Let me start by first Stating my beliefs.

Aidenkai
Aidenkai's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2010-05-08
User is offlineOffline
Let me start by first Stating my beliefs.

I would like to start off by saying, I am of course an atheist, I have been one my whole life, I NEVER ONCE believed that there was a supernatural being that created or cares about interpersonal lives of human beings and keeps a check list of right and wrong doings. Now if you want to add in what was written by previous civilizations, we were on an evolutionary path, until an alien intervention, recorded by the first people to create writing and first recorded history as well as many other things we still use today.

I think that is where atheists fall short in debunking religious criteria. Why, if you going to use historical accounts to debunk Jesus and the non-existence of a supernatural all powerful being, don't you bring into account the intervention of the Anunnaki to the Sumerian civilization? They TELL us how the world was created, which is substantiated by scientific proof.

I just got done watching the debate between this websites organization and the Way of the Master, seen on, I am assuming, ABC sometime in the recent past, which is a direct result of how I came to this site. I noticed that NOTHING was brought up about the Sumerians. Why is this? I would think, if your going to debunk the bible, you HAVE to challenge religious people to where (other than god) this information originated. I mean, why for instance is god vengeful? Why is he many things that can be attributed to human characteristics? An all powerful being, would NOT have these attributes, BUT, an alien race, thought to be god or gods by primitive man, WOULD. They possibly have these attributes and may have passed them on to us. A being with power of time, space, immortality, evolved past the point of human morality. Furthermore, if creating us, why would he instill that into human beings. But. if we were genetically created from an evolving huminoid species on the planet by ET's, that would certainly explain why we have stories of a god that DOES have these characteristics and also why we ourselves have them as well. Do you think pre-humans were walking around concerned about killing and raping before the intervention of thinking man? Do you think lions or other animals on the planet, that do not have this capacity for morality, think they are doing wrong when they kill for food, or kill for territory, or kill for dominence? Of course they don't.

If we take what the Sumerians say as fact, which I DO, then it explains most everything in the process of our evolution and how thinking man came to be on this planet. Do you know why you don't bring this information up when debating? I will tell you why, religious people already think we are nuts, and the skeptics on both sides, will shun away from anything that is outside the norm of conversation. But to get to the truth, WE MUST start to put this information about previous cultures which state alien intervention into our discussions. I mean think about it, where did ancient peoples notions of beliefs in many gods come from? It came from Sumer, at least until we find historical proof of an earlier civilizations recording accounts of the same stories. 

I also just listened to a radio broadcast of a debate ( if you want to call it that ) between Kelly and Matt Slick, I would have to say darling, as much as you tried, you got your ass kicked. You did not debate that well and I don't think after listening to it yourself, would disagree. Not once, and I haven't gotten done listening to the whole show, did you say anything about the apostes NOT writing the gospels, which they didn't. Noone who was alive or who knew Jesus, put one word in the New Testament. Yet you never said anything about this too him. WHY? I would think that would have been the first thing to say. I mean, I think thats pretty important that at least one generation past the time of Jesus, were the authors of his teachings. Especially knowing that humans cannot pass one story to another without changing it slightly. Also you didn't mention anything about how the bible has changed MANY times over 2000 years. Nor did you mention this when discussing this topic on ABC with Kirk and Ray. I believe in what you are doing and I support it, but how you come across, comes out in an argumentitive way, without using knowledge to back up what you are saying, or at least NOT ENOUGH knowledge. I mean simple question to ask a religious person, WHY WOULD A BEING OF ENORMOUS POWER care about one planet among an infinite amount of planets? Are humans the only intelligent existing life in the universe? If not, does that mean we will be sharing heaven/hell with other alien beings? Another simple question to ask, if they believe that this life is temporary, and heaven is everlasting bliss, why doesn't every religious person kill themselves so they can be in heaven with god?

I have asked very good questions and made some comments of my own, hopefully I can get some feed back from people on this site as I am new.

 

A refresher for people not in the know:

 

Old Testament: Stories that were written by Ancient Sumerians, Babylonians, Akkadians, at least 2000 years before the bible.

                       Adam

                      Noah's ark story

                     Creation

The bible says god created everything approx. 6 thousand years ago, SAME TIME THE SUMERIANS wrote down all of this. Coincidence?

 

New Testament: Stories written by people of a generation past when Jesus lived. Do you think these stories were not changed to make him divine? Did he exist as a man? Most likely. But he wasn't divine. He was a man, plain and simple. Only after the council of nicea was he depicted in the bible as the son of god. Btw, the stuff that was not accepted in the bible, were stories of alien intervention, thought to be to heretic to be kept in the bible.

Example: The Book of Enoch

 

Aiden


Aidenkai
Aidenkai's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2010-05-08
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist

100percentAtheist wrote:

Aidenkai wrote:

One more thing.

I would love to hear your theories in regards to the Nazca lines in Peru? Tops of mountains missing, with Miles and Miles of lines. The contents of the Summits NOT found in any of the valleys around the area. The Different depictions of Animals and such, only possible of being seen from thousands of feet in the air. Which as we know, they didn't have the technology of flight.

What about the Vimana's in India's ancient writings, they clearly tell us that there "gods" flew in these ships in the sky. We even have blueprints of these machines. I am sorry, I will try and find evidence of this. But from this point on, I am not claiming any of this as fact, until I find corroberation.

 

Aiden

 

Aiden,

 

Please structure your questions because I am not exactly sure what you are talking about in some particular cases. For example, I have no clue what you are talking about here: "Tops of mountains missing, with Miles and Miles of lines."

 

100%

 

In Peru, there are mountains. Between some of these mountains. THere are some (mountains) that are missing there summits ( tops of the mountains ) that look as if they were shaved off. On the part of the shaved area, are lines, that, in many people's opinon's look like runaway lines. Around the area are huge depictions of Animals and men and other drawn out pictures. These can only be seen from thousands of feet in the air. If you go to youtube or even ANY search engine and put in Nazca Lines, Peru, you can see it for yourself.

Aiden


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Aidenkai

Aidenkai wrote:

100percentAtheist wrote:

Aidenkai wrote:

One more thing.

I would love to hear your theories in regards to the Nazca lines in Peru? Tops of mountains missing, with Miles and Miles of lines. The contents of the Summits NOT found in any of the valleys around the area. The Different depictions of Animals and such, only possible of being seen from thousands of feet in the air. Which as we know, they didn't have the technology of flight.

What about the Vimana's in India's ancient writings, they clearly tell us that there "gods" flew in these ships in the sky. We even have blueprints of these machines. I am sorry, I will try and find evidence of this. But from this point on, I am not claiming any of this as fact, until I find corroberation.

 

Aiden

 

Aiden,

 

Please structure your questions because I am not exactly sure what you are talking about in some particular cases. For example, I have no clue what you are talking about here: "Tops of mountains missing, with Miles and Miles of lines."

 

100%

 

In Peru, there are mountains. Between some of these mountains. THere are some (mountains) that are missing there summits ( tops of the mountains ) that look as if they were shaved off. On the part of the shaved area, are lines, that, in many people's opinon's look like runaway lines. Around the area are huge depictions of Animals and men and other drawn out pictures. These can only be seen from thousands of feet in the air. If you go to youtube or even ANY search engine and put in Nazca Lines, Peru, you can see it for yourself.

Aiden

Yea this is such earth shattering proof that Darwin would be jacking off over it. That is why it is relegated to channels whose prime time line up includes shows like "ghost hunters".

I hate to tell you this, the woman in the box is not really sawed in half.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Aidenkai
Aidenkai's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2010-05-08
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Just to

BobSpence1 wrote:

Just to touch on one subject, the Pyramids of Giza, which I have actually touched, FWIW - it is useful to actually see these things up close with your own eyes.

My impression, from various documentaries, is that they really aren't that great a mystery. The vast bulk of the structures is not closely fitted, carefully shaped stonework.

The Great Pyramid of Giza is 755.81 feet on each side, and 480.57 feet high.

The Pyramid of the Sun in Teotihuacán is 733.2 feet on each side, and 233.5 feet high.

Where is the 'exacting precision' here? One is less than half the height of the other, and 3% smaller on a side. 

The Egyptian pyramids taper smoothly to a point. The Aztec ones go up in very big steps, and have climbable steps to the top, the Egyptians don't.

The only thing they have in common is a square base and they get smaller as they go up.

Square bases are the simplest shapes to make the bases of such structures. 

The limitations of building techniques and materials in those cultures meant that in all large structure each layer had to be smaller that the one below, because otherwise the lower parts of the structure would not be able to support the weight of the upper parts of  the structure.

We could certainly build pyramids, give the time and motivation they had. Whereas they could not build even the smaller 'skyscrapers' of New York.

The reduction in size as they rise was forced on both cultures due to the limitations of their construction techniques, the opposite of them having access to advanced construction assistance. The Empire State and the WTC would be beyond their wildest fantasies, whereas one would expect such constructs to be trivial to an advanced space-faring culture.

Pyramids of some sort were the only large structures they were capable of building, because of the limitations of their construction abilities. It is evidence against alien technology being involved.

All the plain evidence points away from alien technology.

And I don't claim Sitchin was a scam, just way too attached to his pet theory. EVD probably believed his stuff too, he just wasn't really trained adequately in the area, so made many claims which were easily shown to be simply wrong, like that the Eqyptians had no access to enough wood to make rollers and other things to help them get the stones moved.

 

 

Once again thank you for opposing my theories, but once again this is your opinion, and I do not have enough knowledge to oppose it, doesn't mean it can't be opposed. First off, I said BASE only. Your right, I concede that there dimensions were much different. I was only speaking of the base. Which btw, your only answer to that was "The only thing they have in common is a square base and they get smaller as they go up.

