[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Whether you are convinced or not is irrelevant, since you aren't a scholar whose opinion matters a shit, to be blunt. However, if you don't like Wikipedia, neither do I, to be honest, it is simply the quickest place to get info. Type in "Historicity of King David" and you will come up with all sorts of MUCH more informative stuff.

An example:

QUOTE--Few modern Biblical archaeology discoveries have caused as much excitement as the Tel Dan inscription—writing on a ninth-century B.C. stone slab (or stela) that furnished the first historical evidence of King David from the Bible.
The Tel Dan inscription, or “House of David” inscription, was discovered in 1993 at the site of Tel Dan in northern Israel in an excavation directed by Israeli archaeologist Avraham Biran.

The broken and fragmentary inscription commemorates the victory of an Aramean king over his two southern neighbors: the “king of Israel” and the “king of the House of David.” In the carefully incised text written in neat Aramaic characters, the Aramean king boasts that he, under the divine guidance of the god Hadad, vanquished several thousand Israelite and Judahite horsemen and charioteers before personally dispatching both of his royal opponents. Unfortunately, the recovered fragments of the “House of David” inscription do not preserve the names of the specific kings involved in this brutal encounter, but most scholars believe the stela recounts a campaign of Hazael of Damascus in which he defeated both Jehoram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah.--END QUOTE

Taken from http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/artifacts-and-the-bible/the-tel-dan-inscription-the-first-historical-evidence-of-the-king-david-bible-story/

Another place is the following article taken just today from the Huffington Post at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/19/king-david-palace-archaeologists-khirbet-qeiyafa_n_3620053.html

Enjoy.

[Vindictus]

Went straight to the /r/askhistorians subreddit with this one, easily one of the best history focused subreddits. Here's a tl;dr of a highly upvoted response from the top thread in my search:

There isn't a consensus - those who place the final weight of proof on archaeology say 'no', those who allow weight to be accorded to the text, believe 'yes', but there's currently nothing to shut up either camp for good.

So the article is correct - we only know of David primarily because of the textual references in the Hebrew bible, with some very small archaeological support, but that is to be expected.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Well, since the report on David's palace just came out TODAY, I'd say that rather supercedes what you found.

[Vindictus]

Well, since the report on David's palace just came out TODAY, I'd say that rather supercedes what you found.

No.

This is not the first time archaeologists have announced what they believe to be evidence of the figure. In 2008, Israeli archaeologist Eilat Mazar said that she found what she believed to be King David's palace in an ancient area of Jerusalem by using Biblical descriptions to guide her excavations. However, the Times of Israel notes that Mazar's findings remain controversial, due in part to her dependence on a literal reading of ancient religious texts during her research.

This is exactly in line with what was said. Some people are operating on the premise that he definitely existed and you just need to find the evidence. This is not how anyone should conduct research ever.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

And an atheist operates on the principle that something can arise from nothing. Even stupider, but they still do it. And your opinion of "how you should do research ever" is a bit irrelevant, again, because you are not the scholar whose opinion matters a shit. I mean, come on, you believe the world is flat!

[beardo]

Sometime coming to be from nothing is no less plausible than the existence of an eternal being who always has existed and always will exist with no beginning and no end.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Actually, no. It is a logical impossibility for something to come from nothing. This is not a question of proving the Jewish G-d, or any other god or deity.  But, if something comes to be, it had to come from something else.

If something is capable of creating something else, ie, if something can create you, then traditionally, said something has always been called G-d. Now you can call it what you will, but to deny its presence is simply to deny logic, and make yourself out to be a fool.

[Hoppy]

Sometime coming to be from nothing is no less plausible than the existence of an eternal being who always has existed and always will exist with no beginning and no end.

Preach it mugsy.

[beardo]

How can something have always been?

[Lord Dave]

Actually, no. It is a logical impossibility for something to come from nothing. This is not a question of proving the Jewish G-d, or any other god or deity.  But, if something comes to be, it had to come from something else.

If something is capable of creating something else, ie, if something can create you, then traditionally, said something has always been called G-d. Now you can call it what you will, but to deny its presence is simply to deny logic, and make yourself out to be a fool.

I like how you disprove the Big Bang by saying it's "illogical" but say that it doesn't apply to God because you said so.  Classic.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Is it so impossible to think that's something might be eternal? Just because we ourselves are not, does that imply that NOTHING is? What about something outside of time? I mean, we are getting into some interesting philosophy when we start talking about things outside our own dimensional concepts, but is it so hard to conceive after all? I don't get the malfunction here. It strikes me that an atheist lacks an imagination, for one. I mean, wow. What a boring world to live in, to only accept that which you can see. No wonder you all believe the world is flat. It looks flat. Ergo, it is flat.

I won't dispute the simplistic use of logic. The world does look flat out the window. Ergo, it must be. To an atheist, well, I've never seen a deity, ergo, there isn't one. I have never been the personal recipient of a miracle, ergo, they don't occur. From a so-called Zetetic perspective...

I don't deny, from that perspective, its pretty hard to gainsay atheism. Of course, taking logic further is something an atheist seems unable to do. 

