Their Return

[King of the Americas]

You have provided no evidence.

That isn't the purpose of THIS thread.

[EHocking]

This thread acts participants to 'accept' that all the anecdotes about a non-human E.T. existence are indeed true,
....
If you are trying to argue that I haven't provided you enough evidence, then this thread isn't for you. Go away.Anecdotes are not evidence.

[bruto]

They gave us the measure of time...calenders...quite useful.

What stopped Alexander's march East?We have no real evidence that calendars aren't a human invention. Why do you think the ancients were too stupid to invent a calendar by themselves?

[King of the Americas]

Anecdotes are not evidence.

It IS evidence, just not "scientific".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

In science, anecdotal evidence has been defined as:
"information that is not based on facts or careful study"[2][verification needed]
"non-scientific observations or studies, which do not provide proof but may assist research efforts"[3]
"reports or observations of usually unscientific observers"[4]
"casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis"[5]
"information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically"

[EHocking]

It IS evidence, just not "scientific".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

In science, anecdotal evidence has been defined as:
"information that is not based on facts or careful study"[2][verification needed]
"non-scientific observations or studies, which do not provide proof but may assist research efforts"[3]
"reports or observations of usually unscientific observers"[4]
"casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis"[5]
"information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically"I can't see where that disagrees with my statement.

Why are you arguing the point anyway?

Oh yes, this is why. You are pretending that you have presented evidence - but only if we your redefinition of evidence.
This thread asks participants to 'accept' that all the anecdotes ...are indeed true.
...
If you are trying to argue that I haven't provided you enough evidence, then this thread isn't for you.

[King of the Americas]

...

"non-scientific observations or studies, which do not provide proof but may assist research efforts"[3]
...



I would bold the "may assist research efforts" part...

[GeeMack]

Whoever wrote this is WRONG:

Absolutely not. The person making the claim that aliens exist is responsible for supporting it. The OP has described some ridiculous scenarios and made some outrageous claims about an alleged -- but not demonstrated -- reality. He has offered nothing but arguments from incredulity and ignorance to support those claims. It is not up to anyone else to show why a fantasy isn't real. It is up to the person describing something that appears to be a fantasy to show that it is real. This burden of proof thing is grade school stuff. People shouldn't get past about 12 years old without understanding it. Unfortunately too many do. And plenty of them believe in aliens.


First, "I DO NOT BELIEVE IN ALIENS."


First, by any reasonable interpretation of the term "aliens" in contemporary English, and as it has been used by you throughout this and other threads, you certainly appear to believe in aliens.

Second, 'I' am evidence that 'they' (non-human E.T. intelligent beings) exist.


You are? Star Person, perhaps?...

This is a subject that is very personal and private to me, we are discussing the very fabric of my identity and I am not so sure I want to submit that to the JREF Forum Skeptics chopping block. As a Star Person, I relate to most of the emotions and conflicts that transgender people experience, as, in a sense, it is being a person that is not the same as what the body is. There are many parallels. One does not agree that the face and body is what one really looks like as a person, and one will want to make alterations to the body in order to look more on the outside as one does on the inside. Growing up one is told who they are, that is based on what others see when they look at you, and what they want to see, yet much of it strongly contradicts with who you are and you oppose it. The most classic aspect of this is that all my life I have insisted that I was an old person, I did not have a number for this but I used to say that I was 300 years old or 400 years old. I still feel that way, but I do not say it. :p I still can not relate to younger persons or persons my age, and all of my friends are much older than me. I am 26 and my boyfriend is 69, and "there is no age difference".

I have many times in my life wished that I wasn't this way, but it's the person I am and it is non-detachable. I can not be replaced by being someone else. There is so much more to this story but I hesitate to bring out the most intimate and precious aspects of my life here to be handled in the way that most of the topics introduced here are. :)

The "story" that goes with being a Star Person does not to me involve having any different DNA. The thought is that it involves the incarnation of a person from another world, but please let's not talk about that. Just accept that I am what you call a Star Person, and it is not a mental illness, it is me. And there have been things that suggest evidence that this is more than the artifact of a human mind.

You probably don't really want to go there.

Rramjet has provided plenty of evidence from a variety of sources.


That is patently false. Arguments from incredulity and ignorance are not evidence. They are logical fallacies.

There exists in EVERY form of media you can think of 'record' of non-human E.T. intelligence.


I take it by the quote marks that you apply a different meaning to the word "record" than other people might. But using any reasonable, rational interpretation in contemporary English, that statement is simply not true.

That said this thread is NOT about arguing upon whether or not it is intelligent to ignore so much information from such a wide range of sources throughout time. I've personally created a fallacy just for folks like you. It is called the "Willful Ignorance Fallacy".


Let's review that comment, shall we? You've personally created a logical fallacy called the "Willful Ignorance Fallacy". You personally created it? Okay, most of us will probably go along with that.

This thread asks participants to 'accept' that all the anecdotes about a non-human E.T. existence are indeed true, and asks that retorts be focused on techniques or manners of inviting 'them' to descend (again, as it were).


Yet when people follow up on the premise "that all the anecdotes about a non-human E.T. existence are indeed true", they get ignored and insulted. So although the participants may have been asked to accept that premise, it would be a lie to suggest that you're accepting their acceptance.

I've provided another similar example about how an as of yet un-contacted tribe might flag down a plane passing over. How would or could the tribe let it be known to those in the L.W.B. to land?


And we've asked you to tell us, in your fictional scenario of summoning the aliens, how those made up entities communicate...

I think whoever made up the scenario left out some very important points. All the responses so far have answered to the fantasy. Nobody said this, that, or the other thing was against the rules. Do these made up aliens understand English, French, Morse Code? Can they read sheet music? Are they able to perceive varying frequencies of light, radio waves, sound? Do they see everything in black and white, red and blue, a range of colors far beyond our own ability to see colors? Are they a million miles away, a thousand, hiding behind the moon, just outside our atmosphere but cloaked and invisible? Do we have to wait for them to come through a time hole or from another dimension? Can we send our request through that time hole or into that other dimension? Psychically? By smell? With shapes? Does a cake with varying thicknesses of layers mean something to these made up aliens? And that's just getting started.


Yet those requests have been met with abject ignorance.

If you are trying to argue that I haven't provided you enough evidence, then this thread isn't for you. Go away.


Is there an echo in here?...

[...] so get out of way.

Start your own thread!

[...] you may leave.

[...] excuse yourself.

[...] GO AWAY.

[...] go away.

[23_Tauri]

I would bold the "may assist research efforts" part...
Research efforts necessary in order to obtain some verifiable evidence of the existence of that which is being studied.

[King of the Americas]

We have no real evidence that calendars aren't a human invention. Why do you think the ancients were too stupid to invent a calendar by themselves?

I've argued that some of the ancient monuments were created with a now absent advanced technology.

Building the monumental calenders we have may well have been done by other hands.

[dafydd]

Ever read this:

329 BC:
Alexander the Great, via his historians: told of 2 strange
objects in the sky that dived repeatedly at his army as they
were attempting a river crossing. (Jaxartes River). The action
so panicked his elephants, horses, and men they had to abandon
the river crossing until the following day. They were described
as great silver shields, spitting fire around the rims.
Contributed by Thon"

---

If it is accurate, this is 'them' trying to deter or otherwise direct or misdirect an advancing army.
Cool story man. Pass the bong.

[dafydd]

We have no real evidence that calendars aren't a human invention. Why do you think the ancients were too stupid to invent a calendar by themselves?

According to Kota all that these hidden super beings did was carve a few stones. Considering all the things that mankind has invented,we do very well without them. Of course we are still awaiting evidence of their existence.

[bruto]

I've argued that some of the ancient monuments were created with a now absent advanced technology.

Building the monumental calenders we have may well have been done by other hands.You've argued the point, but not convincingly. Imagining what "may well have" happened long ago falls far below the level even of anecdotal evidence.

Astronomy is often referred to as "the first science," because it appears that studying, identifying and predicting the movements of the stars and planets is one of the first organized intellectual pursuits of many cultures. It doesn't take an influx of extraterrestrials to figure out why this is, and it would be much more of a surprise to find that at least a few ancient cultures did not develop sophisticated calendars.

[Waterman]

This thread asks participants to 'accept' that all the anecdotes about a non-human E.T. existence are indeed true, and asks that retorts be focused on techniques or manners of inviting 'them' to descend (again, as it were).

I've provided another similar example about how an as of yet un-contacted tribe might flag down a plane passing over. How would or could the tribe let it be known to those in the L.W.B. to land?

I know that is what you have written but that is not how you have responded. I posted a number of ways after makings some basic assumptions about the nature and motivations of ‘them’. The suggestions I made diverged wildly and did not agree with any of the ones you appear to have considered. You have yet to respond to these remarks except in a dismissive way. Why are my methods of attracting ‘their’ attention any less valid than yours? At this point all we have is ‘they’ exist and have chosen to remain largely hidden from view.

In order to discern what we can do to motivate or urge another into action you have to understand something of the nature of that person or thing. What underlying assumptions are you harboring regarding these beings that you have failed to include that would render my suggestions earlier invalid in your mind.

[King of the Americas]

I know that is what you have written but that is not how you have responded. I posted a number of ways after makings some basic assumptions about the nature and motivations of ‘them’. The suggestions I made diverged wildly and did not agree with any of the ones you appear to have considered. You have yet to respond to these remarks except in a dismissive way. Why are my methods of attracting ‘their’ attention any less valid than yours? At this point all we have is ‘they’ exist and have chosen to remain largely hidden from view.

In order to discern what we can do to motivate or urge another into action you have to understand something of the nature of that person or thing. What underlying assumptions are you harboring regarding these beings that you have failed to include that would render my suggestions earlier invalid in your mind.

My apologies. Which 'serious' techniques or manners of invitation did you offer?

[dafydd]

My apologies. Which 'serious' techniques or manners of invitation did you offer?

Everybody at the opening ceremony at the Olympics should moon skywards.

[EHocking]

I would bold the "may assist research efforts" part...I'm not surprised that you would ignore the other 4 definitions and then cherry pick a phrase from the 5th that supports your position...:rolleyes:

[EHocking]

Everybody at the opening ceremony at the Olympics should moon skywards.Even then it'd only be a balloon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon's_a_Balloon), not a UFO.

[dafydd]

Even then it'd only be a balloon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon's_a_Balloon), not a UFO.

You would think that the ancient super gods would have something more advanced than a balloon. Budget cuts,I expect.

[EHocking]

I'll wait to see if anyone else gets the reference....:o

[Georg]

I've personally created a fallacy just for folks like you. It is called the "Willful Ignorance Fallacy".


At least you now admit that you have created it (or have you done so before?). This is a good first step, so maybe all hope is not lost. The problem still remaining is that you are exactly the one showing to be willfully ignorant.

If you are trying to argue that I haven't provided you enough evidence, then this thread isn't for you. Go away.


Sorry, I'm not aware of a rule in the membership agreement that says that posters have to follow the wishes of the O.P., therefore I see no reason why anyone should do so.
Especially not if the opening post is such a clear attempt to try to stop any opposition, and that on a forum with the goal to support critical thinking, while not even you as the opening poster are willing to follow that made-up rule yourself.
If I'm wrong with that assumption, I ask you to consider that the F.S.M. personally told me not to try to make contact to your gods at all (remember, we shall pretend that ALL anecdotes regarding strange sky entities are true), otherwise it would get angry and destroy the whole planet within some seconds. Please pretend that to be true and react accordingly. Will you?

Of course you can always ask the mods via the Report button to give you support and delete the messages of all the meanies that do not agree with your stance.
But I'll play along one time just for the fun of it:

A fever,which killed him.

Will you please stop to mention facts in this thread? This is not what the thread is about! It's about childish fantasies!

Better, KotA?

[dafydd]

I'll wait to see if anyone else gets the reference....:o

Good book.

[dafydd]

Ok,let's leave reality behind. Behind is the operative word. What about my "Mooning Skyward" Kota?

[Georg]

Ok,let's leave reality behind. Behind is the operative word. What about my "Mooning Skyward" Kota?

I'm not KotA, but count me in. Are we allowed to fart to support the optical signal with an acoustic one?

