The Bible: Archaelogical Finds

Originally posted by Robtard
It was several pages back, when I was following the debate more closely. If you don't want to believe me, I can live with it and you can continue labeling him an atheist.

That, or I can just be a decent person without subscribing to any superstitious nonsense.

I would like to believe you but I didn't read that anywhere. I think he is an atheist...in other words, he doesn't believe in any sort of deity. That doesn't mean he doesn't practice some sort of religion. From what I have gathered in his posts, it looks like he thinks people who believe in God are foolish.

Dude, I'm telling you, you are preaching to the choir. I am so close to being an atheist. As my atheist friend and work out partner told me, "People who really want to believe there is a deity there, will hear answers to their prayers and they are NOT schizophrenic. [Most of the time.] This is the way humanity has been throughout all ages." Yes, I remembered what he said verbatim because I thought it was perfectly stated. That way, if I am wrong about there being a God, at least I tried to be a good person and worked hard at being successful. If I am right, then I have eternities of happiness to enjoy when I die. Is there anything wrong with that perspective?

Originally posted by ushomefree
Old Testament

(1) Dead Sea Scrolls (discovered 1947-56, Qumran, Israel). Provided our oldest copies of almost all books of the Old Testament and confirmed reliability of the transmission process.

(2) Taylor Prism (discovered 1830, Nineveh, Iraq). Corroborates the compaigns of Sennacherib found in 2 Kg 18:13-19:37; 2 Ch 32:1-12; Is 36:1-37:38.

(3) House of David Inscriptions (discovered 1993-94, Tel Dan, Israel). Earliest mention outside the Bible of King David, who some scholars habe held to be a fictional character.

(4) Cylinder of Nabonidus (discovered 1854, Ur, Iraq). Corroborates Belshazzar as last king of Babylon as recorded in Daniel 5:1-30; 7:1; 8:1.

(5) Sargon Inscriptions (discovered 1843, Khorsabad, Iraq). Confirms the existence of Sargon, King of Assyria, Isaiah 20:1, as well as his conquering of Samaria (2 Kings 17:23-24).

(6) Tiglath-Pileser III Inscriptions (discovered 1845-49, Nimrud, Iraq). Corroborates 2 Kings 15:29).

(7) Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser (discovered 1846, Nimrud, Iraq). Depicts Jehu, son of Omri, oldest known picture of an ancient Israelite.

(8) Moabite Stone (discovered 1868, Palestine). Corroborates 2 King 3.

(9) Ketef Hinnom Amulets (discovered 1779, Jerusalem). Contains the Hebrew text of Numbers 6:24-26 and Deuteronomy 9:7. This is the oldest instance to date of of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, 7th-6th century BC.

(10) Seal of Baruch (discovered early-mid 1970's, Jerusalem). Contains the phrase "belonging to Beruch son of Neriah," Jeremiah's scribe, 6th century BC.

(11) Epic of Gilgamesh (discovered 1853, Nineveh, Iraq). First extra-biblical find that appears to reference the great flood of Genesis 7-8.

(12) Weld-Blundell Prism (discovered 1922, Babylon, Iraq). Contains a list of Sumerian Kings that ruled before and after the great flood; the kings that pre-dated the flood are attributed enormous life spans reminiscent of, though greater than, the lifespans of pre-flood inhabitants of the Bible.

(13) Siloam Inscription (discovered 1880, Jerusalem). One of the few extinct Hebrew writings from the 8th century BC or earlier.

(14) Gedaliah Seal (discovered 1935, Lanchish, Israel). Corroborates 2 Kings 25:22

[size=6]New Testament

(1) The Pilate Stone Inscription (discovered 1961, Caesarea Maritima). Confirmed the existence and office of Pilate.

(2) The Delphi, or Gallio, Inscription (discovered 1905). Fixed the date of Gallio's proconsulship at AD 51-52, providing a way of daiting Acts 18:12-17, and as a result, much of Paul's ministry.

(3) Caiaphas Ossuary (discovered 1990, near Jerusalem). Confirmed the existence of Caiaphas.

(4) Sergius Paulus Inscription (discovered 1877, Paphos, Cyprus). Confirms the existence of Sergius Paulus, proconsul of Cyprus encountered by Paul and Barnabus in Acts 13:7.

