Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
11-24-2010, 07:43 AM | #11 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Hillsborough, NJ
Posts: 3,551
|
Quote:
What might really piss me off is having the guy shining my shoes suddenly disappear in the rapture as I've seen on the history channel. Although not having to pay would mitigate the pain somewhat. Maybe part of getting pissed off is not having one's shit together. |
|
11-24-2010, 08:02 AM | #12 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 36078
Posts: 849
|
Quote:
|
||
11-24-2010, 08:54 AM | #13 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Rocky Mountains, Canada
Posts: 2,293
|
I watched. It was 'ok'. As much religious based. however, as based in actual archaeology. Is this 7th century BC or 11th century BC? So a bit of a stretch when suggesting a link to Soloman.etc. It's like a dozen places in Britain claimng to be the site of King Arthur...and his legend is much more recent.
The wierd part is when they speak of 'King David' or whatever and then show a 14th or 15th century European portrait of the fellow ....as if it's suppose to be more of a likeness of David than that of Mickey Mantle on a baseball card. Why do history shows and books keep doing this? |
11-24-2010, 09:25 AM | #14 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: West Virginina
Posts: 4,349
|
Quote:
Really no Atheist I have ever met gets upset over archeological evidence. it is what it is. However archeological evidence does not make your fairy sky daddy with his son the flying zombie true. Same with Just because Harry Dresden is a working wizard in Chicago does not mean there are real magic happening in Chicago. Just because there is archeological evidence for a time period talking about at the time those places, people and things does not mean that magic and the woo actually happened. |
||
11-24-2010, 10:44 AM | #15 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|