[dafydd]

I'm not KotA, but count me in. Are we allowed to fart to support the optical signal with an acoustic one?

Yes,their ears will be on.

[Georg]

Yes,their ears will be on.

Great. I'll start to practise as soon as I go to bed (now). When KotA finally approves of your plan, I'll be prepared.

[dafydd]

Great. I'll start to practise as soon as I go to bed (now). When KotA finally approves of your plan, I'll be prepared.

I suppose that the gods can deal with the greenhouse gases.

[Georg]

I think "toxic fumes" might be the more accurate description.

[Correa Neto]

Well, if you pretend all anecdotes are true, the gods have mixed tastes. Some enjoy barbecued sacrifices while others will like it raw. This means the barbecue fans might find some use for the methane.

Not to mention that since they evolve, they may become methane-breathers and actually be pleased by your... Uhm... Offer.

So, now I propose a moment farting skywards as a valid way to test this theory.

I claim -again- victory on this thread.

[bruto]

Well, if you pretend all anecdotes are true, the gods have mixed tastes. Some enjoy barbecued sacrifices while others will like it raw. This means the barbecue fans might find some use for the methane.

Not to mention that since they evolve, they may become methane-breathers and actually be pleased by your... Uhm... Offer.

So, now I propose a moment farting skywards as a valid way to test this theory.

I claim -again- victory on this thread.I had black beans and rice for supper last night, and plan on finishing the leftovers tonight. It's food of the gods anyway, so perhaps they'll come down for a plate. If not, I'm ready for the "fart skyward" challenge anyway. So far, I regret to say they've been unresponsive.

[dafydd]

Well, if you pretend all anecdotes are true, the gods have mixed tastes. Some enjoy barbecued sacrifices while others will like it raw. This means the barbecue fans might find some use for the methane.

Not to mention that since they evolve, they may become methane-breathers and actually be pleased by your... Uhm... Offer.

So, now I propose a moment farting skywards as a valid way to test this theory.

I claim -again- victory on this thread.

It will make the anal probing a lot easier too.

[Georg]

KotA will surely be impressed about our united efforts, especially the "energy" we are willing to emit and invest, only to make his dreams come true.
If he'd be a personal witness to our actions, I'm sure it would literally make his eyes water.

[dafydd]

If we all have a letter painted on our backsides we can send them text messages too,with a little organization. I suggest "please tell us how to carve stone".

[GeeMack]

If we all have a letter painted on our backsides we can send them text messages too,with a little organization. I suggest "please tell us how to carve stone".


But if everyone isn't standing in the right order they might get the wrong message, something like these...

please tell us roaches won't vote


please tell us hot ancestor wove


please tell us who sent overcoat

On the other hand, we might get back a useful reply if we make a mistake like this...

please tell us hooters won't cave

[dafydd]

But if everyone isn't standing in the right order they might get the wrong message, something like these...

please tell us roaches won't vote


please tell us hot ancestor wove


please tell us who sent overcoat

On the other hand, we might get back a useful reply if we make a mistake like this...

please tell us hooters won't cave

We'll get the Chinese Olympic Committee to organize it.

[King of the Americas]

As I noted earlier, U.F.O.'s are expected to be seen over the royal wedding:

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/30/retired-air-force-major-predicts-ufo-sightings-at-royal-wedding/

[RoboTimbo]

Does another UFO proponent's belief lend weight to yours?

[King of the Americas]

Does another UFO proponent's belief lend weight to yours?

Just wait, and we'll see...

[Sean84]

Just wait, and we'll see...

I'm still waiting for any reason to be given for the assumption that looking up makes aliens magically appear.

Got anything yet?

[tsig]

As I noted earlier, U.F.O.'s are expected to be seen over the royal wedding:

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/30/retired-air-force-major-predicts-ufo-sightings-at-royal-wedding/

Aliens are paparazzi?

[dafydd]

Just wait, and we'll see...

Won't see is the operative word. Will you be joining in our Flatus Skyward?

[Correa Neto]

Remember- We will need 50%+1. Its supposed to be a democratic skywards fart. They will descend only if most of humans join to create the gas flow.

[bruto]

Just wait, and we'll see...I suppose if enough nutters decide there will be UFO's there will be some UFO sightings. What's more, throngs of people will be there with cameras of all sorts, still and moving: news teams, paparazzi, ordinary folk with their digicams. What would you like to be there will not be a single credible or clearly defined UFO picture resulting?

[GeeMack]

As I noted earlier, U.F.O.'s are expected to be seen over the royal wedding:

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/30/retired-air-force-major-predicts-ufo-sightings-at-royal-wedding/


UFOs can be expected to be seen pretty much anywhere you find believers-in-aliens. Interesting coincidence? Nope. It's a bit like how the religious faithful are the ones who see Jesus or Mary. No, wait, not a bit like it. A lot like it.

[GeeMack]

I'm still waiting for any reason to be given for the assumption that looking up makes aliens magically appear.

Got anything yet?


It's been over 10 weeks since I asked this...

I think whoever made up the scenario left out some very important points. All the responses so far have answered to the fantasy. Nobody said this, that, or the other thing was against the rules. Do these made up aliens understand English, French, Morse Code? Can they read sheet music? Are they able to perceive varying frequencies of light, radio waves, sound? Do they see everything in black and white, red and blue, a range of colors far beyond our own ability to see colors? Are they a million miles away, a thousand, hiding behind the moon, just outside our atmosphere but cloaked and invisible? Do we have to wait for them to come through a time hole or from another dimension? Can we send our request through that time hole or into that other dimension? Psychically? By smell? With shapes? Does a cake with varying thicknesses of layers mean something to these made up aliens? And that's just getting started.


So although you bring up a very good point, Sean84, the evidence suggests it will be met with the same kind of ignorance as all the other good comments and questions have been.

[RoboTimbo]

Just wait, and we'll see...

In your link, the author mentions recent sightings of UFOs over Libya.

[King of the Americas]

In your link, the author mentions recent sightings of UFOs over Libya.

And the tsunami...

They seem to be interested in 'big events', here.

[GeeMack]

So, lets pretend for a moment [...]They seem to be interested in 'big events', here.


In the context of just pretending, of course.

[RoboTimbo]

And the tsunami...

They seem to be interested in 'big events', here.

Believers do indeed seem to be interested in big events.

[dafydd]

In the context of just pretending, of course.

Of course. This thread is taking place in Never Never Land.

[Yeah_Right]

As I noted earlier, U.F.O.'s are expected to be seen over the royal wedding:

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/30/retired-air-force-major-predicts-ufo-sightings-at-royal-wedding/

Just this royal wedding? Why not when Chuck and Diana married? Or when all this other big royal weddings took place, they weren't as big as this one? Not even the major C and D marriage? Trying to see the logic here.

[dafydd]

Just this royal wedding? Why not when Chuck and Diana married? Or when all this other big royal weddings took place, they weren't as big as this one? Not even the major C and D marriage? Trying to see the logic here.

Logic and Kota? No chance.

[King of the Americas]

Just this royal wedding? Why not when Chuck and Diana married? Or when all this other big royal weddings took place, they weren't as big as this one? Not even the major C and D marriage? Trying to see the logic here.

I don't know...

[dafydd]

I don't know...

Very true.

[Georg]

I don't know...

As I said before:

snip... maybe all hope is not lost.

:)

[King of the Americas]

Aliens are paparazzi?

...pssst...there's no such thing as 'aliens'...

[carlitos]

...pssst...there's no such thing as 'aliens'...
Whatwhatwhat? Unless you are going to redefine single quotation marks like Rramjet's double quotation marks, you might have forgotten the topic.

So, lets pretend for a moment that all the anecdotes ARE accurate,


Mr. & Mrs. McMullen, Miss Sharon Burgess and two school students saw a mysterious object heading towards the McMullen home from a nearby hill.

The disc-shaped UFO, approximately 13 feet in diameter and 8 feet high, hovered 7 feet above a palm tree, a 150 feet distance from the house.

Two occupants dressed in white, tight outfits and with headgear, were seen through its transparent dome.

Prior to the incident and during the twenty minutes the 'saucer' was present, Mr. & Mrs. McMullen noted audio and visual interference on their TV... also they complained of a smell, like ammonia, that burned their noses and eyes.

[Georg]

Could we please agree on a day when the "united farting skywards" thingy shall take place? My colleagues already look a bit suspicious in my direction because of the strange odor on the corridor along the offices. I guess I can't go on for a long time before I'm being found out, and my stomach won't forgive me my actual diet (sour milk in the coffee in the morning, lots of chilis and cabbage, and a few stale beers to flush that down with) for more than another few days either. I know it's all for a good cause, but there are limits. Thank you.

[Georg]

Whatwhatwhat? Unless you are going to redefine single quotation marks like Rramjet's double quotation marks, you might have forgotten the topic.


You got that all wrong. 'They' are not aliens, but gods. Or super-humans. Or whatever else KotA makes up.

[RoboTimbo]

...pssst...there's no such thing as 'aliens'...

Just because Rramjet disagrees with you doesn't mean you have to shoot down his favorite pet subject.

[23_Tauri]

Not to mention that since they evolve, they may become methane-breathers and actually be pleased by your... Uhm... Offer.
So they are Titans! :eye-poppi

...pssst...there's no such thing as 'aliens'...
Hey! I thought you said this was the thread where we were to suspend our disbelief for a moment. Now you're telling us what does and doesn't exist. Pfft!

[dafydd]

...pssst...there's no such thing as 'aliens'...

Ramjet disagrees with you.

[carlitos]

Ramjet disagrees with you.

To be fair, Rramjet has his “aliens” and not "aliens" or 'aliens' - which is not to say aliens. Anyhoo, let's pretend...

[Correa Neto]

OK. Enough of it. Lets stop the mockery.

We all should support KotA's campaign and join the moment skywards. There's enough evidence that "they", the gods from the sky are real, built many ancient monuments with some lost advanced technology and ascended the Atlanteans, Mayas and Nazca, among others.

Time to call them back to help solve our problems.

[dafydd]

OK. Enough of it. Lets stop the mockery.

We all should support KotA's campaign and join the moment skywards. There's enough evidence that "they", the gods from the sky are real, built many ancient monuments with some lost advanced technology and ascended the Atlanteans, Mayas and Nazca, among others.

Time to call them back to help solve our problems.

Why not. It's still the first of April.

[Correa Neto]

Whaaaaat?

Me, pulling an April's fools prank on such an important subject?

How dare you?

Please join!

Maybe we can pull one over "them". We join in a single voice begging for their return. They land and we all ignore them.

A-HA!

[bruto]

...pssst...there's no such thing as 'aliens'...You call the extra-terrestrials. "Extra...." what does that mean again? It means they come from somewhere outside of earth. And what, do you suppose, is an "alien?" Someone from somewhere else. Guess what? If you are extraterrestrial you must be alien to the earth. If you weren't, you'd be terrestrial. This would be true even if your ancient ancestors were terrestrial and left. My children are alien to Switzerland, and my stepson alien to Cuba, even though their mothers were once aliens in the United States. If you are alien to the earth you are, by definition, extra-terrestrial - you couldn't be alien to the earth if you were from here!

Just get over it!

[bruto]

OK. Enough of it. Lets stop the mockery.

We all should support KotA's campaign and join the moment skywards. There's enough evidence that "they", the gods from the sky are real, built many ancient monuments with some lost advanced technology and ascended the Atlanteans, Mayas and Nazca, among others.

Time to call them back to help solve our problems.

Dear aliens: I've been trying for a long time to set up a stone altar on which I can sacrifice the beating hearts of virgins, but for some reason I cannot get the corners perfectly square, and I think this is why the police keep hassling me. Can you help?

[dafydd]

Dear aliens: I've been trying for a long time to set up a stone altar on which I can sacrifice the beating hearts of virgins, but for some reason I cannot get the corners perfectly square, and I think this is why the police keep hassling me. Can you help?

Around here the problem would be finding the virgins. We can even do hospital corners with stones,and not an alien (terrestrial or not) in sight.

[King of the Americas]

How old are the 'virgins' in question?

[dafydd]

If we set the farts on fire they will get a visual signal too.

[Correa Neto]

That's a no-go.