(5) Pool of Siloam (discovered 2004, Jerusalem). Site of Jesus' miracle recorded in John 9:1-11.

(6) Skeleton of Yohanan (discovered 1968, Jerusalem). Only known remains of crucifixion victim; corroborates the Bible's description of crucifixion.

(7) Rylands Papyrus P52 (discovered 1920). Oldest universally accepted manuscript of the New Testament, a small fragment of John's Gospel dated by papyrologists to AD 125.

(8) Bodmer Papyrus II (discovered 1952, Pabau, Egypt). Contains most of John's Gospel and dates from AD 150-200.

(9) Magdalene Papyrus (discovered 1901, Luxor, Egypt). Contains fragments of Matthew and has been dated as being earlier than 70 AD, though there is debate concerning the date.

(10) Chester Beatty Papyri (discovered 1931-35, Cairo, Egypt). Three papyri dating from AD 200 that contain most of the New Testament.

(11) Codex Vaticanus (discovered in the Vatican Library's earliest inventory [1481]). Dated AD 325-50 and contains nearly complete Bible.

(12) Codex Sinaiticus (discovered 1859, Mt Sinai, Egypt). Codex contains nearly complete New Testament and over half of the Old Testament (the books at the beginning of the Bible appear to have been lost to damage), dated AD 350.

(13) 7Q5 (discovered 1955, Qumran, Israel). Possible fragment of Mark that can be dated no later than AD 68 which would mamke the oldest extant New Testament fragment confirmed.

(14) Galilee Boat (discovered 1986, near Tiberias, Israel). The boat, 30' x 8', held approximately 15 passengers and would be like the boats Jesus' disciples used in crossing the Sea of Galilee. Carbon 14 dating places the boat between 120 BC and AD 40.[/size]

Damn. Such splended evidense. You got me converted

Originally posted by dadudemon
The above is sound advice. Just like raving religionists, he is a raving atheist.

I will explain why I won't respond.

DK, your post is so shitty in quality, that it doesn't warrant a response from me. If you are willing to go back through that post and edit it to meet my standards (Make your post as good as mine...I don't expect anything more.), I will be willing to respond back.

In other words you have nothing to say but want to blame the post. That's cool, I likely wouldn't respond if I couldn't, either. (But I will admit that all of your numbering threw me. I'd respond and then read the number if front and think I as on the wrong part of the post.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Really? I didnt notice any.

I have said many times that I am not an atheist. What I am, however, is someone who does not believes that god is sitting around with Mrs. Claus and keeping a list. Beyond that, I have no concrete religious views that are somehow threatened by someone who doesn't believe as I do or has to develop an elaborate song and dance that accompanies my beliefs. I have no issues with pointing out teh batshit logic involved in such things, though. If you actually do some research, you'll find most scientists are not atheists. But, not being an atheist does not imply they are members of this christian sect or that one. Most scientists are not christians. This is why so many people, ahem, want to believe that they can use science (or archaeology) to validate christianity. Well, it can't be done.

You're the one who claimed god spoke to you and that you'd be an atheist if it wasn't for the A-Team efforts of Mormonism. But, if you want to tell others that god kicked in your front door and dragged you kicking and screaming into the light, I'm sure there's a number of people who'll buy it and stand in line behind you at the kool-aid machine.

Originally posted by queeq
I never said he was an atheist, I'm saying he's an antagonist. In everything. He doesn't tell us what he does believe, he doesn't say anything, except for words of opposition. Well, fine, if he thinks that's called debating, fine...

Actually, I believe the term you used was "school-yard bully". And debating involves verifying facts, none of which you seem willing to verify to substantiate your own claims. And if, by chance, you did, they would do nothing to further your argument that the bible is a valid excuse to proclaim the intervention of an all-knowing god in human history.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I still don't see it. Please QUOTE it.

Well, from the other perspective, you are unknowingly falling for Satan' lies and are losing a wonderful opportunity to work on your eternal progression in this life time.

