the dominance of religion in the ancient world

[Minimalist]

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

As a Club Wannabe I expect nothing less from you however, I did not mention the Club this time. I merely pointed out the statement that there was an automatic attribution to 'gods' even though they didn't even know what the images are.

You are overly sensitive about this. Hancock has one advantage over you. At least he asks questions.

[Minimalist]

you may remember that Arch was talking out of his ass which i mentioned in my first post

There are times....especially when he is not hamstrung by his bible...when arch makes a great deal more sense than you, marduk.
You have a superiority complex which is odd as I have caught you lying twice already on these boards.

[marduk]

that there was an automatic attribution to 'gods' even though they didn't even know what the images are.

one man said that so its a "he" not a "they"
and he wasn't an archaeologist
Hancock as an anarchist has no advantage over me
he doesnt ask questions he makes stuff up
and you appear to have misread him
he doesnt claim that archaeolgists have a secret hiding club
he claims that egyptologists have a secret hiding club specifically Zahi Hawass and the egyptian antiquities commission
different thing entirely

[Guest]

i guess that makes you the 4th poster marcuk has become combative with, who is next...

Frank i read your post and feel that you are bothered because you have to confront the belief you left and it makes you uncomfortable.

I believe the Bible and i have made no secret that i come from that perspective and there is nothing wrong with participating in these forums with such a viewpoint. i don't need the extra credit, the martyr feeling, nor do i do it for bonus points in heaven.

I like archaeology, i enjoy discussing it and there are very few christian sites that delve into the issues as much as this fourm does. do you know how boring christian websites are? as minimalist and others have said, they do not investigate, explore or ask too many questions and stick to the party line while preaching to the choir.

it is annoying, frustrating and mind-numbing to say the least. even with the personal attacks here i learn more than i would in a sanitized discussion area that is offered by some websites.

* i have come to the conclusion that Marduk is not here to contribute on a level that is constructive nor beneficial to the website and as evidenced by his posts, he only wants to make outlandish statements while refusing to say where he came up with such alien thinking. Plus his refusal to post quotes or links to support his view leads me to believe he is only here to cause trouble so i will be taking Michelle's advice and ignore him.

[marduk]

i guess that makes you the 4th poster marcuk has become combative with, who is next...

as opposed to every poster like you

i have come to the conclusion that Marduk is not here to contribute on a level that is constructive nor beneficial to the website and as evidenced by his posts, he only wants to make outlandish statements while refusing to say where he came up with such alien thinking. Plus his refusal to post quotes or links to support his view leads me to believe he is only here to cause trouble

you big fat liar
I'm still waiting to see these imagined links of yours in response to the links i posted about the Bible being a last generation copy

lying to people to prove your point is going to be even less successful than refusing to respond to posts with links that prove your both a hypocrite and don't know anything about the subject matter you profess to worship
you really are a hopeless case aren't you Arch
and you're no christian
i suspect that you may in fact be a founder member of the church of satan
you and Antony la vey must have been great friends

so i will be taking Michelle's advice and ignore him.

you know what they say Arch
if you can't take the heat......

[Beagle]

[quote]i suspect that you may in fact be a founder member

Marduk when you lose your temper you say the stupidest things. You could become great sport around here.

Yeah, I know, you're not mad.

[marduk]

when im mad i actually swear at people and i dont ever use smileys in case youre finding it hard to tell
and if you are expecting me to be sport for you then you'd best remember that you've been in the amateur leagues your whole life

(n.b. note smiley faces indicate humour)

[Guest]

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

is the catagorizing of unknown artifacts as religious a catch all procedure when archaeologists and researchers do not want to look like they are stumped?

why does every topless women statuette have to be 'the goddess of fertility'? couldn't it just be a statue of a women the artist would like to see inthe country? or just art?

i think partof the problem comes when we find these artifacts without any documentation to shed light on their existence and a lot of extrapolating is done to justify the expenseof the dig?

which is another point i want to raise as a reason for this trend. Is this classification only done so that the financial supporters feel something is being accomplished and that they are not throwing their money away?

