reply to post by king9072
Hi, we must not have met before. For future reference regarding further dialog between us, I would suggest that you calm down and assess what is being
said with a rational and critical mind. Just because I called out the OP on a falsehood, doesn't mean I am defending Christianity. Regardless of
whether you consider scripture to be fiction or not, that does not negate the need for accuracy in your statements. Two geeks arguing over whether or
not Klingons have purple blood or green blood like Vulcans may not be doing anything productive by arguing over fiction, but that doesn't mean the
person claiming Klingons have green blood isn't demonstrably wrong.
You have to understand that even if your fiction is of your own creation, once it's published, you are under a certain obligation for internal
accuracy. Aurthur C. Clark often received criticism over his Space Odyssey trilogy for inconsistencies between novels. The creation stories of
religions both dead and still worshiped are other people's works, so comments made about them or their contents had better be consistent with their
I would also point out that this thread is in no way scientific, and claiming that it is merely indicates that you likely hold some serious
misconceptions regarding the scientific method and it's purpose.
(Further, calling out errors in his understanding of mythology is still applicable in this case because he was the initial source of the claims.
Basically, you can't call me out on arguing fiction in a "scientific" thread, when the OP himself is the one bringing up religious myths in the
Science is about following the facts to their inevitable conclusions. One of the main purposes of the scientific method is the removal of bias,
because bias will prevent you from objectively viewing the evidence and it will ultimately slant the conclusions of your research. It seems to me
that, thus far, neither you or the OP has shown even a shred of concern for the removal of bias. You, by not actually addressing the content of my
argument - opting instead to lob baseless accusations. This tells me that you don't care about the facts, but just assume that anyone who disagrees
with the OP is some religious apologist. The OP shows a rampant bias by not actually correcting or responding to my extrapolation on the Prometheus
myth. Instead of linking to his source, he suggests I google "PROMETHEUS ON CAUCASUS" - which I did. The first link in my search query to pop up
confirmed my assessments on what the Prometheus mythology actually consists of.
Now, Source 2 (sacred-texts.com), does have bulleted link below it leading to what I assume the OP wants me to read. It's basically a series of
excerpts from The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors, by Kersey Graves. However, it seems that upon casual inspection that Mr. Graves's is
oft-regarded as a poor researcher who stretches the truth and embellishes as a means of fudging the facts to fit his hypothesis. People who do this in
any actual field of science will get their sack ripped off in the peer review process and have their credibility ruined. There's a term for this kind
of "research". Pseudoscience.
Richard Carrier (an atheist and proponent of the Jesus Myth, arguing against the historicity of an actual Jesus figure) wrote an article debunking
Crucified Saviors over on infidels.org, which you can read here.
well worth it.
I had other points to make, and I had a fairly thorough 2-post reply, but upon trying to reply with it I received an ATS 404 error and assumed the
thread had been removed by the staff. I really don't feel like writing it all up again, so I'll end it here with a few caveats.
If you want to discuss WHY you think my first post was merely propaganda, or why you apparently feel the abandonment of the scientific method (or
accuracy in your analysis) is acceptable if you're trying to prove a point, then please try to abstain from rash assumptions on character and address
the actual content of my post.
Also, I think it would greatly behoove you to look up a basic synopsis of The Fundamentalism Project. Though be warned, the full work is a VERY
comprehensive 5-volume encyclopedic series and is more than just a little "light reading". It may clear up some misconceptions you have on the roots
of the issue at hand, namely that religion isn't necessarily to blame for the world's ills, but it can invoke a wonderful encouragement and growth
atmosphere for fundamentalism. Fundamentalism itself, however, can be found in multiple different aspects of society - be they ideological, political,
economic, etc... and they can be no less deadly. I believe it was Daniel Dennet who mentioned that if you could uncouple religion from the taint of
fundamentalism, literalism, that religion's danger drops significantly and it can be a wonderful producer of culture.
And do this end I would also suggest you look a bit more into the history and events surrounding the woman I "quote" in my signature. Specifically
her beliefs concerning religion, the power struggle she found herself wrapped up between church and state, and the sheer amount of respect and
admiration that many in the early Catholic Church held for her. The only reason we even really know she exists is by her correspondence with Synesius
of Cyrene, a prominent Bishop and former student of hers. Though she was apparently demonized as a witch and pagan seducer by some within the church,
there was a substantial number of good, intelligent, and insightful members of the Church who recognized her accomplishments and virtues and - though
their voices were squelched by the fundamentalists - they found ways to alter dogma and artwork to ensure that her memory survived... though in a way
which would not arouse the suspicion of those within the Church who would have her erased from history. Look into the blending of St. Cathrine of
Alexandria with Hypatia. Unlike the projected Christ/Prometheus correlations - Hypatia and Cathrine are almost mirror images of each other... and
it's not coincidence.
[edit on 24-5-2009 by Lasheic]
[edit on 24-5-2009 by Lasheic]