Are you certain that Queeq wants you to display your religious affiliations so strongly, in defense of his apparent expertise? (which he would NEVER claim was focused on the existence of some divine being who actually gives 2 shits about what we do) It seems more and more apparent that my claims of his biblical ideology have brought out the closet biblicalists. How amazing that his defenders are suddenly asking for evidence to support a claim, when they have been more than willing to accept his word as absolute truth in the conversation, up to this point. (or maybe it just has evrything to do with the fact that you are both believers in the bible's claim of divine intervention in the affairs of humanity)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Dude, I'm telling you, you are preaching to the choir. I am so close to being an atheist.

Except you hear the voice of "god".

And on... and on... and on.... and on...

Just say it with me, folks: "DK, YOU ARE RIGHT. DK YOU ARE RIGHT."

Originally posted by Devil King
In other words you have nothing to say but want to blame the post. That's cool, I likely wouldn't respond if I couldn't, either. (But I will admit that all of your numbering threw me. I'd respond and then read the number if front and think I as on the wrong part of the post.)

I give you my word that if you quote yourself and fix that post in the quote or something like that, I WILL respond to that post. To be honest, it is such shit that it is beneath me to respond. I am really that arrogant.

Originally posted by Devil King
I have said many times that I am not an atheist. What I am, however, is someone who does not believes that god is sitting around with Mrs. Claus and keeping a list. Beyond that, I have no concrete religious views that are somehow threatened by someone who doesn't believe as I do or has to develop an elaborate song and dance that accompanies my beliefs. I have no issues with pointing out teh batshit logic involved in such things, though. If you actually do some research, you'll find most scientists are not atheists. But, not being an atheist does not imply they are members of this christian sect or that one. Most scientists are not christians. This is why so many people, ahem, want to believe that they can use science (or archaeology) to validate christianity. Well, it can't be done.

This may come as a surprising shock...but I once had almost the EXACT mind set that you expressed above. Are you agnostic or are you simply an independent theist? (No ties to any religion but you still believe that a deity exists.)

Originally posted by Devil King
You're the one who claimed god spoke to you and that you'd be an atheist if it wasn't for the A-Team efforts of Mormonism. But, if you want to tell others that god kicked in your front door and dragged you kicking and screaming into the light, I'm sure there's a number of people who'll buy it and stand in line behind you at the kool-aid machine.

I have already given you an atheist reason why I get answers to prayers. You are now antagonizing me just simply to do it. What do you want from me? What do you hope to accomplish? If you only address TWO things from this post back to you...answer those two questions.

Originally posted by Devil King
Are you certain that Queeq wants you to display your religious affiliations so strongly, in defense of his apparent expertise? (which he would NEVER claim was focused on the existence of some divine being who actually gives 2 shits about what we do) It seems more and more apparent that my claims of his biblical ideology have brought out the closet biblicalists. How amazing that his defenders are suddenly asking for evidence to support a claim, when they have been more than willing to accept his word as absolute truth in the conversation, up to this point. (or maybe it just has evrything to do with the fact that you are both believers in the bible's claim of divine intervention in the affairs of humanity)

Actually, my beliefs were a tangent that we got onto because of your comments.

Originally posted by Devil King
Except you hear the voice of "god".

I went over this already.

Why do you believe in a deity? What evidence do you have to back up that belief?

Edit-

Originally posted by queeq
And on... and on... and on.... and on...

Just say it with me, folks: "DK, YOU ARE RIGHT. DK YOU ARE RIGHT."

Tell me something, Queeq.

Do DK's accusing words hold any truth to them? Did you say "three" when it was only "one" or "two"? You can PM your answer to me if you don't want others to read it...Hell, you can e-mail it to me. I promise, I will not divulge your answer to anyone if you want to keep it private. I will not allude to your answer and instead address that tangents being discussed.

I have to know because I have brought the wrath of DK upon me. (Despite that "wrath" coming in the form of poorly typed posts...with plenty of spelling errors.)

I don't really get the question actually. I do know that DK likes to antagonize. There really isn't much of a debate. Just like that Monty Python Argument Sketch. Here John Cleese is playing the part of Devil King (here known as "A"😉:

M: Ah. I'd like to have an argument, please.
R: Certainly sir. Have you been here before?
M: No, I haven't, this is my first time.
R: I see. Well, do you want to have just one argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?
M: Well, what is the cost?
R: Well, It's one pound for a five minute argument, but only eight pounds for a course of ten.
M: Well, I think it would be best if I perhaps started off with just the one and then see how it goes.
R: Fine. Well, I'll see who's free at the moment.
Pause
R: Mr. DeBakey's free, but he's a little bit conciliatory.
Ahh yes, Try Mr. Barnard; room 12.
M: Thank you.

