The Real History Of Judaism

I'm in the final round for a JIB (Jewish & Israeli Blog Award) in the category of Best Jewish Skepticism Blog. Thanks again to everyone who voted for me, and thanks in advance to those who vote for me in the final round. Vote Bacon! GO HERE TO VOTE FOR ME Thanks again. And thanks to Tikkunger for nominating me in the first place.

I'm Bacon Eating Atheist Jew and NOT Jewish Atheist, who we can refer to as Sandy Koufax (a Lefty Jew). You can vote for him in the best Left Wing blog category. I did.

Dov Bear is kicking the crap out me right now. He puts a lot of secret code on his blog, so it is hard to really understand. But he is pretty good at soliciting votes, I'll give him that.

I'm not really a Skeptic. A Skeptic actually thinks there is a possibility that the Bible is non fictional and that God exists. I'm past the Skeptic phase. I'm a Bible Mega-minimalist. Here is a short video which sort of explains my stance (but I'm way more extreme):


You can go through life assuming most of the beliefs that you were taught as a child and throughout your early adulthood, are complete fact. But you'd be shocked to find that many "truths" you believe are completely improbable. Noah's Ark is an easy one to completely refute. But so is the Exodus. I used to assume that the Exodus was partly true, at least, until I started looking for evidence. The same is true for a historical Jesus. I was sincerely surprised when I found there was no evidence for either. I'm open to new evidence to, I don't need either to not be historical in order to be an atheist. It doesn't help me one way or the other. I just like facts and reality.

This brings me to the real history of Judaism. I was lucky to find a documentary on Youtube about the book, The Bible Unearthed. I may not have to buy the book after watching the entire 10 video clips this morning. It was absolutely fascinating and informative stuff. Everyone should watch these clips (remember, the New Testament is pretty dependent on the Old Testament being true).

JEWS WERE AN ETHNICITY LONG BEFORE THEY WERE A RELIGION

Oral tradition means squat to me. "Frankly, Scarlett, I don't give a damn," and "Play it again, Sam," are perfect examples that even with today's media, the masses screw up famous movie lines, even in a very short time frame. In today's day and age, we can rely on archaeological evidence, ancient writings and dating techniques to put the pieces of the puzzle together.

The biggest revelation from the video was the fact that Hebrews (an ethnicity) were Polytheistic at least up until 7th to 8th Century BC and the Old Testament was not started until the 7th Century with the "Book of Deuteronomy." There is plenty of evidence to back this up. Also enlightening was the fact that when the Exodus was supposed to happen, Canaan was governed and occupied by Egyptians.

That would mean that with regards to both Abraham and Moses, for whom there is absolutely no supporting secular evidence of, that there is no reason whatsoever to believe the stories of either are true. If either Abraham or Moses existed and had chats with God, the idea of monotheism for the Hebrews would have become a dominant belief system. Not to mention, the claim that there were hundreds of thousands of witnesses for the Exodus, and they told their kids who told their kids yadda yadda yadda. If there were witnesses to plagues and the parting of the sea, not only would monotheism have become an immediate gimme for the Hebrews, but it would have become one for the Egyptians too.

This also has implications with respect to, the probably non existent, Solomon's Temple. In the video, it is explained that there is possible evidence that David existed, but he didn't rule over a very large empire. A large empire in the region didn't exist. But the idea of a Temple to worship an invisible God was an impossibility. Now there could have been a Temple that existed where worshiping idols and celestial objects was common place, and it most likely wouldn't have been very large. That is why even with "oral history" it hasn't been found.

Evidence points to the people of Canaan and Judea worshiping idols right through to the 600's BC and even past that. Motivation to unite the Hebrews in 7th Century BC by Josiah, most likely led to the story of the Exodus and the attempting banning of idol worship, as well as inventing a more dramatic history for the people who lived in the region.

The reality is that the region went through many different regime changes. Egyptians, Hebrews, etc. ruled the land at various times. In 587, the Babylonians defeated the Jews (many were finally monotheistic by then, and many Jews were exiled to Babylon.