Square bases are the simplest shapes to make the bases of such structures. " Is this your claim that hmmm, that was the best way to do it, so thats why its done that way? No supporting evidence of WHY they were exact? You fall short here, as I have in recent posts.

Also, you may have been there in today's age, but you certainly were not there, when they were built. So you don't know, and neither does anyone else 100% of how they cut, shaped, transported and set in place in the time frame, stated by the ancient egyptians.

To speak about your so called "if aliens built them" thing. I NEVER said they were built by aliens. I support the theory that the technology to build the pyramids was given to certain egyptians that were chosen to have this knowledge by aliens.  And that Egyptians did build them. But not by thousands of workers. Number one, how do you feed that many people on a day to day basis? How do you do this with limited knowledge that we cannot duplicate ( in the time frame) today.

Also, YES we have much better building techniques today that they could not have accomplished. But I propose that skyscrapers, would not last 5,000 years. I believe the pyramids were built to last centuries. AND THAT is why they were built that way. Nothing we have built today, with exception of the great wall of china, would last more than a few hundred years. That is where our technology faulters and the pyramids become wonderous. What they "look like" today, isn't most of the amazement. I personally think, that if I was standing in front of one of the pyramids, my perception of amazement would be different than yours. I think that could be said for most people.

 

Btw, it has been claimed that the inside chambers of the pyramid, was actually one of the hardest things to accomplish when building something of this size. Just for burial chambers? Why do it the hardest way possible, just to store dead people in? Theories to why they did this are astonishing, but I won't go into that, something about, flooding the chambers to convert into chemical reaction for energy like a power plant. Do I believe it, I say it's posible by the way it was explained, but NOT fact.

 

Aiden


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Aidenkai wrote:I guess I

Aidenkai wrote:

I guess I don't, because they both look similar at least. If you are claiming that Teotihuacan, isn't a representation at least in a small way, to our solar system, I haven't found it. Show me a site that "clearly says" this site "doesnt represent our solar system. Why didn't you look something up opposing Stonehenge as well? Curious.

Aiden

 

Aiden, 

The objects in the avenue of dead do not represent the solar system in the way that 1) would be remotely close to the actual scale; 2) they have no shape nor orbits that would imply they have anything in common with solar system; 3) by your logic, any set of any similar number of objects can be a representation of solar system, or the electron structure of Fluorine, or anything else you want.  So, why don't you say that Teotihuacan objects are the perfect representation of the electronic structure of Fluorine atoms?  

100%


Aidenkai
Aidenkai's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2010-05-08
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Aidenkai

Brian37 wrote:

Aidenkai wrote:

100percentAtheist wrote:

Aidenkai wrote:

One more thing.

I would love to hear your theories in regards to the Nazca lines in Peru? Tops of mountains missing, with Miles and Miles of lines. The contents of the Summits NOT found in any of the valleys around the area. The Different depictions of Animals and such, only possible of being seen from thousands of feet in the air. Which as we know, they didn't have the technology of flight.

What about the Vimana's in India's ancient writings, they clearly tell us that there "gods" flew in these ships in the sky. We even have blueprints of these machines. I am sorry, I will try and find evidence of this. But from this point on, I am not claiming any of this as fact, until I find corroberation.

 

Aiden

 

This is your only response to something unexplained? Nazca is a hotly debated topic, maybe you should weigh in with more that what you wrote here. Same with India's legends.

 

Aiden,

 

Please structure your questions because I am not exactly sure what you are talking about in some particular cases. For example, I have no clue what you are talking about here: "Tops of mountains missing, with Miles and Miles of lines."

 

100%

 

In Peru, there are mountains. Between some of these mountains. THere are some (mountains) that are missing there summits ( tops of the mountains ) that look as if they were shaved off. On the part of the shaved area, are lines, that, in many people's opinon's look like runaway lines. Around the area are huge depictions of Animals and men and other drawn out pictures. These can only be seen from thousands of feet in the air. If you go to youtube or even ANY search engine and put in Nazca Lines, Peru, you can see it for yourself.

Aiden

Yea this is such earth shattering proof that Darwin would be jacking off over it. That is why it is relegated to channels whose prime time line up includes shows like "ghost hunters".

I hate to tell you this, the woman in the box is not really sawed in half.

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The Nazca lines are just

The Nazca lines are just lines where people rearranged the stones on the surface of the desert to expose lighter material below and form lines defining large geometric figures and shapes of animals and birds. etc.

Wikipedia wrote:

Researcher Joe Nickell of the University of Kentucky has reproduced the figures by using tools and technology available to the Nazca people and which National Geographic referred to as "remarkable in its exactness" when compared to the actual lines.[2] With careful planning and simple technologies, a small team of people could recreate even the largest figures within days, without any aerial assistance.[3]

The Nazca lines were not on the "shaved tops of mountains", they were in a desert.

There is nothing about the Nazca lines which makes any sense as 'runways', you are just repeating some of EvD's wilder uninformed speculation.

So scratch them from your list.

I seem to remember something about mountain-tops being removed in Peru, but I can't find any references at the moment. It think you might be confusing two things here.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Aidenkai
Aidenkai's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2010-05-08
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist

100percentAtheist wrote:

Aidenkai wrote:

I guess I don't, because they both look similar at least. If you are claiming that Teotihuacan, isn't a representation at least in a small way, to our solar system, I haven't found it. Show me a site that "clearly says" this site "doesnt represent our solar system. Why didn't you look something up opposing Stonehenge as well? Curious.

Aiden

 

Aiden, 

The objects in the avenue of dead do not represent the solar system in the way that 1) would be remotely close to the actual scale; 2) they have no shape nor orbits that would imply they have anything in common with solar system; 3) by your logic, any set of any similar number of objects can be a representation of solar system, or the electron structure of Fluorine, or anything else you want.  So, why don't you say that Teotihuacan objects are the perfect representation of the electronic structure of Fluorine atoms?  

100%

 

So I am to conclude that you believe that NOONE, except AAT theorists believe this is a depiction of the solar system? Show me someone or some type of data that proves your claims that its not. See this is what I am talking about, I am willing to listen and believe you, but you are not showing, you are only telling. Just like me.

Why is it, that I have recanted my claims, and willing to be openminded, but you people are not willing to give me the same respect? You just think its all bullshit no matter what I or anyone else tells you. And when you can't explain something ( like the Nazca lines or the base of the 2 pyramids) you either make a joke or play it off and go on to the next thing to debunk. Just admit there is evidence and this discussion can be done, instead of claiming EVERYTHING that I have shown and talked about is bullshit. OR AT the least admit that it is possible. OTHERWISE stop posting, because this is becoming a non issue of evidence, and more about epeen.

aiden


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Aidenkai wrote:In Peru,

Aidenkai wrote:

In Peru, there are mountains. Between some of these mountains. THere are some (mountains) that are missing there summits ( tops of the mountains ) that look as if they were shaved off. On the part of the shaved area, are lines, that, in many people's opinon's look like runaway lines. Around the area are huge depictions of Animals and men and other drawn out pictures. These can only be seen from thousands of feet in the air. If you go to youtube or even ANY search engine and put in Nazca Lines, Peru, you can see it for yourself.

Aiden

 

Aiden,

 

I could not find any reference to the mountains missing summits.  Aerial pictures (look at wikipedia, for example) do not confirm what you are saying.  Can you help me please to find the links to the pictures of those mountains?

Thanks.

 

100%


Aidenkai
Aidenkai's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2010-05-08
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:The Nazca

BobSpence1 wrote:

The Nazca lines are just lines where people rearranged the stones on the surface of the desert to expose lighter material below and form lines defining large geometric figures and shapes of animals and birds. etc.

 

Why make geometric figures and shapes of animals that huge that can only be seen from the sky? I already know the answer, which is conveyed by more people than just AAT's, but lets hear your bullshit answer, that I am sure you won't back up with any real evidence (either).

 

I have now learned how this site's posters work, you want proof, but other than your own posting, you wont show any of your proof. But you expect it from me. That is called being a hypocrite.

 

Aiden

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Please, Aiden, can you

Please, Aiden, can you actually spell out just what allows you to identify particular objects there with the planets of the Solar System? I can find no reference to any such speculation on descriptions of the site. 

Looking at views from the pyramid don't show any obvious markers of distance that might be correlated to planetary distances from the Sun, which is the only thing that could make some pattern match the Solar System in any way. The Solar System is just a big sphere with a bunch of relatively tiny objects scattered around it in no fixed pattern, continually changing their relative positions - a lot of things could 'look' like that. The temple itself would be the Sun, I presume, that's what they called it. There is also the Temple of the Moon. But where do the planets get mentioned?

Just one link to a scientist not directly connected to EvD or Sitchin who has expressed an opinion on this would do. Please?

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Aidenkai wrote:The bible

Aidenkai wrote:
The bible says god created everything approx. 6 thousand years ago, SAME TIME THE SUMERIANS wrote down all of this. Coincidence?

NO it isn't a coincidence, it's called a story getting passed down through multiple cultures and generations, no magic to that.

There were other humans besides the Sumerians and BEFORE the Sumerians. They got their stories from prior generations too. Writing something down is not the only media to communicate to others. To single them out because they were the first to write something down doesn't make the human species SUDDENLY magically appear or important to little green men.

You do know that the distance between the outer islands of Alaska and Russia are not that far apart and with the ice cap during the winter would not have made it impossible for humans to get to our continent. It is crap to say Columbus discovered the Americas, and it is crap to say that the Mayans magically appeared out of nowhere. Not having a record of where stories come from our where people came from doesn't make your conspiracy crap true.

It makes sense that humans make up stories.

Lets assume your comic book crap was true and this was all a warning? What then? If this is all supposed to happen and we are all doomed what can we do about it? Thats like saying, "You're going to get old and die someday". Ok, so we only have 2 years left? Do we sulk? Do we build bunkers and buy weapons and kill each other? Or is it that you, because you found the truth, the little green men will swoop you up and save you and fry the rest of us because we dared laugh at your scalely ET BFFs?

