the new atheism

Worth looking at if you are still interested in this material:

Logical Errors in in New Atheism (Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and Harris)

From Bahai Philosophy Studies (of all places)

 New Atheism, The: A Bahá'í Perspective,

3000 year old Hebrew inscription

Published on Science 2.0 (http://www.science20.com)

Home > Social Sciences > Archaeology > News Articles > Printer-friendly

---

Ostracon Proto-Canaanite Text Is 1000 Years Older Than The Dead Sea Scrolls

By News Account

Created Nov 6 2008 - 1:00am

The earliest known Hebrew text written in a Proto-Canaanite script has been discovered by Hebrew University archaeologists in an ancient city in the area where David slew Goliath – the earliest Judean city found to date. The 3,000 year old finding is thought to be the most significant archaeological discovery in Israel since the Dead Sea Scrolls – predating them by 1,000 years.

The ostracon (pottery shard inscribed with writing in ink) comprises five lines of text divided by black lines and measures 15 x 15 cm. and was found at excavations of a 10th century B.C.E. fortress - the oldest known Judaic city.

The ostracon was found lying on the floor inside a building near the city gate of the site, known as the Elah Fortress at Khirbet Qeiyafa.


The ostracon comprises five lines of text divided by black lines, and was found at excavations of a 10th century B.C.E. fortress - the oldest known Judaic city. Photo: Gabi Laron

Excavations are being led by Prof. Yosef Garfinkel, the Yigal Yadin Professor of Archaeology at the Institute of Archaeology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and his partner Saar Ganur, in partnership with Foundation Stone, a non-profit educational organization which works to provide a contemporary voice to ancient stories. The excavations and analysis are also being supported by J.B. Silver and the Brennan Foundation.

Why is this inscription special?

Carbon-14 dating of organic material found with the ostracon, administered by Oxford University, along with pottery analysis dates this inscription to the time of King David ca. 3,000 years ago – predating the Dead Sea Scrolls by approximately a millennium, and placing it earlier than the famed Gezer Calendar.

It is hoped the text inscribed on the 'Qeiyafa Ostracon' will serve as an anchor in our understanding of the development of all alphabetic scripts.

While the inscription has yet to be deciphered, initial interpretation indicates the text was part of a letter and contains the roots of the words "judge", "slave" and "king". This may indicate that this is a legal text that could provide insights into Hebrew law, society and beliefs. Archaeologists say that it was clearly written as a deliberate message by a trained scribe.

What is the Elah Fortress?

Dating to the 10th century B.C.E., the Elah Fortress is the earliest known fortified city of the biblical period in Israel. Excavations began on the site in June 2008.

Comprising 23 dunams [2.3 hectares], the Elah Fortress (Khirbet Qeiyafa) was situated on the border between Philistia and the Kingdom of Judea (5 kilometers south of current day Bet Shemesh.). It is thought to have been a major strategic checkpoint guarding the main road from Philistia and the Coastal Plain to Jerusalem, which was just a day's walk away.

Nearly 600 square meters of the Elah Fortress have so far been unearthed. Surrounded by a 700 meter-long massive city wall, the fortress was built with megalithic stones - some weighing four to five tons. The city wall is four meters wide, constructed with casemates. Archaeologists estimate that 200,000 tons of rock were hewn, moved and used in the construction of these fortifications.

A four-chambered gate, 10.5 meters across, is the dominant feature of the massive fortifications. Further excavations will reveal whether it is really six chambers and whether there are other gates. The larger rocks in the gate structure weigh five to eight tons.

To date, only four percent of the site has been excavated, promising many more incredible discoveries in the remaining 96 percent in the future.

The early Hebrew ostracon, Judean pottery similar to that found at other Israelite settlements, and the absence of pig bones among the animal bones found at the site all point to this fortress being a city of the Kingdom of Judea.

Elah Fortress proof of United Monarchy?

The Elah Fortress archaeological site could prove the existence of the United Monarchy, which scholars often question ever existed. The artifacts found at the site thus far all indicate that there was most likely a strong king and central government in Jerusalem - earlier than any discovered until now - rather than a number of small villages scattered throughout Judea. This would verify descriptions and narratives found in Samuel and Chronicles.

