Forever Cursed Posted February 7, 2014 #51 Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) What would be the point, if you only believe your own ideas ? Exactly my point. We only believe those things we want to believe. It is the nature of man. Why do you think there are so many religions ? You can not prove or disprove a belief. So we simply learn to respect them, and cling to our own. hhmmm... should I join in? can my blood pressure take it? With a name like nut cracker I wouldn't argue with ya ! Edited February 7, 2014 by Forever Cursed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Cursed Posted February 7, 2014 #52 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Dont waste you breath on him, he is a troll who just want to wind people up. He admitted that in an earlier post (#19). I like to think of it as spicing up the ordinary. Kinda like the "Honey I'm home, with a salsa twist." and getting those creative juices flowing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted February 7, 2014 #53 Share Posted February 7, 2014 I like to think of it as spicing up the ordinary. Kinda like the "Honey I'm home, with a salsa twist." and getting those creative juices flowing. Thats what zoser says too... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionmark Posted February 7, 2014 #54 Share Posted February 7, 2014 (edited) Thats what zoser says too... Well, I kind of suspect that this guy is sock puppet NR 345345 courtesy of zoser too.... Edited February 7, 2014 by questionmark 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Cursed Posted February 7, 2014 #55 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Next week we visit Bigfoot. Myth, Legend, or just someone in need of a bottle of Nair ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted February 7, 2014 #56 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Where is Deolate Earth? Harte Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmt_sesh Posted February 8, 2014 #57 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Forever Cursed and Annuit, in reviewing recent posts I see coming from your end hallmark notions such as "keep an open mind" and "I prefer to figure it out for myself" (I'm paraphrasing, but you get what I'm saying). I've also seen a tendency toward distrusting professional orthodox research, which is something I've seen at UM a lot but something that always puzzles me when it comes from ordinary people operating outside an expertise in the field being discussed. Let's take this topic, for example: Zecharia Sitchin and his "translations" of ancient cuneiform. Real scholars rarely bother to deal with fringe writers like Sitchin because of the absence of methodology in fringe writings. And when it's apparent that such a writer is making grand pronouncements out of grossly misinterpreted ancient sources, there is even less of a reason to take such a person seriously. This is Sitchin's situation. The only legitimate scholar of whom I'm aware who challenged to meet one on one with Sitchin and dissect his work is Michael Heiser. Sitchin always refused. The point is moot now because Sitchin is deceased. But this is typical of fringe writers (other examples including Erich von Däniken, Graham Hancock, Robert Schoch, and Robert Bauval, to greater or lesser degrees of "fringeness"). But if you're in a similar situation to Sitchin, or actively support Sitchin's work, you face the daunting task of proving your ideas. And that is one, big, thorny issue. Fringe writers do not adhere to any recognizable research methodology, freely misinterpret professional scholars where it suits them, staunchly avoid having their work reviewed and critiqued, and publish on a whim. Therefore, there is no reason for academics to take them seriously. It's one thing not to trust orthodox scholarship, but certainly quite another to disprove it. And if you can't disprove it, you'll never has any effect on our wider knowledge base. It's that simple. And to this day not one fringe writer has had any effect on our knowledge base. It's not a matter of "belief." That is suited to religion but not to scientific or historical research, all of which is guided by extant evidence and rigid protocols. If your idea strays from what evidence can tell us, it's not a reliable idea, is it? You can say you "don't trust" academia, but if you do not possess the level of training and experience for which academics have worked so hard, you're simply not equipped to upset their research. This, again, is the realm in which Sitchin resided. Seeing things your own way and arriving at personal beliefs is and always will be completely insufficient. won't it? I'm not trying to be mean, I'm merely stating facts. Keeping an open mind is fine, and this tells me you don't know professional historians in any meaningful way because you would otherwise know how open minded and curious they are. They're always on the search for new evidence and information, but they always allow the evidence to guide their research. Sitchin and his ilk have always tried to force the evidence to fit their agendas, which is one of the big reasons they've reached no level of scholarly success. Which brings me to a concluding point for now. It's been asked why Sitchin or someone like him would go to the trouble to spin such elaborate lies. This has already been answered by more than one poster, but I'll add the same: to sell books, to make money. I honestly wonder whether folks like Sitchin even believe the flotsam they peddle, but one thing is for certain: many fringe writers have made a tidy sum of money spinning their odd versions of sci-fi nonsense. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmt_sesh Posted February 8, 2014 #58 Share Posted February 8, 2014 See that's just your opinion. You bring me the International book of "FACTS" sanctioned by the worlds leading scientists, and the U.N. and we will see if I believe it then. That would be convenient, wouldn't it? And it's typical of the ceaseless desire for instant gratification in our age. Of course, there is no such book. Such a book is impossible. It's not that easy, nor will it ever be. If you have a driving interest in a particular field, you are the one obligated to read as much as you can about that field. Not just a book or two, or three or four, but dozens of them. If not hundreds. And this doesn't include research papers, articles, and reports. It takes a hell of a lot of commitment. But if you commit yourself to it—and it should be more than possible, if you have a real driving interest—you will eventually see why scientists and historians and other specialists have achieved for the world our understanding of any given subject. You will understand how theories are built, how they are improved, and how they succeed or are toppled. You will intuitively know what is reliable and what is bunk. Facts do not change. Our understanding of them might. I can cite any number of historical theories that were gospel at one point in time but are invalid today, all thanks to the sum total of evidence and what it can show us. And that's a fact. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted February 8, 2014 #59 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Lets just put it this way... Enki vs. Jesus..I'll take Enki in the first round Jesus will just come back three days later 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windowpane Posted February 10, 2014 #60 Share Posted February 10, 2014 The only legitimate scholar of whom I'm aware who challenged to meet one on one with Sitchin and dissect his work is Michael Heiser. There was a similar thread on the Graham Hancock board. It appears that Piotr Michalowski (although not TBMK offering to meet Sitchin) also analysed Sitchin's work, but wasn't too impressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmt_sesh Posted February 11, 2014 #61 Share Posted February 11, 2014 There was a similar thread on the Graham Hancock board. It appears that Piotr Michalowski (although not TBMK offering to meet Sitchin) also analysed Sitchin's work, but wasn't too impressed. An interesting read, Windowpane. I've visited Hancock's forum in the past just to see what was being discussed, and honestly cannot ever picture myself taking part there. The sheer idiocy and lack of critical thinking bounces off the walls. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted February 11, 2014 #62 Share Posted February 11, 2014 There are some very good posters there as well. Archie Solenhofen, for example. You'll find his name on several websites involving antiquity - in forums as well as being an author on informational websites. Harte Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now