Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Persephone · Nov 17, 2005, 02:59 AM

Originally Posted by loki74

If you say X is true, you must provide evidence that X is true, and NOT just say "go find it yourself." Nope. That doesn't work. I'm NOT about to go and find evidence for YOUR argument.

That's the point though. It's not just MY argument.

Now, if you want to go ahead and claim that the standard view on this subject is WRONG, or if you think I'm wrong on the "standard" stance on what I have claimed (standard=scientifically accepted theory (in general)), then you are more than welcome to present what you claim to be a more comprehensive and plausible theory BACKED UP BY EVIDENCE.

I PERSONALLY, don't have to prove anything to you, unless I was claiming something completely NOVEL.

Originally Posted by loki74

I have not said "Y is true." You have said "X is true" and I have said "X is false." You have not provided any evidence for X and until you do X will remain in my eyes false.

No, once and for a final time,ACCORDING TO THE EVIDENCE FOUND BY HISTORIANS, ARCHAEOLOGISTS AND OTHERS CONCERNED WITH THE SUBJECT MATTER WHO USE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, "X" IS THE MOST PROBABLE AND MOST LIKELY SCENARIO.

If you want to say "X" is false, please provide evidence to the contrary. If you are claiming I'm wrong about what I said in the last paragraph, and indeed the official stance is a different one, I'd be very interested to know what you base your assessment on.

That's all. Is that so hard to understand?

__________

Sorry about the new handle, but the mods seem to be ban happy again.

besson3c · Nov 17, 2005, 03:17 AM

Originally Posted by loki74

besson3c, I often disagree with what you have to say in the PL, but I must admit this was pretty funny. Thanks for adding some levity to this thread!

I'm pretty bad about keeping track of who is who, but if you say nutty religious Republican stuff, I suppose I've often disagreed with you too

Levity is my speciality! So is being right all the time and kick ass all over the place, but we can save that for another thread....

loki74 · Nov 17, 2005, 03:23 AM

You misunderstand...

Originally Posted by Persephone

No, once and for a final time,ACCORDING TO THE EVIDENCE FOUND BY HISTORIANS, ARCHAEOLOGISTS AND OTHERS CONCERNED WITH THE SUBJECT MATTER WHO USE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, "X" IS THE MOST PROBABLE AND MOST LIKELY SCENARIO.

When I say "X," what the historians and arghaeologists etc is NOT what I refer to. It is the statement above that I refer to.

Your statement "X" is that historians and archeaologists hold this believe, and it is due to suchansuch evidence. If you were a good debater, you would provide evidence for X.

You really can't just say "Oh its the norm, its whats' generally accepted, believe me." I haven't heard it as the norm. So its your job to prove me that it's the norm!! Get it?

Frankly, I DONT CARE how old the OT is!! Really, it could be 5000 like you say, sure, fine, whatever. Doesn't affect my faith in the Bible or in my Savior. So, you see, the issue here really has nothing at all to do with being fundamentalist or any such nonsense. It has to do with you saying something and demanding that we all accept it as fact w/o any kind of proof. That, and the way you've handled this discussion.

Is this really so hard?

Persephone · Nov 17, 2005, 03:29 AM

Originally Posted by loki74

You really can't just say "Oh its the norm, its whats' generally accepted, believe me." I haven't heard it as the norm.

Exactly, that's my point. What have you heard as "the norm"? And where do you get the information from?

loki74 · Nov 17, 2005, 03:33 AM

Originally Posted by Persephone

Exactly, that's my point. What have you heard as "the norm"? And where do you get the information from?

Have I heard anything conclusive? Nope.

But it seems you have? If you want to convince me, you've gotta show me. 'Cause like I said, it really isn't important enough for me to seek out on my own time.

Persephone · Nov 17, 2005, 03:42 AM

Originally Posted by loki74

But it seems you have?

Why do you say this, when in the last 4 posts I claimed otherwise?

Again:

ACCORDING TO THE EVIDENCE FOUND BY HISTORIANS, ARCHAEOLOGISTS AND OTHERS CONCERNED WITH THE SUBJECT MATTER WHO USE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, "X" IS THE MOST PROBABLE AND MOST LIKELY SCENARIO.

Originally Posted by loki74

'Cause like I said, it really isn't important enough for me to seek out on my own time.

Oh, it's not? It sure seems important enough to you to flame me over several posts here.

But hey, don't take my word for it.

11011001 · 05:11 AM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

So you're saying the Bible (and God) is wrong?

I mean.. Where did that come from?!

Hmm, something like 67 % of the world's population would very strongly agree, that yes, the variants of the Christian Bible are wrong, considering that Christianity comprises roughly 33 % of the worlds religions. The rest of the world either doesn't believe in religion at all, or hold their own very strong believes on the subject. I guess the other 67 % are wrong :/

In any case, the bible was written in a very different age and era, where such ideas may have made some sense, but are no longer applicable (if someone with more history could elaborate). The eye for an eye thing was really meant to limit the who process of escalating retribution (I pee on your house, so you respond by burning my house down). I like to think that society has evolved at least somewhat over the last 2000 years. The Bible should be read in context, and not literally.

(I'm guilty of not reading the whole thread btw, sorry)

edit:
wow.. I didn't realize this was 4 pages, I feel like an idiot

Persephone · Nov 17, 2005, 05:23 AM

Originally Posted by 11011001

I like to think that society has evolved at least somewhat over the last 2000 years. The Bible should be read in context, and not literally.

Absolutely right.

olePigeon · Nov 17, 2005, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

So you're saying the Bible (and God) is wrong?

Yes.

johnnyJihad · Nov 17, 2005, 07:04 PM

zimphucker, I see you love philosophy... why not take a course at Uni and leave us alone...

nobody can stand you anymore in here. get the **** out.

Kevin · Nov 17, 2005, 07:55 PM

Originally Posted by johnnyJihad

zimphucker, I see you love philosophy... why not take a course at Uni and leave us alone...

nobody can stand you anymore in here. get the **** out.

Speak for yourself Ambush.

Many people in here would be upset if I left.

Like it or not.

Kevin · Nov 17, 2005, 07:57 PM

Originally Posted by 11011001

The Bible should be read in context

I read it in context. Our "context" is just different.

BlueSky · Nov 17, 2005, 08:11 PM

The bible should be read with a wholesome bowl of cereal, preferably Cocoa Puffs.

Kevin · Nov 17, 2005, 08:12 PM

I like Boo Berry. And Corn Pops.

BlueSky · Nov 17, 2005, 08:25 PM

Ha, Corn Pops. Used to be Sugar Pops until THE MAN pulled the wool over our eyes. Come the revolution, there ain't gonna be no more euphimistic cereal names. Viva la revolucciones de cerealamos!

nonhuman · Nov 17, 2005, 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by BlueSky

Ha, Corn Pops. Used to be Sugar Pops until THE MAN pulled the wool over our eyes. Come the revolution, there ain't gonna be no more euphimistic cereal names. Viva la revolucciones de cerealamos!

Introducing: Cancer Pops!

Cancer Pops are tops!