the dominance of religion in the ancient world

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 2:42 pm

marduk wrote:
Yeah he does that a lot. Min/Bob has said those exact same words.
must have been before my time
i just formed that opinion from talking to Arch
at the end of the day its completely pointless
i don't have a problem with him being a religious dumbass thats up to him and each to their own i say but when he buts in to decent scientific discussions with religious mumbo jumbo and derails threads it gets a little annoying

Indeed!

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 4:36 pm

Frank Harrist wrote:
marduk wrote:
Yeah he does that a lot. Min/Bob has said those exact same words.
must have been before my time
i just formed that opinion from talking to Arch
at the end of the day its completely pointless
i don't have a problem with him being a religious dumbass thats up to him and each to their own i say but when he buts in to decent scientific discussions with religious mumbo jumbo and derails threads it gets a little annoying

Indeed!

I've even got a smilie for it!

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:03 pm

i don't have a problem with him being a religious dumbass thats up to him and each to their own i say but when he buts in to decent scientific discussions with religious mumbo jumbo and derails threads it gets a little annoying

first off , i am not dumb. secondly i don't derail topics, that is something you are an expert at, third, there hasn't been a decent scientific discussion on this board yet, fourth, it isn't mumbo jumbo.

the only conclusion i can come to marduk, is that you are a troll out to cause as much problems as you can. you have yet to make a credible post and you have caused problems with other posters not just me. so before you go attacking me and my perspective, i would get your own life together first and stop presenting nonsense and crap.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:42 am

the only conclusion i can come to marduk, is that you are a troll out to cause as much problems as you can. you have yet to make a credible post and you have caused problems with other posters not just me. so before you go attacking me and my perspective, i would get your own life together first and stop presenting nonsense and crap.

Same could be said for you, arch. How, many people you know here who agree with you? None! It's you against the rest of us all the time. Why do you stay around for that? Does it make you feel like you're fighting the good fight for the lord? Make you feel like a martyr for god? What exactly is your motivation? We mostly came here to learn and make a few friends. You obviously know everything and apparently have no wish to make any friends. Is this your assignment, or penitance? Are you "witnessing" for jesus? You don't really seem to care about the rest of our souls. You just pat yourself on the back and say "I'm going to heaven and all these fools are not. Screw 'em". Mighty christian of you, arch. Oh and try to make a scientific point on occasion, would you?

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:41 am

the only conclusion i can come to marduk, is that you are a troll out to cause as much problems as you can. you have yet to make a credible post and you have caused problems with other posters not just me. so before you go attacking me and my perspective, i would get your own life together first and stop presenting nonsense and crap.

answered another request for sources with a personal attack
this means
1) you're going to hell, what makes you think god would want someone as unchristian as you are in heaven
2) you constantly feel the need to bolster your faith with lies and distortions, which means quite simply that you don't have any faith
e.g. I am famous in some circles for having a big inside leg measurement. i don't feel the need to come onto forums and tell everyone how tall i am
3) you don't know anything about anything. your constant claim that I am a troll is laughed at by everyone who reads it. fyi trolls by definition join forums because they want to spread the word about something. in your case you are doing a good job of spreading the fact of your erroneous religious belief to everyone who doesn't give a shit about it and who doesn't want to hear it. you are ruining this forum all on your own. how many have you ruined and been banned from already because of this crap
4) you don't have any credible sources whatsoever and asking for them from others just means you are a big fat hypocrite.
5) your inability to tell anyone precisely which church you belong to means that you don't belong to any church which makes you about as devoutly religious as Dick Cheney

piss off
start your own prayer group somewhere else
turn the other cheek and i will kick you in it christian

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:46 am

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 10:24 am

One of the best discussions of flood-silliness that I've seen. The guy is a believer, of sorts, but not one of those fundamentalists nut jobs.

http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/noahsflood1.html

In support of these concepts there has developed a religious sect known as creationism, led by those known as creationists. Creationism is based on Christian "fundamentalism" or "Judeo-Christian" theology, which many are now discovering to be a distorted Christianity (a mixture of the Bible and human precepts).