HUMN? If you want to talk about motifs, sounds alot like the Christian and Muslim tribalistic bullshit about doomsday.

EVEN scientists cant say exactly what will kill our species or when, but they have a much better idea than you or your doomsday friends in Islam and Christianity. You are a new ager of the same old bullshit. If you want to make the Guinness Book of Word records of "longest time wasted selling bullshit" you have a long way to go, Christians and Muslims have long sold the doomsday crap, long before you posted this.

Your doomsday crap is simply the same old crap with new packaging.

Something WILL get us. But the Christian god, nor Allah or little green men are going to stop our species or all life for that matter, from ending at some point.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Aidenkai
Aidenkai's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2010-05-08
User is offlineOffline
Watch in regards to: 2

Watch in regards to: 2 places depicting solar system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOhoacgQkxE&feature=related

Watch in regards to:Nazca lines.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB0w7-Ft51Q&feature=related

 

Watch in regards to: Ezekials Chariot, confirming what I said about Nasa engineer that worked on the mariner landing ship.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Yl66RZ10qI&feature=related

 

 

Debunk that shit! ( of course you will, but doesn't mean it isn't true, just means you don't believe it)

 

Aiden


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Aidenkai wrote:BobSpence1

Aidenkai wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

The Nazca lines are just lines where people rearranged the stones on the surface of the desert to expose lighter material below and form lines defining large geometric figures and shapes of animals and birds. etc.

 

Why make geometric figures and shapes of animals that huge that can only be seen from the sky? I already know the answer, which is conveyed by more people than just AAT's, but lets hear your bullshit answer, that I am sure you won't back up with any real evidence (either).

 

I have now learned how this site's posters work, you want proof, but other than your own posting, you wont show any of your proof. But you expect it from me. That is called being a hypocrite.

 

Aiden

 

I can fart a Lamborghini out of my ass. I don't have to prove that, YOU have to prove I cant.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Aidenkai
Aidenkai's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2010-05-08
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Aidenkai

Brian37 wrote:

Aidenkai wrote:
The bible says god created everything approx. 6 thousand years ago, SAME TIME THE SUMERIANS wrote down all of this. Coincidence?

NO it isn't a coincidence, it's called a story getting passed down through multiple cultures and generations, no magic to that.

There were other humans besides the Sumerians and BEFORE the Sumerians. They got their stories from prior generations too. Writing something down is not the only media to communicate to others. To single them out because they were the first to write something down doesn't make the human species SUDDENLY magically appear or important to little green men.

You do know that the distance between the outer islands of Alaska and Russia are not that far apart and with the ice cap during the winter would not have made it impossible for humans to get to our continent. It is crap to say Columbus discovered the Americas, and it is crap to say that the Mayans magically appeared out of nowhere. Not having a record of where stories come from our where people came from doesn't make your conspiracy crap true.

It makes sense that humans make up stories.

Lets assume your comic book crap was true and this was all a warning? What then? If this is all supposed to happen and we are all doomed what can we do about it? Thats like saying, "You're going to get old and die someday". Ok, so we only have 2 years left? Do we sulk? Do we build bunkers and buy weapons and kill each other? Or is it that you, because you found the truth, the little green men will swoop you up and save you and fry the rest of us because we dared laugh at your scalely ET BFFs?

HUMN? If you want to talk about motifs, sounds alot like the Christian and Muslim tribalistic bullshit about doomsday.

EVEN scientists cant say exactly what will kill our species or when, but they have a much better idea than you or your doomsday friends in Islam and Christianity. You are a new ager of the same old bullshit. If you want to make the Guinness Book of Word records of "longest time wasted selling bullshit" you have a long way to go, Christians and Muslims have long sold the doomsday crap, long before you posted this.

Your doomsday crap is simply the same old crap with new packaging.

Something WILL get us. But the Christian god, nor Allah or little green men are going to stop our species or all life for that matter, from ending at some point.

 

 

Have I once said anything about 2012 or a doomsday in 2 years? Now your just going lengths to insult me. NICE!

BTW, now that you brought it up, ever heard of the seed shelters? HMMMMM wonder why all of the sudden (past 20 years or so) we have decided to do this?

http://www.ecofriend.org/entry/doomsday-seed-vault-gets-100-million-seeds/

Aiden


Aidenkai
Aidenkai's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2010-05-08
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Aidenkai

Brian37 wrote:

Aidenkai wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

The Nazca lines are just lines where people rearranged the stones on the surface of the desert to expose lighter material below and form lines defining large geometric figures and shapes of animals and birds. etc.

 

Why make geometric figures and shapes of animals that huge that can only be seen from the sky? I already know the answer, which is conveyed by more people than just AAT's, but lets hear your bullshit answer, that I am sure you won't back up with any real evidence (either).

 

I have now learned how this site's posters work, you want proof, but other than your own posting, you wont show any of your proof. But you expect it from me. That is called being a hypocrite.

 

Aiden

 

I can fart a Lamborghini out of my ass. I don't have to prove that, YOU have to prove I cant.

I would say, if you expect me to justify my claims, you ALSO have to justify yours. If you don't believe this, like your stating, then you ARE A HYPOCRITE.

Aiden


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Aidenkai wrote:BobSpence1

Aidenkai wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

The Nazca lines are just lines where people rearranged the stones on the surface of the desert to expose lighter material below and form lines defining large geometric figures and shapes of animals and birds. etc.

 

Why make geometric figures and shapes of animals that huge that can only be seen from the sky? I already know the answer, which is conveyed by more people than just AAT's, but lets hear your bullshit answer, that I am sure you won't back up with any real evidence (either).

 

I have now learned how this site's posters work, you want proof, but other than your own posting, you wont show any of your proof. But you expect it from me. That is called being a hypocrite.

 

Aiden

Because they believed in Gods in the sky, who could see them, like most other cultures. What is problematic about that? They may have had other reasons, but that is hardly an unlikely reason.

I gave you a link to the page discussing Joe Nickell's work on replicating the lines.

Here is a more specific link to Joe Nickell's program discussing this investigation:

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/joe_nickell_ancient_astronauts_and_the_nazca_lines

From there you can download a podcast of the program where he discusses it.

Here is a link to a written web-page on the topic: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/nazca_drawings_revisited

Given a clear demonstration that no AAT is needed to easily explain how they could be made, and entirely ordinary reasons as to why they might have made them, it is up to you to present some good reasons to believe in something way out of the ordinary instead.

EDIT: Joe also showed incidently that the shapes of even the largest ones could be made out from relatively modest towers quite easy for them to build.

Now enough with the ad homs.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Aidenkai wrote:Watch in

 

Aidenkai wrote:

Watch in regards to: 2 places depicting solar system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOhoacgQkxE&feature=related

Watch in regards to:Nazca lines.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB0w7-Ft51Q&feature=related

 

Watch in regards to: Ezekials Chariot, confirming what I said about Nasa engineer that worked on the mariner landing ship.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Yl66RZ10qI&feature=related

 

 

Debunk that shit! ( of course you will, but doesn't mean it isn't true, just means you don't believe it)

 

Aiden

 

Aiden,

 

I have watched your first video.  What I see is that a guy tells us that "The pyramids there are lined a perfect distance of each of the orbits of planets of our solar system".  Then, on 45th sec. of the video, there is a diagram of the orbits.  I am not sure what pyramids were taken for the first four orbits since ALL FOUR ARE WITHIN THE SAME PYRAMID.  But O.K., let's go with what we are shown. 

The radii of the shown orbits are:

4-3/4, 7-1/2, 9-1/2, 12-1/2, 37, 57, 91, 140

Now, the actual radii of the orbits of planets of OUR SOLAR SYSTEM are:

0.4, 0.7, 1.0, 1.5, 5.2, 9.5, 19.6, 30

If the first four orbits (somehow happened to be within the same pyramid!!!) might be a relatively O.K. fit to the reality, the rest of the SHOWN orbits .... anyone who knows how to use a calculator can see that they do NOT fit the claim "lined a perfect distance of each of the orbit of planets of our solar system".

 

So, if you still believe that 1.59 (91/57) = 2.06 (19.6/9.5) then, you know, I am not that kind of doctor....

 

100%

  

Edit: Aiden, if you think that in that video it was just an "artistic" representation of orbits, please find the reference to the original diagram.  

Also, Bob described here all the necessary facts to prove the Nazca lines can be explained without aliens' intervention.

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Aidenkai wrote:Brian37

Aidenkai wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Aidenkai wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

The Nazca lines are just lines where people rearranged the stones on the surface of the desert to expose lighter material below and form lines defining large geometric figures and shapes of animals and birds. etc.

 

Why make geometric figures and shapes of animals that huge that can only be seen from the sky? I already know the answer, which is conveyed by more people than just AAT's, but lets hear your bullshit answer, that I am sure you won't back up with any real evidence (either).

 

I have now learned how this site's posters work, you want proof, but other than your own posting, you wont show any of your proof. But you expect it from me. That is called being a hypocrite.

 

Aiden

 

I can fart a Lamborghini out of my ass. I don't have to prove that, YOU have to prove I cant.

I would say, if you expect me to justify my claims, you ALSO have to justify yours. If you don't believe this, like your stating, then you ARE A HYPOCRITE.

Aiden

It is called SARCASM! I didn't ,nor would I expect you to disprove "I can fart a Lamborghini out of my ass"....I was mocking you because of your bad use of logic. Go look up "Bertrand Russell's teapot" to understand WHY "HOW YOU USE YOUR LOGIC" sucks.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:You either choose to

Quote:
You either choose to believe it or not.

NOW THERE is something we agree on.

The issue then becomes HOW, when people have competing claims do we find a universal way to KNOW beyond personal bias what is true.