Over 100 jar handles bear distinct impressions which may indicate a link to royal vessels. Such a large quantity of this feature found in one small locale is unprecedented.

David&Goliath

The site of Khirbet Qeiyafa is situated among four biblical cities in Judea's inheritance chronicled in the Book of Joshua 35:15 - Azeka, Socho, Yarmut and Adulam. The biblical narrative located the battle between David and Goliath between Socho and Azeka. According to legend, David selected five stones from the nearby Elah Creek with which to slay Goliath.

According to Prof. Garfinkel, this is the only site in Israel where one can investigate the historical King David. "The chronology and geography of Khirbet Qeiyafa create a unique meeting point between the mythology, history, historiography and archaeology of Kind David."

• Archaeology

ION Publications LLC

---

Source URL: http://www.science20.com/news_releases/ostracon_protocanaanite_text_1000_years_older_dead_sea_scrolls

left critiques left

Take a look at this: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/israel-s-left-needs-to-wise-up-to-middle-east-reality-1.354548

debunking Korean Talmud story

http://mostlykosher.blogspot.com/2011/03/debunking-korean-talmud-story.html
Debunking the Korean Talmud Story
Some days ago, Ynet ran a story of an interview with the Korean ambassador to Israel, who claimed the Talmud was required reading for every Korean student:

“We were curious how come the Jews are so successful academically and have a much higher percentage of Nobel Prize winners in all fields… what is their secret?… one of your secrets is studying Talmud,” continued ambassador Young-Sam-Ma. There might be now more (translated) Talmud volumes in South Korean homes than in Israel!
“We tried to understand why the Jews are such geniuses and we concluded that (it is because) they study Talmud,” explained South Korea’s ambassador to Israel.


This story was picked up by just about every proud Jewish website. However if anyone thought a little, the story makes no sense! even using an explained talmud (i.e Artscroll) the Talmud is hard reading for adults - never mind schoolchildren. Furthermore large parts are so dependant on some other Jewish Knoweldge, that you really couldn't understand anything.
A quick google search for "talumd" and "Korea", brought me to a catholic forum. In 2005 a poster named "Brogan" wrote the following posts:

I've taken a job in Korea. This is a decission that I now regret becuase I stupidly misred sspx's website and thought that they offered mass every sunday. Its actually only once a month.
Anyways, I just found out that all the little kids have to read the Talmud in elementary school. I couldnt believe this. There arnt even any jews in Korea. I think I'm going to look into whether or not foods here have koser lables on them. This is just rediculis. I truely doubt that even .00001% of the population here is Jewish.
He followed it up with a few other posts:

