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 WickettheRabbit
Can you provide actual evidence of either?
I'll wait...
No?
Ok. So I'd say it's aliens posing as the Easter Bunny and demons posing as Barney the Dinosaur.
Originally posted by Nazirite
Originally posted by WickettheRabbit
Can you provide actual evidence of either?
I'll wait...
No?
Ok. So I'd say it's aliens posing as the Easter Bunny and demons posing as Barney the Dinosaur.
That isn't entirely true, is it?
One could argue that there is primary source evidence in the form of written codices and scrolls which talk about demons and their provenance.
An alternate argument, of course, could be to discredit these primary sources as merely "Myth"
Ultimately it rests on how you wish to interpret the evidence as Myth or Fact and not on a lack of evidence.
Originally posted by WickettheRabbit
Originally posted by Nazirite
Originally posted by WickettheRabbit
Can you provide actual evidence of either?
I'll wait...
No?
Ok. So I'd say it's aliens posing as the Easter Bunny and demons posing as Barney the Dinosaur.
That isn't entirely true, is it?
One could argue that there is primary source evidence in the form of written codices and scrolls which talk about demons and their provenance.
An alternate argument, of course, could be to discredit these primary sources as merely "Myth"
Ultimately it rests on how you wish to interpret the evidence as Myth or Fact and not on a lack of evidence.
Naughty
Your argument is fallacious - verging on constructing a Strawman in the form of Harry Potter.
HP is verifiably fiction - this can be proved. However, the veracity of historical documents cannot be proven either way and can be used in hypothesis, with caveat, to postulate something as myth or fact = equally valid but never conclusive. Therefore a hypothesis can only use the fact or myth aspect as a tool for development and should neither be discarded or incorporated as conclusive evidence either way.
Both argument are valid.
Thanks, nice argument.
ETA: Sorry if this is a little confusing - haven't sussed how to do the quotes properly yet
edit on 28/6/2011 by Nazirite because: Trouble with Tribbles (quotes)edit on 28/6/2011 by Nazirite because: More trouble with Tribbles
Originally posted by WickettheRabbit
reply to post by Nazirite
I apologize for constructing the foundation for my strawman. That's true. I was simply trying to point out the validation of historical documents vs. fiction becomes more blurry the further back we go into our own timeline. I did a poor job of saying so.
Typing is a pain.
Point Nazirite.
Originally posted by Nazirite
One could argue that there is primary source evidence in the form of written codices and scrolls which talk about demons and their provenance.