ming, or the tomb of Christ. Finally, his categorical declaration that Biblical archaeologists “are considered to be a nuisance by a lot of serious Israeli archaeologists” is, as you know, of course, absolutely meaningless. A lot of physicists consider string theorists to be a nuisance, but a lot don’t. Near Eastern Archaeology is not “Biblical” archaeology. There is no such thing as “Biblical” archaeology. Yes, there are people who call themselves that, but they’re akin to “Creation scientists.” Near Eastern or Israeli archaologists are just trying to recover the history of the region as it is without a preconceived agenda to seek artifacts or sites from the Bible. Those who specifically go looking for stuff from the Bible are generally not credentialed and are considered a nuisance by those who take the archaeology of the region seriously. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2005, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gma-and-the-pool-of-siloam/316923/35 "2005-08-15T13:47:12Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > They didn’t have to add that “ipso facto”- as I said, it was clearly unspoken. “Clearly unspoken?” I guess you mean it was clearly _implied_. I’ve never gotten that sense. I think you’re reading motives that aren’t there. > [@](#): > > \*\* > This Year’s Model \*\* are you _really_ asking for a cite that “Did a Historical Jesus really exist?” threads have occured? Both\*\* DtC\*\* and **xenophon41** here have said they also have seen them. Do you deny they exist? Or are you just trying to be a jerk? :rolleyes: :dubious: What he’s asking for is a thread where someone tries to argue that the non-existence of Jesus is proof that God does not exist. At most, they were trying to disprove Christianity but the existence of God does not rise or fall with the validity of Christianity. This may come as a shock, but it is entirely possible to believe that Christianity is BS and still believe in God. There’s this religion called Judaism, for instance… ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gma-and-the-pool-of-siloam/316923/36 "2005-08-16T01:19:35Z")
> [@This Year's Model](#): > > I am asking for a cite that hard-core atheists on this board have started threads using the denial of the historicity of Jesus as one of their primary arguments. That is clear- TO ME- from the context, however, as I said “True, sometimes the “ipso facto” is not specifically mentioned, but it’s there”. You can’t be that dense. Do you think that the dudes who hold up “John 3:16” signs only want their face on TV? :dubious: [http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2\_186.html](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_186.html) No, both sides want dudes to convert. Both sides sometimes use methods which aren’t clearly obvious. DtC, well, you’re right- most of them were “only” trying to disprove Xianity, not religion in general. An Atheist is anti all faiths, of course. But- here in the USA, few Atheists bother with attacks upon Zorastism. I have not yet seen a hard-core Buddhist try to disprove the existance of an Historical Jesus here. 😛 Most of the attacks upon Xianity in particular- and religion in general- come from the hard-core Athesist. In their own way, they can be as annoying in their proslytising as a “Fundie”. And, here- there are far more of them than Xtian Fundamentalists! 😛 (I don’t doubt that Xtians outnumber Atheists even here, but few Fundies dare raise their head.) ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gma-and-the-pool-of-siloam/316923/37 "2005-08-16T01:26:07Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > That is clear- TO ME- from the context, however, as I said “True, sometimes the “ipso facto” is not specifically mentioned, but it’s there”. You can’t be that dense. For crying out loud, you can’t be that dense! I, for one, do believe that Jesus lived in the place and time in the Bible. Now ask me if I believe that person was a god. I also believe that you are imagining things. You are not demonstrating your claim, even in an “ipso facto” sort of way. All you can come up with is “It’s clear to me.” Big whoop. ---
**Author:** ![Baldwin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baldwin/32/7264_2.png) [@Baldwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baldwin)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gma-and-the-pool-of-siloam/316923/38 "2005-08-16T01:45:18Z")
_Posted by DrDeth_: > [@](#): > > The Search function works- if you havn’t seen one of the dozens of “Jesus didn’t really exist” threads in GD or Comments on Cecil’s Colums, then Search for one. Spell-check also works; you might want to try that. **Of course** I’ve seen such threads. My point (one made by several other posters, which you seem almost preternaturally resistant to) is that I haven’t seen an argument against the historical existence of Jesus used as a primary support for atheism. > [@](#): > > DtC, well, you’re right- most of them were “only” trying to disprove Xianity, not religion in general. An Atheist is anti all faiths, of course. But- here in the USA, few Atheists bother with attacks upon Zorastism. You’ve made a good point here; you should listen to yourself, and then take it a little further. Atheists in the USA have very little exposure to Zoroastrianism (I presume that’s what you meant to say); it’s simply not a noticeable part of the culture. Christianity, on the other had, is pervasive. Use the Search function you’re so fond of and you’ll find that in most threads having to do with religion at all, the religion discussed is Christianity (although the last four years have seen a lot of new interest in Islam). You talk about what’s most readily recognized and understood in the culture in which you’re operating. Personally, I’d love to talk about Zoroaster. Arguing in the Pit means that you can swear and fume as much as you like. It doesn’t mean that you won’t be asked to provide factual support for assertions such as you’ve been making. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gma-and-the-pool-of-siloam/316923.md?page=1)