It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Ruiner1978
If it didn't happen as told then they are not communicating what was observed and therefore not proof of anything.
For example, I see the sun rise and give us light. That is observed but saying that it is a sentient being that created us and that might not come back with its light unless we sacrifice something to it is made up BS. Seeing the sun rise doesn't make the made up BS part true.
originally posted by: Ruiner1978
Good lord!
I'm not saying it's proof of anything.
I'm saying it's not necessarily NOT based on an observation, whether it's been communicated accurately or not.
All these ancient stories from all over the world that are fundamentallly saying the same thing. Obviously based on something that was happening.
originally posted by: Puppylove
Reality is that which exists despite oneself and one's faulty ability to perceive it in the limited capacity we can. The only way one could truly know what's true is to be omniscient. As faulty human beings with a limited ability to perceive and understand we are limited at best to educated guesses based upon observed and recorded data. It's impossible to know anything, only to make the best guess based on what seems most likely to be true based upon the evidence presented.
Is why I get so irritated when people try to insist reality as they interpret it is the one true reality and anyone who says otherwise is wrong. No one really knows, we're really all a bunch of monkeys flinging poo in the hopes we hit something worthwhile. Though it is true some monkeys fling poo better than others. In the end though even our best guesses are likely still just crap on the wall in the grand scheme of things.
originally posted by: daskakik
originally posted by: Ruiner1978
Good lord!
I'm not saying it's proof of anything.
I'm saying it's not necessarily NOT based on an observation, whether it's been communicated accurately or not.
What difference does it make if they add BS around something that may have been observed? What do you gain by acknowledging that someone may have spoken to a burning bush?
originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Ruiner1978
Something being true or not true is, by definition, black or white.
originally posted by: Ruiner1978
Seeing things in black and white isn't a good thing IMHO.
If you disagree, fine. Lol
originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Ruiner1978
And to think it's a post that involves monkeys flinging poo...
originally posted by: daskakik
originally posted by: Ruiner1978
Seeing things in black and white isn't a good thing IMHO.
If you disagree, fine. Lol
It isn't a question of how someone sees things.
originally posted by: daskakik
originally posted by: Ruiner1978
Seeing things in black and white isn't a good thing IMHO.
If you disagree, fine. Lol
Like being pregnant or the earth being flat.
originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Ruiner1978
I don't care what you believe. You asked if anyone can prove that scripture (which doesn't include creation stories from all around the world) was based on observations or totally made up.
originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Ruiner1978
I saw it. You were trying to tell someone what/how they thought. That was wrong right off the bat.
originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Ruiner1978
I didn't say you were a flat earthen. It was an example of something being what it is no matter what people think.
So does anyone have proof that ancient scripture is purely based on man's imagination, and not on something that was observed or not?
originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Ruiner1978
So does anyone have proof that ancient scripture is purely based on man's imagination, and not on something that was observed or not?
There you go.