See, based on my experience (tried this one out once) its quite far from easy to do even with modern tools. There are also some video evidences that it can result in injuries. Without an advanced technology, which we do not have, its impossible to get everybody to fart-n'-burn at the same time and with safety.

First "they" will have to return and teach us.

[dafydd]

Health and Safety rules would never allow it,come to think of it.

[King of the Americas]

So, no word on the age of these virgins, then?

[dafydd]

So, no word on the age of these virgins, then?

Why are you so interested?

[King of the Americas]

Why are you so interested?

I thought this was part of the discussion at hand...?

I'd think the 'age' of the virgins would be most relevant as to their value as a sacrifice to entice 'them' to descend.

[bruto]

I thought this was part of the discussion at hand...?

I'd think the 'age' of the virgins would be most relevant as to their value as a sacrifice to entice 'them' to descend.My recollection is that in the past the gods had a preference for teenagers, although I think some of them liked defeated ball players too. Either one ought to be worth a try. Your Olympic opening scheme may be premature, and it might be worthwhile to wait until some contests have been decided, since there will be a better supply of defeated ball players later in the games. Start the opening ceremony, not so much with a direct invitation to come down, but with an invitation to watch and to get their appetites up for the feast of defeated ball players to come.

[King of the Americas]

I am just say'n you can't just throw ANY virgin out there and expect results, that's all...

[bruto]

I am just say'n you can't just throw ANY virgin out there and expect results, that's all...Maybe an assortment, and let them pick their flavor.

[carlitos]

link (http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/quotation.htm)
Be careful not to use quotation marks in an attempt to emphasize a word (the kind of thing you see in grocery store windows—Big "Sale" Today!). Underline or italicize that word instead. (The quotation marks will suggest to some people that you are using that word in a special or peculiar way and that you really mean something else—or that your sale is entirely bogus.)

The American Medical Association Manual of Style (9th ed, 1998) calls misused quotation marks like this Apologetic Quotation Marks and says:

Quotation marks used around words to give special effect or to indicate irony are usually unnecessary. When irony or special effect is intended, skillful preparation can take the place of using these quotes. Resort to apologetic quotation marks or quotation marks used to express irony only after such attempts have failed, keeping in mind that the best writing does not rely on apologetic quotation marks. (p 220)

...

In the United States, we use single quotation marks [ ‘ ’ ] to enclose quoted material (or the titles of poems, stories, articles) within other quoted material:


"'Design' is my favorite poem," he said.
"Did she ask, 'What's going on?'"
Ralph Ellison recalls the Golden Age of Jazz this way: "It was itself a texture of fragments, repetitive, nervous, not fully formed; its melodic lines underground, secret and taunting; its riffs jeering—'Salt peanuts! Salt peanuts!'"


That is all.

[dafydd]

I am just say'n you can't just throw ANY virgin out there and expect results, that's all...

I am glad to see that you are entering into the nonsensical spirit of the thread.

[Correa Neto]

Well, since the "let's pretend all anecdotes are real" was already a huge nonsense...

Sure, after a few posts it became clear it actually meant "lets pretend my interpretation of the anecdotes I selected are real". But it is still a huge nonsense.

[dafydd]

It provides some light entertainment.

[King of the Americas]

I am glad to see that you are entering into the nonsensical spirit of the thread.

I don't know what you are talking about. I was being serious...

[carlitos]

In the vain hope that someone, somewhere could learn something from this inane thread.

The Ellipsis



An ellipsis [ … ] proves to be a handy device when you're quoting material and you want to omit some words. The ellipsis consists of three evenly spaced dots (periods) with spaces between the ellipsis and surrounding letters or other marks. Let's take the sentence, "The ceremony honored twelve brilliant athletes from the Caribbean who were visiting the U.S." and leave out "from the Caribbean who were":

The ceremony honored twelve brilliant athletes … visiting the U.S.
If the omission comes after the end of a sentence, the ellipsis will be placed after the period, making a total of four dots. … See how that works? Notice that there is no space between the period and the last character of the sentence.

The ellipsis can also be used to indicate a pause in the flow of a sentence and is especially useful in quoted speech:

Juan thought and thought … and then thought some more.
"I'm wondering …" Juan said, bemused.

[dafydd]

I don't know what you are talking about. I was being serious...

I know,and that makes it even funnier.

[Toke]

I wonder why it is virgin and not virginity sacrifice?
The later would make more sense if fertility/harvest goods were involved, and a properly designed ritual would be a lot easier to get volunteers.

[Crossbow]

I find Willful Ignorance absurd...

Well if that is the case, then I expect that you a considerable amount of personal experience with absurd things everytime you see a reflection of yourself and/or a photograph of yourself.

[Tricky]

Please stop the personal attacks, including accusation of trolling.

[King of the Americas]

Please stop the personal attacks, including accusation of trolling.

So what DOES one call it when another poster tries to derail serious discussion with attempts to elicit emotional responses?

[Sean84]

Let's seriously discuss how looking up will make aliens magically appear.

What have you got, KotA?

[Georg]

So what DOES one call it when another poster tries to derail serious discussion with attempts to elicit emotional responses?

:dl:

ETA: As strange as your ideas are, I do appreciate your humour sometimes. It is humour, isn' it?
Or do you really mean stuff like that?


I am just say'n you can't just throw ANY virgin out there and expect results, that's all...

[King of the Americas]

:dl:

ETA: As strange as your ideas are, I do appreciate your humour sometimes. It is humour, isn' it?
Or do you really mean stuff like that?

The 'virgins' comment was most definitely an attempt at humor.

[King of the Americas]

...when I read accounts from anyone, about anything, I almost always know that I can't and shouldn't take things 'at face value'. The person I am listening to isn't me, and thus they have a slightly different manner of perception & communication. I am going to need to do some level of understanding, to fully appreciate what the account is trying to relay.

When I look at a piece of art, not only do I examine individual brush strokes, but I try to get an overall feeling, message, scene and especially an appreciation for the action of the characters featured. That said, I understand that artists, story-tellers, and witnesses are hampered by the means to depict reality for all time. We can only look and try to understand...

As scribes all that we can do is TRY to relay what it was we really witnessed. Details will almost never be complete, especially if they come from a singular source. It's only when we have LOTS of sources from a wide range of peoples, that we can start to get a real appreciation for the 'reality' of a something.

When we read accounts of "cyclops" monsters today, what does that mean? That there WAS a race of men with monocular vision, having now died out due to the problems with depth perception? OR that some of our ancestors happened upon fossilized mammoth skills, and thought this must be the skull of a cyclops?

When we read accounts of "mermaids", should we reject the reality behind the myth, or understand that the tale likely came from a manatee, sighting?

With that in mind what is behind the historical "god"...?

What is the REALITY behind the myth? What real thing is behind the story told the world over? Everywhere and anywhere you go there are ancient tales of "god(s) of heaven".

Even today, people have and are seeing 'them, up there'. Mermaids became manatees. What will god become?

[Marduk]

With that in mind what is behind the historical "god"...?

theres generally three types
1. forces of nature become Gods as shamanistic cultures become civilised,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therianthropy
2. Deified kings, that's why God looks totally human and in legends manages to impregnate women just with his penis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giambattista_Vico#Rhetoric_in_the_Scienza_Nuova
3. Idealism, Gods are invented from whole cloth in order to fulfill a preconceived religious plan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology

These truths are quite evident from anyone who's actually studied them.
Even today, people have and are seeing 'them, up there'.
No, thats just nuts who haven't studied the subject and who made up their minds without looking at any evidence. Aliens wouldn't be deified, they would become monsters, but thats moot, there's no credible evidence they have played any part in Earth's history
End thread /
:p

[kedo1981]

the “Cycplops”, thing was on the science channelI’ve that mammoth skulls have a look vaguely like a human but the nasal cavity is right where you would place (in your imagination) the single eye. The ancient world was littered with Paleolithic fossils and a lot of the monsters of legend were just people finding a “giants” bone and making up a story.

[RobDegraves]

Well, I'm trying to become a medieval historian (MA so far) and what I do a lot of is look at mythology and what it teaches us.

From a historical perspective, it's typically simple speculation to say that cyclops et al where taken from a specific erroneous observation. While some do have some evidence (like the medieval Beastiaries for example), most are pastiches of various beliefs. It is also somewhat irrelevant. Mythology is best seen as informing us on the society that spawns it and it's concerns and culture. Gods are always a reflection of ourselves.

If you take Christianity for example, you can see the shift in beliefs through the ages as it comes to reflect the current cultures and people who adopted it. From a mono-racial, paternalistic culture, the Yahweh of the Jews, we see it's alteration by the more philosophically inclined Greeks where we get the ideas of God as omniscient, omnipresent, etc. Zoroastrianism gives Christianity it's very defined dualism and the Roman empire gave the idea of governance through hierarchy.

In the Middle Ages you get the legions of Angels and Demons, in feudal array with specific names and duties along with a Heaven and Hell at war with each and us.

Of course, I am massively oversimplifying a very complex subject but I hope the idea is presented. Whenever you see Mythology (or religion), you see the people, not the Gods.

[Marduk]

When we read accounts of "mermaids", should we reject the reality behind the myth, or understand that the tale likely came from a manatee, sighting?
Mermaids became manatees. What will god become?

The existence of mermen and women predates any sighting of a manatee by civilisation about 3500 years. Their origins began with the story of Adapa, who because of his nautical prowess was depicted in clothing resembling the form of a fish
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a178/belmarduk/Oannes3.gif
he was also known as the fisherman of Eridu (his home town)
Because he was a religious figure was emulated by Sumerian priests who wore a fish costume
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a178/belmarduk/oannes4.jpg
Depictions like this passed from Babylonia to Assyria, where they were depicted thus
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a178/belmarduk/oannes6.jpg
And from there the stories spread to Greece where he was depicted like this and associated with Poseidon
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a178/belmarduk/Oannes.jpg
something got lost in translation. This was due to the Babylonian priest Berossus who was ordered by Antioch I to write a history of Mesopotamia which the king had just acquired. He described Adapa who was known as Uan in Babylon as a fully fledged aquatic bringer of civilisation and named him Oannes. This was a bit of a mystery for a while as the story of Adapa was translated only in the modern era, showing the true origins of the character, turns out Berossus was having a laugh at the kings expense. The Greeks then added mermaids as his companions.
:D
So much later the concept of mermen was already in the minds of sailors setting out on long voyages, so you have the cart before the horse, Manatees are not responsible for mermen mythology, merman mythology is however responsible for identifying manatees as mermen
;)

I don't buy the elephant origin for cyclops either, the Greeks were familiar with elephants, they used them in their army and the earliest stories about the first mentioned cyclops in history, Polyphemus originally had two eyes.
I think the origin is much more likely due to the preponderance of the single eye symbol across the ancient near east, where it was used by characters of great stature, such as Gods and kings so its more likely due to a blending of mythology and symbolism.

[King of the Americas]

theres generally three types
1. forces of nature become Gods as shamanistic cultures become civilised,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therianthropy
2. Deified kings, that's why God looks totally human and in legends manages to impregnate women just with his penis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giambattista_Vico#Rhetoric_in_the_Scienza_Nuova
3. Idealism, Gods are invented from whole cloth in order to fulfill a preconceived religious plan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology

These truths are quite evident from anyone who's actually studied them.

No, thats just nuts who haven't studied the subject and who made up their minds without looking at any evidence. Aliens wouldn't be deified, they would become monsters, but thats moot, there's no credible evidence they have played any part in Earth's history
End thread /
:p

Interesting that you would list 3...are you sure there aren't more possibilities?

So long as they aren't openly hostile and helpful, I think they'd be featured just as they are...as angels with wings, riding on clouds carrying blessings...

[King of the Americas]

the “Cycplops”, thing was on the science channelI’ve that mammoth skulls have a look vaguely like a human but the nasal cavity is right where you would place (in your imagination) the single eye. The ancient world was littered with Paleolithic fossils and a lot of the monsters of legend were just people finding a “giants” bone and making up a story.

It was just an example of something quite fictional, having an actual basis on real evidence, just misinterpreted.

I can show you countless images of god in heaven, angels riding clouds, people gazing upward toward bright shiny silver disks, and any number of other airborne entities within old paintings.