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

And I never denied the Big Bang. But it had to start from something. It couldn't occur by itself. Again. That is an event. G-d is a thing. Events don't happen by themselves. I realise atheists need help with basic logic, but you could at least try.

[Blanko]

ITT: Yaakov is upset at atheists because they've successfully hijacked his culture and abused it for world domination, while religious observance continues to get people nowhere in life.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Actually, the only thing atheists HAVE succeeded at is killing. The French Revolution, the Russian, the Chinese, the Cambodian, the Cuban, the Ethiopian, shall I go on?

[Blanko]

Why would that matter to you? You've been a great advocate for killing people for this entire thread.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

That is simply a stupid statement, not that I have come to expect differently from an atheist. I have recommended protecting our way of life. And fighting a real war, like we fought WWII. When you fight wars, unfortunately, people die, and a lot of people die. This "surgical strike" bullshit results in just pissing people off. ISIS has already said that it has done no harm to them. The only way to take them out is to do exactly that. It would save more lives in the long run if we just did it, just like the nuclear bombing of Japan saved lives in the end.

[Rama Set]

What report?  The one from huff post?  I hope not because that was from July 2013. Anyway, newer does not give primacy as you are implying.

[Lord Dave]

Is it so impossible to think that's something might be eternal? Just because we ourselves are not, does that imply that NOTHING is? What about something outside of time? I mean, we are getting into some interesting philosophy when we start talking about things outside our own dimensional concepts, but is it so hard to conceive after all? I don't get the malfunction here. It strikes me that an atheist lacks an imagination, for one. I mean, wow. What a boring world to live in, to only accept that which you can see. No wonder you all believe the world is flat. It looks flat. Ergo, it is flat.

And none of this can apply to the Universe because?
The big bang was an event.  So?  Does that mean that this is all there is? Or maybe this big bang is just an effect from some larger universe?  Just because you can't see the multiple layers of existence, doesn't mean they don't exist.

That is simply a stupid statement, not that I have come to expect differently from an atheist. I have recommended protecting our way of life. And fighting a real war, like we fought WWII. When you fight wars, unfortunately, people die, and a lot of people die. This "surgical strike" bullshit results in just pissing people off. ISIS has already said that it has done no harm to them. The only way to take them out is to do exactly that. It would save more lives in the long run if we just did it, just like the nuclear bombing of Japan saved lives in the end.

Yep, killing one of their head clerics is no damage at all.

So why would killing all of them do any damage?

Honestly, you'd think being a Jew you'd realize just how futile it is to wipe out an entire ethnic group and expect that to work.

[Blanko]

Honestly, you'd think being a Jew you'd realize just how futile it is to wipe out an entire ethnic group and expect that to work.

Even Jews agree that Hitler did nothing wrong.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

What report?  The one from huff post?  I hope not because that was from July 2013. Anyway, newer does not give primacy as you are implying.

Ah, what? Well, doesn't matter. The fact is, they still exist. They should have ceased to exist the first time they killed an American. They should have been completely eliminated. And it isn't too late. We should go Dresden on the entire area ISIS controls. We could knock their asses out within a week.

Is it so impossible to think that's something might be eternal? Just because we ourselves are not, does that imply that NOTHING is? What about something outside of time? I mean, we are getting into some interesting philosophy when we start talking about things outside our own dimensional concepts, but is it so hard to conceive after all? I don't get the malfunction here. It strikes me that an atheist lacks an imagination, for one. I mean, wow. What a boring world to live in, to only accept that which you can see. No wonder you all believe the world is flat. It looks flat. Ergo, it is flat.

And none of this can apply to the Universe because?
The big bang was an event.  So?  Does that mean that this is all there is? Or maybe this big bang is just an effect from some larger universe?  Just because you can't see the multiple layers of existence, doesn't mean they don't exist.

And indeed you could argue that. But then you would be arguing that events themselves are G-d, which I don't agree with, but ok, it still denies atheism.

That is simply a stupid statement, not that I have come to expect differently from an atheist. I have recommended protecting our way of life. And fighting a real war, like we fought WWII. When you fight wars, unfortunately, people die, and a lot of people die. This "surgical strike" bullshit results in just pissing people off. ISIS has already said that it has done no harm to them. The only way to take them out is to do exactly that. It would save more lives in the long run if we just did it, just like the nuclear bombing of Japan saved lives in the end.

Yep, killing one of their head clerics is no damage at all.

So why would killing all of them do any damage?

Honestly, you'd think being a Jew you'd realize just how futile it is to wipe out an entire ethnic group and expect that to work.

I didn't say you had to kill an entire ethnic group. I said you had to kill off ISIS. Going Dresden on the bastards in the territory they control would do it, just like it did Germany and Japan. We didn't have to kill the entire German and Japanese peoples.

Honestly, you'd think being a Jew you'd realize just how futile it is to wipe out an entire ethnic group and expect that to work.

Even Jews agree that Hitler did nothing wrong.

Leave it to a moderator to say something anti-Semitic and stupid. But then, you are an atheist. Why should I be surprised?