So I asked some of my students today and am now even more weirded out than before. One class told me that they all had to read it in elementary school. When I asked them what class they all acted really confused. They didnt understand what I was asking them. Then I asked the next class about it. They told me that it was not part of thier school curiculem yet every single one of them had read it as a child. When I asked them if they had read the Koran both classes burst into laughter. "Of course not thats the Muslim book".
They didnt get it when I was trying to explain to them that the Talmud was a Jewish book. They just kept saying "in Korea it is just a good book." One student told me that he loves the Talmud becuase it is the "light of Knowledge". Mind you, these kids barely speak english yet he said that exact phrase. I dont know what to make of it.
So what I'vwe learned so far is that All of them read it as children and love it yet dont know that it is Jewish. All of them read it during elementary school yet I dont think it was required in any class. But I tell you what they way they acted was more fanatical then american kids about Harry Potter. I mean they LOVED the Talmud.
Something else I found weird was after the first class told me that they had all read it I started talking to them about the Jews. All they knew about the Jews was that they were killed by Hitler. I asked them "who killed more people, Hitler or Stalin?" They all shouted "Hitler Hitler!" The strangest thing about this is that they knew that millions of Korean settelers had been killed by Stalin yet had no idea about the other 60 million or so that he killed.
How strange. The second class didnt have any answer asto why they read it. "its a really goooood book". ""before I read the talmud I used to think that he was ugly" (pointing to another student...everyone laughs). Now I know the truth. "The Talmud is the light of knowledge".
I'm going to find out still more about this. I want an answer asto whether or not its required, becuase if its not why have EVERY SINGLE ONE of them read it in elementary school?
Btw I told them that it was anti-Christian and said to kill Christians. I think this is true but umm...does it specifically say to kill Christians?
Let us leave aside the strong anti-semetic vibes (that are going to get worse as you read the original thread), Brogan continued his search into the Korean Talmud love affair:
Quote from: francis
I googled korea + talmud and found this
...
UPDATE: OK just taught my final class of the day and got the full scoop. It's been hard up till now because everyone (except this last class) can barely speak any english (including my co-workers at the school), and I can speak no Korean. Anyways the Myongshimpogan is something altogether different from the Talmud. These students had never heard it called the "korean talmud". They said that the Korean Times must have said that because the actual Talmud is so familiar to people. These students confirmed that they all had read the actual Jewish Talmud. They said it had stories about a Queen and a "Lappi". I guess a "Lappi" is a professor. Anyways they all told me that it was just good stories. Something about how the queen hated the Lappi because he was ugly but then he had people put wine into gold vases and the gold of the containers ruined the taste of the wine. (i.e. its what on the inside that matters). They must have been referencing the exact same story that another student talked about yesterday (except he could barely speak english so he said "before I read Talmud I thought him ugly").
Anyways this class couldn't tell me the name in english of the class that they all read the Talmud in but they could explain to me what they do in the class. They said its just a class where you read literature and then you write about what you have read in the class. I asked them what other books you read in that class and do you know what the first thing they answered? THE DIARY OF ANNE FRANK!!!!!!!! All the other books were Korean and they didnt know any english title for them.

This is tooo creepy.
And one more:
I did the same thing last night so I asked another teacher today at the school to try and get the bottom of this. I asked her if there was some Korean book called the Talmud or if it was Jewish. She said "Yes it is Hebrew but it is not bad like the one you read. They have Talmuds for elementary, middle, and high school... Even Christians in Korea LOVE the talmud." I'm still very confused. I mean the students have all told me that its just stories, ect. Could this teacher have been wrong about it being jewish?


So basically we have an answer. The Koreans are calling a book of collections of Talmudic stories "The Talmud". I can only guess that the Korean ambassador thinks that the Talmud is a collection of moral stories.


[Update: I wrote this post last night, but decided to wait and edit it in the morning. It seems Elders of Zion has beaten me to the conclusion using a google translate method that showed that books on the talmud in korean were story collections]

* Further Update: Please see this exchange of Emails with "ask a Korean" blog, that removes all doubt.

http://mostlykosher.blogspot.com/2011/03/debunking-korean-talmud-story.html

early human societies due to male-female bond

A new speculation in human origins - http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/science/11kin.html?ref=science

Abortion abbattoir in Philadelphia

PHILADELPHIA ABORTION/INFANTICIDE ABATTOIR CONSISTENT WITH PETER SINGER VALUES

Copied from http://www.discovery.org/a/16221

By: Wesley J. Smith
First Things
January 21, 2011

Link to Original Article

Slate’s Will Saletan, who definitely pitches his beliefs tent in the pro choice camp, goes into details about the Philadelphia abortion/infanticide mill,which I posted about the other day. He first notes that some pro choice absolutists believe in abortion through the ninth month–and quotes and links them. That’s worth discussing, but rather than repeat that here, I’ll let those interested read the piece, which I link below, for themselves.

He then recites the awful details of what happened at the “clinic,” as alleged in the grand jury report. From Saletan’s “The Baby Butcher:”

According to the newly released grand jury report, [Kermit]Gosnell accepted abortion patients without regard to gestational age. “Gosnell catered to the women who couldn’t get abortions elsewhere—because they were too pregnant,” the report explains. “More and more of his patients came from out of state and were late second-trimester patients. Many of them were well beyond 24 weeks. Gosnell was known as a doctor who would perform abortions at any stage, without regard for legal limits.”