The question is what is the reality behind this images?

[Marduk]

Interesting that you would list 3...are you sure there aren't more possibilities?
I did say generally.

So long as they aren't openly hostile and helpful, I think they'd be featured just as they are...as angels with wings, riding on clouds carrying blessings...

Angels didn't exist until after the babylonian diaspora, they didn't start off with wings and clouds and blessings. Thats just Christianity, Old testament angels weren't very friendly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity
They are the result of monotheism being born out of a polytheistic pantheon by a culture who didn't want to piss off the rest of the gods just in case. Textually prior to the captivity God had a couple of messengers, afterwards the entire hierarchy of heaven.
:D
The question is what is the reality behind this images?
we've been over this, you wouldn't accept it preferring to go with your imagination over the opinion of experts
:rolleyes:

[King of the Americas]

Well, I'm trying to become a medieval historian (MA so far) and what I do a lot of is look at mythology and what it teaches us.

From a historical perspective, it's typically simple speculation to say that cyclops et al where taken from a specific erroneous observation. While some do have some evidence (like the medieval Beastiaries for example), most are pastiches of various beliefs. It is also somewhat irrelevant. Mythology is best seen as informing us on the society that spawns it and it's concerns and culture. Gods are always a reflection of ourselves.

If you take Christianity for example, you can see the shift in beliefs through the ages as it comes to reflect the current cultures and people who adopted it. From a mono-racial, paternalistic culture, the Yahweh of the Jews, we see it's alteration by the more philosophically inclined Greeks where we get the ideas of God as omniscient, omnipresent, etc. Zoroastrianism gives Christianity it's very defined dualism and the Roman empire gave the idea of governance through hierarchy.

In the Middle Ages you get the legions of Angels and Demons, in feudal array with specific names and duties along with a Heaven and Hell at war with each and us.

Of course, I am massively oversimplifying a very complex subject but I hope the idea is presented. Whenever you see Mythology (or religion), you see the people, not the Gods.

What I am trying to do here is draw a distinction between god and religion. Religion being the art used to depict the subject.

There's a universally accepted 'god of the heavens'...what is it?

[Marduk]

What I am trying to do here is draw a distinction between god and religion. Religion being the art used to depict the subject.

There's a universally accepted 'god of the heavens'...what is it?

no, what youre trying to do here is once again push your personal beliefs about aliens where they aren't valid
it's what you always do
go on, try to deny it
:p
There is no universally accepted god of heaven, there isn't even a global one
:D

[King of the Americas]

I did say generally.


Angels didn't exist until after the babylonian diaspora, they didn't start off with wings and clouds and blessings. Thats just Christianity, Old testament angels weren't very friendly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_captivity
They are the result of monotheism being born out of a polytheistic pantheon by a culture who didn't want to piss off the rest of the gods just in case. Textually prior to the captivity God had a couple of messengers, afterwards the entire hierarchy of heaven.
:D

we've been over this, you wouldn't accept it preferring to go with your imagination over the opinion of experts
:rolleyes:

God has 'changed'...

[King of the Americas]

The existence of mermen and women predates any sighting of a manatee by civilisation about 3500 years.

...

I don't buy the elephant origin for cyclops either, the Greeks were familiar with elephants, they used them in their army and the earliest stories about the first mentioned cyclops in history, Polyphemus originally had two eyes.
I think the origin is much more likely due to the preponderance of the single eye symbol across the ancient near east, where it was used by characters of great stature, such as Gods and kings so its more likely due to a blending of mythology and symbolism.

Thank you, well done.

I don't know about your cyclops theory... I don't know how familiar anyone is with elephant skulls, to say they wouldn't have spawned stories of one-eyed creatures.

[Marduk]

Thank you, well done.

I don't know about your cyclops theory... I don't know how familiar anyone is with elephant skulls, to say they wouldn't have spawned stories of one-eyed creatures.

Think about how much more familiar the people in the ancient world were with the animals they interacted with than modern people. Would you confuse an elephant skull with a human, those people were just as smart as you were, but they were better informed. They had to be, all their dangerous animals were loose. The word Elephant is derived from ancient Greek "elephantos", Thats quite familiar.
:p

God has 'changed'...
which one, there have been thousands. If you mean the God of monotheism, then no, not much. He turned up after literacy, its hard to change things when how they are is available in print from an authority who holds the power of life and death over heretics, if you lived 2000 years ago, your ideas would have got you killed already. If you're interested in the ultimate origins of YHWH, thats easy, but it won't validate your belief.
;)

[Delvo]

An overview of how God was made up & subsequently modified by a series of different groups of people editing the supposedly sacred texts (some of which are now books of the Bible), as shown in the differences between present and original versions of them...

MlnnWbkMlbg

[King of the Americas]

Think about how much more familiar the people in the ancient world were with the animals they interacted with than modern people. Would you confuse an elephant skull with a human, those people were just as smart as you were, but they were better informed. They had to be, all their dangerous animals were loose. The word Elephant is derived from ancient Greek "elephantos", Thats quite familiar.
:p


which one, there have been thousands. If you mean the God of monotheism, then no, not much. He turned up after literacy, its hard to change things when how they are is available in print from an authority who holds the power of life and death over heretics, if you lived 2000 years ago, your ideas would have got you killed already. If you're interested in the ultimate origins of YHWH, thats easy, but it won't validate your belief.
;)

Is EVERYONE familiar with elephants, everywhere? While I'm sure there were some who would think them a most unusual creature, and a skull would really throw them for a loop.

I used the lower case "god" for a reason.

[King of the Americas]

An overview of how God was made up & subsequently modified by a series of different groups of people editing the supposedly sacred texts (some of which are now books of the Bible), as shown in the differences between present and original versions of them...

...

VERY cool.

[dafydd]

It was just an example of something quite fictional, having an actual basis on real evidence, just misinterpreted.

I can show you countless images of god in heaven, angels riding clouds, people gazing upward toward bright shiny silver disks, and any number of other airborne entities within old paintings.

The question is what is the reality behind this images?
I can see where this is going. Ho hum.

[dafydd]

There's a universally accepted 'god of the heavens

No. And before you go on we don't believe in your imaginary (non?) aliens.

[Gawdzilla]

There's always some idiot ready to make up ****. Nothing more complicated than that for the origins of the gods.

[bruto]

It's hard to discuss reasonably with someone who seems utterly unaware of the reams and volumes of literature that have been written over centuries about this sort of stuff. There's on one "historical god," and certainly no universally accepted god of the heavens. It would be utterly ridiculous to try to conflate all the different ideas of deity into one. The impulse for religious belief has been studied by theologians and philosophers and psychologists for millennia,

Religion is not the art used to depict god. You might start there, by trying to find out what religion really is, and work your way up from there. I would respectfully suggest that you start with the work of William James, which might give you some insight into the psychology of religion and how it is experienced, from someone who wrote with an open and sympathetic mind.

[King of the Americas]

It's hard to discuss reasonably with someone who seems utterly unaware of the reams and volumes of literature that have been written over centuries about this sort of stuff. There's on one "historical god," and certainly no universally accepted god of the heavens. It would be utterly ridiculous to try to conflate all the different ideas of deity into one. The impulse for religious belief has been studied by theologians and philosophers and psychologists for millennia,

Religion is not the art used to depict god. You might start there, by trying to find out what religion really is, and work your way up from there. I would respectfully suggest that you start with the work of William James, which might give you some insight into the psychology of religion and how it is experienced, from someone who wrote with an open and sympathetic mind.

You DON'T think that across the Earth, believers rest their faith in a "God of heaven"...?

Those who are religious may not think of their religion 'art' depicting god, but from the outside that's exactly what it is...

[Marduk]

You DON'T think that across the Earth, believers rest their faith in a "God of heaven"...?
Argumentum ad populum and quite irrelevant, most believers are believers because they have never questioned their faith, they are even less interested than you in the real origin of their God

Those who are religious may not think of their religion 'art' depicting god, but from the outside that's exactly what it is...
I'm pretty sure that everyone who's religious and who looks at religious art knows what it is, you seem to be saying that religious people are generally idiots.

I'd probably agree
:D

[bruto]

You DON'T think that across the Earth, believers rest their faith in a "God of heaven"...?

Those who are religious may not think of their religion 'art' depicting god, but from the outside that's exactly what it is...

I don't think that across the earth, believers rest their faith on similar gods, or a single deity that might be said to be "god in heaven." Many are, after all, polytheists, others pantheists, animists and worshipers of idols. Some have been gnostics, and others deists, and so forth. While it's true that the most popular religions of modern times have rested their faith on a single "god of heaven," the reason for that can be as easily attributed to cultural forces, including their skill at conquest, rather than anything inherent in religion.

And no, religion is not itself the art depicting a god, even if it produces that art. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your previous statement.

On another issue: I think most people who have encountered elephant skulls have probably encountered elephants. Since elephants and their ancestors such as mammoths have been hunted and eaten by humans more or less since humans have existed, it's pretty likely that those humans would have noticed that elephants have two eyes, and that when they butcher and eat the elephant, an elephant skull is the result. To infer a cyclops from the elephant, while not entirely out of the question, seems so far fetched a stretch of the imagination that I'd want to see true evidence of the linkage before believing it ever occurred.

[TheCaptn]

Well, I'm trying to become a medieval historian (MA so far) and what I do a lot of is look at mythology and what it teaches us.

You can be my forum mentor. :p
I'm a 3rd year undergrad in History (went back to school after a decade in IT), and it seems I'm aiming for a similar goal. Although I can't pick between my interests in Dark Age to Industrial Age seafaring cultures, or the Cold War period of modern history.

In the Middle Ages you get the legions of Angels and Demons, in feudal array with specific names and duties along with a Heaven and Hell at war with each and us.

Of course, I am massively oversimplifying a very complex subject but I hope the idea is presented. Whenever you see Mythology (or religion), you see the people, not the Gods.

The late middle ages also serves to define many of our modern religious and political concepts since it gave us the Reformation, rapidly entrenching most existing Catholic/Anglican/Protestant demarcations.

Anyway, I think Marduk was on the right track, but I'd place a different chronological emphasis on the evolution of theology. I think it was Lakatos (a modern philosopher of science) who suggested that religions could viewed as research programmes, although presumably ones with a heuristic foundation which accepted immaterial causes. By contrast all our modern, scientific research programmes share a common heuristic which expects material causes (since we can only observe a material universe).

Anyway, with that in mind I think there is a kind of progression related to the fundamental questions we have about our own place in the world. It's progressive, and would go something like:
- The human life/death cycle (ancestor worship, paleolithic venus statues)
- Other natural life/death cycles (animism, shamanism)
- Elemental/natural forces (early polytheism)
- Pantheon uniting elemental with communal/social forces (late polytheism)
- Limited egalitarianism, one anthropomorphic god per community (early monotheism)
- Broadened egalitarianism, one inscrutable god for multiple communities (late monotheism)
- Limited objectivity (natural philosophy, the 'age of reason')

Of course a concept like 'community' is pretty damn fluid, and there's a lot of overlap that goes on. But that basically leads us into the modern period of strict objectivity, which describes our ideal of a rational, scientific approach to understanding the universe.

[King of the Americas]

I don't think that across the earth, believers rest their faith on similar gods, or a single deity that might be said to be "god in heaven." Many are, after all, polytheists, others pantheists, animists and worshipers of idols. Some have been gnostics, and others deists, and so forth. While it's true that the most popular religions of modern times have rested their faith on a single "god of heaven," the reason for that can be as easily attributed to cultural forces, including their skill at conquest, rather than anything inherent in religion.

And no, religion is not itself the art depicting a god, even if it produces that art. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your previous statement.

On another issue: I think most people who have encountered elephant skulls have probably encountered elephants. Since elephants and their ancestors such as mammoths have been hunted and eaten by humans more or less since humans have existed, it's pretty likely that those humans would have noticed that elephants have two eyes, and that when they butcher and eat the elephant, an elephant skull is the result. To infer a cyclops from the elephant, while not entirely out of the question, seems so far fetched a stretch of the imagination that I'd want to see true evidence of the linkage before believing it ever occurred.

If you asked anyone on earth, "Where is god?"

What might your answer likely be?

