[QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"]

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"] Saying that the old civilizations need help from aliens to achieve anything.. is insulting to the human species. There is no great difference between the humans of now and the humans of then. They had just as smart people around then as we see today.

EMOEVOLUTION

First, he did not say that humans need the aid of extraterrestrials to achieve anything. He did say, however, that it's unlikely that the Egyptians built the pyramids without the aid of extraterrestrials. Also, it's not insulting to ask questions. A mature, intellectual mind will not cower before questions, regardless of their premise.

While there are no differences, genetically between people of antiquity and people of modernity, the level of knowledge is quite different. The average person today is more knowledgeable than the average person of antiquity. Our mathematicians are more knowledgeable than their mathematicians. Our scientists know more than their scientists did.

It's truly incredible what they were able to accomplish without knowledge of some of the most fundamental mathematical axioms and theorems known today.

No there's not. They had a very rudimentary knowledge of algebra and geometry, and a modern student taking geometry is learning more geometry than was known even in the days of the Pax Romana. For this reason, I do find it incredible that they were able to construct the Pyramids. I'm not saying that they were unequipped, based on their knowledge of mathematics, to create a pyramid structure, because they were able to, and anyone who knows geometry knows the basic fundamentals behind such a structure.

However, what they lacked in certain knowledge, they made up for in the tools and tricks they employed to get around the hurdles inherent in such an undertaking.

is it that hard to believe that humans are capable of anything? Just wait, 2000 years into the future, some other humans will be talking and speculating that aliens helped us build what we got today, like the internet.Gallego

Unless some catastrophe completely destroys all of our recorded history, data, and knowledge, I don't see the level of historical discrepancies that we see when looking 2000 years into the past occurring 2000 years in the future.

[QUOTE="SEANSEXYUNDIES"]

Although some of you will probly think im a little strange for taking side with this theory but i think all big successful old cultures of the world were help my aliens. i think it's a stupid idea to think people just out of the stone age produced such things as the pyrmids and myian culture by themselfs.

what do you think?

EMOEVOLUTION

First, he did not say that humans need the aid of extraterrestrials to achieve anything. He did say, however, that it's unlikely that the Egyptians built the pyramids without the aid of extraterrestrials. Also, it's not insulting to ask questions. A mature, intellectual mind will not cower before questions, regardless of their premise.

While there are no differences, genetically between people of antiquity and people of modernity, the level of knowledge is quite different. The average person today is more knowledgeable than the average person of antiquity. Our mathematicians are more knowledgeable than their mathematicians. Our scientists know more than their scientists did.

It's truly incredible what they were able to accomplish without knowledge of some of the most fundamental mathematical axioms and theorems known today.

I think the poll results are a bit unsurprising. More than half the people have never even read the Bible, 28 people have never heard of the Bible and about 38% have read the Bible.

Of course, someone can still form an opinion on religion without knowing or understanding that religion, but that makes their opinion uninformed and not worth my time to read or reply to. So now when another religious topic pops, I'll be inclined to take most opinions with a grain of salt, which is what I do anyway, because it's apparent to me who have read the Bible and who haven't based on their responses.

I have read some parts of it.. But in all honesty there are much better reads.. sSubZerOo

That's interesting because I think the Bible is one of the best books ever written, and I don't even consider myself a religious person by any means. However, I'm a bit of a bibliophile, so I read and analyze everything. Out of all the classics, out of all the best literature I've ever read, the Bible still stands high among them. I hear it's even better in Greek, but my Greek is a bit rusty these days.

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]

[QUOTE="_en1gma_"] Shakespeare's screenplays are alright when WATCHED. But for reading, oh no no no.

chessmaster1989

So..i'm guessing you consider great literature to be nonexistent...

Urgh... Shakespeare's famous works are plays, meaning they were written with the intention of being performed.

:|

That doesn't mean they don't count for enjoyable reading. Obviously people enjoy reading Shakespeare, including myself. Plus, Shakespeare was known for his poetry just as much as his plays.

[QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"]

[QUOTE="_en1gma_"] We were talking about how he said that atheist only attack Christianity (monotheism), and I said it just seems that way because he gets offended when the atheists reject his form of theism. I've read most of the Bible (out of sheer curiosity). I've also read many other books. I'd prefer to read the other books because the Bible is a terrible piece of literature._en1gma_

Perhaps, you should re-read the Bible. There's a reason why the likes of Shakespeare, Milton, Chaucer, Dante, Blake, and others have been so inspired by it, which can be directly seen in their work.

Buona notte.

[QUOTE="TheAbbeFaria"]

[quote="EmoRevolution"]

Let's look at it this way for a second. A person calls themselves a Christian.. yet doesn't study the bible. An Atheist calls themselves and Atheist.. yet doesn't study the bible. What is the difference? There is none. Yet, for some reason.. you can call yourself a Christian and not study the bible... and still be a Christian. but for some reason the Atheist is wrong.EMOEVOLUTION

If a Christian doesn't study or know anything about the Bible, then I do question whether he is a Christian, but I'm really not concerned with this at the moment, so let us stick to the original debate.

And let's look at the reverse. Lets say both the self proclaimed Christian and Atheist read the bible.. and interpret it for themselves. They are not in fact coming to a unique interpretation if they align themselves with a specific collective mindset.. If you deviate from the mindset in any way.. you are no longer apart of the collective interpretation and are neither an atheist or a Christian.. you are in fact something else entirely. This is why you cannot interpret the bible for yourself and be a Christian. EmoRevolution

Christianity is comprised of numerous different denominations with their own spin on the mythology. What makes all these denominations Christian is the common principles from which they are all borne from: the belief in Christ as the savior, the belief in the creation myth, the belief in the same book.

A person who believes in the principles yet interprets the Bible differently, is just a different kind of Christian, not a person of a different religion entirely.

I don't think you understand anything that I'm saying. You're trying to say two things at once here 1.) A person who reads the Bible is not merely a Christian, just because he reads it, and I agree with this. However, I don't agree with 2.) A person who interprets the Bible in his own way is not a Christian. Christianity, including any religion, is not valid on the premise that others follow it. All that is required for a religion to exist is the beliefs themselves. It may not have any bearing on a global scale, certainly not on the scale of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and all them, but it still exists.

Should one interpret the Bible in his own way, yet still hold true to the core principles of the Bible, he would still be a Christian, just a new type. Really, everyone interprets the Bible their own, regardless of which denomination they subscribe to, but they subscribe to the denomination that their interpretations mostly identify with.

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]

[QUOTE="_en1gma_"] You totally just changed what we were discussing... Anyways, he seems to be arguing that you have to read the entire Bible to form any sort of opinion on it...which is just silly._en1gma_

I was supporting his statement..so it's not really changing what we were discussing...and if your going to say it's terrible etc..without actually reading it i can understand his feelings..and if you're going to quote it and make claims about it..i can also understand that..

Perhaps, you should re-read the Bible. There's a reason why the likes of Shakespeare, Milton, Chaucer, Dante, Blake, and others have been so inspired by it, which can be directly seen in their work.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]Let's look at it this way for a second. A person calls themselves a Christian.. yet doesn't study the bible. An Atheist calls themselves and Atheist.. yet doesn't study the bible. What is the difference? There is none. Yet, for some reason.. you can call yourself a Christian and not study the bible... and still be a Christian. but for some reason the Atheist is wrong. And let's look at the reverse. Lets say both the self proclaimed Christian and Atheist read the bible.. and interpret it for themselves. They are not in fact coming to a unique interpretation if they align themselves with a specific collective mindset.. If you deviate from the mindset in any way.. you are no longer apart of the collective interpretation and are neither an atheist or a Christian.. you are in fact something else entirely. This is why you cannot interpret the bible for yourself and be a Christian. EMOEVOLUTION

So to be a Christian, I have to agree with every single practice a specific denomination believes in? I call BS. What of the early Christians who believed in the divinity of Jesus before the establishment of an organized church? What of the Protestants that broke from the Roman Catholic Church? Are they Christians or are they, like you claim, "something else?"

A religion, as I've stated before, is a collection of beliefs. It doesn't matter how many people subscribe to those beliefs.