Without either of these two concepts, the doctrine of creationism cannot stand and will quickly vanish from the minds of any rational person. Itis the intent of this material to show that the idea of a worldwide flood is neither biblical, historical nor scientific. In this endeavour, we will need to examine exactly what is and is not being said today on this matter, and compare it to evidence derived from the Bible, science and history.

To get to part Two change the 1 in the url to a 2.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 10:53 am

Here is a classic example of the phenomenon that arch was originally talking about.

http://english.people.com.cn/200608/15/ ... 93315.html

Wu found a large yam-shaped stone, 310 centimeters long, onto which 19 stars had been carved. The representation of the Big Dipper is on the north face of the stone.

Apart from the Big Dipper, Wu also found some "unexplained images" on the stone. He thinks they may depict ancient gods, such as the god of the sun and the god of horses. Further study would be needed to determine when the pictures were painted

Instead of reserving judgement or simply saying "I don't know" there is the automatic knee-jerk reaction to ascribe every thing they see to religion. The problem with this is that it now sets the bar and subsequent researchers have to overcome that initial determination.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 11:22 am

He thinks they may depict ancient gods,

where are you getting

there is the automatic knee-jerk reaction to ascribe every thing they see to religion

from
only person ascribing things to this article Min is you

the first thing he did was take it to archaeologist Gai Shanlin who did not say anything about Gods at all so the fact that an amateur thinks something doesnt mean its true
try a little reality sometimes eh

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 11:22 am

Yeah speculation is often taken as being an actual theory so scientists need to be more careful when they say things like that. A lot of people don't bother to think for themselves or to even notice that the scientist is speculating. It's not really the scientists fault that people don't pay enough attention or think things through for themselves. But, they should recognize human nature as being what it is and don't supply any explanation or at least make it abundantly clear that what they are doing is guessing.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 11:26 am

Wu also found some "unexplained images" on the stone. He thinks they may depict ancient gods, such as the god of the sun and the god of horses.

What part of that statement is confusing you most, marduk?

It isn't as if it is written in Chinese.....or Sumerian.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 11:32 am

it says that "Wu" found the stone
it says that "Wu" says HE thinks they may be gods
it at no time says anything about the magic club claiming he is right
the only person making any claims about this article being evidence of the club claiming anything at all is you
you'd make a great journalist
why don't you write a book about how the club which doesnt exist claim things that they haven't said
ask graham hancock to give you a hand
hes an expert at it
lets face it its where you came up with the idea of a club in the first place

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 11:36 am

A lot of people don't bother to think for themselves or to even notice that the scientist is speculating. It's not really the scientists fault that people don't pay enough attention or think things through for themselves.

...I said.

Bob, I know this sounds like a dig at you, but Marduk and I posted at about the same time and in light of hjis words you might think I am getting on your case. Maybe I am a little, but that wasn't my actual intention. I think you know what I meant. Non archaeologists sometimes think that archaeologists can read more into artifacts than they are actually able to do. Everybody speculates on unusual finds, unless they think the explanation has already been given to them. Myself, I never accept what is said as fact. I always try to think it through and decide for myself. Most people do not.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 11:42 am

no ones accusing you of choosing sides Frank
you just called it like you saw it which happened to mirror my opinion
Min can't see it because he is making things up about the statement in order to hijack the actual truth of the matter and to use it for his own ends

Here is a classic example of the phenomenon that arch was originally talking about.

you may remember that Arch was talking out of his ass which i mentioned in my first post
Archaeologists do not make things up without evidence
they are in fact extremely reticent to say anything that hasn't been substantially proven

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Thu Aug 17, 2006 11:44 am

Some of 'em do speculate a little and we've seen evidence of it here. That's what Bob's getting at. Lighten up a little. You're both right, just butting heads over semantics.