(Walks down the hall. Opens door.)

A: Come in.
M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A: I told you once.
M: No you haven't.
A: Yes I have.
M: When?
A: Just now.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't
A: I did!
M: You didn't!
A: I'm telling you I did!
M: You did not!!
A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
M: Oh, just the five minutes.
A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not.
A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
M: No you did not.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't.
A: Did.
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!

A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't.
M: It is.
A: Not at all.
M: Now look.
A: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
M: What?
A: That's it. Good morning.
M: I was just getting interested.
A: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
M: That was never five minutes!
A: I'm afraid it was.
M: It wasn't.
Pause
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue anymore.
M: What?!
A: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.
M: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!
A: (Hums)
M: Look, this is ridiculous.
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!
M: Oh, all right.
(pays money)
A: Thank you.
short pause
M: Well?
A: Well what?
M: That wasn't really five minutes, just now.
A: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.
M: I just paid!
A: No you didn't.
M: I DID!
A: No you didn't.
M: Look, I don't want to argue about that.
A: Well, you didn't pay.
M: Aha. If I didn't pay, why are you arguing? I Got you!
A: No you haven't.
M: Yes I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.
A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.
M: Oh I've had enough of this.
A: No you haven't.
M: Oh Shut up.

Do you see the similarities? 😉

Originally posted by queeq
I don't really get the question actually. I do know that DK likes to antagonize. There really isn't much of a debate. Just like that Monty Python Argument Sketch. Here John Cleese is playing the part of Devil King (here known as "A"😉:

M: Ah. I'd like to have an argument, please.
R: Certainly sir. Have you been here before?
M: No, I haven't, this is my first time.
R: I see. Well, do you want to have just one argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?
M: Well, what is the cost?
R: Well, It's one pound for a five minute argument, but only eight pounds for a course of ten.
M: Well, I think it would be best if I perhaps started off with just the one and then see how it goes.
R: Fine. Well, I'll see who's free at the moment.
Pause
R: Mr. DeBakey's free, but he's a little bit conciliatory.
Ahh yes, Try Mr. Barnard; room 12.
M: Thank you.

(Walks down the hall. Opens door.)

A: Come in.
M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A: I told you once.
M: No you haven't.
A: Yes I have.
M: When?
A: Just now.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't
A: I did!
M: You didn't!
A: I'm telling you I did!
M: You did not!!
A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
M: Oh, just the five minutes.
A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not.
A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
M: No you did not.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't.
A: Did.
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!

A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't.
M: It is.
A: Not at all.
M: Now look.
A: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
M: What?
A: That's it. Good morning.
M: I was just getting interested.
A: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
M: That was never five minutes!
A: I'm afraid it was.
M: It wasn't.
Pause
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue anymore.
M: What?!
A: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.
M: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!
A: (Hums)
M: Look, this is ridiculous.
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!
M: Oh, all right.
(pays money)
A: Thank you.
short pause
M: Well?
A: Well what?
M: That wasn't really five minutes, just now.
A: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.
M: I just paid!
A: No you didn't.
M: I DID!
A: No you didn't.
M: Look, I don't want to argue about that.
A: Well, you didn't pay.
M: Aha. If I didn't pay, why are you arguing? I Got you!
A: No you haven't.
M: Yes I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.
A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.
M: Oh I've had enough of this.
A: No you haven't.
M: Oh Shut up.

Do you see the similarities? 😉

No, not quite. He actually posts things about our posts that we don't post. (He puts words in our mouths.)

However, that does not answer my question.

Are you legit or is DK right? (That is a very basic form of my question and it doesn't actually capture what I was looking for in a question...or else I would have worded it that way.) I wanted to know if you altered the facts in your favor to make yourself appear to be more legit. (By saying you did three films...but really you did one or two...etc.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, not quite. He actually posts things about our posts that we don't post. (He puts words in our mouths.)

I know the feeling. Or stopped as it seems.