The Jews came back 50 years later, and this time they actually had developed a real religious history of sorts and their monotheism gained steam and support. Again, in order to unify the people of the region, God was given more defined wants, and Ezra wrote them down and presented them to the people. It was at this time that Judaism officially became a religion.

The video makes a great point that at this time, individualism and the foundations of today's Western world goals and mindset was born thanks to the Jews of 5th and 6th Century. BC and the Torah.

Here is part one of the 10 part series of videos (9 minutes each, except the last one is less than 3 minutes):

Again, for the entire series of videos go here.

And if you haven't voted for yet for the JIB Award, GO HERE AND VOTE, SCIENCE DAMMIT!

The Main Reason White Supremacists Struggle With Evolution

Two white supremacist bloggers that I've come across recently, The Sentinel and Chris Womak from Politically Correct Apostate, are scared to death that WHITEY shares the same common ancestor as the Boys From Da Hood.

The Sentinel often comments that "nobody knows for sure," when drilled about how Europeans came into existence. I think he thinks that WHITEY either came from special white primates or they were specially created. His "not sure" stance allows him to keep his head in the sand.

Hitler believed that Aryans were direct descendants of Adam and Eve, and that Jesus was an Aryan (not a Joooo), and that all non-Aryans are not related to Adam and Eve but came from other lines. His views on evolution from less sophisticated animals is unknown to me at this time. He did investigate the Hollow Earth theory, which possibly would explain that SUPER WHITES came from the center of the earth. Yeah, Hitler was a nut.

Womak, a Joooo paranoid creep, recently wrote a post on a recently published article. Actually, he just copied the article, and added an idiotic title to it: Liberals Out Of Africa Theory Gets Another Knock.

The thing is, the recent speculation that the first humans in Europe landed in Eastern Europe rather than Central or Western Europe does not conflict with the Out Of Africa theory, which states that modern humans evolved in Africa 200,000 to 100,000 years ago and many began to migrate to other continents around 50-80,000 years ago.

He must really hate the idea that he has African ancestors (we all do, and I'm perfectly fine with it). Womak, you are nothing but a nappy headed beatch.

My searches for WHITEY'S view on common ancestry took my over to Stormfront (where Joooo paranoid Aryan goofballs pretend they are special. There is a discussion about Neanderthals. I read the whole thread. First off, I was impressed by many of the poster's knowledge about evolution and common ancestry. Many would love to deny that all humans originated in Africa. Some want to turn the clock back as much as possible, and some wanted to believe they had some Neanderthal blood that possibly gave them blue eyes and blond hair (I kid you not). There were a couple of YECs there, but for the most part they conducted a rational discussion and they didn't even mention Joooos once.

One disappointment there was the fact that one of the posters is an FSM member. We already know that there are some scummy atheists around, just as there are some scummy theists.

Speaking of scum. Check out how I burned a scummy Joooo paranoid imbecile on my new site Judeophobe Watch.

Starbucks, Believers Don't Like It When You Provoke Thought

Starbucks should realize that in the theocratic state of America, provoking thought aint the way to go. You can only get in trouble. A couple of years ago the Christians were pissed at The Way I See It #43 which seemed to tell gays that they should come out.

A Catholic woman got pissed off because she got the following message on her Starbuck's coffee coffee cup:

"Why in moments of crisis do we ask God for strength and help? As cognitive beings, why would we ask something that may well be a figment of our imaginations for guidance? Why not search inside ourselves for the power to overcome? After all, we are strong enough to cause most of the catastrophes we need to endure."

'The quote was written by Bill Schell, a Starbucks customer from London, Ontario, Canada, and was included as part of an effort by the Seattle-based coffee giant to collect different viewpoints and spur discussion.' The series is called The Way I See It.

OK, I can see why the figment of our imaginations line was offensive, but the message was indeed something to talk about, especially amongst theists. I would even argue that many catastrophes are not man made. But that is the idea of these cups. To argue, debate, and discuss.