I'd say basing ANYTHING on ancient superstition of any culture is pretty fucking stupid, be it Chinese, Hindu, Muslim or Christian, or your new age crap.

Isn't it funny that you and I and a Muslim and a Christian and Jew, can all sit in the same science class and KNOW what DNA is or mitosis, or what a light year is, or what an atom is?

I doubt you'd get many Christians to agree with your Mayan/Sumerian Area 51 X-file crap. And you'd be called an Infidel along with me by the 19 hijackers for not believing in Allah.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Aidenkai
Aidenkai's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2010-05-08
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:You

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
You either choose to believe it or not.

NOW THERE is something we agree on.

The issue then becomes HOW, when people have competing claims do we find a universal way to KNOW beyond personal bias what is true.

I'd say basing ANYTHING on ancient superstition of any culture is pretty fucking stupid, be it Chinese, Hindu, Muslim or Christian, or your new age crap.

Isn't it funny that you and I and a Muslim and a Christian and Jew, can all sit in the same science class and KNOW what DNA is or mitosis, or what a light year is, or what an atom is?

I doubt you'd get many Christians to agree with your Mayan/Sumerian Area 51 X-file crap. And you'd be called an Infidel along with me by the 19 hijackers for not believing in Allah.

 

In your attempt to discredit me, you actually made my point that I have been talking about ALL along, NOONE knows 100% which side is right.

"your new age crap."

This is what you fail to understand, unlike religion, that is based on ONE BOOK, with no historical facts backed up my modern science and archeology, my theories actually HOLD weight, whether you want to look at the facts or not. If you open your mind and watch some of the videos and claims made by AAT or EVD or Sitchin, instead of just resorting to the "its crap" theory, you might be shocked and learn something. We are not pulling this shit out of nowhere, you just have to think that it is possible, look at it in another way from the norm, kinda like you ask religious people to do, you have yourselves convinced that there is only one answer, when the possibilites could be numerous. I will say it again, YOU DON'T know your side to be true with a 100% certainty. Your science could be right, then again, if the Bible is telling a little bit of truth, it could be right, and if the stories are historical facts coming from a much ealier civilization, like the sumerians, there stories might be true. YOU JUST DON'T know, you have yourself convinced, same story you were telling me NOT to do. SO STFU and learn something for once instead of opening your mouth like a retard. *Hypocrite*

 

Aiden

 


Aidenkai
Aidenkai's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2010-05-08
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Aidenkai

BobSpence1 wrote:

Aidenkai wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

The Nazca lines are just lines where people rearranged the stones on the surface of the desert to expose lighter material below and form lines defining large geometric figures and shapes of animals and birds. etc.

 

Why make geometric figures and shapes of animals that huge that can only be seen from the sky? I already know the answer, which is conveyed by more people than just AAT's, but lets hear your bullshit answer, that I am sure you won't back up with any real evidence (either).

 

I have now learned how this site's posters work, you want proof, but other than your own posting, you wont show any of your proof. But you expect it from me. That is called being a hypocrite.

 

Aiden

Because they believed in Gods in the sky, who could see them, like most other cultures. What is problematic about that? They may have had other reasons, but that is hardly an unlikely reason.

I gave you a link to the page discussing Joe Nickell's work on replicating the lines.

Here is a more specific link to Joe Nickell's program discussing this investigation:

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/joe_nickell_ancient_astronauts_and_the_nazca_lines

From there you can download a podcast of the program where he discusses it.

Here is a link to a written web-page on the topic: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/nazca_drawings_revisited

Given a clear demonstration that no AAT is needed to easily explain how they could be made, and entirely ordinary reasons as to why they might have made them, it is up to you to present some good reasons to believe in something way out of the ordinary instead.

EDIT: Joe also showed incidently that the shapes of even the largest ones could be made out from relatively modest towers quite easy for them to build.

Now enough with the ad homs.

"Because they believed in Gods in the sky, who could see them, like most other cultures. What is problematic about that? They may have had other reasons, but that is hardly an unlikely reason."

I ask what prompted them to do this, why would they believe that there GODS were in the sky? Why not in the ocean, or in the ground, or in a tree, or a bush(LOL), simply put, something HAD to prompt them to take such drastic measures to create these HUG depictions that have last as long as they have. They didn't just wake up one day and say to themselves, hmmmm, I think I will create GODS in my head, and OH YEA they come from the sky. You proved my point without knowing it. I don't believe they just created these gods out of thin air. Something happened to make them worship and depict these things from the air.

As far as the "so called" real life sherlock holmes debunker. I will concede to you that there are quite a few people out there that can come up with OFF THE wall theories that debunk ANYTHING. So your links mean nothing too me, because for everyone one of your guys who said it isn't I have one that says that it is. FIND ME ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC PROOF (100% certainty) that they aren't what I claim them to be. Then I may be swayed, til then I will think what they look like, runways, backed up by signs only seen by people with flight technology. Persuade better. I could easily say this guy is a hack and has no more, or even less credibility than EVD, Sitchin and others in the field. Maybe he makes up shit to sell his books.

Aiden


Aidenkai
Aidenkai's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2010-05-08
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Aidenkai

BobSpence1 wrote:

Aidenkai wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

The Nazca lines are just lines where people rearranged the stones on the surface of the desert to expose lighter material below and form lines defining large geometric figures and shapes of animals and birds. etc.

 

Why make geometric figures and shapes of animals that huge that can only be seen from the sky? I already know the answer, which is conveyed by more people than just AAT's, but lets hear your bullshit answer, that I am sure you won't back up with any real evidence (either).

 

I have now learned how this site's posters work, you want proof, but other than your own posting, you wont show any of your proof. But you expect it from me. That is called being a hypocrite.

 

Aiden

Furthermore, I find while reading the last link you sent, is this, which also proves that they don't know ANYMORE about it then EVD.

"The questions of who and when aside, the mystery of why the markings were made remains, although several hypotheses have been proffered."

NOOOOO ONE KNOWS, these are all theories. EVD COULD be right, these people who wrote this article COULD be right, nothing is absolute 100% certainty. Like I have said, there is basis for both to have the possibility of being true, the only difference is, I am WILLING TO admit either one could be true, you are NOT.

Aiden

Because they believed in Gods in the sky, who could see them, like most other cultures. What is problematic about that? They may have had other reasons, but that is hardly an unlikely reason.

I gave you a link to the page discussing Joe Nickell's work on replicating the lines.

Here is a more specific link to Joe Nickell's program discussing this investigation:

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/joe_nickell_ancient_astronauts_and_the_nazca_lines

From there you can download a podcast of the program where he discusses it.

Here is a link to a written web-page on the topic: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/nazca_drawings_revisited

Given a clear demonstration that no AAT is needed to easily explain how they could be made, and entirely ordinary reasons as to why they might have made them, it is up to you to present some good reasons to believe in something way out of the ordinary instead.

EDIT: Joe also showed incidently that the shapes of even the largest ones could be made out from relatively modest towers quite easy for them to build.

Now enough with the ad homs.


RatDog
atheist
Posts: 573
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Aidenkai wrote: I ask what

Aidenkai wrote:

I ask what prompted them to do this, why would they believe that there GODS were in the sky? Why not in the ocean, or in the ground, or in a tree, or a bush(LOL), simply put, something HAD to prompt them to take such drastic measures to create these HUG depictions that have last as long as they have. They didn't just wake up one day and say to themselves, hmmmm, I think I will create GODS in my head, and OH YEA they come from the sky. You proved my point without knowing it. I don't believe they just created these gods out of thin air. Something happened to make them worship and depict these things from the air.

 

What makes you so convince that you know how everyone else thinks, or would have though in given situations?  A lot of your arguments seem to be based on what people you have never met would or would not think/believe/do in situations you have never experienced.  Different people and different cultures obviously think and believe differently.    Yet you act like you can be absolutely sure about the motives of people you don't even know. 

 


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Aidenkai wrote:So your links

Aidenkai wrote:

So your links mean nothing too me, because for everyone one of your guys who said it isn't I have one that says that it is. FIND ME ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC PROOF (100% certainty) that they aren't what I claim them to be. 

Aiden

 

Aiden, 

 

After you have win this great battle so logically and elegantly and has proved that you are right,  I simply can't wait when you turn on the avenue of dead. 

 

Sadly, this is one of very few cases when I feel that I can predict the future.

 

100%

 

 


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Aidenkai wrote:FIND ME

Aidenkai wrote:
FIND ME ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC PROOF (100% certainty)

Wait. So you get to demand others back things up scientifically (with the astonishing accuracy of 100% no less), yet when you are asked for scientific evidence you don't have to? What gives?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 So Aiden, are you claiming

 So Aiden, are you claiming that the only plausible reason why people would think of Gods dwelling in the sky is because they had been visited by Ancient Astronauts flying down to them?

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Aidenkai
Aidenkai's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2010-05-08
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote: So Aiden,

BobSpence1 wrote:

 So Aiden, are you claiming that the only plausible reason why people would think of Gods dwelling in the sky is because they had been visited by Ancient Astronauts flying down to them?

No I assertain, that they saw something significant enough to start a belief system, something they had never seen before. What it was is up for debate. The possibility could be AA, simply because other cultures also tell similiar stories around the world. I just say its possible because of the evidence to support it, your evidence equally supports your theory, but neither is certain, THATS MY POINT. It's what you believe based on the evidence and the way you interrupt that evidence.

Aiden


Aidenkai
Aidenkai's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2010-05-08
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote:Aidenkai

KSMB wrote:

Aidenkai wrote:
FIND ME ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC PROOF (100% certainty)

Wait. So you get to demand others back things up scientifically (with the astonishing accuracy of 100% no less), yet when you are asked for scientific evidence you don't have to? What gives?

If you scroll up, you will realize that I already recanted my previous statements and explained my position. But I then realized, that you were attacking me for something, you could not do yourselves. I will admit it again, I do not have 100% proof of anything I previously stated, but neither do you in this regard.