[King of the Americas]

...

Of course a concept like 'community' is pretty damn fluid, and there's a lot of overlap that goes on. But that basically leads us into the modern period of strict objectivity, which describes our ideal of a rational, scientific approach to understanding the universe.

While that's all well and good, it doesn't really address the 'god(s) of heaven', that people report to have actually SEEN and witnessed.

Ezekiel claimed to have seen file within wheels blah blah blah.

People followed a pillar of fire through the desert that rained manna down on them.

Yes, sure people worship the sun, the moon, the earth and anything on it, but there are a great many that worship "god(s) of heaven", as in actually individuals, or maybe ONE individual. I refer to those who 'watch over us', that sometimes intercede to protect some of us.

Angels save escort Lott away from a town, then "God" rains fire and brimstone down on it...

What's the reality behind these stories?

[bruto]

If you asked anyone on earth, "Where is god?"

What might your answer likely be?

Well, it would depend on when and where you asked it. If you asked an ancient (or not so ancient for that matter) Hawaiian, for example, he would probably point to the nearest volcano. If you asked an ancient Greek, he would say "which god?"

Of course, since the sky is relatively inaccessible, mysterious, and full of weather, it stands to reason that the religious imagination and impulse will often point to the sky or beyond. To extrapolate from this that all religions derive from some actual beings in the sky is just plain silly, and suggests, among other things, that the person doing the extrapolating has put very little time or effort into studying the history, psychology and literature of religion.

[bruto]

While that's all well and good, it doesn't really address the 'god(s) of heaven', that people report to have actually SEEN and witnessed.

Ezekiel claimed to have seen file within wheels blah blah blah.

People followed a pillar of fire through the desert that rained manna down on them.

Yes, sure people worship the sun, the moon, the earth and anything on it, but there are a great many that worship "god(s) of heaven", as in actually individuals, or maybe ONE individual. I refer to those who 'watch over us', that sometimes intercede to protect some of us.

Angels save escort Lott away from a town, then "God" rains fire and brimstone down on it...

What's the reality behind these stories?

Bad weather.

[Marduk]

Ezekiel claimed to have seen file within wheels blah blah blah.

People followed a pillar of fire through the desert that rained manna down on them.
What's the reality behind these stories?

The first one lauded by ufonuts as a description of a UFO fits much better the standard form of the Chaldean Zodiac. The closest example of which that currently exists is in the Louvre
http://0.tqn.com/d/astrology/1/7/X/4/-/-/zodiac2.jpg
oh look, a wheel within a wheel.
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et1201.htm
Have a guess where Ezekiel lived
yes, thats right, he lived in Chaldea, and as a forced immigrant he would have just been introduced to such ideas, besides, what ufos have you heard of that took the form of four creatures, who had genitals
If you'd actually read the whole text rather than just believing what you'd heard from your ufo sources you might have been aware that Ezekiel makes it quite clear that this was a vision, not real life.
The second one is from the Exodus, which has been proven completely fictional over and over, so thats kinda irrelevant
The primary source for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, is the old testament. Neither city is attested by any records from the actual cultures they were supposed to have existed in. Bit of an oversight, thats like New York getting nuked and it not making the papers.
;)
I'm wondering King, are you aware of the claims made in Akkadian texts for city destruction ?

[HansMustermann]

If you asked anyone on earth, "Where is god?"

What might your answer likely be?

But it turns out that that has changed. Just because you'd give that answer for your god, it doesn't mean that everyone in all ages answered the same.

E.g., if you asked an Egyptian "where is Osiris?", their answer would actually be "in the underworld". There were no Egyptian gods who just who stayed up in the heavens, except maybe Nut who was the heaven. Even Ra and his entourage sailed over the sky for half the day -- but, really, even then on the surface of the sky towards us, not "in" the sky -- and was in the underworld the rest of the time. The Egyptians were very different from the Mesopotamians in their religion.

But even the Mesopotamians had deities that stayed under the ground. E.g., Ereshkigal is pissed off at Inana and tries to keep her in the underworld precisely because Ereshkigal as a death deity can't leave the underworld. So, you know, why should her sister Inana have all the fun on the surface?

E.g., in Norse myths, the Aesir don't really live in the sky, but basically in a parallel Earth. Well, not really, but it's just another realm in the branches of Yggdrasil, the world tree, just like Midgard is. Their realm is just 1 of 9 different worlds in that tree, just like our world is one of those nine.

E.g., for the ancient Greeks, the Gods lived on a very tall and inaccessible mountain, not properly in the sky.

[John Jones]

While that's all well and good, it doesn't really address the 'god(s) of heaven', that people report to have actually SEEN and witnessed.

Ezekiel claimed to have seen file within wheels blah blah blah.

People followed a pillar of fire through the desert that rained manna down on them.

Yes, sure people worship the sun, the moon, the earth and anything on it, but there are a great many that worship "god(s) of heaven", as in actually individuals, or maybe ONE individual. I refer to those who 'watch over us', that sometimes intercede to protect some of us.

Angels save escort Lott away from a town, then "God" rains fire and brimstone down on it...

What's the reality behind these stories?


Space aliens?

[HansMustermann]

While that's all well and good, it doesn't really address the 'god(s) of heaven', that people report to have actually SEEN and witnessed.

Ezekiel claimed to have seen file within wheels blah blah blah.

People followed a pillar of fire through the desert that rained manna down on them.

Yes, sure people worship the sun, the moon, the earth and anything on it, but there are a great many that worship "god(s) of heaven", as in actually individuals, or maybe ONE individual. I refer to those who 'watch over us', that sometimes intercede to protect some of us.

Angels save escort Lott away from a town, then "God" rains fire and brimstone down on it...

What's the reality behind these stories?

You can't take BS stories to mean anything actually happened, or you'd actually have to find some truth behind Batman.

1. There is no indication that Ezekiel was seeing those in anything else than a vision. There is no "what really happened" there, except maybe a bad acid trip, presumably the ergot kind. You don't have some kind of aliens behind every single guy who tripped balls and saw Superman, you know?

2. There is no evidence that the Exodus ever happened. There are no bones, no litter, no nothing that you'd expect to find from two million people spending 40 years in a desert, advancing at a rate of 25 miles a year. There is no mention anywhere else that 90% of the Egypt's total population left and probably another couple of percent were smitten by God to make a point, and it's the kind of thing which would actually make an impact even in archaeology and history of the next years. Etc.

It's silly to ask what's the historical thing followed by some people who weren't there, because the story never happened.

I mean, at that point you might as well ask what kind of alien is Santa.

[Marduk]

I mean, at that point you might as well ask what kind of alien is Santa.

Nordic, obviously, his little helpers are Greys
:p

[King of the Americas]

Bad weather.

Well, it's 'simple', I'll give you that.

[Marduk]

I refer to those who 'watch over us', that sometimes intercede to protect some of us.


the fiction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel
the reality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_service
:p

[I Ratant]

There's always some idiot ready to make up ****. Nothing more complicated than that for the origins of the gods.
.
And that's the story, in a nuts shell.
There's always some swiftie who figures out how to make a good living off the sweat and effort of others by scaring them with fancy stories around the campfire.

[I Ratant]

If you asked anyone on earth, "Where is god?"

What might your answer likely be?
.
Some might point to pussy and tits,... others to the dick.
These are the most common drivers for humanitys growth.

[TheCaptn]

While that's all well and good, it doesn't really address the 'god(s) of heaven', that people report to have actually SEEN and witnessed.

Ezekiel claimed to have seen file within wheels blah blah blah.

People followed a pillar of fire through the desert that rained manna down on them.

Yes, sure people worship the sun, the moon, the earth and anything on it, but there are a great many that worship "god(s) of heaven", as in actually individuals, or maybe ONE individual. I refer to those who 'watch over us', that sometimes intercede to protect some of us.

Angels save escort Lott away from a town, then "God" rains fire and brimstone down on it...

What's the reality behind these stories?

I'm not even convinced that your premise is fair, so rather than offering specific explanations I was more focused on a general discussion about how we've used theology/mythology to arrive at explanations, prior to scientific rigor.

But since you're still giving that same premise a good workout, here's my issue with it:
Your key examples; Cyclops and Mermaids come burdened with an assertion that each mythology has a single rational counterpoint (mammoth skulls, manatees), which you then use to conclude that either every mythology, or at least the 'God' mythology should likewise have a single rational counterpoint.

This argument is neither sound, nor valid.
Firstly mythologies are highly culturally sensitive; you just happened to have picked two from the ancient Greek tradition. Apparently similar mythologies can have different possible triggers (the western Dragon most probably derived from fossils and a religious association with fire as an evil force, while the Asian dragon seems to connect more with living sea-serpent folklore and a religious association with water). Similarly, a single trigger might lead to different mythologies (a dolphin could become either a herald of Poseidon's good grace, or a shapeshifting gigolo who seduces young women at night).

Notably neither of these possibilities leads to the conclusion that a given mythology -must have- some rational trigger. It's still entirely possible for a myth to be wholly constructed or allegorical in nature... For instance in my experience many Australian Aboriginal Dreamtime myths are extraordinarily difficult to pin on specific triggers. They really are very dream-like and elusive.

[edit]
As for the Biblical tales, from an evidentiary perspective they amount to little more than heavily edited anecdotes. In lieu of any independent lines of corroborative evidence, it's simply unreasonable to demand that they be accepted uncritically.

[King of the Americas]

...

[edit]
As for the Biblical tales, from an evidentiary perspective they amount to little more than heavily edited anecdotes. In lieu of any independent lines of corroborative evidence, it's simply unreasonable to demand that they be accepted uncritically.

I am NOT suggesting uncritical acceptance...

Anecdotes do not equal scientific proof, I KNOW I KNOW I KNOW.

But just because it is an anecdote, doesn't make it fiction. It is a story from one person's perspective, sometimes two or more. The question is still, what was the actual genesis of these tales. People are STILL observing 'agents of heaven' that are more capable than we are, we just don't call them gods or angels anymore.

I would however, like to thank you for your thoughtful response. Your time here is appreciated.

[RobDegraves]

But just because it is an anecdote, doesn't make it fiction. It is a story from one person's perspective, sometimes two or more. The question is still, what was the actual genesis of these tales. People are STILL observing 'agents of heaven' that are more capable than we are, we just don't call them gods or angels anymore.


I would agree with your premise there... a tale always has a genesis based on something that really happened.

However...

It is always a mistake to generalize historical events from a mythological basis. For example, your bit about cyclops being based on elephants. As was correctly pointed out to you, such stories are likely based on older stories who are based on even older, often unwritten stories. Often these stories are not even from the same culture. Ancient people traveled extensively and stories spread. Your cyclops story could have come from a chieftain who was missing an eye. Or it could have been a play on words or even a metaphor about being short sighted... etc.

The real way to learn about the origin of myth is to look at the specific myth and examine it for clues as to it's origin based on actual history and archeology. A shallow understanding will only yield your own mythology, not theirs.

BTW... one way to understand UFO sightings is to see it as what people have done for millennia. Taking old mythologies and reinterpreting them to fit their own time. Angels become aliens, not because angels were aliens... but because we expect them to be aliens based on our current culture.

It's what we have always done.

[Marduk]

But just because it is an anecdote, doesn't make it fiction. It is a story from one person's perspective, sometimes two or more. The question is still, what was the actual genesis of these tales. People are STILL observing 'agents of heaven' that are more capable than we are, we just don't call them gods or angels anymore.


you've been told many times about the origin of Angels
you have never bothered to check if the answer you were given was accurate
you will not bother to check any of the answers you are given in this thread

youre only here waiting for someone, anyone to agree with you
what does it tell you that nobody is, the vast majority of whom actually know more about the subject than you ever bothered to find out.
:confused:
what do you actually want to hear ?

btw, theres a new book out you may be interested in called
The Cryptoterrestrials,
http://www.anomalistbooks.com/tonnies.html
check it out, now your fantasy has a name. Just don't expect much more from the same author
:D

[Halfcentaur]

No. The analogy is far too literal and only works if you ignore the obvious.

God is based on the ultimate example of reality, and the question we derive from looking at this reality. SOMETHING IS HAPPENING AND I AM HERE. Giraffes eat tall things, vultures have no feathers on their head to avoid debris and diseased left overs. Humans question.

