690
A real headache to argue over
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2024
690 points (100.0% liked)
Atheist Memes
5585 readers
3 users here now
About
A community for the most based memes from atheists, agnostics, antitheists, and skeptics.
Rules
-
No Pro-Religious or Anti-Atheist Content.
-
No Unrelated Content. All posts must be memes related to the topic of atheism and/or religion.
-
No bigotry.
-
Attack ideas not people.
-
Spammers and trolls will be instantly banned no exceptions.
-
No False Reporting
-
NSFW posts must be marked as such.
Resources
International Suicide Hotlines
Non Religious Organizations
Freedom From Religion Foundation
Ex-theist Communities
Other Similar Communities
!religiouscringe@midwest.social
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Fun fact: If (big if) Goliath really existed, he was probably suffering from acromegaly. It is characterized by a person not stopping to grow after puberty. The reason for that is an enlarged, tumorous pituary gland in the brain. So David hitting Goliath between the eyes might actually have ruptured the tumour, leading to internal bleeding in his brain and killing Goliath.
So the whole biblical story might be based on something that actually happened and then probably got more and more dramaticised every time it was told.
It could also be based on any random tall dude dying from getting hit in the face by a flying rock, rare medical condition or not.
Or maybe getting hit in the head by a rock launched from a sling is enough to make a person's head basically explode.
Seriously, a competent sling user can easily kill someone with one.
I found a quick little video demonstration of a guy using a sling and stone against a ballistic gel head.
Just judging off of that, I would agree that weird tumors would not need to be involved for a sling to kill a large fellow.
That was nauseating when he pulls the would d back even though it's gel. Thank you for the video
invidious link
Hitting someone square in the forehead with a rock, in the Bronze Age, was a quick way to kill them regardless of size. There's a reason this image
is both iconic and incredibly triggering to the IDF. You whip that thing around hard and fast enough, and you're going to crack a head.
I don't find the story of a young, spry soldier with a bit of luck and some good aim thwacking a rival warlord with a rock implausible in the slightest. Its all the propaganda packed in around the story, what with David having some sort of euphoric epiphany and the rock being magicked by God to score the killing blow, that causes folks to roll their eyes in disbelief.
Also he totally fought a lion before he went up against Goliath. David was a bigger badass than Goliath the entire time
Can you tell me more about that picture?
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/10/24/iconic-image-of-palestinian-protester-in-gaza-goes-viral
Also, I think I've heard that shepards would be skilled with a sling.
It makes sense, hanging out in a field all day with nothing to do but flip rocks at stuff, you'd git gud quick.
It was a pretty common peasant weapon purely because you could make one super easy, and it fired a thing you could literally pick off the ground. Sling a rock at a wolf or a bear and it'll probably either be dead or get the hint of "ah shit that guy hurts to fight, I'll go find some other bastard."
Goddamn that picture is SICK
It really is an incredibly powerful image. I’m a bit shocked I somehow hadn’t come across it before.
It probably isn't even all that dramatacized,
It is not hard at all to do serious damage with a genuinely made sling, there's a reason people wielding those things operated as a military unit in ancient times, and they were pretty mean spirited folks too!
They'd actually write insults and jokes on the stones like "CATCH ME!", "HEADS UP!" "OUCH!" "BONK!"
Basically the historical inaccuracies would be in terminology rather than exact action, and also in David not following the shot up with "THINK FAST CHUCKLENUTS!"
Imagine being a 6ft dude and some little bastard pulls out a gun and shoots you dead while the town cheers about that how courageous that little shit is.
Wait a minute... were ancient slingshot mercenaries basically the Scout from TF2?
The Bible isn't real.
I'm thinking, since it wasn't written down until centuries after it supposedly happened, that the most likely answer is that it was just bullshit.
The closest evidence we have to David even existing is a tablet caved by someone who [may have] claimed to be of the House of David.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_stele
Oral history is significantly more accurate than you're making it out to be.
There is no reason to assume oral history with no corroborating evidence is true and the lack of corroborating evidence is good reason to be skeptical.
The entire Bible is oral history. I assume you don't place similar validity in the Garden of Eden and the Tower of Babel.
I didn't say that oral history is 100% accurate. I said it's more accurate than you assume, which based on what you said seemed to be "it's all made up."
That is simply a lie.
I said "the most likely answer" is that it was bullshit due to only being oral history without any corroborating evidence. I did not even remotely imply that all oral history is made up.
Your basis for discounting it is "it wasn't written down." That's all oral tradition. I wasn't trying to argue with you, I just wanted to see an amendment to your statement that recognized that this sentence is inaccurate. Seeing as you're rolling back on it, I'll take it as such.
Yet again, "most likely answer" does not imply in any way that all oral history is made up. That's simply a lie.
I recognized nothing I said as inaccurate. That is another lie.
Stop lying.
I didn't say it did! I said that you're overly discounting oral history.
That is another lie. You said I assumed it was all made up.
This is what you said:
Absolutely nothing I said indicated that all oral history was made up, as I demonstrated by quoting it.
Just tell the truth for one fucking post.
Oh no, that dastardly word seemed is being ignored in my quote!
Sort of like those dastardly words "most likely" which is what your "seemed" was linked to?
Because I doubt you're so stupid that you think "most likely" means "every other possibility is wrong."
Again, what I said:
What you said:
Actually all my comments were peer reviewed by a liguist with experience in oral histories and they said my statements were accurate and clear, and that yours were definitely discounting oral history as a whole with your statement. I'll not be commenting any more as you seem fixed on a bad faith argument.
Wow. Virtually every comment you made had at least one lie and you have the temerity to say that.
Huehuehue