Aiden


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Aidenkai wrote:If you scroll

Aidenkai wrote:
If you scroll up, you will realize that I already recanted my previous statements and explained my position. But I then realized, that you were attacking me for something, you could not do yourselves. I will admit it again, I do not have 100% proof of anything I previously stated, but neither do you in this regard.

Aiden

You do realize that since you are making a claim, and an extraordinary one at that, you have to back your claim up regardless of what anyone else can or can't back up, right?


Aidenkai
Aidenkai's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2010-05-08
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:Aidenkai wrote:

RatDog wrote:

Aidenkai wrote:

I ask what prompted them to do this, why would they believe that there GODS were in the sky? Why not in the ocean, or in the ground, or in a tree, or a bush(LOL), simply put, something HAD to prompt them to take such drastic measures to create these HUG depictions that have last as long as they have. They didn't just wake up one day and say to themselves, hmmmm, I think I will create GODS in my head, and OH YEA they come from the sky. You proved my point without knowing it. I don't believe they just created these gods out of thin air. Something happened to make them worship and depict these things from the air.

 

What makes you so convince that you know how everyone else thinks, or would have though in given situations?  A lot of your arguments seem to be based on what people you have never met would or would not think/believe/do in situations you have never experienced.  Different people and different cultures obviously think and believe differently.    Yet you act like you can be absolutely sure about the motives of people you don't even know. 

 

Because its logical to think that this didn't just appear out of nowhere. Your the one thinking to much into it. What is the saying about the simplest explanation has to be the correct one. What is more simple than thinking, man see's something strange come out of the sky, mis interrupts it as gods, and builds or creates something in the ground in hopes that they see it if they come back? Look Up Cargo Cult *wikipedia*

Aiden


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Aidenkai wrote:BobSpence1

Aidenkai wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

 So Aiden, are you claiming that the only plausible reason why people would think of Gods dwelling in the sky is because they had been visited by Ancient Astronauts flying down to them?

No I assertain, that they saw something significant enough to start a belief system, something they had never seen before. What it was is up for debate. The possibility could be AA, simply because other cultures also tell similiar stories around the world. I just say its possible because of the evidence to support it, your evidence equally supports your theory, but neither is certain, THATS MY POINT. It's what you believe based on the evidence and the way you interrupt that evidence.

Aiden

I don't think people need to have seen something unusual to have a belief system, maybe if you could show the belief system actually started up suddenly you might need to assume some unusual event.

I think most belief systems evolve over time, as an attempt to explain a whole bunch of things about the world that they don't understand.

Both interpretations may be uncertain, but I think the AA idea is definitely more 'out there' and therefore less likely. It isn't MY evidence, it is THE evidence, the difference is in interpretation.

Oh and BTW, I'm sure you mean 'interpret the evidence', not interrupt the evidence'. It is a little distracting. "Interrupt" means to break into something that is happening and stop it, or break into the flow of a conversation, etc, I'm sure you know the word.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Aidenkai
Aidenkai's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2010-05-08
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote:Aidenkai wrote:If

KSMB wrote:

Aidenkai wrote:
If you scroll up, you will realize that I already recanted my previous statements and explained my position. But I then realized, that you were attacking me for something, you could not do yourselves. I will admit it again, I do not have 100% proof of anything I previously stated, but neither do you in this regard.

Aiden

You do realize that since you are making a claim, and an extraordinary one at that, you have to back your claim up regardless of what anyone else can or can't back up, right?

 

I can say the same thing, if you try and debunk my claim YOU ALSO have to back it up. Telling me to do so, and then not doing it yourself, makes you a hypocrite. See how this is going to keep going in a circle. Stop please, I have had to say this like 20 times now. Since I have apologized for making claims and not backing them up as you so put it, lets me off the hook, because I admit, I am not knowledgeable enough to find the information to back it up ( this is no way means that the "back up" doesnt exist). But when you make claims that it doesn't exist, or is not true, and you back up this claim with your own opinions, you don't think you should also follow your own guidlines in the same respect? Point I seem to have to make over and over to you people is this, there are many theories out there on BOTH sides that are creditable (my lack of finding it, doesn't negate that it exists), but you claim yours is the only truthful one, yet doing so without proving it in the same way you expect me too, which you have continuously failed at, simply because, neither of us can prove any of this on either side with 100% certainty. *feeling dejavu*

 

How many times is it going to take me repeating this to get you to admit it? Talk about me being stubborn. Your just proving what my other forum members commented about. Your close minded hypocrites.

 

Aiden


Aidenkai
Aidenkai's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2010-05-08
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Aidenkai

BobSpence1 wrote:

Aidenkai wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

 So Aiden, are you claiming that the only plausible reason why people would think of Gods dwelling in the sky is because they had been visited by Ancient Astronauts flying down to them?

No I assertain, that they saw something significant enough to start a belief system, something they had never seen before. What it was is up for debate. The possibility could be AA, simply because other cultures also tell similiar stories around the world. I just say its possible because of the evidence to support it, your evidence equally supports your theory, but neither is certain, THATS MY POINT. It's what you believe based on the evidence and the way you interrupt that evidence.

Aiden

I don't think people need to have seen something unusual to have a belief system, maybe if you could show the belief system actually started up suddenly you might need to assume some unusual event.

I think most belief systems evolve over time, as an attempt to explain a whole bunch of things about the world that they don't understand.

Both interpretations may be uncertain, but I think the AA idea is definitely more 'out there' and therefore less likely. It isn't MY evidence, it is THE evidence, the difference is in interpretation.

Oh and BTW, I'm sure you mean 'interpret the evidence', not interrupt the evidence'. It is a little distracting. "Interrupt" means to break into something that is happening and stop it, or break into the flow of a conversation, etc, I'm sure you know the word.

 

Now your an english major. NICE!, I type fast, so sometimes words don't come out exactly spelled right. my bad.

"I don't think people need to have seen something unusual to have a belief system, maybe if you could show the belief system actually started up suddenly you might need to assume some unusual event."

this is YOUR opinon. Mine is I think something has to happen. We disagree. FINE. Still doesn't mean you know any more why they did this than I. BTW, this stuff is becoming more mainstream and I also believe that in the next few years, you WILL hear more about it. Once that happens, I will be back to tell you the ole "I told you so". The earth being round and people going into space, was also thought at one point in time to be "out there" as well, yet today it is normality. I think you need to take that into consideration when making claims of what is and is not in the norm.

"It isn't MY evidence, it is THE evidence, the difference is in interpretation."

How do you claim that it is "THE" evidence, when your own link speaking of it, says "The questions of who and when aside, the mystery of why the markings were made remains, although several hypotheses have been proffered.

Where is "THE" evidence you claim. This guy may have a phd, but he is PAID to debunk things. I state, that if I can't use AAT theorists to support my claims, you shouln't be able to do the same with people that have just as much to gain from debunking it.

Joe Nickell, Ph.D., is Senior Research Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) and "Investigative Files" Columnist for Skeptical Inquirer.

CSI HAHAHAH GIMMIE A BREAK. Paid Skeptic, can find anything wrong with anything. Given enough time and money.

" A former stage magician" some who used to get paid to fool people into believing magic, this is your "Expert"? Vs. EVD and Sitchin. I will take there research over a magician any day buddy. The fact that you are backing up with someone like this amazes me.

"author of numerous books" Once again I will claim the same thing you did about EVD and Sitchin, he is after selling his books, not being open to all possibilities.

Aiden


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
 Aiden, Hi there... I am

 Aiden,

 

Hi there... I am still waiting for your explanation how 1.59 = 2.06.  

 

Love you,

100%

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
If you had followed Joe

If you had followed Joe Nickell over time and heard how he actually approaches such things, you couldn't say that. He goes out of his way NOT to be a simple 'debunker', he seriously investigates things, and as you yourself noted in that same article, he will admit when there are things he cannot explain. 

But the mystery of another culture's motivation is more a matter of the great range of reasons humans can find to justify doing things, so one should never be so surprised at not understanding why someone else does something that you can't imagine doing, especially if they are from a very different time and culture. Not understanding why someone might have done something is a very poor justification for pulling crap like AA's out of your butt.

You may gather I am losing patience with attempting to engage you seriously....

And I'm sorry, Aiden, if you actually read that article and still take EvD seriously, regardless of anything else Joe Nickell said, you have to be out of your freakin' mind. He gave many examples of EvD jumping to absurd conclusions. Altho maybe I shouldn't be surprised, you seem to share much of EvD's mindset.

Just to reassure you a bit, I am not putting Sitchin in the same class of wacko as EvD, at least not yet. I haven't looked into his stuff enough. He does appear to have some real qualifications in the subject, unlike EvD. 

I had gone into Evd very heavily when his 'Chariots' book first came out, so I am much more confident of my judgement in his case. Seriously dude, you weaken your credibility by using him to support your ideas.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Aidenkai wrote:Brian37

Aidenkai wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
You either choose to believe it or not.

NOW THERE is something we agree on.

The issue then becomes HOW, when people have competing claims do we find a universal way to KNOW beyond personal bias what is true.

I'd say basing ANYTHING on ancient superstition of any culture is pretty fucking stupid, be it Chinese, Hindu, Muslim or Christian, or your new age crap.

Isn't it funny that you and I and a Muslim and a Christian and Jew, can all sit in the same science class and KNOW what DNA is or mitosis, or what a light year is, or what an atom is?

I doubt you'd get many Christians to agree with your Mayan/Sumerian Area 51 X-file crap. And you'd be called an Infidel along with me by the 19 hijackers for not believing in Allah.

 

In your attempt to discredit me, you actually made my point that I have been talking about ALL along, NOONE knows 100% which side is right.

"your new age crap."