Here is another coffee cup in the Starbucks collection:

"Darwinism’s impact on traditional social values has not been as benign as its advocates would like us to believe. Despite the efforts of its modern defenders to distance themselves from its baleful social consequences, Darwinism’s connection with eugenics, abortion and racism is a matter of historical record. And the record is not pretty."
-- Dr. Jonathan Wells
Biologist and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design.

Anyone want to discuss what this retard Jonathan Wells says? I'll start. Darwinism is a fact. Blaming Darwin for eugenics, abortion and racism is like blaming Newton for the way bullets travel.

Brownback, Tancredo, and Huckabee uh bye bye

Thank science I'm a Canadian. But as I've stated before, I realize the USA is our great protector, so what happens in US politics has more of an affect in my world, than Canadian politics has. Unless of course, we end up with one of the three stooges mentioned in the header of this post.

This clip is only 20 seconds long. From last night's Republican debate:


It is just too embarrassing in this day and age to even consider having an anti-evolutionist as head of the Western world.

I'll forgive John McCain. My gripe isn't against theistic evolutionists as much as it is YECs, by a long shot. And McCain does have a duty to mention God, or he has no chance of getting elected in a place where 45% of the country believes in Young Earth Creation. But Brownback, Tancredo, and Huckabee can not become leader. They just buried themselves anyway because the internet will destroy them now that they exposed themselves as wilfully ignorant.

For the record, I realize ALL politicians lie. Bush has pretty much feinted agnosticism when it comes to evolution and always considers his YEC voters. My view is the reason he said creationism should be taught next in science class was simply to keep his flock happy. To my knowledge, other than saying "the jury is still out on evolution," Bush has purposely not committed to an answer. Plus, with the evolution debate being so strong during the Bush reign, my bet is Bush now knows that evolution is fact.
I'm sure he was forced into some really informative lectures by real scientists.

Thanks to the internet of today, and especially blogs, Bush was probably the last President who could have possibly been elected IF he really doesn't know evolution is fact, as the internet is completely destroying the YEC movement, and especially over the couple of years.

Some Mallards Put Their Penises In The Wrong Quack

I see lots of science stories, but I just couldn't pass up on this one: "

Some female ducks and geese have evolved complex genitalia to thwart unwelcome mating attempts, according to a new study.

"

You see, mallards are part of the 3% of birds that have penises (phalluses, dicks, shlongs, etc.) that are capable of penetrating the females love tunnel. But plenty of mallard males don't believe in dating, and do the forced sex thingy (aka rape).

More:
"

Tim Birkhead at the University of Sheffield in the UK and colleagues examined vaginas and the corresponding phalluses from 16 wildfowl species. They discovered that the longer and more elaborate the male member, the longer and more elaborate its female recipient was.
No-entry signs

Some vaginas had spiral channels that would impede sex by twisting in the opposite direction to that of the male phallus. Others had as many as eight cul-de-sac pouches en route, that could prevent fertilisation by capturing unwelcome sperm. Moreover, these features were only found in species renowned for forced sex. All other species had simple male and female genitalia.

“These structures are wonderfully devious, sending sperm down the wrong road or impeding penetration,” says Birkhead.

"

The mallard penis has evolved longer and longer, and the female has evolved a trickier and trickier vagina. Usually, only when the female is relaxed, does she let the sperm find it's way. In other words, mallard males reading this post should either get to know the female or at least get them drunk first.

I'm just wondering what is the evolutionary advantage of this particular genitalia arms race. I'm not sure if rapist ducks pair off if they are successful with the female. The male does pair off, but only stays until the eggs are laid.

I'm thinking out loud, maybe the female knows what duck will make the best mate or she doesn't want the father to a duck that needs to rape to get laid.

Another interesting finding from Wikipedia:
"

Mallards also have rates of male-male sexual activity that are unusually high for birds. In some cases, as many as 19% of pairs in a Mallard population are male-male homosexual.

"

I wonder if the 19% that are gay have evolved a butt hole that is contoured in a way that is perfect for the cork screw penises of the mallard ducks. Of course Fundies will brush off the homosexuality on female rejection.

Some ducks do make a few good points though:


I have a feeling AngloAmerican will be commenting on this post.