Originally posted by steve1709
...So, if you feel like bagging out Ancient Aliens, may I suggest you not build your arguments on the shaky ground of dogma....Respectfully (with
absolutely no animosity to you)
You certainly said a lot there and so I will try my best to address each point. And thank you for the civil proposition. Too often I do come across
The comment about Christianity and Islam being historically rooted was merely a point I was making in respect to the AA (Ancient Aliens) claims about
which are mere speculation which are founded on misinterpretations, or flat out lies about the evidence provided.
As I mentioned in a post previous, the "sheered off mountain that can only be done with alien technology" turned out to be a mesa.
But let me real quick go back to the point about theism and specifically in my case Christianity. On case for theism, I believe there are good
arguments between cosmological, teleological, ontological and moral arguments for the existence of a single God. But they don't prove the Christian
God, but simply provide solid logical deductions about the knowledge we have about the universe to posit that yes, God does exist. It's not as
fallacious or blindly led faith as one would presume.
Secondly, for Christianity, it is founded upon one man. Yeshua. Now you have to understand that there are two biases that are made against the
evidence for Jesus. First, the Bible itself is never accepted by the ardent skeptic as if the first century authors who wrote it were not capable for
reporting accurately the events that led them to believe who Yeshua was and what he did. In fact, there are plenty of extra biblical records of this
man which are consistent with the biblical accounts. As guilty as I am with an appeal to authority here, Jesus of Nazareth is unanimously seen as a
real man who existed in the first century by all scholars who look at the era, regardless of worldview or agenda. This should tell the people who
vehemently deny his existence something.
Back to AA. Yes many of the evidences such as Baalbeck, Machu Piccu etc. are mysteries in their own right. In that regard, not even archeology can
conclusively come to giving an explanation (of course if they opened up the cover ups about giants, there might be a more plausible
explanation...which happens to be consistent with the Bible as well as other historic tribes, text etc...but I don't go there on this post). So the
alternative is NOT that they were just ultra intelligent humans that must be responsible for it. Certainly, that could be the case for SOME of the
claims, but not every.
What the debunking will do is take each claim (at least the big ones) one by one, and investigate what is actually known about them and compare them
to what AA posits. Essentially what you will find is that some of the claims made by AA is a really big stretch. Others not so much. But given the
agenda, and understanding it's for entertainment value, we want to show that speculation and faulty scholarship is where most of the AA claims come
from. Not that it needs to be in line with Academia (because we all know there is suppressed knowledge there as well) but at least show that there is
more to it than simply..."ALIENS!"
As for the first 5 books of the Bible being just a amalgamation of older text, yes it is true, but it also has to do with where you stand on
philosophical grounds as to what the Bible is. If it is the inspired Word of God, then it's actually the retelling of the history in a concise and
more accurate way than the previously transcribed versions. Why? Because if God is the author, then He knows the truth behind what happened. It would
be like writing a book on WW II today to gain better understanding of what happened and why. You can reject it, but understand it's not philosophical
As for the tragedies in the name of god throughout history, well I'm not sure what the argument is. If the argument is that "The Bible is not
true...or it's wrong because look at the horrible behavior of such and such" then your argument is a logical fallacy because how one acts "in the
name" of anything doesn't really have any bearing on how true the claims are.
I'll give you an example. Stalin was an atheist and he killed millions of his own people. Does that mean atheism is wrong or horrible? No. Not at
Ironically Steve, I too believe that much of history is shrouded by political/economical/ecumenical agenda's which have shaped what we know about it.
Ever heard of the phrase to the effect of, "those who win wars write history" ? So I am in the same boat with you, that our history is much more
fantastic than what is promoted by main stream academia. But I would also assert that the Biblical records best explains these mysteries, as well as
current events unfolding today.
So, hope that gives you something to chew on, and I'd be happy to dig deeper into a particular topic