Paul
History books! Are you for real? There is more dismiss-info in our history books that I care to mention.
The academia history books are guided by whoever is in power at the time so there is half truths in our history book's.
Ancient Astronaut Theory
(110 posts) (31 voices)-
gforce9
MemberThe fact is there is no one person, group of person's anywhere on this planet at this time can say for a fact that there is or isn't a God, Aliens, or where man came from and where we are headed.
Everything is only a theory, there is know complete fact's to any of it. Not the Bible, God,Man,Aliens,our planets our solar system, our history nothing.
Why? Is it meant to be this way? Is it a test for us to find the answer, to make us grow in hearts and mind?
It must be, as a human I think with logic and if you step back and look at the entire pitcher it is only logical to think that it is quest to make us grow in our total being.Posted 2 years ago # -
I always thought life was a quest to grow into our total being.
That's why I am constantly grinding xp and trying to level up.
gforce9, you need to put more stat points on spelling and grammar!
Posted 2 years ago # -
joe agnost
Membergforce9 wrote: "The fact is there is no one person, group of person's anywhere on this planet at this time can say for a fact that there is or isn't a God, Aliens, or where man came from and where we are headed."
You're right about the "say for a fact" part... but it's pretty reasonable to make certain claims given the amount of evidence we have available.
It's reasonable to claim that humans evolved, along with every other living thing on earth, from lower life forms. This is a reasonable claim. It's also reasonable to claim that if man doesn't get off this planet in the next 4-5 billion years there won't be a sun to give us life.
Is that reasonable gforce9?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Paul
Member"Beings of the stars" can simply mean "the gods of the heavens." Most, if not all, early civilizations saw the sky as some sort of upper boundary for the universe, and as an upper boundary, it was associated with the gods who are also given credit for our creation; merely because "where did we come from?" has always been such a difficult question, one that, until Darwin, had no answer other than "magical intervention by the supernatural." It isn't so much that these civilizations have been lying about this, it is that it's been the long held belief that has given an answer to the uncomfortably hard philosophical questions. It seems far more reasonable, based on what we know of how ancient civilizations viewed the universe, that our interpretation of "beings of the stars" is our contemporary knowledge of the universe being graphed onto translations of ancient texts.
I think a lot of people here at least aren't as closed minded as you suspect. We do have the tendency to accept what fits in with our preconceived notions, but knowing of this tendency as well as actively asking for conclusive evidence goes quite a ways in curtailing preconceptions. And some blinders are necessary, there is so much information gathered by our senses everyday, that if we analyzed all of it, let alone objectively, we would, in a sense, short circuit; blinders are a default safety measure our psyches have evolved, but are not of the type which are unremovable.
And yes, we can count quite well. There is only one planet that we know of that harbors life, and only one planet and a couple of moons that we are hoping to find life on; all of which lies within our solar system. You are right when you asserted that probability seems to say that we are not alone in the universe, but probability is not evidence. As someone who has studied mathematics (I'm one semester from finishing my minor in that field), I know that probability has it's uses, but is not absolute, and is not even considered by many to be an actual form of math (that I find is a heated argument).
As for history being tainted, that depends on the book and the history it is documenting; not all sects of history are as turbid as its peers. In order to get around this hinderance, you don't looks at history from one source, you look at many sources, and in every case, question it and the motives of those who chronicle it. Such scrutiny is much of the basis of modern sociology, referred to as "sociological imagination," and can be quite an aid in trying to decipher truth within history.
As for your last comment, it is nothing more than the Anthropomorphic Argument– you are assuming the universe is existing for some sole purpose based around us, in this case that the universe exists solely for us to figure it out. Using our logic and curiosity to understand the universe isn't a bad idea, and if it does help us grow in our minds and hearts, than that wouldn't be a bad consequence, but what reason do you really have to assert that the universe exists just for that reason? All you have done is assert that it does because logic allows you to see it that way; that is a very empty argument as you don't explain how this conclusion has been reached only that you have reached it. You say that we are closed minded to evidence, and yet you make claims based on no evidence...
Posted 2 years ago # -
James G
MemberI've just got to say how much I love this forum for its straight up, take no prisoners approach. I usually take it for granted, but I just got my comments removed from another (non-atheist) website because "insulting and abusive language will not be tolerated". My comments? I told someone who was being idiotic that they might want to try engaging their brain before they opened their mouth and I told an even bigger dumbass that I was only going to respond to his first point "as just reading that caused a noticeable deterioration in brain function". The moderator of that forum would have a heart attack if he came over here!
Posted 2 years ago # -
I don't know about Saharan rock art, but a friend of mine made a comment on the Nazca Lines that tickled my curiosity. He points out that many, if not all, of the lines are made on mountain tops that have been shaved off. It's hard to imagine primitives hacking away at all that stone just to level off several mountain tops.
Far from proving anything, this just raises more questions we might never answer.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I wouldn't be doing my job here if I didn't ask, "Do you have more proof than '... a friend of mine made a comment...'"?
So do you have more proof about the Nazca lines than something your friend said because I have not yet heard that the Nazca lines were made on top of shaved off mountains.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Welcome back Ursa.
Hope the camping trip was good.
By the way, if you want to catch up with the WB thread, we're on the sequel now. Had some tech difficulties so I started a new thread.
http://unreasonablefaith.com/forum/topic/attention-jonjon-whipping-boy-reboot
Posted 2 years ago # -
From what I can tell the ancient astronaut theory actually begins with the discovery of Saharan rock art and its strange "astronaut" figures.
It was the discovery of a culture that predates the Egyptians during a time when the Sahara was actually lush with vegetation and animals.Posted 2 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.