The problem with confirming things like this is researchers look for things which "might" fit in. So they are bound to find bits of history which might seem to fit in but don´t, but thats enough.

Historical things which were described in the bible and were actually there, you get this in todays fiction books also, where the author used real places objects events to write his (or her) book.

Take crucification, everyone knows the romans crucified people, its well documented, so no surprise here is there. In fact Jesus may not have been crucified but nailed to a stake, but thats a different argument. And they found a boat, wow.

What happened to the Noahs Ark they apparently found somewhere in Turkey a few years ago, I read about that in a tabloid (which might explain this🙂)?

And even if all stuff matches up, nothing proves that God was involved now does it, that comes down to belief and it always will.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
The problem with confirming things like this is researchers look for things which "might" fit in. So they are bound to find bits of history which might seem to fit in but don´t, but thats enough.

You are very wrong about that assumption. Scientists and archaeologists don't LOOK for things. They dig, stratify, document etc. It's basic science with very basic rules. When do we date a stratum? Do we have any contemporary kings for other countries? How do we date it relatively using sequencing in pottery? Etc. etc. Once everything is documented, one may look for a historical setting, which is quite normal. If parrallels with something like the Bible is not found and the conclusion is drawn: the bible is non-historical, everybody is happy. Once someone DOES see a parrallels with the biblical narratives, he's condemned (at least in this forum) as a nutter. That doesn't make sense, because what that means is saying something like the Bible is nonsense just based on the text itself, without external evidence. Not only is taht very unscientific, it's also very arrogant.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I give you my word that if you quote yourself and fix that post in the quote or something like that, I WILL respond to that post. To be honest, it is such shit that it is beneath me to respond. I am really that arrogant.

Arrogant? Don't flatter yourself.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This may come as a surprising shock...but I once had almost the EXACT mind set that you expressed above. Are you agnostic or are you simply an independent theist? (No ties to any religion but you still believe that a deity exists.)

Yeah, until god whispered to you that being a mormon was the true path; we heard.

People often try to tell me I'm agnostic, but I don't subscribe to that idea either. I don't believe that there is a god out there, not one that is a cohesive being. Saying your agnostic is just a fun way of saying you believe in god. It's the propoganda of the christian religion. It's something akin to saying that intelligent design and creationisms aren't the same thing. They are, they only differ in the loop holes used by those who subscribe to get to the same destination.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I have already given you an atheist reason why I get answers to prayers. You are now antagonizing me just simply to do it. What do you want from me? What do you hope to accomplish? If you only address TWO things from this post back to you...answer those two questions.

what do you want from me? You saw this thread, where a fellow creationist was "being attacked" for believing in god, so you jumped in like you were a superhero. I don't recall pm'ing you and asking you to get involved. But you and queeq are running around, chasing me from thread to thread, bemoaning me or anyone who agrees with me, and holding your butts like I just screwed you without lube. Don't pretend like there has to be some ethereal reason for our disagreement. I don't expect to change your mind about anything, but I'm also not going to ignore when you respond. If I really expected to change your mind, I'd come in here in a white short sleeve button down shirt and tie, after walking from door to door, spreading my religion like herpes at a nudist camp. I don't need you to think like me. In fact, if you did, there wouldn't be much point in a forum, at all. And it takes two people to antagonize: the person antagonizing and the person being antagonized. If you don't like it, simply walk out of the thread and say nothing more. I'm not going to sit here and type responses to posts that aren't here. That's be almost as crazy as hearing the voice of god.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Actually, my beliefs were a tangent that we got onto because of your comments.

Not the point. The point was that your beliefs are your motivation for defending queeq's inability or unwillingness to defend his own claims; this is because his claims are not true. Queeq said this thread was about history, I have yet to see you address history, only religion. But, that makes sense, because, unike queeq, you realize this is the religion forum, where we tallk about religion. You're also likely smart enough to realize there is a history forum, where we talk about history, and this thread is not in the history forum.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I went over this already.

So, there are footnotes to hearing the voice of god?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Why do you believe in a deity? What evidence do you have to back up that belief?

And I went over this already.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Edit-

Tell me something, Queeq.

Do DK's accusing words hold any truth to them? Did you say "three" when it was only "one" or "two"? You can PM your answer to me if you don't want others to read it...Hell, you can e-mail it to me. I promise, I will not divulge your answer to anyone if you want to keep it private. I will not allude to your answer and instead address that tangents being discussed.

I have to know because I have brought the wrath of DK upon me. (Despite that "wrath" coming in the form of poorly typed posts...with plenty of spelling errors.)

All my posts are poorly typed? That's a lazy excuse.

How's that mutual masturbation coming? Queeq sent you that trusting private message, yet? Does all the pandering to him make him trust you enough to reveal to you what he refuses to back up about himself, in public? But, building in a nice little catch to it all by promising you won't tell anyone what he says doesn't sound to me like you believe he's telling the truth.

And the number is not in dispute. His claims of being the director are in dispute. 2 of the 3 have two different directors, that alone proves that all 3 were not directed by the same person. Embellish is a good choice of wording; maybe he didn't direct them, maybe he was just a lackey. (Not that directing a film makes you an expert on their subject matter anyway) I'm still trying to figure out how he supports himself off the director's fees from directing 3 documentaries a decade ago.

Originally posted by Devil King
How's that mutual masturbation coming?

Good to hear you keep the cilvilisation factor high in this "debate".

Originally posted by queeq
And on... and on... and on.... and on...

Just say it with me, folks: "DK, YOU ARE RIGHT. DK YOU ARE RIGHT."

You know, if you had simply substantiated your claims instead of playing victim, all this "around and around" you complain about would have been avoided.

You definitely claimed you made at least three documentaries (the ones you listed), which you used as support for your argument, I happened to have watched 2 (maybe 3) of those. Two of them (at least) have different directors, so, if anyone is playing loop-de-loop, it's you.

I explained all that three of four times now. If you guys just don't want to listen and accuse someone of being a liar by way of getting the wrong version and the testimony of a guy named Barry, go ahead. In my country someone is considered innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. Here the conviction was already signed, sealed and delivered before the demand for proof was even uttered.

Robtard, if you like that kind of approach and approve of it, you deserve DK's company.

If you did, I certainly missed it, you're also playing the victim again. I am not accusing you of anything; simply stating the way I see/saw things play out.

Originally posted by Devil King
Arrogant? Don't flatter yourself.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!! The last time I checked, being arrogant was a bad thing. You have a weird way of thinking.

Originally posted by Devil King
Yeah, until god whispered to you that being a mormon was the true path; we heard.

People often try to tell me I'm agnostic, but I don't subscribe to that idea either. I don't believe that there is a god out there, not one that is a cohesive being. Saying your agnostic is just a fun way of saying you believe in god. It's the propoganda of the christian religion. It's something akin to saying that intelligent design and creationisms aren't the same thing. They are, they only differ in the loop holes used by those who subscribe to get to the same destination.

You are not allowed to use big words unless you know how to spell them. 🙂

Also try to capitalize your proper nouns. 😉

Also.......FAIL.

agnostic:

One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic

The world does not change their definitions simply because you want to feel unique.

Originally posted by Devil King
what do you want from me? You saw this thread, where a fellow creationist was "being attacked" for believing in god, so you jumped in like you were a superhero. I don't recall pm'ing you and asking you to get involved. But you and queeq are running around, chasing me from thread to thread, bemoaning me or anyone who agrees with me, and holding your butts like I just screwed you without lube. Don't pretend like there has to be some ethereal reason for our disagreement. I don't expect to change your mind about anything, but I'm also not going to ignore when you respond. If I really expected to change your mind, I'd come in here in a white short sleeve button down shirt and tie, after walking from door to door, spreading my religion like herpes at a nudist camp. I don't need you to think like me. In fact, if you did, there wouldn't be much point in a forum, at all. And it takes two people to antagonize: the person antagonizing and the person being antagonized. If you don't like it, simply walk out of the thread and say nothing more. I'm not going to sit here and type responses to posts that aren't here. That's be almost as crazy as hearing the voice of god.

You used several big words and you spelled them correctly. Why did you try to do better with this paragraph and look like a moron with the others?

Also, that entire paragraph is complete shit. You are placing ideas, words, and intentions upon me. I have already told you why I said I believe Queeq and you simply are refusing to listen to reason. I know several small children who hold their ears and stomp their feet..believe me, it is nothing new that you are doing.

