Reality as God

[Dywyddyr]

Read , investigate , Dywyddyr

You're being disingenuous again.
Are you claiming that you have read these tablets? That YOU read Sumerian?
Or, as I suspect, that you've actually read someone else's "translations" and subsequent claims?

Is this to much to ask ..? Strange if it is

Until YOU can show that you have done so you're being dishonest in exhorting me to do so.

(And it's also somewhat strange that you haven't really given links to something that supports your position - all you've done is hand-wave [as usual]).

 

[Dywyddyr]

which do you believe?

I'll give you another clue: river has zero substantive evidence for his claims.
(And is, apparently, incapable of providing it - otherwise there'd be more than "go read for yourself").

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 1 and dismissing everyone else.
Simply because he's chosen from the outset to decide that one view is correct and the other isn't.

gotta start somewhere, do you have any evidence to the contrary or are you just being contrary?

I'm asking him to provide the evidence.
This is not forthcoming.

no he is being scientific, he is asking for you to be a peer and look at it and report your opinion

No, he's not being scientific AT ALL.
He has presented no evidence.
"Go look at the tablets" isn't evidence, it's a deflection. (Has HE read them? Or has he, as I stated earlier, read some else's translations?).

1 And also being highly disingenuous/ dishonest when he exhorts ME to "investigate the tablets".

 

[NMSquirrel]

True

But until you get to the depth of investigation , only then can you make the statement you made

which 'statement I made'?

 

[NMSquirrel]

I'll give you another clue: river has zero substantive evidence for his claims.
(And is, apparently, incapable of providing it - otherwise there'd be more than "go read for yourself").

I accidently posted before I finished that, did you read the completed post?

 

[river]

Originally Posted by river
Read , investigate , Dywyddyr

You're being disingenuous again.
Are you claiming that you have read these tablets? That YOU read Sumerian?
Or, as I suspect, that you've actually read someone else's "translations" and subsequent claims?

I think you need a break here Dywyddyr

Your babbling

 

[paddoboy]

All river has done so is make claims, and then compound them.

river, among many other pseudquackery/Aternative pushers, take excess pride in the fact that they are able to think for themselves.
This fanatical driving force with him and others, has unreasonable effects on their overall thinking ability and logic.
It, in most cases, sees them to automatically reject any accepted mainstream position, as in their views, and in their minds, accepting those positions, no matter how logical and how well supported, eliminates their own fanatical desire for originality.
He, among others, take this "thinking for ones self" to extreme, in that it forces them to reject the learnings and teachings of the giants of the present and past....It forces them to reject normality and logical outcomes, simply because the mainstream accepts them....It forces them to come up with an alternative, no matter how illogical that alternative is.....In summing, it forces them to curtail their logical thinking processes, which ironically they think they are actually exhibiting, in being anti mainstream.

 

[river]

river, among many other pseudquackery/Aternative pushers, take excess pride in the fact that they are able to think for themselves.
This fanatical driving force with him and others, has unreasonable effects on their overall thinking ability and logic.
It, in most cases, sees them to automatically reject any accepted mainstream position, as in their views, and in their minds, accepting those positions, no matter how logical and how well supported, eliminates their own fanatical desire for originality.
He, among others, take this "thinking for ones self" to extreme, in that it forces them to reject the learnings and teachings of the giants of the present and past....It forces them to reject normality and logical outcomes, simply because the mainstream accepts them....It forces them to come up with an alternative, no matter how illogical that alternative is.....In summing, it forces them to curtail their logical thinking processes, which ironically they think they are actually exhibiting, in being anti mainstream.

And you are babbling as well

 

[NMSquirrel]

river, the one point where I agree with dwy, is provide some links to support your theory.
if you want others to take you seriously then that helps.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I think you need a break here Dywyddyr

Your babbling

So, still no evidence.
Still won't answer my question on whether you yourself have "read these tablets" or simply taken someone else's word?
Still making claims that you cannot support.

And you accuse me of babbling.

Answer me this one if you can: are you dishonest or stupid?
Because it's one or the other.
If you won't answer you're being dishonest in asking me to do something you (as far as can be ascertained [sup]1[/sup]) you haven't done yourself, if you can't answer it's because you're not smart enough to realise that you should be supporting your argumentts with something more substantive than empty claims.