[Frank Harrist]

I have to say that I think it is very irresponsible of anyone to just throw out a theory about a site or an artifact without conclusive evidence to back it up. No archaeologist I know personally would do that, but something about having a reporter in your face may cause the mouth to run without engaging the brain. Then later that night the guy's probably wishing to hell he'd kept his mouth shut. But we're all human and should think for ourselves and not just accept what the media tells us. We all have that responsibilty. The media are idiots and we must keep that in mind all the time.

[Frank Harrist]

Oh and finances probably influence them too sometimes. I think Al Goodyear went to the media before he published in a peer reviewed journal because he knew the attention would help him to get funding.

[Guest]

The media are idiots and we must keep that in mind all the time.

i remember a time when reporters could be counted on for reporting factually and not resorting to hype or to sell newspapers. i believe it was in the 70's when libel laws were changed which affect reporters and they lost their teeth at that time.

I have to say that I think it is very irresponsible of anyone to just throw out a theory about a site or an artifact without conclusive evidence to back it up.

but isn't that happening a lot these days?

[Frank Harrist]

It happens in any endeavor which involves humans. We are all egotistical and need our egos stroked. We're all human and we all see things from our own particular perspective. But the main problem is the media pushing for sensational things and badgering people to make things sound more exciting. I can see the media being less and less trusted in the future. They may even attain the status of lawyers. Anyone know any reporter jokes?

[Guest]

Anyone know any reporter jokes?

no but i can agree with you as more and more reporters are resorting to making up their own news and passing it off as truth.

i remember James Garner doing a 'Rockford" movie concerning this point (i can use this example as in 1000 years even 'rockford' will be considered archaeological evidence) with Hal Linden as the target for reporters.

it was a good dramatization on how bad reporting and leaps to conclusions can ruin a person's life as the newspaper reporter gets a lot of trust from the public.

i think that trust gets abused quite a bit now-a-days, especially with Bush in office, and many people are led to thnk one way when the opposite is true.

But the main problem is the media pushing for sensational things and badgering people to make things sound more exciting

i see this in other areas of life as well, we get that t.v. quiz show, 'Deal or No Deal' here and i wonder if they look for the most moronic contestants or if they tell the person to act stupid or they don't get in the show?

or are they forced to leave their intelligence at the door?

as a side: why is it that those models get ovations for just carrying and opening a suitcase? they do less than carrol merril ever did and she never even got a nod from the audience. society has not changed for the better.

[Leona Conner]

[quote="Frank Harrist"]It happens in any endeavor which involves humans. We are all egotistical and need our egos stroked. We're all human and we all see things from our own particular perspective. But the main problem is the media pushing for sensational things and badgering people to make things sound more exciting. I can see the media being less and less trusted in the future. They may even attain the status of lawyers. Anyone know any reporter jokes?[/quote]

I was a legal secretary for a couple of years and am too much of a lady to post the ones I've heard.

But to the subject. What about the "15-minutes of fame syndrome?" If you think you've found something that could be important, and there's a reporter with his nose in your face, your ego may become bigger than your intelligence. AND with the media's love of sensationalizing anything it thinks will make money, they'll go for it in a big way. Probably more than one archaeologist or eve pseudo-archaeologist, has gone to sleep by pounding their head on the bed post.

[john]

It happens in any endeavor which involves humans. We are all egotistical and need our egos stroked. We're all human and we all see things from our own particular perspective. But the main problem is the media pushing for sensational things and badgering people to make things sound more exciting. I can see the media being less and less trusted in the future. They may even attain the status of lawyers. Anyone know any reporter jokes?

I was a legal secretary for a couple of years and am too much of a lady to post the ones I've heard.

But to the subject. What about the "15-minutes of fame syndrome?" If you think you've found something that could be important, and there's a reporter with his nose in your face, your ego may become bigger than your intelligence. AND with the media's love of sensationalizing anything it thinks will make money, they'll go for it in a big way. Probably more than one archaeologist or eve pseudo-archaeologist, has gone to sleep by pounding their head on the bed post.

what about living your own life to the best results you may imagine? and i'll add that fame is a chimera. what matters is that you are learning about the world to the limit of your abilities, and are made whole, as an "actual, wilful" person (charles olson) by your efforts. the media can fuck off and die. parastitic culture, they are.

nothing is important. everything is important. there is no value in spending your time creating a hierarchy of what is and what isn't.

all of it already IS.

john