This is what you fail to understand, unlike religion, that is based on ONE BOOK, with no historical facts backed up my modern science and archeology, my theories actually HOLD weight, whether you want to look at the facts or not. If you open your mind and watch some of the videos and claims made by AAT or EVD or Sitchin, instead of just resorting to the "its crap" theory, you might be shocked and learn something. We are not pulling this shit out of nowhere, you just have to think that it is possible, look at it in another way from the norm, kinda like you ask religious people to do, you have yourselves convinced that there is only one answer, when the possibilites could be numerous. I will say it again, YOU DON'T know your side to be true with a 100% certainty. Your science could be right, then again, if the Bible is telling a little bit of truth, it could be right, and if the stories are historical facts coming from a much ealier civilization, like the sumerians, there stories might be true. YOU JUST DON'T know, you have yourself convinced, same story you were telling me NOT to do. SO STFU and learn something for once instead of opening your mouth like a retard. *Hypocrite*

 

Aiden

 

YOU DIPPY!

Early newspapers didn't have comic strips, but one day, one did, then the others to compete with them came up with their own. That doesn't mean the first newspaper was the first form of communication.

How many newspapers have in their name "Herald" or "Post", how many soda companies have cherry flavored soda. Do you honestly think religion is any less competitive or any more magical than the other aspects of human life?

You fall for the same mind trap as "I'm loven It" emotional appeal of marketing that gets people to buy junk food.

HUMANS COPYCAT EACH OTHER! There is no fucking magic to it and no fucking conspiracy.

Religion is nothing original nor was it handed down to humans by little green men.

Retarded is shouting "DANGER WILL ROBERTSON DANGER" The si fi channel is not a lab video listed on a Professor's syllabus.

If you are really dedicated to this garbage, do what Christians do and go door to door and see how far you get before someone suggests you be put in an institution.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote: my modern science and

Quote:
my modern science and archeology

Yea, it is so earth shatteringly true that it is being taught in all the universities as scientific law like the laws of thermodynamics.

The Si Fi channel and X-files does not constitute science. People make crap up and try to retrofit REAL science to prop up their crap. You have merely allowed yourself to fall for elaborate CRAP!

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Aidenkai
Aidenkai's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2010-05-08
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote: my

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
my modern science and archeology

Yea, it is so earth shatteringly true that it is being taught in all the universities as scientific law like the laws of thermodynamics.

The Si Fi channel and X-files does not constitute science. People make crap up and try to retrofit REAL science to prop up their crap. You have merely allowed yourself to fall for elaborate CRAP!

I swear your a retard. You are blind. Not once have I quoted anything from Sci fi channel or X-files. So keep that crap outta your posts. You think by bringing this up that it discredits me in some way. The fact is, what they taught in schools about scientific law 30 years ago, isn't the same as what they teach today. I think you need to get your head out of the clouds. See the amazing things all over the world that still to this day cannot be explained and are still mysteries to how they were created back then when we cannot dulpicate it today with our current level of technology.

Aiden


Aidenkai
Aidenkai's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2010-05-08
User is offlineOffline
These questions were posed

These questions were posed too me a few posts ago, I re-posted them on my other forum to see what responses I could get from them, here are some:


"Aidenkai, would it be true to say that most of the posters on your site are generally inclined to accept the AAT position? I am new here, but I would assume that since this site is devoted to discussing these topics that most people here are open to the possibility of alien intervention.

Do you get many sceptics on there? I can't speak for everyone, but for myself I would say that it is my skepticism that brought me here in the first place. I had a skepticism of conventional answers to the riddles posed by ancient mysteries and wanted to know more. I kept my mind open to other possibilities and at the moment, this one is the best fit.

Could it be that you had gotten way too comfortable with your theories, and your reaction here is at least partly due to you not being accustomed to having possible weaknesses pointed out to you? I don't think the weakness is the theories, but perhaps your knowledge of them. Just let them know that you are new to these concepts and as such you are still learning and do not have all the answers. But you do feel that there is enough "evidence" to warrant further research and study and that's all you are proposing at this point.



Looking through what the Sumerians did, and what they left behind, I would honestly have expected far more things to mark them out from other civilizations of the time if they really had had extensive contact with space-travellers. I'm not sure what the poster is saying here. There are remarkable monuments all over the world that are mysterious in their origins, function and architecture. I don't know what more someone could require to, at least, keep their mind open to unconventional possibilities.

For example, why didn't their visitors help them set up a more advanced system of agriculture than the irrigation system which eventually lead to their decline, due to the build-up of salinity? Ok on this one I just have to say "huh?'' You mean that their knowledge of advanced math and geometry, science, medicine, textiles, ceramics, metalurgy, of the solar system thousands of years before a telescope was invented is all thrown out the window because their irrigation system developed salinity?

Did they record somewhere the distance to the Sun, an accurate diameter of the Earth, distance to the Moon, IOW some really fundamental data on the Solar System which really would have been hard for them to work out without some outside help? Rather than some dots on a small plate which can be interpreted in many ways." There exists a great deal more than "dots on a plate" to illustrate the Sumerian knowledge of their solar system. They had an extremely advanced calendar that even took into consideration the precession of the equinox. The distance between heavenly bodies in numerical terms was not important to them. What was important was the ratios in these distances. If they recorded the distance it would probably be represented in imagery rather than in numbers.

Here’s my 2 cents on that:
Yes, most people on this site are inclined to accept the AAT theories. That’s why they are here. However, there are skeptics here as well at times. Also, not all AAT believers agree with all the different theories and ideas, yet we all have the same general theory that AA’s visited, influenced, etc. It’s complicated.

Yes, there are weaknesses. Everything has weaknesses and there are arguments for and against anything. There is no smoking gun for AAT that the public is aware of. There is no smoking gun that God exists or doesn’t exist. The person who posted the comment quoted may be “too comfortable” with his or her theories as stated of you. The table can always be turned. Why are they so against AAT? Why is their theory so right? They want you to point out evidence yet they have nothing to disprove any of it, other than their words.

I don’t know enough about the intricate details of the Sumerians to comment. However, we don’t know what all information was given to them or any other people by AA’s. Some information could have been lost by the time the Sumerians wrote it down (such as distance from the Sun, etc.). Also, the Sumerians were only documenting what and how they understood things. Maybe someone should study the Cargo Cult tribes of modern times and see how they document the presence of our advanced civilization visiting them….then of course throw in a couple hundred years or even thousands and see what the documentation looks like.

Also, I think the Dogon’s knowledge of the Sirius system is some pretty good evidence of people knowing something that they shouldn’t.

Anyway, I understand your frustration.

Aiden


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Aidenkai wrote:Brian37

Aidenkai wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
my modern science and archeology

Yea, it is so earth shatteringly true that it is being taught in all the universities as scientific law like the laws of thermodynamics.

The Si Fi channel and X-files does not constitute science. People make crap up and try to retrofit REAL science to prop up their crap. You have merely allowed yourself to fall for elaborate CRAP!

I swear your a retard. You are blind. Not once have I quoted anything from Sci fi channel or X-files.

Maybe not but you did say something to sapient along the lines off:

"Big woop, so you had  a 1 hour debate that was broadcasted on cable tv, alien intervention shows are on all the time"

 

Saying something like this makes it seem as though you are reasoning that because there are many fictional shows and stories on the issue it holds more credibility as a theory, somewhat like saying the belief in the existance of vampires is credible because many people make movies and stories about them. 


Aidenkai
Aidenkai's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2010-05-08
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Aidenkai wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
my modern science and archeology

Yea, it is so earth shatteringly true that it is being taught in all the universities as scientific law like the laws of thermodynamics.

The Si Fi channel and X-files does not constitute science. People make crap up and try to retrofit REAL science to prop up their crap. You have merely allowed yourself to fall for elaborate CRAP!

I swear your a retard. You are blind. Not once have I quoted anything from Sci fi channel or X-files.

Maybe not but you did say something to sapient along the lines off:

"Big woop, so you had  a 1 hour debate that was broadcasted on cable tv, alien intervention shows are on all the time"

 

Saying something like this makes it seem as though you are reasoning that because there are many fictional shows and stories on the issue it holds more credibility as a theory, somewhat like saying the belief in the existance of vampires is credible because many people make movies and stories about them. 

The shows I speak of are not fictional, of course there are many shows about aliens and vampires (fictional shows), I was not speaking of these. I was speaking of factual historical documentaries, in reference to the Ancient Aliens series on the History Channel and many that are on the Biography Channel that investigate these unsolved mysteries. These are set apart from the fictional Sci fi shows you are speaking of. In that regard, you see more mainstream of them on television today vs. Atheist/Religious debates on mainstream television. IMO, they could have done much better and been much more informed that they were. At least get someone that knows the facts on the atheist side and can come across as such, someone like Christopher Hitchens to debate Kirk and his minion. Sapient and Kelly came off as argumentitive, that never bolds well when your trying to get your facts across to skeptics on both sides, not once did Kirk or the other guy get mad, they listened and spoke very elequantly, vs. Sapient and Kelly who wouldn't even look at them when they were speaking. Christopher Hitchens would not have done that, he kills in debates, they should have taken a lesson from him in that respect. Furthermore, you don't see Christopher referring costantly to a book or something written down for reference, it made them look like they didn't know wtf they were talking about, always referencing something that was on paper. That's no different than Sarah Palin writing down something to say to the crowds when she is speaking. It made them look uninformed in my opinion. If your going to argue a point, know the facts, instead of reading them. I could have done a better job with a little bit of researching and a copy machine.

Aiden


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Aidenkai wrote:Brian37

Aidenkai wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
my modern science and archeology

Yea, it is so earth shatteringly true that it is being taught in all the universities as scientific law like the laws of thermodynamics.

The Si Fi channel and X-files does not constitute science. People make crap up and try to retrofit REAL science to prop up their crap. You have merely allowed yourself to fall for elaborate CRAP!