1 If you actually HAD read these tablets yourself a simple "Yes" would clear that up. The fact that, despite being asked several times, this "yes" isn't forthcoming logically leads to one conclusion.

 

[NMSquirrel]

dwy....
do you really expect someone to answer this question?

"Answer me this one if you can: are you dishonest or stupid?
Because it's one or the other."

 

[river]

So, still no evidence.
Still won't answer my question on whether you yourself have "read these tablets" or simply taken someone else's word?
Still making claims that you cannot support.

And you accuse me of babbling.

Answer me this one if you can: are you dishonest or stupid?
Because it's one or the other.
If you won't answer you're being dishonest in asking me to do something you (as far as can be ascertained [sup]1[/sup]) you haven't done yourself, if you can't answer it's because you're not smart enough to realise that you should be supporting your argumentts with something more substantive than empty claims.

1 If you actually HAD read these tablets yourself a simple "Yes" would clear that up. The fact that, despite being asked several times, this "yes" isn't forthcoming logically leads to one conclusion.

Do you seriously think that I can , interpret these tablets ? Thats just silly

Of course what I have read is by those who can interpret these tablets

Otherwise I would have gotten into the linguistics of the tablets in detail ( and they do )

Logically one depends on those who have done this as a living

So , one reads , from various books , what they have gleamed from these tablets

Now the thing is would you read ANY of these books at all , is the question

 

[kx000]

I don't know who's reality, maybe some bodies, but I don't see peace or salvation for everyone. Reality doesn't necisarly fit the description of God. It has to be submissive to love.

 

[NMSquirrel]

the prob with interpreting some ancient writings, is the actual meaning is lost to history, so there is no meaning without someone's opinion. this again boils down to choosing to believe one over the other..

 

[Dywyddyr]

Do you seriously think that I can , interpret these tablets ? Thats just silly

It's silly for me to expect you to have read those tablets?
And yet here you tell me to "Explore Sumerian clay tablets".
And then follow that up with "The tablets found , and there are thousands of them , are a written history of prehistory , of Sumeria... Investigate these tablets".

Of course what I have read is by those who can interpret these tablets

In other words you haven't investigated these tablets, you've just decided that whoever you read was correct.

So , one reads , from various books , what they have gleamed from these tablets

And you haven't bothered to name a single one...

 

[river]

the prob with interpreting some ancient writings, is the actual meaning is lost to history, so there is no meaning without someone's opinion. this again boils down to choosing to believe one over the other..

Actually its about linguistics

And its not about " beliefs " as it is accepting what is written as truth of happenings , real happenings back 6000yrs ago

No different from 6000yrs from now and they think our history is nothing more than myths

 

[river]

So , one reads , from various books , what they have gleamed from these tablets

And you haven't bothered to name a single one...

Sitchen is a start

 

[NMSquirrel]

Actually its about linguistics

And its not about " beliefs " as it is accepting what is written as truth of happenings , real happenings back 6000yrs ago

No different from 6000yrs from now and they think our history is nothing more than myths

it is if there are competing theories.

 

[river]

it is if there are competing theories.

True

But the deeper you get into reading about these ancient tablets the more you realise that they are more than just mythos

 

[Dywyddyr]

Oh, nice avoidance of thefact that you've been dishonest.

Sitchen is a start

The guy's name is Sitchin.
And I've read some of his books.
He is, as I noted earlier, one the frauds/ deluded/ nutcases/ liars.
He doesn't translate Sumerian, he makes shit up.

Actually its about linguistics

Actually it's not.
It's about nutcases fabricating meaning based on their unsupported belief.

But the deeper you get into reading about these ancient tablets the more you realise that they are more than just mythos

You're being duplicitous again.
YOU aren't getting "deeper into reading these ancient tablets", you're just accepting the unsupported (and incorrect) word of an unscientific crank who lies about his "evidence".

 

[river]

Originally Posted by river
Actually its about linguistics

Actually it's not.
It's about nutcases fabricating meaning based on their unsupported belief.

Give me an example of what you mean