Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
just for an example, many people didn't know what thunder and lightning was a while back and they believed it was god's anger or the devil and god having a fight over who the souls in that house belonged to..they'd throw holy water in the house and pary that they'd stop all of that and profess their belief in god so the devil would back off......and this was happening as recent as the 1960's and not in a third world country either...How can anyone believe that crap? yet some people did!
just for an example, many people didn't know what thunder and lightning was a while back and they believed it was god's anger or the devil and god having a fight over who the souls in that house belonged to..they'd throw holy water in the house and pary that they'd stop all of that and profess their belief in god so the devil would back off......and this was happening as recent as the 1960's and not in a third world country either...How can anyone believe that crap? yet some people did!
I remember in 1991 my babysitter would get upset that I had a habit of composing song lyrics when it would rain and thunder, she told me to stop because the lord was doing his work.
You judge Penn worthless because he has an opinion (stated as such) with which you disagree, then say he has no idea ..., and then admit that your theory is ludicrous, and claim to "know what you are talking about."
Penn’s opinion on the particular subject is worthless because he has not studied the subject in question. Period!
Whether my theory is ludicrous or not, should be decided after it has been studied (part of it has been published in my blog “dtango.wordpress.com”). I did not admit that my theory is ludicrous. I simply mocked my dear friend Arequipa who wrote: That certainly doesn't mean that he should be told to shut up by someone whose use of their extensive study of ancient mythology has resulted in a very speculative, selectively argued and frankly ludicrous theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
I just learned a great deal about how much credence to put in your posts.
Penn’s opinion on the particular subject is worthless because he has not studied the subject in question. Period!
Over several posts its possible that the 'subject in question' has shifted around a bit, but to imagine Penn hasn't done any research on a number of possibles we've discussed, is rather silly.
He makes his living being a skeptic, and having information on what one is skeptical about [especially considering all the media he's published] is a bit of a requirement; well, except for evolution deniers and such
Go ahead and find flaws in the eight pages mentioned above.
Prove that you know (which you actually do) more than Penn knows.
This shows the flaws in your thinking well enough. The flaws in your theories have been extensively pointed up elsewhere and I do not propose to repost them here since it would be off - topic and you didn't listen anyway. Secondly, it is you who is putting down Penn Jillette, not me, so you would have to prove that YOU know more than he does, not me.
Tricky to do isn't it? That is why your challenge was not only back to front, misconceived and illogical but actually rather daft.
Over several posts its possible that the 'subject in question' has shifted around a bit, but to imagine Penn hasn't done any research on a number of possibles we've discussed, is rather silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer
His words are there (post #239) and reference is made to them only.
As for research done, Einstein made the same mistake. Read post #246.
One cannot be an expert in ancient texts without having read them!
How do I know that neither Penn nor Einstein had read the texts?
None of them would have said what they said if they had knowledge of the texts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
The flaws in your theories have been extensively pointed up elsewhere and I do not propose to repost them here since it would be off - topic and you didn't listen anyway.
Elsewhere is nowhere.
My work is there but nobody dared comment there in the blog. In a forum one reads something today and nobody reads it tomorrow. Moreover, in order to comment, one has to study because nothing of the sort is readily available by the Academy or Wiki.
Elsewhere is nowhere.
My work is there but nobody dared comment there in the blog. In a forum one reads something today and nobody reads it tomorrow. Moreover, in order to comment, one has to study because nothing of the sort is readily available by the Academy or Wiki.
Cryptic quips aside, we gave you a lot of leeway to explain your case and the more you explained the dafter it looked. Further 'study' seems wasted effort unless you come up with something better.
Cryptic quips aside, we gave you a lot of leeway to explain your case and the more you explained the dafter it looked. Further 'study' seems wasted effort unless you come up with something better.
“We” is only Daniel who initially asked a colleague of his and then presented himself as a translator of Egyptian.
Speak for yourself, man!
The op asked to know why are the stories in the Bible so believable. I can tell him about the stories in the Old Testament which are based on older stories, which are based on folklore stories, which are stories found in almost every culture and so respectable and believable.
What do you have to tell him? What else but that myths are fairy tales as your teachers told you?
Your dogmatic atheism obliges you to insist that myths are of no value because otherwise you will have to admit that people have been worshipping the Great Mother (aka Virgin Mary) for forty thousand years. The Great Mother is a god-bearing mother and therefore gods existed forty thousand years ago.
His words are there (post #239) and reference is made to them only.
As for research done, Einstein made the same mistake. Read post #246.
One cannot be an expert in ancient texts without having read them!
Yeah, um, I read and reread those posts. Nowhere is there any statement or evidence he didn't read them; he came to a conclusion you don't like. that's all. You are essentially poisoning the well, with unfounded statements against someone who does this for a living. Experience tells me people who are skeptical of the bible generally know more about it than it's adherents. i've been at this for near two decades, and am published in a minor way, as well. Please tell me i also never read the texts.
the stories in the Bible so believable. I can tell him about the stories in the Old Testament which are based on older stories, which are based on folklore stories, which are stories found in almost every culture and so respectable and believable.
They are not believable, and they are not found in every culture.
Somebody also never read ancient texts... other than those of his own faith, it seems
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