I swear your a retard. You are blind. Not once have I quoted anything from Sci fi channel or X-files. So keep that crap outta your posts. You think by bringing this up that it discredits me in some way. The fact is, what they taught in schools about scientific law 30 years ago, isn't the same as what they teach today. I think you need to get your head out of the clouds. See the amazing things all over the world that still to this day cannot be explained and are still mysteries to how they were created back then when we cannot dulpicate it today with our current level of technology.

Aiden

Quote:
Not once have I quoted anything from Sci fi channel or X-files. So keep that crap outta your posts.

Only a retard keeps missing SARCASM. Once again, I am equating your crappy evidence as being in the same category as si fi fans, you might as well be trying to convince me that transporters are real. NO DIFFERENCE.

IF what you were saying were true, it would be taught in science labs along side astronomy and the laws of thermodynamics. You have simply bought the pseudo crap a nutcase rapped up in an elaborate package and is just as much a doomsday myth as any other doomsday myth from any other culture.

Scientology started the same way. Some fans of a si fi writer decided to start their new conspiracy based on L Ron Hubbard. You simply have a different pet conspiracy. Crap is crap, and your crap is not special.

Santa and Jesus SAME CRAP, Transporters, little green men, big foot, Ouija boards, homeopathy, Superman, Lex Luthor, ALL THE SAME CRAP! Made up shit. You just think your newer fiction isn't fiction.

FINE, instead of wasting your time here, why don't you work on getting the science community at the university level to FUND your little green men theory based on Mayan myth. Good luck with that.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Aidenkai
Aidenkai's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2010-05-08
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Aidenkai

Brian37 wrote:

Aidenkai wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
my modern science and archeology

Yea, it is so earth shatteringly true that it is being taught in all the universities as scientific law like the laws of thermodynamics.

The Si Fi channel and X-files does not constitute science. People make crap up and try to retrofit REAL science to prop up their crap. You have merely allowed yourself to fall for elaborate CRAP!

I swear your a retard. You are blind. Not once have I quoted anything from Sci fi channel or X-files. So keep that crap outta your posts. You think by bringing this up that it discredits me in some way. The fact is, what they taught in schools about scientific law 30 years ago, isn't the same as what they teach today. I think you need to get your head out of the clouds. See the amazing things all over the world that still to this day cannot be explained and are still mysteries to how they were created back then when we cannot dulpicate it today with our current level of technology.

Aiden

Quote:
Not once have I quoted anything from Sci fi channel or X-files. So keep that crap outta your posts.

Only a retard keeps missing SARCASM. Once again, I am equating your crappy evidence as being in the same category as si fi fans, you might as well be trying to convince me that transporters are real. NO DIFFERENCE.

IF what you were saying were true, it would be taught in science labs along side astronomy and the laws of thermodynamics. You have simply bought the pseudo crap a nutcase rapped up in an elaborate package and is just as much a doomsday myth as any other doomsday myth from any other culture.

Scientology started the same way. Some fans of a si fi writer decided to start their new conspiracy based on L Ron Hubbard. You simply have a different pet conspiracy. Crap is crap, and your crap is not special.

Santa and Jesus SAME CRAP, Transporters, little green men, big foot, Ouija boards, homeopathy, Superman, Lex Luthor, ALL THE SAME CRAP! Made up shit. You just think your newer fiction isn't fiction.

FINE, instead of wasting your time here, why don't you work on getting the science community at the university level to FUND your little green men theory based on Mayan myth. Good luck with that.

Who was it that said, if you imagine it, it has to be possible? We just lack the knowledge to make it reality. Einstein?

We have imagined Time Travel since H.G. Wells wrote about it, but it has always been sci-fi, yet today they are close to being able to make it reality. Look it up if you don't believe me, Einstein even said it was possible if we could come up with a way to travel fast that the speed of light, Just because we don't have that technology YET, doesn't mean it isnt possible. That's the reality of most sci-fi shows, they tell us what IS possible, in the future. But I nor they make claims that is fact, to our known and LIMITED technology. You are still a RETARD not being able to think outside the box and say "what if" but I guess that the premiss of atheists.

I guess thats why I can't consider myself an atheist anymore, I don't believe in gods or a god, but I do have an open mind to rediscover the possibilities of different points being true. Supernatural is a joke, there is nothing to substantiate those claims, I believe early man saw something, met someone, and at there current level of understanding misunderstood something they could not explain, so equated that to being supernatural. I do not believe that something comes from nothing, there is always cause and effect, this point IS supported by science, you can't have the chicken without the egg and vice versa, so where do you draw the line, even atheists can't explain this, what was first. In you minds, you think, humans just created religion or believe in gods out of thin air, thats just NOT possible, if so, we would have records from mankind from Millions of years ago, that they had some type of belief system, which they don't. This theory of belief only comes from early man, and it wasn't created in there heads, something happened, believe it or not. I would rather believe they misinterupted something they saw or met that can be explained in Natural terms than in supernatural terms, but either could be true, you are not even willing to speculate that. Hence why you are a retard.

Aiden

Aiden


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Aidenkai wrote:Also, I think

Aidenkai wrote:
Also, I think the Dogon’s knowledge of the Sirius system is some pretty good evidence of people knowing something that they shouldn’t.

What knowledge? Where does this claim come from?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Aidenkai wrote:Brian37

Aidenkai wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Aidenkai wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
my modern science and archeology

Yea, it is so earth shatteringly true that it is being taught in all the universities as scientific law like the laws of thermodynamics.

The Si Fi channel and X-files does not constitute science. People make crap up and try to retrofit REAL science to prop up their crap. You have merely allowed yourself to fall for elaborate CRAP!

I swear your a retard. You are blind. Not once have I quoted anything from Sci fi channel or X-files. So keep that crap outta your posts. You think by bringing this up that it discredits me in some way. The fact is, what they taught in schools about scientific law 30 years ago, isn't the same as what they teach today. I think you need to get your head out of the clouds. See the amazing things all over the world that still to this day cannot be explained and are still mysteries to how they were created back then when we cannot dulpicate it today with our current level of technology.

Aiden

Quote:
Not once have I quoted anything from Sci fi channel or X-files. So keep that crap outta your posts.

Only a retard keeps missing SARCASM. Once again, I am equating your crappy evidence as being in the same category as si fi fans, you might as well be trying to convince me that transporters are real. NO DIFFERENCE.

IF what you were saying were true, it would be taught in science labs along side astronomy and the laws of thermodynamics. You have simply bought the pseudo crap a nutcase rapped up in an elaborate package and is just as much a doomsday myth as any other doomsday myth from any other culture.

Scientology started the same way. Some fans of a si fi writer decided to start their new conspiracy based on L Ron Hubbard. You simply have a different pet conspiracy. Crap is crap, and your crap is not special.

Santa and Jesus SAME CRAP, Transporters, little green men, big foot, Ouija boards, homeopathy, Superman, Lex Luthor, ALL THE SAME CRAP! Made up shit. You just think your newer fiction isn't fiction.

FINE, instead of wasting your time here, why don't you work on getting the science community at the university level to FUND your little green men theory based on Mayan myth. Good luck with that.

Who was it that said, if you imagine it, it has to be possible? We just lack the knowledge to make it reality. Einstein?

We have imagined Time Travel since H.G. Wells wrote about it, but it has always been sci-fi, yet today they are close to being able to make it reality. Look it up if you don't believe me, Einstein even said it was possible if we could come up with a way to travel fast that the speed of light, Just because we don't have that technology YET, doesn't mean it isnt possible. That's the reality of most sci-fi shows, they tell us what IS possible, in the future. But I nor they make claims that is fact, to our known and LIMITED technology. You are still a RETARD not being able to think outside the box and say "what if" but I guess that the premiss of atheists.

I guess thats why I can't consider myself an atheist anymore, I don't believe in gods or a god, but I do have an open mind to rediscover the possibilities of different points being true. Supernatural is a joke, there is nothing to substantiate those claims, I believe early man saw something, met someone, and at there current level of understanding misunderstood something they could not explain, so equated that to being supernatural. I do not believe that something comes from nothing, there is always cause and effect, this point IS supported by science, you can't have the chicken without the egg and vice versa, so where do you draw the line, even atheists can't explain this, what was first. In you minds, you think, humans just created religion or believe in gods out of thin air, thats just NOT possible, if so, we would have records from mankind from Millions of years ago, that they had some type of belief system, which they don't. This theory of belief only comes from early man, and it wasn't created in there heads, something happened, believe it or not. I would rather believe they misinterupted something they saw or met that can be explained in Natural terms than in supernatural terms, but either could be true, you are not even willing to speculate that. Hence why you are a retard.

Aiden

Aiden

Thank you for not calling yourself an atheist anymore, that is the only rational thing you have said in this entire thread. At least we can agree that you shouldn't call yourself one.

Quote:
I would rather believe they misinterupted something they saw or met that can be explained in Natural terms than in supernatural terms, but either could be true, you are not even willing to speculate that. Hence why you are a retard.

Quote:
but either could be true

Yea and I can dream up Jessica Rabbit who has the capability of sucking my dick because I dreamed it up, but I wouldn't hedge my bets on it.

The difference between "super natural" claims and scientific fact,  is that one has a history of woo and emotionalism, the other has a history of pragmatism and data and falsification and independent verification.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
It definitely does not

It definitely does not require detailed knowledge of the Solar System, or telescopes, to create an accurate Calendar, only careful observation over a long period.

As pointed out by someone else, those relative planetary distances are not all that accurate even for the inner planets, and pretty far out for the outer planets. All way too inaccurate to be useful for a long term calendar.

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:This IS POSSIBLE,

Quote:
This IS POSSIBLE, whether its true or not is most certainly up for debate.

If you had bothered to look up Bertrand Russell's teapot, you'd understand why you are falling for the crap you are falling for.