The problem is, we bring emotional satisfaction into this issue.

God needed no proto god like being to inspire the idea. The Universe is that thing. The only thing you need to connect is the idea we seem to think we're important in the scheme of things in some way, and that our way of looking at the world has to be the "actual" way. Thus, we merge the ideas and create an identity, a being, we're looking into a mirror and seeing our own projections.

The anthropic principal does not satisfy you as an answer because you desire too much from your existence and you've demonstrated you're incapable of divorcing that bias and desire from your natural curiosity.

God is psychology, God is when you realize your parents are humans and the absolute void they leave demands you look at it and admit your life is in your own hands, and sometimes you are powerless completely. And nobody can assist you in this impotence.

This powerless feeling easily transmits to fear and doubt and confusion.

How easy it is to pretend otherwise, and how far people will go to defend that comforting lie.

[King of the Americas]

...

BTW... one way to understand UFO sightings is to see it as what people have done for millennia. Taking old mythologies and reinterpreting them to fit their own time. Angels become aliens, not because angels were aliens... but because we expect them to be aliens based on our current culture.

It's what we have always done.

My point herein is that 'stuff in the sky' has been leading people to make up religions for quite a while. Some of them have been found to be mundane: Surya became our solar star, Thor became lightening & thunder, I'd just wonder what today's U.F.O.'s and Ezekiel's fiery chariots will become...

[Marduk]

My point herein is that 'stuff in the sky' has been leading people to make up religions for quite a while. Some of them have been found to be mundane: Surya became our solar star, Thor became lightening & thunder.

you got that the wrong way round, thunder and lightning became Thor,
our sun became Surya,
theres this thing called Anthropomorphism, its very well attested

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism

I'd just wonder what today's U.F.O.'s and Ezekiel's fiery chariots will become...
You've been told that Ezekiel is not a valid point several times
Why do you insist on continually being willfully ignorant ?
:rolleyes:
UFO's are already explained, just because you don't want to believe it doesn't make it untrue.

[TheCaptn]

I am NOT suggesting uncritical acceptance...
Yeah, my bad. I could have worded that better.

The question is still, what was the actual genesis of these tales. People are STILL observing 'agents of heaven' that are more capable than we are, we just don't call them gods or angels anymore.

Again you seem to be working backwards from an a priori conclusion that the whole phenomena shares a single genesis. In looking for that you're essentially just setting up an impossible task.
The only way I know of to find actual answers is to investigate each specific case individually, and the mostly likely conclusion that will lead you to is that there is no single genesis.
There may be many cases which share a genesis, for instance there could be a few deliberate fictions, and a lot of misinterpreted natural phenomena, and possibly even a real case (I can't dismiss that, no matter how unlikely), but there won't be a universally applicable explanation.

That's why, as skeptics, we can never give a simple solves-everything answer... All we can do is say "pick your best/favourite/most perplexing cases and let's investigate those in more detail".

[Marduk]

That's why, as skeptics, we can never give a simple solves-everything answer... All we can do is say "pick your best/favourite/most perplexing cases and let's investigate those in more detail".

we did that numerous times already with credibly sourced material and the opinions of experts, King always thinks he knows better while at the same time demonstrating to everybody that he doesn't have a clue. He is not a sceptic
;)

for instance, ask him what percentage of UFO reports are completely unexplained and he'll quickly answer "around 5%"

yet for his claim that Gods are based on cryptoterrestrials he requires 100% of sightings to be an airborne advanced race, he doesn't seem to understand the significance that the mundane 95% means that by his own hypothesis, that would also mean that Gods are 95% explainable by misidentified mundane phenomena in ancient times. Apparently, in his mind, the less humanity knows about science as we go back in time the more they are able to easily identify the mundane and discard it from the equation

[King of the Americas]

you got that the wrong way round, thunder and lightning became Thor,
our sun became Surya,
theres this thing called Anthropomorphism, its very well attested

...

You've been told that Ezekiel is not a valid point several times
Why do you insist on continually being willfully ignorant ?
:rolleyes:
UFO's are already explained, just because you don't want to believe it doesn't make it untrue.

Your first point is WRONG. There was no 'science' around to KNOW what a star or lightening and thunder was. Surya WAS only the Sun, but no one KNEW that, and no one had ran any tests to prove that. Lightening and thunder while real, no one understood or studied the phenomena, so they made up a God- Thor to represent it. Even if ONE scientist DID manage to see lightening cause thunder, without a test to prove it, it just wasn't so. Mermaids 'became' manatees, when scientists discovered them. That said, I concede that the reality of the Sun, lightening & thunder, and manatees all existed before man could prove it.

Sir with all due respect, you don't know what Ezekiel saw, what U.F.O.'s are in reality, or what is or is not true with regards to heavenly agents. Sadly you are not qualified to discard reports of fiery chariots from this or any other time period.

[King of the Americas]

Yeah, my bad. I could have worded that better.


...

That's why, as skeptics, we can never give a simple solves-everything answer... All we can do is say "pick your best/favourite/most perplexing cases and let's investigate those in more detail".

No problem, you are easily one of the more civil posters I've had the opportunity to interact with.

Could you take a look at "The Madonna with Saint Giovannino". It was painted in the 15th century by Domenico Ghirlandaio (1449-1494). Then let me know if the image in the background looks to you like a flying saucer.

What I am saying is that historical agents of heaven aren't as dis-similar as more modern versions, as you may believe.

[Marduk]

Your first point is WRONG. There was no 'science' around to KNOW what a star or lightening and thunder was. .
Dude,
Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world
It has always been around, it doesn't matter if you actually know what a star is as long as your study of it reaps some benefit. In the ancient world, study of the stars was used to foretell omens. They didn't know it was irrelevant, but their science still existed. You don't understand this because once again you don't know what you're talking about because you have never studied any of the cultures you have based conclusions on.

Surya WAS only the Sun, but no one KNEW that, and no one had ran any tests to prove that. Lightening and thunder while real, no one understood or studied the phenomena, so they made up a God- Thor to represent it. Even if ONE scientist DID manage to see lightening cause thunder, without a test to prove it, it just wasn't so. Mermaids 'became' manatees, when scientists discovered them. That said, I concede that the reality of the Sun, lightening & thunder, and manatees all existed before man could prove it. .
The sun, lightening & thunder, and manatees have what to do with your cryptoterrestrials exactly, I already went into great detail earlier how the mythology concerning mermen changed with each culture it pased through until the original truth was lost, it was only rediscovered in the last 100 years. We know the basis for that myth, you've been told the basis of that myth, yet for some reason it just won't sink in will it. You have a scorching case of fundamentalism



Sir with all due respect, you don't know what Ezekiel saw, what U.F.O.'s are in reality, or what is or is not true with regards to heavenly agents. Sadly you are not qualified to discard reports of fiery chariots from this or any other time period.
Ezekiel stated at the start of the text that it was a vision, again you have been told this several times, again it didn't register
Apparently you think you know what Ezekiel saw better than he did, even when he gave a near perfect description of the chaldean Zodiac, when he was living in Chaldea, when he stated himself that it wasn't a real object but a vision of something. You on the other hand don't even know where Chaldea was and you certainly don't understand the context of the revelation he was having or even who he was.
Your argument is invalid
your knowledge is non existent
your life is wasting away

ce la vie

No problem, you are easily one of the more civil posters I've had the opportunity to interact with.
.
Isn't it funny that you only get that sort of response from newbs.
:D

[King of the Americas]

...

Isn't it funny that you only get that sort of response from newbs.
:D

So are you suggesting that the longer you post here the more of an ignorant flamer you become?

Which came first do you think, mer-people mythology or manatees?

If you don't like my Ezekiel tale, please chick out the painting I referenced above and tell me if that looks to you like a flying saucer...

[Marduk]

So are you suggesting that the longer you post here the more of an ignorant flamer you become?...
no, I'm suggesting that the longer people post here the more sick of wasting their time talking to you they become

Which came first do you think, mer-people mythology or manatees?...
I already went into great detail about that earlier in this thread, apart from anything else, the mer-people mythology comes from a culture that were unaware of the existence of manatees as they lived thousands of miles from their natural habitat on a different continent




If you don't like my Ezekiel tale, please chick out the painting I referenced above and tell me if that looks to you like a flying saucer...
Its not your Ezekiel tale, its Ezekiels.
heres what the painting represents
http://www.sprezzatura.it/Arte/Arte_UFO_5_eng.htm
just think, this is the 4th time I have posted this link to you

btw you're off topic

[King of the Americas]

no, I'm suggesting that the longer people post here the more sick of wasting their time talking to you they become

I already went into great detail about that earlier in this thread, apart from anything else, the mer-people mythology comes from a culture that were unaware of the existence of manatees as they lived thousands of miles from their natural habitat on a different continent


Its not your Ezekiel tale, its Ezekiels.
heres what the painting represents
http://www.sprezzatura.it/Arte/Arte_UFO_5_eng.htm
just think, this is the 4th time I have posted this link to you

btw you're off topic

Then the people who are sick of wasting time, should cease posting toward me, in an uncivil manner.

I didn't ask you about your argument. I asked you which came 'first' mer-people mythology or manatees.

So who do you think "Angels of the Lord" look so similar to flying saucers and other UFO's?

And is it me, or is there an invisible finger, just above the Madonna, pointing toward the UFO, in the painting?

---

Off topic...?

[Marduk]

Then they people who are sick of wasting time, should cease posting toward me, in an uncivil manner.
They have, thesedays they just laugh at your hole

I didn't ask you about your argument. I asked you which came 'first' mer-people mythology or manatees.

It wasn't an argument, it was the facts, why is it that you don't understand how your question is irrelevant, its like asking what came first, your erroneous belief or your feet, they are completely unconnected

So who do you think "Angels of the Lord" look so similar to flying saucers and other UFO's?
They don't
there are no such things as flying saucers, the term was a mistaken description invented by a journalist and ufo's are unidentified, so whats to compare with
what youre actually asking is about the similarity between a handful of images already explained and whats in your head. No one else cares whats in your head as on the whole its based on willful ignorance. I could actually show you what angels are based on using images which date back 4000 years, but that wouldn't fit your preconceived baloney would it.

And is it me, or is there an invisible finger, just above the Madonna, pointing toward the UFO, in the painting?
You're asking me if I can see something you are describing as invisible ?
:D

Off topic...?
This thread in the history forum is about the historical God
not manatees
not mer men
not cyclops
and certainly not ufo's
:rolleyes:

[King of the Americas]

They have, thesedays they just laugh at your hole

It wasn't an argument, it was the facts, why is it that you don't understand how your question is irrelevant, its like asking what came first, your erroneous belief or your feet, they are completely unconnected

They don't
there are no such things as flying saucers, the term was a mistaken description invented by a journalist and ufo's are unidentified, so whats to compare with
what youre actually asking is about the similarity between a handful of images already explained and whats in your head. No one else cares whats in your head as on the whole its based on willful ignorance. I could actually show you what angels are based on using images which date back 4000 years, but that wouldn't fit your preconceived baloney would it.

You're asking me if I can see something you are describing as invisible ?
:D

This thread in the history forum is about the historical God
not manatees
not mer men
not cyclops
and certainly not ufo's
:rolleyes:

No this thread is titled "The historical 'god'...", and given your inability to understand what I've written, I understand your confusion... That some skeptic posters would rather make jokes rather than take someone's mysterious depression story seriously, indicates their lacking, not mine, for relaying a story.

Your facts aren't in question. I asked which came first the stories of mer-people or manatees. The point in asking is that one likely begat the other. That you don't believe the originators of the myth had access to actual manatees on which to create mer-people is irrelevant. Someone, from distant lands/seas COULD have. So, which do YOU think came first, mer-people mythology or manatees?

You 'think' there's no such thing as flying saucers...? RALMAO. Your ignorance is truly astonishing, to me.

The invisible finger I am referring to IS 'visible' within the painting, it just looks transparent.

[Marduk]

What I am trying to do here is draw a distinction between god and religion. Religion being the art used to depict the subject.


no, what youre trying to do here is once again push your personal beliefs about aliens where they aren't valid
it's what you always do
go on, try to deny it
:p


http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-one-trick-pony.htm
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[King of the Americas]

...

