BrutalAntipathy
Posts: 412
Joined: 7/8/2005
Status: offline
|
In response to Noah.
Using the quote option here would be pointless, so I will just skim down the list and make some observations.
Paragraphs 1-6: No argument on your part, just ad hominem attacks that fail to address the issue. Hardly the hallmark of a person that has a leg to stand on.
Paragraphs 7-8: More ad hominem, but mixed with the assertion that an analogy cannot be false. But when you are using an analogy to make a case, as you were doing, they can be false. If A has property X, then B must also have property X. As the objective of religion and poetry are diferent, they have to meet diferent criteria. Any student of logic could tell you this.
Paragraphs 9-10: Narrowly avoided ad hominem, but i'll let the dunder head thing slide. Now the problem is, I see the usefulness of myth, dichotomy, metaphor, and the like when they are applicable. But you are using apples to defend oranges. If you were to say that someones tears were the sweetest nectar, I would get it. But you are saying that " your tears are the sweetest nectar. And therefore spirituality is true! " Sorry, apples and oranges. This is not truth, but poetry.
Paragraph 14, skipping quotations: Back to ad hominems. As I have a quirky modem, my connection tends to die unexpectedly. That was a spelling error.
Paragraphs 15-20: Allusions to my Song of the Harper/ Song of Solomon, Hammurapi/10 commandments, Suffering Servant/Job references here. Were you familiar with the source material, you would know that the theological implications of the sources are vastly different from those viewed as ' truths ' today. You seemed to be making a point that different people could have the same religious epiphany, but had you bothered checking those sources, you would find that the message was completely different in the source material than the Hebrew plagerism.
Paragraphs 22-23: Various cultures also have words that translate to ghost in English. Does this mean that ghosts exist? As I mentioned earlier, the only notion I was putting forth with that was that much of the Bible was plagerized from other sources. I have since mentioned that those sources had little in common with the Bible from a theological view.
Paragraph 25: People wrote the sources that I was pointing to, not some god or gods. Which is why I mentioned your incoherence in the quote you used. As " I " wrote my material, people would not conclude based on that alone that it was false, nor that " I " do not exist. Apples and oranges again, but you miss the point, and by now I am beginning to wonder if this is deliberate.
Look, take Stephen King's novel The Stand. It has a great flu epidemic that destroys society. The Stand mentions geographical places that actually exist. Not only does it cover Buffalo, but it also mentions the obscure town of Sipe Springs.
Now what would happen if archaeologists a thousand years in the future find a copy of The Stand and another team of archaeologists digging in Texas uncover the city limit sign of Sipe Springs? Should they automatically assume that The Stand is a true story? Should they then begin looking for the place where the great final battle took place? That someone wrote about a couple of places that actually exist in a fictional novel does NOT make the novel factual.
Paragraph 26: I said DETRACTS, not disproves. Are your arguments so feeble that you must now resort to misrepresenting me?
Paragraphs 27-32: Newton, Einstein , and yes, even Machiavelli represent the collected efforts of truth. This has nothing to do with rewritten, theologically muddled plagerism. That is no pedigree of antiquity, it is theft and manipulation of data to make it say something quite opposed to the messages handed down from ancient cultures. The Hebrew infused pagan myths with their own outlook, changing the content of the myth while simultaniously claiming that their adaptation was a mandate from a god.
I accept reviewable testimony that has some basis for it as evidence. Testimony which seems based on nonsense I tend to assign to the nonsense bin pending some credible evidence. I may not grasp every nuance of relativity, but I get the basics behind it and accept Einstein's equations as provisional evidence that is subject to modification or even discrediting at some later date.
Paragraph 33: Your most recent posts point to your defence of invisible sky daddies. If I am mistaken in this, I most humbly apologize.
Paragraphs 34-36: Myth and metaphor can hold truth, but comparing the Brothers Grimm to the Bible is just plain silly. Tons of more ad hominem here, but little substance. I was making a point that my sources were derived from history and archaeology, and that these sources pointed to a non Hebraic source for the Bible. You proclaimed this to be some ' wacky shit '.
Paragraphs 37-44: Said priests all over the world did not draw similar conclusions regarding theology, but concerning society in general. The additional ad hominems do nothing more than further demonstrate your lack of a valid argument. You are really one to be pointing fingers at the sky daddy thing, as you have used more ad hominem than argument of my points in this entire thread.
Paragraphs 45-47: I have no problem with poetry containing truth. I have a problem with your poor choice of analogies.
Paragraph 48: In the post I responded to, you seemed to spend considerable efort defending the mythology, not attacking it. If I misread, sorry. But judging by the vehemence of your attack here, I suspect that I did not. Do you always go out of your way to insult and attack people on your side? Pathetic indeed.
Paragraphs 49-51: Already covered this.There can be truth in poetry, but not in the context that you are proposing it.
Paragraphs 52-60: The weatherman's testimony is subject to verification from other sources, including my own should I so choose. As the weatherman down not tell me that his meteorological presentation means that I should teach children in public schools that the earth is under 10,000 years old, I also see his mistakes as less harmful to society in general that someone who wishes to present plagerized myth as fact and science. " evidence " that is unverifiable is no evidence at all. Again, apples and oranges. You are trying to make it seem as though a warm, fuzzy feeling constitutes the same degree of evidence as does meterology, when the two are worlds apart.
Paragraphs 61-68: Evangelical fundamentalists, say George Bush for instance, do in fact deny that the Bible has pagan origins. They would go so far as to deny the Magi being an allusion to Zoroastrian astrologers. These are the very people that I make points about the Bible's origin to, in order to hopefully pull the wool off of their eyes.
Paragraph 69: It is a common belief that racoons wash their food because they lack salivary glands. But rabies is transmitted through those glands. A rabid racoon froths at the mouth due to the virus making their glands work overtime, hence the false belief.
Paragraphs 70-73: Back to the old ad hominems, I see, and just when I thought we were making progress. I was pointing out that people are not always rational in their beliefs, but apparently this fact ' sucks dick '.
Paragraphs 74-75: I have no faith whatsoever. I trust in science, but not blindly. I consider faith the tool of the delusional, and have given an example of the diference between the two in other posts.
In conclusion, and by way of parting shot. I am trying to see things from your perspective, but can't seem to get my head that far up my ass. Should you ever choose to actually address my arguments rather than engage in an unfounded and ultimately self revealing character attack, I would be more than happy to continue this discussion. But so long as you ignore points, distort quotes, and generally display all the characteristics of an apologistic fundamentalist devoid in substance of debate, I have little choice other than to limit myself to exchanges with people capable of defending their stance, not maliciously throwing random insults while their delusional cheerleaders wave them on.
|
RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Eve... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread