well can you prove they can't fly? maybe they just don't want to, just as you can't prove that god doesn't exist, maybe he just doesn't want to prove he exists in any logical indisputable way
it sounds silly when we attach the religious rationale for belief to other absurd arguments
well can you prove they can't fly? maybe they just don't want to, just as you can't prove that god doesn't exist, maybe he just doesn't want to prove he exists in any logical indisputable way
it sounds silly when we attach the religious rationale for belief to other absurd arguments
Religion uses some pretty odd argument, but try debating someone who is learned, it's different than debating irrational followers. People who are wholly reliant on faith are often not the best debaters anyhow.
No. Those hacks on History Channel stand on the shoulders of accomplished anthropologists, archeologists, religious studies scholars, and social scientists and proceed to make asinine statements ignoring decades of secondary evidence.
Case in point, they chose the "hekaloth" literature from Ezekiel to say that YHWH is an alien and his "chariot" is a spaceship. This literature is highly esoteric and there is literally volumes of other works stretching over centuries that explain what this literature is. But they ignore all of that supplemental evidence and claim their silly ****.
........ other works stretching over centuries that explain what this literature is. But they ignore all of that supplemental evidence and claim their silly ****.
so it would be impossible that works trying to explain what was written earlier to be wrong? as in we can't go back to the basis of a religion and see what caused that? what extra validity does some interpretation made at 1000 years old have over one made at 2000 years old? just the first one is the only possible explanation?
I do agree they stretch out a lot to make their points for sure and yes there are going to pick and choose just as any one trying to make a point will and it's far from "fair and balanced" (well unless you take fox news's definition of the phrase )
so it would be impossible that works trying to explain what was written earlier to be wrong? as in we can't go back to the basis of a religion and see what caused that? what extra validity does some interpretation made at 1000 years old have over one made at 2000 years old? just the first one is the only possible explanation?
I do agree they stretch out a lot to make their points for sure and yes there are going to pick and choose just as any one trying to make a point will and it's far from "fair and balanced" (well unless you take fox news's definition of the phrase )
Not impossible, just unlikely. What caused the basis of religion? There is no one answer, religion serves many purposes, the development of it would be the same.
Also, what is being put on the History Channel is not science. It's pseudoscience, and it is dangerous. Far more dangerous than people realize.
It's stuff like that that gave rise to the Aryan lie, and the subsequent genocide.
Not impossible, just unlikely. What caused the basis of religion? There is no one answer, religion serves many purposes, the development of it would be the same.
Also, what is being put on the History Channel is not science. It's pseudoscience, and it is dangerous. Far more dangerous than people realize.
It's stuff like that that gave rise to the Aryan lie, and the subsequent genocide.
fair enough
for the record I don't disagree with you that it's not science, I just find it an interesting hypothesis, I guess partially trying to find a basis behind an illogical belief system I just can't understand
for the record I don't disagree with you that it's not science, I just find it an interesting hypothesis, I guess partially trying to find a basis behind an illogical belief system I just can't understand
And a hypothesis is all it is. It fails to outline itself using the method.
I watch it, and I like it, I'm a huge scifi fan, but I know what I am watching is scifi.
Were the pyramids built by aliens? I don't know. We don't have enough information on Egyptian construction methods to know how they constructed them, but putting faith in aliens is tantamount to putting faith in God. We don't understand, therefore we must have had help. Occam's razor applies here.
Thats just what you think, but it very well could be true
What I was saying is that believing one thing or another is purely up to an individual themselves & just b/c someone say's it's so doesn't make it so. I don't believe anything untill I have proof one way or another.
So darn it, I guess I may be going to the big bbq when I die & don't think i'll need a jacket
)
Linear Mode
