Oh boy. Back at it again, Paul??
Ummmm.... why exactly are you now commenting on something said about two pages back?? Something which you had ignored previously??
Anyways....
Someones agenda doesn't make their evidence or their assumption based off that evidence right or wrong. You were willing to jump all over him based off what you thought his agenda was, regardless of the evidence.
Ok, Paul, that's
not how the scientific method works. If you come into the process with a truth assumption already layed down, you are not using science to try and find the answer or the truth to the problem or question. You are using science to try and validate your own personal beliefs. An example of this is the flood research people that already
assume the Bible is literally/historically true and that the Deluge did happen (proof or not), and then basically go about collecting evidence to "prove" their religious beliefs to others.
As I stated on the creationism thread, you already have the conclusion figured out in your head and are just using "science" to amass the details to "prove" that conclusion right. And that, my friends, is pseudo-science. In real science, the conclusion is the end point, not the beginning.
And I didn't "jump all over him". All I said was that, based on what little I knew of the program, it
sounded like pseudo-science. But, I was clearly mistaken, and admitted that. So, why are you even bringing this up??
Thus, this illustrates how you've been handling this entire thread. YOU have an agenda and a BELIEF.
*chuckles* Doesn't everyone??
Yes, my "agenda" is to express what I believe to be true and criticize that which I believe to not be true. My "belief" is that it is highly unlikely that a historical Jesus existed (among other things). DEAL WITH IT.
For whatever reason it is vitally important for you to maintain your belief that a historical Jesus Christ never actually existed
I've actually never said there is no way a historical Jesus actually existed, only that it is exceedingly unlikely.
a historical Jesus Christ never actually existed...that it was a made up story.
This makes the false assumption that something not exisiting historically and something being "a made up story" are the same thing.
So, as soon as you smell a somewhat Christian agenda, your ready to try to slam down any evidence they might bring forth, no matter how much or little you may know of that evidence.
*chuckles* What evidence??
I criticize that which I believe to not be true. Something you seem to be doing now, Paul. You are dangerously flirting with hypocrisy here.
So, instead of trying to get to the bottom of something, your trying to slam others beliefs and conjectures.
I criticize views that I do not believe to be true. Big deal.
If someone posits a view I believe to not be true, I request evidence. If that evidence does not hold out, I continue my criticism. So far, that has continued to occur in this thread.
I have also not made any kind of "rigid" position on any of this one way or another. I never adamantly stated that the "plague/volcano" special was pseudo-science, only that it
sounded like pseudo-science (based on the limited description I had heard). Likewise, I never adamantly stated that Jesus did not exist, only that it was extremely unlikely.
You, however, seem to be more than rigid on your positions right now and in the past, as well.
At least, this is the way you come across...like a total A-hole.
Well, the admins obviously don't think so. Nor does anyone else that has participated in this thread outside of the random "why are you picking on Jesus??" complaints.
You seem to have the mistaken impression that I am somehow
obliged to treat any and all viewpoints as if they have equal scientific/historical validity. I can assure you, I am not.
From where I'm standing, a lot of these complaints (including some of yours) resemble individuals afraid of having their beliefs questioned. Too bad.
Perhaps you think that people don't want to talk with you, or that they would rather let this thread die, because you have such a strong arguement.
Paul, please try and use logic every now and then. I revived this thread to discuss the last poster's interpretation of the Bible, not to go back over either the volcano or Jesus theories. That is something you are individually guilty of, my friend.
Your arguement isn't THAT strong.
It was apparently strong enough to ruffle your feathers. So much so that you resorted to ignoring most of my "evidence" and selectively cut-and-pasting what I said to declare yourself the "winner". Do we really need to rehash all this again??
People would rather let the thread die because, well, there seems to be no point.
Some do, some don't. I know you're a Christian, Paul, but you don't have to make black-and-white generalizations about
everything.
Your looking to pick a part other peoples beliefs rather then have a discussion where we can all learn something.
*chuckles* Allow me to quote the post I revived this thread with:
"So I take it, based on your post, you believe in a non-literal interpretation of the Bible, then?? Care to elaborate??"
Oh yeah, really picking apart there.
At least this is the way you come accross. I thought that maybe this was just my perception; that maybe because I am coming from a Christian perspective, I am taking your posts the wrong way. THis can't be the case, however. I have gotton more PM's regarding this thread then any other...and only about half from Christians. Some were just telling me to keep up the good fight...others were telling me not to stoop to your level or to play your game. So...I know I am not alone in this opinion.
Or, at least you say you're not alone.
Even if your PM claim is true, there also seems to be another assumption you seem to constantly make in this discussion: popularity does not confer legitimacy.
Nobody likes to have their beliefs, opinions, or conjectures slammed to the floor in an arrogent way. Sometimes, I have to remind myself of this too...we all need reminders. But when you come across as arrogently as you do somethimes, looking to hammer on peoples beliefs, you are precieved just as badly as a "street corner bible beater" who is only interested in screaming his beliefs at you, treating you as if your opinions don't matter.
This really comes down to a matter of ego, from where I'm standing. Everyone wants to be treated as if their beliefs are as equal and valid as all others. They're afraid of being questioned. The basic mentality is: "All opinions should be equally treasured and nurtured and thus NOBODY TELLS ME WHAT TO DO." Thus, they rationalize that the questioner is "an *******" or "has an agenda" or "had bad experiences with Christianity".
What this really comes down to, Paul, is that you don't like me questioning your beliefs. So, you're not alone in that opinion. Big deal. Your fear and/or "hurt feelings" is not enough reason for me to shut up.
If the discussion actually offends you
that much, then the answer is simple: don't participate. Its not exactly brain surgery.
Solution: I'd like to see a more 'inclusive' discussion, rather then an exclusionary arguement where you jump all over people for not accepting your beliefs. If we can't have that...then perhaps we should let the thread die.
No, you want me to treat your beliefs as if they are right from the outset, and my beliefs as if they might be right. Like I said before, Paul, you are flirting dangerously with hypocrisy here. Very dangerously.
*chuckles* Laterz.
