How dare you refer to his absurdities as inanities?
Reality as God
- Thread starter Spellbound
- Start date
How dare you refer to his absurdities as inanities?
It is though
Explore where the three main religions actually came from , originally
Some sort of god is real ,sort of , its a relative perspective , they were not really gods , just advanced beings
Explore Sumerian clay tablets
The God I refer to is but one. Not an advanced being of some sort. Rather, a spirit.
Unsupported claim.
Followed by yet another unsupported claim.
And an assumption.
Actually, two.
1) That I haven't already, and
2) That I suffer from the same sort of delusions/ pareidolia as you.
Rounded off with another unsupported claim.
By what?
The same type of "support" you had for Brown's nonsense?
Unverified claims?
I.e. not actual support.
I really do wonder why you bother posting on a science forum given your lack of comprehension of the subject.
Oh good.
I really do love vague hand waving responses.
Is that a particular book or a very general topic?
If the latter it wouldn't be a "change", I've read tons of that sh*t and none if turned out to be anything but... wait for it: unverified claims.
You really have to try harder.
On a slightly related note: why do the cranks and subscribers to outright crankery always appear to assume that:
A) No one who disputes their delusion has ever read anything about the subject, and
B) That everyone who does so (after being directed to it) will automatically thereafter say "Oh wow" You were right"?
Reading a book written by a nutcase/ deluded fool/ con-artist/ whatever does NOT make me lose my critical faculties on page one (or any page following).
I don't know your age, but, if you're, say, 25 or under I can guarantee that I've read more books on the "esoteric" (and related crap, e.g. UFOs, paranormal etc) than you have.
And guess what?
Unlike some I still have a brain as opposed to a credulous sponge.
what books of the Ancients have you read , and I'm not talking about the bible
Uh, what?
Again you're being exceedingly vague.
Are you claiming the Bible is "ancient esoteric knowledge"? Are you claiming that only religious books are "ancient esoteric knowledge"? Are you claiming that the only way to come across "ancient esoteric knowledge" is to read "books of the ancients" as opposed to "books written about "ancient esoteric knowledge""?
Religious texts:
Bhagavad Gita
Parts of the Talmud
Tao Te Ching
Parts of the Analects of Confucius
Qur'an
The Pearl of Great Price
Egyptian mythology
Greek mythology
Roman mythology
Norse mythology
Native American mythology
various African mythologies
Sumerian mythology
Celtic mythology
I'll list the rest by subject or author rather than title (since I generally tend to read a couple at a time and more than just two on any subject)
theosophy
Kabbalah
Book of the Dead (I own three different editions: Egyptian not Tibetan)
Gurdjieff
Jonathon Black
Hermeticism
A crap-ton of numerology/ tarot/ etc.
When I was younger (early-mid teens) I used to go to the library, armed with a bicycle and a rucksack.
I'd take my full allowance of books (in those days 6 books per borrower) and then visit the next until I'd been to all of them (at that time there were 7 in my home town). After the last one I'd cycle home and start reading.
And, then, two weeks later I'd do it all again.
Since I could rarely decide which particular books to take out I devised a system 50% fiction (usually science fiction)/ 50% non-fiction: for the non-fiction I started at Dewey 000 (although, in those days, there was a scarcity of computer books in that section) and just worked my way through.
Since the nonsense books are filed under 200 and 300 (if not - as some are now - under 00 itself) you can be certain that by the time I'd read my through to Jaques Cousteau and his expeditions [500s] (by way of caving in the Vaucluse) I'd covered quite a bit.
Which would, possibly, be a valid objection if I'd read that stuff ONLY in my teens.
Then again, is there any reliable evidence (e.g. peer-reviewed) that it was ever anything more than mythology?
If the answer's no then it hardly matters with regard to the topic, does it?
The tablets found , and there are thousands of them , are a written history of prehistory , of Sumeria
Peer-review is subjective and political
Investigate these tablets , make up your own mind about their veracity , and their actual happenings in reality
river
Yeah, once again you're skirting the issue of no actual evidence.
Oh wait, I just realised,
You personally have access to the tablets.
You are fully fluent in reading ancient Sumerian script.
If not then you're taking someone else's word for what they say and how they should be interpreted.
And you've - so far as I can tell - decided that peer review and mainstream academia is not whose word you're going to accept.
In other words you have already decided that they're wrong and the guys who go "Woo! This says they're aliens" are right.
dwy, the prob with questioning everything is that sooner or later everything becomes irrelevant, because there will always be an opposing position or theory,
sooner or later everyone has to commit to a belief due to lack of uncontested data (who you gonna believe?)
sooner or later everyone has to commit to a belief due to lack of uncontested data (who you gonna believe?)
Oh right.
So you're not of the opinion that one or other of the opposing positions/ theories will have actual evidence?
Really?
I can't ask - as I keep doing - "Show me your evidence"?
All river has done so is make claims, and then compound them.
Typical example:
Investigate these tablets , make up your own mind about their veracity.
Now either he, as I noted earlier, personally has access to the tablets and is fully fluent in reading ancient Sumerian script or he's taking someone's word for it [sup]1[/sup] and dismissing everyone else.
Simply because he's chosen from the outset to decide that one view is correct and the other isn't.
Except that his "side" happens to be the minority one, populated by known nutcases, fantasists, liars and frauds.
Who'd you think I'm gonna "believe"?
1 And also being highly disingenuous/ dishonest when he exhorts ME to "investigate the tablets".
True
But until you get to the depth of investigation , only then can you make the statement you made
which do you believe?
if you have an alternate theory, or a personal interest in the claim, sure.
but to just ask without any interest in the subject or any alternate theories, is just self inflating, and doesn't go nowhere.
back to my original question in this post.
what do you know of it?
gotta start somewhere, do you have any evidence to the contrary or are you just being contrary?
(the later just says no matter what he says you will argue)
no he is being scientific, he is asking for you to be a peer and look at it and report your opinion.