Originally posted by Devil King
Not the point. The point was that your beliefs are your motivation for defending queeq's inability or unwillingness to defend his own claims; this is because his claims are not true. Queeq said this thread was about history, I have yet to see you address history, only religion. But, that makes sense, because, unike queeq, you realize this is the religion forum, where we tallk about religion. You're also likely smart enough to realize there is a history forum, where we talk about history, and this thread is not in the history forum.

Actually, yes, that is the point. My beliefs were a tangent that YOU brought up. You did that because you try to take shots below the belt in an effort to win an argument. YOU brought up those tangents and I simply addressed them. I have already explained to you how you are painfully wrong on your assessment of my judgment of Queeq's credibility.

Originally posted by Devil King
So, there are footnotes to hearing the voice of god?

No...you are just so painfully stupid that you fail to acknowledge those comments. I can't believe your memory is so shitty that you forgot something from just a day ago. You went to private school: stop with the spelling errors or don't use those big words and start using proper capitalization more often or don't do it at all.

Originally posted by Devil King
And I went over this already.

How original of you...troll.

Originally posted by Devil King
All my posts are poorly typed? That's a lazy excuse.

No..that is a stupid cop out on your part. In an academic debate, don't be a dumbass. That's pretty simple.

Originally posted by Devil King
How's that mutual masturbation coming? Queeq sent you that trusting private message, yet? Does all the pandering to him make him trust you enough to reveal to you what he refuses to back up about himself, in public? But, building in a nice little catch to it all by promising you won't tell anyone what he says doesn't sound to me like you believe he's telling the truth.

And the number is not in dispute. His claims of being the director are in dispute. 2 of the 3 have two different directors, that alone proves that all 3 were not directed by the same person. Embellish is a good choice of wording; maybe he didn't direct them, maybe he was just a lackey. (Not that directing a film makes you an expert on their subject matter anyway) I'm still trying to figure out how he supports himself off the director's fees from directing 3 documentaries a decade ago.

Seriously, in the PM, he tried to convince me that he had something to do with the making of the original Die Hard!!!! 😆

Oh man...you were right...Queeq was such a liar. 😐

Dadudemon, seriously now, you pointing out others grammatical and spelling errors is an ******* move. You make plenty of errors; it doesn't matter if you state at the end of a long diatribe "I didn't spell check, so excuse the errors."

Originally posted by queeq
In my country someone is considered innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. Here the conviction was already signed, sealed and delivered before the demand for proof was even uttered.

here is my take queeq, and let me be really honest in saying I couldn't care less who you are in real life.

This isn't a nation, or a trial. Nobody went into your history and pulled up the movies you directed, nobody started talking about the awards you had won. You did.

And in the same exact way you challenged me, and I came right out with all the information you would have needed to find my phone number online and call me, people are expecting the same type of forthcoming attitude with you.

It is the elusiveness. The martyr discourse doesn't help you, since it was you who demanded everyone accept the credentials you will not verify as sufficient weight to your arguments.

Again, let me stress, I don't care who your are, your arguments speak for themselves regardless of what credentials you claim (take that however you want). However, you aren't acting like someone who was telling the truth.

Originally posted by Robtard
Dadudemon, seriously now, you pointing out others grammatical and spelling errors is an ******* move. You make plenty of errors; it doesn't matter if you state at the end of a long diatribe "I didn't spell check, so excuse the errors."

Actually..no, you are missing the point. I don't mind minor spelling errors and misplaced punctuation at all and I believe I have stated that before. I will cover on this more.

But seriously, the post I didn't respond to was such shit that did not want to attempt to respond to it. Would you have tried to reply to that post? (Point by point and not just some blanket statements.) I am held to certain standards of posting why can't I demand a little quality from his posts? Sure I make mistakes like missing words and sentences with words that looked randomly paced...that's because I change what I am going to "say" as I type what I am "saying". I am very scatterbrained and I make plenty of mistakes in my posts. Again, more on this later.

Eevn wtih a pletohra of splelnig eorrrs and gacrmatimal hcik-ups, msot psot can bee dcipeheerd and rsnpeoded two, eisaly.