Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshonq · 12-26-2008, 12:05 PM

Quote:

It's beside the point, I'm agnostic, let's keep on topic. Stupid religious mythology is not the thread title, let's deal with one silly mythology at a time.

I wasnt talking to you sir.

Then Perhaps you *should* have been, since you have several claims in this thread that The Dagda has asked you to back up.

The Dagda · 12-26-2008, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dagda

It's beside the point, I'm agnostic, let's keep on topic. Stupid religious mythology is not the thread title, let's deal with one silly mythology at a time.

I wasnt talking to you sir. But was is Agnosticism? Maybe you should open a thread on that because there is no way I am going to convince you neither will you convince me.

I know this is a forum, if you want to direct a comment to one person alone you should pm them. That said it is still totally beside the point.

Do you mean what is agnosticism. It varies but in my case I refuse to believe in God until I see evidence. Gnostics know without proof and feel that knowledge comes from revelation rather than direct evidence. Agnostics are the opposite although you may even say you would believe if there was good evidence and all sorts.

Exciter · 12-26-2008, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juergen

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

And yet their fossils have been found. As recently as 2004 Russian Scientists discovered the graves of Giants. Also those megalithic stones that has scientists scratching their heads as to how such stones were moved coupled with the finds of giants and the depiction of dinosaurs in ancient art presents a big problem to established views.

What you believe has been told you from men but evidence is stacking against them.

Would you have some links?

lol, http://s8int.com/, they stack the deck quite nicely.

sugarhitman · 12-26-2008, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exciter

Quote:

Originally Posted by juergen

Would you have some links?

lol, http://s8int.com/, they stack the deck quite nicely.

They do indeed. I was quite taken by the dinosaurs in ancient art very interesting. You should see that as well.

arnoldo · 12-26-2008, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Only that your website is a homemade whackjob website, complete with unscientific claims and assertions about what that Egyptian text demonstrates.

Whatever your personal opinions towards a particular website may be the Egyptian Execration Texts does refer to people/events which are documented in the OT. Note:

Quote:

Jerusalem is first mentioned in the Egyptian execration texts (20-19th century BCE), when Egypt ruled Canaan. These documents illustrate one of the ways in which Egypt tried to keep its vassals loyal. The names of cities and their rulers were inscribed on clay bowls or figurines of slaves with their hands tied behind their backs. If a vassal revolted, the Egyptian magicians would break the image of the rebel in the hope that this would break his spirit. The names of two rulers of Jerusalem, Shas'an and Y'qar 'am, date from the 20th century. Texts a hundred years later preserve only the first syllable of a single ruler of Jerusalem, "Ba... " Many cities like Jerusalem were ruled by two leaders; a century later only one ruler is mentioned. Some see this as evidence that several tribes, each with its own leader, integrated within the city.
http://www.biu.ac.il/JS/rennert/history_2.html

Also the Egyptian Papyrus Anastasi references the following:

Quote:

Come let me tell thee of other towns, which are above(??) them. Thou hast not gone to the land of , Kadesh, Tekhes, Kurmeren, Temenet, Deper, Idi, Herenem. . . The stream of Jordan, how is it crossed?. . . The(?) narrow defile is infested(?) with Shosu concealed beneath the bushes; some of them are of four cubits or of five cubits, from head(??) to foot(?), fierce of face, their heart is not mild, and they hearken not to coaxing
http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/...anastasi_i.htm

Exciter · 12-26-2008, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

lol, mutating chimps
:eating_popcorn:

which is the bizaarist of them all.

lol, well that's what the website you linked says that anthropologists are saying the fossils are giant apelike creatures:

Image: Not Safe for Work

What would you guys look like if you were hairy like this guy?:

Image: Not Safe for Work

arnoldo · 12-26-2008, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exciter

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

which is the bizaarist of them all.

lol, well that's what the website you linked says that anthropologists are saying the fossils are giant apelike creatures:

Which anthropologists are making those claims?

The Dagda · 12-26-2008, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exciter

lol, well that's what the website you linked says that anthropologists are saying the fossils are giant apelike creatures:

Which anthropologists are making those claims?

None, well except those who got their degree at fundamentalist U.

Exciter · 12-26-2008, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exciter

lol, http://s8int.com/, they stack the deck quite nicely.

They do indeed. I was quite taken by the dinosaurs in ancient art very interesting. You should see that as well.

I did, remember I said that Jordan suggested to visit the dinosaur part first, no offense but I'd rather take the advice of a cartoon then take advice from a grumpy half son of god half son of human like you, lol.

Exciter · 12-26-2008, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exciter

lol, well that's what the website you linked says that anthropologists are saying the fossils are giant apelike creatures:

Which anthropologists are making those claims?

The website doesn't say any in particular it just says anthropologists.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.