What is a no-retort wisenheimer?

[bruto]

No this thread is titled "The historical 'god'...", and given your inability to understand what I've written, I understand your confusion... That some skeptic posters would rather make jokes rather than take someone's mysterious depression story seriously, indicates their lacking, not mine, for relaying a story.

Your facts aren't in question. I asked which came first the stories of mer-people or manatees. The point in asking is that one likely begat the other. That you don't believe the originators of the myth had access to actual manatees on which to create mer-people is irrelevant. Someone, from distant lands/seas COULD have. So, which do YOU think came first, mer-people mythology or manatees?

You 'think' there's no such thing as flying saucers...? RALMAO. Your ignorance is truly astonishing, to me.

The invisible finger I am referring to IS 'visible' within the painting, it just looks transparent.


Are you really asking what you appear to be? I'm pretty sure Sirenians (manatees and dugongs) evolved before humans did, so your question makes little sense. Of course they predate mer-person myths. Really, how could mer-person myths have begotten manatees even if they had evolved later? It's possible manatees gave rise to mer-person myths, but more likely, I think, that such myths come naturally to people. And there were seals before there were selkies, and horses before there were kelpies, but you would be hard put to try arguing that this arose from the misidentification of animals. It seems far more likely that existing. mer-person myths resulted in the wishful misidentification of animals such as manatees than the other way around. Their family designation of "sirenians" suggests as much.

Believe it or not, People make stuff up!

[Maurice Ledifficile]

You seem to have this notion that everyone used to think thunder was Thor. I'm sure believers in Thor knew they were a different concept. Thor brings the Thunder.

You also seem to suggest that people noticed magical beings (or aliens) and tried to assign them a rulership over natural phenomena. The phenomenon happens, then you assign an agent. That's the observed order of things.

I think the fact that we didn't know about how the brain works made it normal to assume the sun or the moon had thoughts of their own. I have a very hard time giving anything without brain cells credit for thinking.

Bonus opinion: If aliens had visited us, the tales should be more like "that thing came from the sky. A door opened and Thor came out."

The tales youe have are all about weird, hallucinatory type stories. That's because it makes it easier to shoehorn anything that can vaguely fit a wild alien story. Straightforward accounts seem to pertain to mundane affairs. God and aliens stories give you more leeway.
(Made sense to me as I wrote it)

[King of the Americas]

Are you really asking what you appear to be? I'm pretty sure Sirenians (manatees and dugongs) evolved before humans did, so your question makes little sense. Of course they predate mer-person myths. Really, how could mer-person myths have begotten manatees even if they had evolved later? It's possible manatees gave rise to mer-person myths, but more likely, I think, that such myths come naturally to people. And there were seals before there were selkies, and horses before there were kelpies, but you would be hard put to try arguing that this arose from the misidentification of animals. It seems far more likely that existing. mer-person myths resulted in the wishful misidentification of animals such as manatees than the other way around. Their family designation of "sirenians" suggests as much.

Believe it or not, People make stuff up!

Admittedly, I asked the question, because I KNOW that manatees came before mer-people mythology. The poster's original statement seemed like an attempt to pre-date manatee discovery.

I AGREE with you that people make stuff up. They also misidentify stuff, add stuff to already told stories, and occasionally 'get the story and details accurate' in the retelling...

The point I've repeatedly tried to make is that, stories, even of a wild unbelievable nature, often have an actual reality at their heart. And while we can't and shouldn't take them at face value, dismissing them as complete fiction is equally unacceptable.

[TX50]

I don't buy the elephant origin for cyclops either, the Greeks were familiar with elephants, they used them in their army and the earliest stories about the first mentioned cyclops in history, Polyphemus originally had two eyes.
I think the origin is much more likely due to the preponderance of the single eye symbol across the ancient near east, where it was used by characters of great stature, such as Gods and kings so its more likely due to a blending of mythology and symbolism.


The elephant skull origin for the cyclops myth is definitely a modern notion. The idea was invented by the Austrian palaeontologist Othenio Abel in 1914 in "Die Tiere der Vorwelt", who asserted that Empedocles in the 5th century BC had identified the "bones of Polyphemus" after examining a fossil elephant skull and noting the large nasal aperture (or whatever the proper osteological term is). However, nothing of the kind exists in any of the surviving works of Empedocles (or anyone else in antiquity). The whole idea is pure guesswork by Abel based on the appearance of the bones. There is no evidence from antiquity to back it up.

The idea was taken up and repeated uncritically by later historians of palaeontology. Willy Ley, one of the first historians of palaeontology to repeat it, expanded the story in 1948 by asserting that Boccaccio (who indeed did report examining a giant skeleton in the 14th century) had also identified a cyclops and cited Empedocles as his authority. This is a gross distortion of Boccaccio's actual report (In "Genealogy of the gods" he in fact mentioned seeing some large bones that crumbled to dust when touched. He did think they could have been the bones of a giant. He did not cite Empedocles). Since then, the idea has been taken up by others, none of whom ever bothered to check what Empedocles or Boccaccio actually said, and been embellished into a commonly repeated "factoid".

More on this may be found in Adrienne Mayor's "The First Fossil Hunters, Paleontology in Greek and Roman times", Princeton, 2000.

More on the origin of the cyclops myth may be found in:

"The Polyphemus Myth: Its Origin and Interpretation.", Justin Glenn, Greece & Rome, Second Series, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Oct., 1978), pp. 141-155

[Finn McR]

... Aaand Marduk scores again! ... and again, and again... bloody hell.

[bruto]

Admittedly, I asked the question, because I KNOW that manatees came before mer-people mythology. The poster's original statement seemed like an attempt to pre-date manatee discovery.

I AGREE with you that people make stuff up. They also misidentify stuff, add stuff to already told stories, and occasionally 'get the story and details accurate' in the retelling...

The point I've repeatedly tried to make is that, stories, even of a wild unbelievable nature, often have an actual reality at their heart. And while we can't and shouldn't take them at face value, dismissing them as complete fiction is equally unacceptable.You conflate the existence and discovery of manatees. Unless you know when manatees were first seen, and whether they were first seen by people who had not previously held any mer-person myths, this assumption is a fundamental error.

Stories do often have some kind of reality at their heart, but this does not mean they must, and whether that reality is useful or not remains questionable. Whether mer-person mythologies rely on manatees, seals, skeins of seaweed momentarily imagined as golden tresses, or the drunken hallucinations of a sailor hardly matters. And likewise, the various possible reasons that some gods are thought to live in the sky are so varied, so impossible to pin down, that it would be foolish to assume any single identifiable reality behind these myths, and tenuous at best to assume any reality at all other than the human impulse toward religion and the need to make sense of the unknown and frightful.

Sure, it would be cool if the reason people have imagined gods in the sky is that there really were gods in the sky, as you so hopefully believe, but there's no evidence to support it. This would be true of the way mythology and religion come about, I believe, even if there really were flying saucers.

Theology and theogony and the roots of religion are interesting subjects. You would learn more about these subjects by studying them than by making it up as you go along.

[King of the Americas]

...

Sure, it would be cool if the reason people have imagined gods in the sky is that there really were gods in the sky, as you so hopefully believe, but there's no evidence to support it. This would be true of the way mythology and religion come about, I believe, even if there really were flying saucers.

Theology and theogony and the roots of religion are interesting subjects. You would learn more about these subjects by studying them than by making it up as you go along.

So, the painting I referenced does NOT show a flying saucer as an "angel of the lord"?

And anyone else who has seen UFO's, flying saucers, or gods in heaven simply haven't...because there's no evidence of it?

And accounts of mer-people can't or shouldn't be taken as evidence of anything other than people have active imaginations, even if we now KNOW that manatees exist and look very similar in shape to mer-folk???

Yet silvery oval shaped UFO's, instantly become blimps to skeptics, because we KNOW they exist and they are the same general shape.

The term flying saucer came about in the early 50's, yet I produce a painting, of a religious nature, featuring the Madonna and the invisible hand of god pointing toward a UFO/flying saucer from over 100 years before that, and it means nothing? So, you claim that what exactly? That there's absolutely no connection or consistency between the historical gods of heaven, and what people are STILL seeing today?

Sorry buddy, that's a beat I just can't dance to...

[Marduk]

The term flying saucer came about in the early 50's, ..
you don't even know the background to the Kenneth Arnold story do you, he didn't say that, the press misreported his claim of the flight characteristics "a saucer skipped across water" as "a flying saucer". They weren't saucer shaped, yet immediately afterwards people start reporting "flying saucers"
do you really not know why that it, thres only two possible explanations
1. the Aliens redesigned their ships in line with the imagination of the press
2. psychology and hollywood http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049169/

once something is in the public imagination, its hard to dislodge and it becomes marketable


Sorry buddy, that's a beat I just can't dance to...

the name of your tune is ignorance
and its getting tired
;)

[King of the Americas]

the name of your tune is ignorance
and its getting tired
;)

Stop whining and make an argument.

So, what did you make of the invisible finger pointing toward the flying saucer?

Is that water damage, or a purposeful image placed by the artist?

[Marduk]

Stop whining and make an argument.


you are the only one here who can't see that my argument and knowledge has destroyed you
shall we take a vote

I'm done with this thread, you got busted again, it was never about God or history, once again as I proved just another attempt by you to validate a brief scene from the x files

I'm going to start a new thread in general about fox mulder being your genesis
:p
and everyone will believe that
So, what did you make of the invisible finger pointing toward the flying saucer?

Is that water damage, or a purposeful image placed by the artist?
well, looks to me like its the Halo of the madonna, the kids got one too, its pointing at her crotch
Amazing huh, fancy that, the mother of Jesus is portrayed as being Holy, I never would have realised if I hadn't known that already
:D

but hey, lets make it easy for other people to give you their opinion of the finger
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a178/belmarduk/Madonna_PalVecchio.jpg
Take a look everyone at the halo shaped object on the Madonnas head
is that a finger ?
:covereyes

let me guess King, you weren't aware that the Madonna is always shown with a finger halo on her head in religious art from the renaissance
that would be because you don't understand religious art then
:rolleyes:

[Marduk]

double post

[King of the Americas]

you are the only one here who can't see that my argument and knowledge has destroyed you
shall we take a vote

...

well, looks to me like its the Halo of the madonna, the kids got one too, its pointing at her crotch
Amazing huh, fancy that, the mother of Jesus is portrayed as being Holy, I never would have realised if I hadn't known that already
:D

...

Take a look everyone at the halo shaped object on the Madonnas head
is that a finger ?
:covereyes

...

I started that voter thread already, it's called Skeptics vs. Knowers/Believers.

I'll rightly concede the image is a halo. The image you provided clearly shows that. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Could you blow up the images/features to the left of the Madonna, those that appear like yellow/gold flames?

What is that representative of?

[Marduk]

Could you blow up the images/features to the left of the Madonna, those that appear like yellow/gold flames?

What is that representative of?

ante partum, in partu, post partum, obviously
:rolleyes:

[King of the Americas]

ante partum, in partu, post partum, obviously
:rolleyes:

How so?

&

Why do "angels of the lord" look so similar to flaying saucers/UFO's?

[Marduk]

How so?
you have already been given the answer to that earlier in the thread, I am not going to continue to educate you when you refuse to learn


Why do "angels of the lord" look so similar to flaying saucers/UFO's?

you have already been given the answer to that earlier in the thread, I am not going to continue to educate you when you refuse to learn
:rolleyes:

Ask yourself, why couldn't you see it was her halo, bloody obvious now isn't it
why couldn't you see the truth earlier on your own, what was stopping you. When you have figured that out, apply the same answer to everything else that you think you know
;)

[RoboTimbo]

Why do "angels of the lord" look so similar to flaying saucers/UFO's?

There's only one answer you will accept.

Because they have always been aliens in flying saucers visiting our planet. They've just been perceived as angels or manatees or whatever you want to believe.

Why does everyone tease KotA with answers that he doesn't want to hear?

[Marduk]

Why does everyone tease KotA with answers that he doesn't want to hear?

Some of us have a vested interest in the truth and education, the rest of the time is thus spared for taking the piss
;)

[King of the Americas]

...