You have a layman's attitude to the real human empathy of the idea of fairness. No one here I know of disputes your ability to utter anything on any issue. You can claim what you want, but that doesn't mean we have to respect the claim merely because it came out of your mouth.

OUR issue is strictly about ability to go beyond whims or emotion and DEMONSTRATE.

We are entitled to our own opinions, but no one is entitled to assert that a claim is enough. Disputes are not solved by proxy of popularity or force or zeitgeist, disputes are settled through testing and independent verification.

Which is why you and I accept that the earth is a globe. At one point popular belief was that the earth was flat. Liking something and proving something are completely different.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16424
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
You came in here doing what

You came in here doing what a lot of people do, standard theists like Christians and other new agers like Wiccans or pantheists. You automatically assumed because we are a minority that we would simply welcome your beliefs without question.

It has nothing to do with human rights.  No atheist I would consider moral would advocate bigotry or hate. But no rational atheist I know is going to let a claim get a pass simply because it was uttered. Intellectual honesty isnt about fear of having a claim kicked around. Intellectual honesty is allowing a claim(ON ANY GIVEN SUBJECT) to be kicked around.

You falsely call atheists intolerant and closed minded. Because you fall for the same mind trap theists do that claims should be treated equal because they are uttered.

To give you an understanding without bringing your personal claim into it, let me give you an example of WHY claims are not a 50% 50% proposition based on human rights. No one is disputing your right to make any claim you want. We are merely and pragmatically disputing the claim itself.

EXAMPLE: I will make two example claims and you decide for yourself if those claims are equal by the mere fact that they were typed.

1. My car battery died because I didn't pepper it with fairy dust.

2. My car battery died because I left the headlights on.

Are those utterances a 50% 50% proposition merely because of my right to type them?

NOW, in your case you need to stop taking our attacks on your claim as a personal attack on you or your rights. What we do here is kick the tires of the claim.

What you lack, just like the fans of Scientology, or homeopathy, or pantheists, is the same universal peer reviewed independent testing. If you had that you wouldn't have to try to convince us, or Muslims or Christians or anyone, it would be widely accepted and constantly tested and replicated and taught in science labs everywhere.

We really are not treating you any differently than anyone else, and we are capable of liking you as an individual without liking everything that comes out of your mouth. Just like my co-workers like me as a person, but don't like the fact that I don't believe.

The reason I call your claim crap is no different than calling ANY claim that stems from ancient myth crap. It will always be a red flag to me. The ancients did not have telescopes or modern science, or computers or modern calenders.

I like the writings of Plato and the plays of the Ancient Greeks, but because the were the first to utter the word atom, doesn't make their gods real, nor was the word "atom" used in our modern sense back then. Saying "the sky is blue" does not indicate the person who says that knows why it is blue. A 5 year old can say "the sky is blue" but not know why our eyes see it as blue.

The ancients from the Egyptians to the Mayans built their religious temples and monuments to face what they thought were gods in the sky, so making something big for the super hero to see doesn't mean they were visited, it just means they thought their gods would be pleased looking down at their cleaver structures.

There is no magic to life or conspiracy to human nature. People fall for all sorts of woo. That doesn't make them monsters or bad, it merely makes them flawed and mistaken. I am quite sure you reject other people's claims all the time and accept it as woo.

What no one does is accept everything they hear just because they hear it. To do so would be absurd. So when you say, "The Mayans were visited and are warning us". I say fine, when you can prove it outside your own haunts and gangs, and allow it to be tested by people who have no horse in the race, I would summit that maybe you need to consider that you merely like what someone sold you. Just like you accept that the people who literally once believed in Thor as a real being, merely liked what they believed.

Do not make what we do here out to be hate when all it is blunt pragmatism. We are going to kick the tires like it or not.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)


Aidenkai
Aidenkai's picture
Posts: 82
Joined: 2010-05-08
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:You came in

Brian37 wrote:

You came in here doing what a lot of people do, standard theists like Christians and other new agers like Wiccans or pantheists. You automatically assumed because we are a minority that we would simply welcome your beliefs without question.

It has nothing to do with human rights.  No atheist I would consider moral would advocate bigotry or hate. But no rational atheist I know is going to let a claim get a pass simply because it was uttered. Intellectual honesty isnt about fear of having a claim kicked around. Intellectual honesty is allowing a claim(ON ANY GIVEN SUBJECT) to be kicked around.

You falsely call atheists intolerant and closed minded. Because you fall for the same mind trap theists do that claims should be treated equal because they are uttered.

To give you an understanding without bringing your personal claim into it, let me give you an example of WHY claims are not a 50% 50% proposition based on human rights. No one is disputing your right to make any claim you want. We are merely and pragmatically disputing the claim itself.

EXAMPLE: I will make two example claims and you decide for yourself if those claims are equal by the mere fact that they were typed.

1. My car battery died because I didn't pepper it with fairy dust.

2. My car battery died because I left the headlights on.

Are those utterances a 50% 50% proposition merely because of my right to type them?

NOW, in your case you need to stop taking our attacks on your claim as a personal attack on you or your rights. What we do here is kick the tires of the claim.

What you lack, just like the fans of Scientology, or homeopathy, or pantheists, is the same universal peer reviewed independent testing. If you had that you wouldn't have to try to convince us, or Muslims or Christians or anyone, it would be widely accepted and constantly tested and replicated and taught in science labs everywhere.

We really are not treating you any differently than anyone else, and we are capable of liking you as an individual without liking everything that comes out of your mouth. Just like my co-workers like me as a person, but don't like the fact that I don't believe.

The reason I call your claim crap is no different than calling ANY claim that stems from ancient myth crap. It will always be a red flag to me. The ancients did not have telescopes or modern science, or computers or modern calenders.

I like the writings of Plato and the plays of the Ancient Greeks, but because the were the first to utter the word atom, doesn't make their gods real, nor was the word "atom" used in our modern sense back then. Saying "the sky is blue" does not indicate the person who says that knows why it is blue. A 5 year old can say "the sky is blue" but not know why our eyes see it as blue.

The ancients from the Egyptians to the Mayans built their religious temples and monuments to face what they thought were gods in the sky, so making something big for the super hero to see doesn't mean they were visited, it just means they thought their gods would be pleased looking down at their cleaver structures.

There is no magic to life or conspiracy to human nature. People fall for all sorts of woo. That doesn't make them monsters or bad, it merely makes them flawed and mistaken. I am quite sure you reject other people's claims all the time and accept it as woo.

What no one does is accept everything they hear just because they hear it. To do so would be absurd. So when you say, "The Mayans were visited and are warning us". I say fine, when you can prove it outside your own haunts and gangs, and allow it to be tested by people who have no horse in the race, I would summit that maybe you need to consider that you merely like what someone sold you. Just like you accept that the people who literally once believed in Thor as a real being, merely liked what they believed.

Do not make what we do here out to be hate when all it is blunt pragmatism. We are going to kick the tires like it or not.

 

 

DUDE STOP TALKING. None of these claims you are making about me are true. One thing you fail to understand is that these topics I am speaking of are in NO any way "magical" or "fairytales" like the religious GOD. THERE IS ACTUAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT MY CLAIMS. I have linked many things around the world that cannot be explained to this day with modern science and research. I noticed this, on some of the things, many of you gave your "opinions" based on debunkers, to substantiate your claim of them not being true, which is just another person's theory, not the truth ( which in no way did you yourself back up with links to disprove, one guy used an EX MAGICIAN to support his debunking claim), but there were things that you left alone, like the Piri Reis map, or the 2 pyramids built with the same BASE dimensions seperated by oceans when people didn't have the capability of sea travel, or how a culture could write about Neptune and Uranus as blue/green watery looking planets, that could not have been seen without the capability of satellites, which WAS confirmed by us when we did send satellites out to these planets, they could ONLY have known about this from people with space travel. There are many phenomenon's besides these that I did not mention. You all pick and choose what you believe to be very easily debunked and DON'T debunk the things skeptics have not been able to debunk. You are pathetic. If you really think these people who actually do go out and look for other reasons for "WHY", you would see they are VERY skeptical about EVERYTHING and don't just take what someone says at face value because they "WANT" to believe. One thing none of you are capable of doing is look at this evidence with an open mind, you seem to shut your eyes without even looking at the evidence. I am certainly not claiming these things to be fact. But there is strong evidence that it is a possible. That's all I really want you to concede. THAT IT IS POSSIBLE based on the evidence. Brian you really crack me up, you don't have any intelligence at all on these matters yet you dismiss them like they don't exist. You have a belief that humans would just start a belief in something right out of think air ( which makes you exactly like religious people ) than to think that they may have "POSSIBLY" saw something they couldn't understand and treated it as supernatural. This point is substantiated by current research into tribes of primitive cultures on the planet today (LOOK UP CARGO CULTS). BTW, I have never claimed in ANY of my posts that the Mayans were EVER visited by aliens. Your NEVER going to convince me of your point until EVERY SINGLE UNEXPLAINED research is debunked with a 100% certainty, which by the way none of you have done. So stop posting this nonsense too me. If you really want to support your claims (ANY OF YOU), then go on MY forum site where this stuff is researched and talked about, give your opinions there and see what pans out from that. Otherwise your just another person that has his head stuck in his ass. Kick the fucking tires all you want, but you haven't done that (NOT WITH EVERYTHING I HAVE DISCUSSED), but if you going to do this, back it up, don't just give your opinions, BACK IT UP, DEBUNK IT WITH CURRENT SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE, and link it. YOU HAVE NOT DONE THIS. If I can't use people in the field of AAT to prove my point, you can't use people in the field of debunking, to justify yours. It would have to come from someone that doesn't benefit from either side. Most people that are neutral that "honestly" look at this evidence, would AT THE LEAST say it's possible and essentially that's the only point I want conceded from all of you.

 

Aiden