This meant killing viable babies. “We were able to document seven specific incidents in which Gosnell or one of his employees severed the spine of a viable baby born alive,” the grand jury concludes. One victim was killed at 26 weeks. Another was killed at 28. A third was killed at 32. Some of the dead were 12 to 18 inches long. One had been moving and breathing outside the womb for 20 minutes. The report alleges hundreds of such atrocities. One employee admitted to severing the spinal cords of 100 babies, each one beyond 24 weeks…

You can argue that what Gosnell did wasn’t conventional abortion—he routinely delivered the babies before slitting their necks—but the 33 proposed charges involving the Abortion Control Act have nothing to do with that. Those charges pertain strictly to a time limit: performing abortions beyond 24 weeks. Should Gosnell be prosecuted for violating that limit? Is it OK to outlaw abortions at 28, 30, or 32 weeks? Or is drawing such a line an unacceptable breach of women’s autonomy?

I want to focus on different question: How is what happened in Philadelphia morally different than what Peter Singer’s values would allow?

Peter Singer has repeatedly stated there is no moral difference between a late term fetus and an early neo-nate–such as at a Princeton conference about abortion that I discussed here at SHS (a post in which I was mainly concerned with his contention that a human being doesn’t have “full moral status” until after age 2). Here’s a relevant Singer quote to our discussion today from the Princeton conference:

Maybe the law has to have clear bright lines and has to take birth as the right time [to outlaw killing], although maybe it should make some exceptions in the cases of severe disability where parents think that it is better for the child and better for the family that the child does not live…The position that allows abortion also allows infanticide under some circumstances…If we accept abortion, we do need to rethink some of those more fundamental attitudes about human life.

Singer takes a very casual view of these matters, including late term abortion. In a 2001 Salon interview, he breezily accepts late term abortion if the mother has “a good reason,” which includes balancing the genders within a family! From the interview:

There’s a difference between early and late abortions. If you have a late abortion, where the fetus might feel pain, then I think you should have a good reason. Because then you’re inflicting pain. As you go through the third trimester, you need to have more serious reasons to end a pregnancy. For instance, I would not support ending a pregnancy only because you want a boy and you’re going to get a girl, because it would reinforce sex discrimination. But if you already have two boys and you want a girl, that could be enough reason for abortion.

And here is what he wrote in a 2007 newspaper column:

Arguably, the fetus first becomes a being of moral significance when it develops the capacity to feel pain, some time after 20 weeks of gestation. We should be concerned about the capacity of fetuses to suffer pain in late-term abortions. On the rare occasions when such abortions are necessary, they should be performed in a way that minimises the possibility of suffering.

Admittedly, birth is in some ways an arbitrary place to draw the line at which killing the developing human life ceases to be permissible, and instead becomes murder. A prematurely born infant may be less developed than a late-term fetus. But the criminal law needs clear dividing lines and, in normal circumstances, birth is the best we have.

So, let us assume that the Philadelphia clinic was run with proper sanitary methods, employed painless killing techniques, and exercised clinical excellence to care for the women, I repeat: How is what “Dr” Gosnell and staff are alleged to have done–late term abortions and induced-premature-birth-and-kill infanticides–any different than what Peter Singer’s “practical ethics” would allow? (Realize that Singer’s recent acceptance of “birth” as a line is not a moral assertion, but just a hedge to keep from having to defend the killing of healthy infants, a “legal” line that he said at Princeton should not be absolute in any event.)

Recapping: Singer supports late term abortion if the the reason to kill is “good,” which, considering his example cited, is a very low standard indeed. He strongly implies that a full term fetus has greater moral worth than a prematurely born baby. Besides, we are repeatedly told we have no right to judge a woman’s reasons.

So, to answer my own question, other than technical issues of clinical procedures and sanitary methods, I can’t think of a single reason Singer’s values would not permit a “professionally” operated abortion/infanticide abattoir. And that should tell us all we need to know about Peter Singer’s values.

failure of college education

Take a look here http://chronicle.com/article/New-Book-Lays-Failure-to-Learn/125983/?inl