Erects a temple in Metacrocks honor. "All hail the superior Metacrock! Bow down to his glory and magnificence. Can I get an amen?"

(And I thought this guy was a reasonable believer until I saw this post - oy)

Meta => What would you think if you went to a restaraunt and saw a guy in the middle of the room shouting at people, pointing at them and saying "Don't look at me! Hey you over there, yea, but the phone both, don't look at me! No one look at me. I have privacy, I don't want to be seen. No one look at me. You, the guy in the red shirt that just came in, don't look at me!"

You would have to assume he really wants you to look at him right?

So who is not seraching for God? HOw about the guy who speands all his time posting on message boards saying "I don't beleive in God. Im not looking for God. I hate God. I hate the Bible. You can't prove to me the Bible is true! I refuse to beleive. come on and argue some more and I'll prove it. I refuse to beleive, no one can prove it, just keep arguing!"

You are looking for God. The only thing you could do to disrpove that would be to stop posting, becasue the fact that you continually argue about it proves that you want to find something somewhere that will prove it.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by madmax2976:
[b][QUOTE]Originally posted by Metacrock:

So you are actually saying that if it was written a long time ago, that in itself is reason not to beleive it?

I thought I had answered this before but perhaps it was a different thread.

My statement was not against historical beliefs but the extreme degree to which some people take those beliefs.

MEta =->what is an "extreme degree?"

Do you beleive in ancient Rome? How do you know it existed?

Sure, I believe it existed. The evidence for Rome is vast. A more pertinent question would be: How much do I believe Rome existed? How much would I bet on it? Would I bet the life of my child? A million dollars? How about just a limb - say an arm or a leg? I'd bet a lot that Rome existed, but how much would I bet on some particular aspect of Roman civilization thats not as well documented? Would I be as set in my belief? Hardly. The closer we attempt to get at detailed claims the weaker my belief becomes. Whereas it seems in this forum (not just this thread) there's the belief by some that if someone can prove a thing is possible or slightly likely, than its settled and that thing should be accepted whole hog. (And lots of the "proofs" are appeals to authority - not particularly strong arguments)

Meta => But all of that was a long time ago. Your first statement was to the effect that "how can anyone beleive something written so long ago?"

All the records from people who were there are at least 1800 or so years old?

Shoot, you don't even have to go back that far. How about Abraham Lincoln? THe evidence for his existence is vast, so I believe pretty strongly that he existed and would bet quite a bit on it. But how secure am I that he wrote the Gettysburg Address? Did he really walk two miles to return 2 pennies? (or however much it was) Did he really think black people were fully human?


Meta =>I'm saying that how long ago it was has nothing to do with it. You are willing to beleive in Ancient Rome, that existed before Jesus did. You certainly seemed to be saying that how long it was matters.

The point of all this being that, in my opinion, how much we believe an historical claim is just as important as any other factor. For instance, I believe Jesus existed (relating to the latest debate), but how much I believe it is as pertinent a point as the question itself. If I had a million dollars I'd probably bet as much as $600,000 of it that he did. (But I'd feel queasy doing it.)

Meta =>I'm willing to accept that there were certain embellishments. That's not important. Historical accuracy isn't that important. Theoretically I would accept the belief system based upon the tradition alone without historical accuracy. But I do think there is a base line of historical veracity to it.

ahahahaahah

Hey thanks man. I never had a temple in my honor before.

I can't speak for him, but I know why I post on here. It's because I find theistic and pseudoscientific beliefs fascinating. I'm not looking for a god. Rather, I find the subject matter interesting, so I read and post about it.

Does that make sense to you?

I wonder how long we'll be subjected to these fallacious arguments? (from both sides)

Do you guys actally think your saying something of value when you claim to "know" why someone else does whatever it is they are doing? Both sides can play this game (they have) - and it will still be nothing more than a game.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Metacrock:
Meta => What would you think if you went to a restaraunt and saw a guy in the middle of the room shouting at people, pointing at them and saying "Don't look at me! Hey you over there, yea, but the phone both, don't look at me! No one look at me. I have privacy, I don't want to be seen. No one look at me. You, the guy in the red shirt that just came in, don't look at me!"

You would have to assume he really wants you to look at him right?

This is another Christian apologetic tactic,e.g., the use of false analogy.


Metacrock: So who is not seraching for God? HOw about the guy who speands all his time posting on message boards saying "I don't beleive in God. Im not looking for God. I hate God. I hate the Bible. You can't prove to me the Bible is true! I refuse to beleive. come on and argue some more and I'll prove it. I refuse to beleive, no one can prove it, just keep arguing!"

Is this ranting supposed to make some kind of sense, Metacrock? You seem angry.

Metacrock: You are looking for God.

I am looking for historical accuracy. I don't think that has anything to do with the supernatural.