Ask yourself, why couldn't you see it was her halo, ...

I just saw the image I mistook for a finger yesterday... I made the mistake because I was looking at small images of the work, AND the halo was made to look semi-transparent.

Moreover, I've not seen or read your references to Mary's virginity, by the placement of flames in the sky... Maybe you edited a previous post to include this. I'll scan the thread, again.

---

ETA:

Taken from your link:

"...The religious symbology which we find in this Madonna is therefore in line with this older iconography that in the Florence of the humanism and Neo-Platonism had been lost. The three stars, for example, appear often in the paintings of the previous century, and especially in the byzantine icons of the Madonna; often, they were painted on her veil, on the shoulders and forehead; other times they are replaced by three rays; they always represent the "threefold virginity" of the Madonna, i.e., before, during, and after the virgin birth. The three stars, in the same meaning, are also found on the coat of arms of the Oratorian order of Saint Filippo Neri (hence, also called "Filippini"), who are particularly devout to the Madonna..."

Except that in THIS painting, the images ON the Madonna are more than "3". In fact on her left shoulder are "12" somethings falling from a larger something.

While in the sky there are "3" somethings beneath a singular star-like object to make a total of "4".

With all due respect to the person who offered the interpretation, his insights simply don't fit with this painting.

I think as with all art, we see what we WANT to see.

'I' see angel, clouds of light & fire, and silvery objects as UFO's.

While your art debunkers twist these images in an attempt to force their interpretation onto them.

If "3" means Mary's 3-fold virginity, represented ON Mary, you can't turn around and say "4" icons NOT on Mary represent the same thing. There are "13" such images ON the Madonna's left shoulder. So MAYBE the artist was saying he REALLY REALLY REALLY thought she was a virgin???

In short, I wholly disagree with your link's findings, and find no value therein.

[Marduk]

I just saw the image I mistook for a finger yesterday... I made the mistake because I was looking at small images of the work, AND the halo was made to look semi-transparent.

So you weren't looking at the big picture, maybe in future.........

Moreover, I've not seen or read your references to Mary's virginity, by the placement of flames in the sky... Maybe you edited a previous post to include this. I'll scan the thread, again.
Post 51 might be helpful
;)
I think as with all art, we see what we WANT to see
True, however this isn't just art, its religious iconography, every single piece holds a symbolic meaning, the meaning is not open to unqualified interpretation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iconography
With all due respect to the person who offered the interpretation, his insights simply don't fit with this painting.
In short, I wholly disagree with your link's findings, and find no value therein.
Diego Cuoghi who created that website is a famous italian art historian, he is an author on renaissance art and globally recognised as an expert on religious iconography.
What are you, apart from someone who has never studied anything, never achieved anything and by his own admittance is unable to look at the big picture, Basically youre not qualified to dismiss Diego's work. Stop wasting my time

you just don't see it do you, the painters responsible were painting scenes from the bible, they were not present at those scenes and they couldn't just write what was happening on the canvas, so they used symbols instead of words.

[King of the Americas]

http://www.2012unlimited.net/Historical.paintings.pdf

Historically speaking, 'god' or 'angels of the lord' look a LOT like UFO's, flying saucers, and fiery chariots...at least that's my perspective.

If you think otherwise, then I question your perceptive and reasoning skills.

[RoboTimbo]

There's only one answer you will accept.
http://www.2012unlimited.net/Historical.paintings.pdf

Historically speaking, 'god' or 'angels of the lord' look a LOT like UFO's, flying saucers, and fiery chariots...at least that's my perspective.

If you think otherwise, then I question your perceptive and reasoning skills.

Can I call it, or what?

[Marduk]

http://www.2012unlimited.net/Historical.paintings.pdf

Historically speaking, 'god' or 'angels of the lord' look a LOT like UFO's, flying saucers, and fiery chariots...at least that's my perspective.

If you think otherwise, then I question your perceptive and reasoning skills.
this from the boy who can't tell a halo from a finger
:p
youre not qualified to question anything about me
btw, your link was apparently written by an unqualified nobody
can't you find anyone who actually is qualified to know what they're talking about ?
don't you know why that is, or are you just happy to keep bringing the dull knife of your wasted perception to a gun fight
:D

Can I call it, or what?

go right ahead
;)

[King of the Americas]

Moderators,

Could you please put this thread back where I put it?

These are two very different discussions, and merging them is clouding the issues.

[Marduk]

Moderators,

Could you please put this thread back where I put it?

These are two very different discussions, and merging them is clouding the issues.

the first thread was about aliens
the second thread was about aliens

deny it ?
;)

[RoboTimbo]

the first thread was about aliens
the second thread was about aliens

deny it ?
;)

In that case, all of KotA's threads should be merged.

[Marduk]

In that case, all of KotA's threads should be merged.

yup, all the pony in one thread
;)

[bruto]

So, the painting I referenced does NOT show a flying saucer as an "angel of the lord"?I don't know what it shows, since I have not seen the painting up close, nor do I know its history of damage and restoration. Unless you can come up with a really god closeup of the painting, and evidence that it has not been damaged, stained, restored or altered, I think the evidence is poor.

And anyone else who has seen UFO's, flying saucers, or gods in heaven simply haven't...because there's no evidence of it?I didn't say that. I think the evidence is poor, and the evidence of any link between UFO sightings and theology is much poorer. Certainly so far you've provided nothing but your assumption.

And accounts of mer-people can't or shouldn't be taken as evidence of anything other than people have active imaginations, even if we now KNOW that manatees exist and look very similar in shape to mer-folk??? Exactly. Unless you can present evidence, historical or otherwise, that the myths of mer-people occurred first to those who saw manatees, and did not occur independently of manatees, then you have no evidence.

Yet silvery oval shaped UFO's, instantly become blimps to skeptics, because we KNOW they exist and they are the same general shape.

The term flying saucer came about in the early 50's, yet I produce a painting, of a religious nature, featuring the Madonna and the invisible hand of god pointing toward a UFO/flying saucer from over 100 years before that, and it means nothing? So, you claim that what exactly? That there's absolutely no connection or consistency between the historical gods of heaven, and what people are STILL seeing today?

Sorry buddy, that's a beat I just can't dance to... I realize you're not going to dance to anyone else's beat, but yes, I think the things you presume to see in the painting mean nothing, and your evidence for UFO's as a basis of religion is nonexistent, based largely on wishful thinking about a subject about which you have so far evinced little or no scholarship.

[dafydd]

yup, all the pony in one thread
;)

In one big steaming pile.

[Marduk]

In one big steaming pile.

noooo, I was referring to my link to "one trick pony" further up the page, I would never refer deliberately to King with the pony and trap comment. I don't speak cockney or understand the rhyming slang, allright china

:D

[Beelzebuddy]

Oh, thank historical god, finally!

[Cuddles]

And accounts of mer-people can't or shouldn't be taken as evidence of anything other than people have active imaginations, even if we now KNOW that manatees exist and look very similar in shape to mer-folk???

Manatee:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/FL_fig04.jpg

Mermaid:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/Leighton-The_Fisherman_and_the_Syren-c._1856-1858.jpg/385px-Leighton-The_Fisherman_and_the_Syren-c._1856-1858.jpg

I really don't think you should be criticising other people's perceptive and reasoning skills if you seriously think those two things look alike.

[SOdhner]

Historically speaking, 'god' or 'angels of the lord' look a LOT like UFO's, flying saucers, and fiery chariots...at least that's my perspective.

Fair enough. Let's take a look!

Hmm. Well, the first thing I notice is that some of the paintings referenced in your link aren't mysterious at all and show things that are clearly not UFOs. This one (http://www.sprezzatura.it/Arte/Arte_UFO_1_eng.htm) in particular is obviously a hat, as my link shows. I knew that even without looking it up though, because it's not a bad painting of a hat at all.

I also see some of the paintings are only shown seriously cropped, and a few aren't properly sourced - it doesn't give the name of the artist or the painting, so I can't see them in context. In fact, the person who made the PDF doesn't seem to know what some of the things he's referencing are. So his credibility is pretty poor.

That's okay, let's look to someone with better credibility. These are all works where the original artist is dead, so maybe there's an expert we can look to? Oh, wait! Diego Cuoghi is an expert, and you've already been provided with links to his assessments. They seem consistent and solid, with references and research to back them up. How convenient!

Okay, so the expert has explained these things in a way that is logical and fits with the evidence. Phew! Glad to have that one settled!

If you think otherwise, then I question your perceptive and reasoning skills.

Do you think it's unreasonable to go with an expert rather than idle musings?

[dafydd]

Manatee:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/FL_fig04.jpg

Mermaid:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/Leighton-The_Fisherman_and_the_Syren-c._1856-1858.jpg/385px-Leighton-The_Fisherman_and_the_Syren-c._1856-1858.jpg

I really don't think you should be criticising other people's perceptive and reasoning skills if you seriously think those two things look alike.

Easily confused.

[SOdhner]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_394414ddd1c95e0c26.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=23387)

I'm not trying to be snarky here - but I think it's worth noting that the blob in that painting looks like something else more than an alien spacecraft to me.

Without asking the artist or going to an expert, this theory is as solid as "alien spaceship".

[aggle-rithm]

http://www.2012unlimited.net/Historical.paintings.pdf

Historically speaking, 'god' or 'angels of the lord' look a LOT like UFO's, flying saucers, and fiery chariots...at least that's my perspective.

If you think otherwise, then I question your perceptive and reasoning skills.

Interesting that these artists painted these UFO's but didn't think it notable enough to tell anyone about seeing them.

[Correa Neto]

I don't buy the elephant origin for cyclops either, the Greeks were familiar with elephants, they used them in their army ...snip...

Yes, it has its holes.

However it may not be far-fetched. Ancient Greeks were people just like us. Some were bright, some were dull, many were somewhere in-between. Some were very rational, some were very gullible, most were somewhere in-between. Some knew pretty well the limits of their skills, some did not, and so on.

Now, imagine KotA's Ancient Greeces equivalent, a guy who calls himself King of the Athenians and which happens to claim to be the timely truth among other things. Its not hard to imagine such a guy could look at an elephant's skull (or to a carving or drawing or it) and claim "It must be from a monocular giant! Elephant? No way! Where are the trunk's bones?" King of the Athenians, of course, would not accept someone else's arguments.

King of the Athenians, by the way, would be exactly the kind of guy whom, after looking at engravings and/or drawings say, from a Minoic palace, would claim ordinary humans from his past could not have built such a colossal thing, since he could not figure out how to do it. Maybe, Zeus knows, King of the Athenians would claim a race of monocular giants built the Minoic palace. His next step would be to grab Polyphemus myth and distort, I mean, reinterpretate it, force-fitting it in to his beliefs, turning the two-eyed giant in to a single-eyed giant.

It could happen, just saying...

[Correa Neto]

Manatee:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/FL_fig04.jpg

Mermaid:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/Leighton-The_Fisherman_and_the_Syren-c._1856-1858.jpg/385px-Leighton-The_Fisherman_and_the_Syren-c._1856-1858.jpg

I really don't think you should be criticising other people's perceptive and reasoning skills if you seriously think those two things look alike.

Just let time do its work (especially if coupled to fast-food and a marriage) and they will become very similar indeed...

[dafydd]

Interesting that these artists painted these UFO's but didn't think it notable enough to tell anyone about seeing them.

They were all Illuminati artists having a bit of an in joke.

[aggle-rithm]

They were all Illuminati artists having a bit of an in joke.

Or maybe everybody just did a lot of drugs back then.

[Marduk]

Interesting that these artists painted these UFO's but didn't think it notable enough to tell anyone about seeing them.

well seeing as they were all painting iconic religious scenes which they weren't present at, I expect they didn't think it was necessary.
:D

[Skeptical Greg]

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a178/belmarduk/Madonna_PalVecchio.jpg

I must say, baby Jesus was hitting the weight room ..

[Correa Neto]

Oh noes!

This thread...

It returned! Its like a zombie, like a creature from a terror flick that always comes back after its finished, just before the end titles...

But to date, not a single trace of "their return"...

[Marduk]

Oh noes!

This thread...
.

you don't think that anyone reading this thread, would find it educational then ?
:D





























;)