Metacrock: The only thing you could do to disrpove that would be to stop posting, becasue the fact that you continually argue about it proves that you want to find something somewhere that will prove it.

I don't have to disprove anything. I am interested in how facts and evidence can give us a glimpse into what actually happened in the past.

rodahi

Meta - I've cut in comments from several
different replies in this thread so I
make some "drive by comments" on them...

Whoops. My mistake? I guess when you said:
I thought that's what you were claiming.

You mean, "you see what you want to see"?

or it could mean that as usual, primitive man
took a natural phenomena that he didn't/couldn't understand, and assigned to
the influence of a supernatural being.

Mine says "Intel inside"

Yawn. The old "The proof of God is all around
us" argument.

Now, right here you're just coming across as
an arrogant kid. As my favorite bumper sticker says: "Hire a teenager while they
still know everything"....

I'm sure you're very bright. I'm sure you were a great student. But do you really expect us all to believe you (that Christianity is true) based upon the results
of a high school level research paper?
There are a lot of very learned people here
on the sec web. People with PHds in history,
etc, and they have researched this all VERY thoroughly, and yet you come if with the
above statement. I'm sure everybody here is
having a hard time not flipping the "Bozo"
bit on you now....

I think back to when I was in High School
(20+ years ago) and I think "man, was I stupid". Someday, you'll do the same.
It's a fact of life.

Here's another example. This is the kind of
attitude that makes people stop listenting
to you. It's rude, and it's condescending.
When I hear my 4 year old with this kind
of attitude (he's a bit of a grump) I
immediately chastise him and tell him to
be polite. Don't forget where you are. This
is the secular web. You are here trying to
present a point of view which a majority
of people here (aside from the "random theists of the week") are not receptive too.
And you (with this attitude) are not helping
your cause any. You should take the
"Evangelizing for Success"
course.

Here's the major problem with this viewpoint.
The Bible has some pretty outrageous claims. And the Bible is supposed to the word of God.
That has always been the claim. "This is the
word of God from his chosen people, and you
better believe it". When asked where it came
from, the answer has always been "God gave it
to us". When you start backpeddling (which is
what you are doing here) and saying 'Well, somebody just knew it because of their relationship with God", now you're opening up
a real can of worms. Where is the standard for us to judge what is really the word of
God and what are the imaginative ramblings of
a madman? Should we believe everybody who says "This is what God told me". Or this is what I figured out about what God wants?
Give me break!

I hate to break this to you, but people
really do lie. People do scheme to gain
more power. And what better way to grab
authority than to claim "God said this
is the way it should be". Or "God *revealed*
this to me. Adolf Hitler convinced an
entire nation that God was behind them.

There are HUGE inconsistencies both in the
old testament and new. I don't want to get
into a "prove it to me" thread here. They're
well documented throughout this site. These
inconsistencies do not make sense if the bible is the inspired word of a single supreme God. He changes his mind to much. He
displays too many human attitudes. He plays
FAVORITES (until 2000 years ago).

I don't think many of us here will argue
that with you! ;-) So I guess the gospels
are just stories?

They were also filled with uneducated, superstitious people.

And when I was in H.S., I had a friend,
who had a friend, who knew a guy, that was
selling a brand new Corvette for just $1000!
Things get easily twisted quickly. It's human
nature. Ever play that game where you sit
in a circle and whisper a story in the
next persons ear and it goes around?

META! Go to timeout!

Then why are you here? We're all too stupid
to understand your intellect and reasoning.
I guess we're the ones that Jesus said "Would
not be able to understand". I guess there's no
point in you sticking around?

I've documented on this board before that in ancient near eastern clutures oral traditions were systematic and they practiced memorization. They did not just tell tails and spread rumors. They actually knew how to memorize long passages and they had an ethic of keeping stairght what their techers said.They also told the traditions in the the gorup in front of everyone over and over again to keep it stairght. They were good at it and oral tradition is in no way equated with just telling rumors.

[Metacrock on oral traditions...]

So does that mean that Homer's Iliad and Odyssey are literal history, complete with the existence of the deities of Mt. Olympus and various fabulous monsters?

According to Metacrock's claims, oral history is *very* precise, meaning that the Iliad can be counted on as a stenographic record of part of the Trojan War, and that the Odyssey can be counted on as a stenographic record of the wanderings of a stray Trojan War hero. Complete with his encounters with one-eyed giant cannibals. And with a witch who turned his crew into pigs. Etc. etc. etc.

The same could be said of the story of the founding of Rome by Romulus and Remus; is it a precise stenographic record? Complete with their being the sons of a god and a virgint, and of their being raised by a wolf.

Does Metacrock believe that all that was literal history that one could have seen if one could go back in time with a time machine?