|
|
|
Hercules
New Member
35 Posts |
 Posted - 05/25/2011 : 10:23:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
teched246 said:
| It's visible from both hemispheres. Not that it matters in light of how advanced the Ancient Egyptians and Sumerians were in astronomy, with knowledge surpassing even ours' today. |
So.. pre-Newtonian civilizations had more advanced astronomy than we do today? Can you show me the Sumerian data on the cosmic background radiation? Or the Egyptian data on supernovas? Or data from either of those civilizations that calculates planetary motion better than Newtonian physics/calculus?
No? Didn't think so. |
At Stonehenge in England and Carnac in France, in Egypt and Yucatan, across the whole face of the earth are found mysterious ruins of ancient monuments, monuments with astronomical significance. These relics of other times are as accessible as the American Midwest and as remote as the jungles of Guatemala. Some of them were built according to celestial alignments; others were actually precision astronomical observatories... Careful observation of the celestial rhythms was compellingly important to early peoples, and their expertise, in some respects, was not equaled in Europe until three thousand years later.
Dr. Edwin Krupp, Astronomer & Director of the Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles |
| Edited by - Hercules on 05/25/2011 10:24:29 |
 |
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2011 : 10:35:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hercules
Originally posted by Dude
teched246 said:
| It's visible from both hemispheres. Not that it matters in light of how advanced the Ancient Egyptians and Sumerians were in astronomy, with knowledge surpassing even ours' today. |
So.. pre-Newtonian civilizations had more advanced astronomy than we do today? Can you show me the Sumerian data on the cosmic background radiation? Or the Egyptian data on supernovas? Or data from either of those civilizations that calculates planetary motion better than Newtonian physics/calculus?
No? Didn't think so. |
At Stonehenge in England and Carnac in France, in Egypt and Yucatan, across the whole face of the earth are found mysterious ruins of ancient monuments, monuments with astronomical significance. These relics of other times are as accessible as the American Midwest and as remote as the jungles of Guatemala. Some of them were built according to celestial alignments; others were actually precision astronomical observatories... Careful observation of the celestial rhythms was compellingly important to early peoples, and their expertise, in some respects, was not equaled in Europe until three thousand years later.
Dr. Edwin Krupp, Astronomer & Director of the Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles
|
So its agreed, the ancient Egyptians did NOT have astronomical knowledge "surpassing even ours' today". We caught up a centuies ago. Thats your point, right? |
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
| Edited by - leoofno on 05/25/2011 10:36:49 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2011 : 10:37:47 [Permalink]
|
Hercules, the fact that ancient people were good at astronomy is not in question here. There were many civilizations accross the globe that were outstanding astronomers. Their accomplishments are impressive and no one would fail to give them their due.
What I'm talking about is tech's claim that they were better astronomers than we are now.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2011 : 10:52:22 [Permalink]
|
teched246 wrote: | Riiight, because arguing that the Ancient Egyptians were versed in particle physics was necessary to make my point.(?) |
The point that Dude challenged you on was your claim that certain ancient cultures had knowledge about astronomy superior to modern knowledge. That's a big claim. You didn't back it up. You still haven't backed it up.
| My point was that the Ancient Egyptians were knowledgable enough (very knowledgable) to know what went on outside of thier skies and landscape, this being the purpose of the pyramid reference. |
That's not what you said. You wrote that they had knowledge that surpassed ours today. Explain that claim. Support it. Unless you were exaggerating, in which case simply say so and take it back.
| For what reason would I entertain some jackass' irrelevant comment about particle physics in Ancient Egypt? |
Dude comment wasn't irrelevant. He was directly challenging your assertion that the acients had knowledge that surpassed ours by given a specific example of knowledge we have that they didn't. He was demonstrating evidence that your claim is false.
| New Flash: Im not a "skeptic". Although, im skeptical about many things, I passed on the whole sub-culture of pseudo-skepticism, which, apparently, now just goes under the heading, "skepticism"...makes is sound more dignified. |
Okaaaay, let me rephrase. That was the lamest response ever for a forum that is about critical thinking and supporting claims with empirical evidence. How's that?
| I give it 1 hour before many of you start barking like chimps for that comment alone |
How is anyone supposed to take you seriously when you make outrageous statements such as that ancient peoples had knowledge of astronomy that surpasses ours today, and then when someone challenges you on it you dismiss them with "If you only knew." as if you are some grand poobah of wisdom that we are all not privy to. If you were exaggerating, say so. If you have good reason to believe your claim, just say what the reasons are. It's not hard!
| Arguing purely for the sake arguing and arguing in the genuine spirit of Truth (with a capital t) are not the same; the difference being wisdom. The former is a dead end path of irrelevance for big kids to play pedant all they want. |
And you are of course in the latter camp and people who challenge and disagree with you are in the former, right? Of course. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 05/25/2011 10:53:57 |
|
|
|
Hercules
New Member
35 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2011 : 10:58:52 [Permalink]
|
| Kingdavid: "From what location on Earth? In order to even SEE the Southern Cross, you'd have to be very near, or south of, the equator." |
Completely false. The issue of the Southern Crux has been quite thoroughly addressed in the New Zeitgeist Part 1 Sourcebook (2010) pages 60 through 62.
"...The visibility of the stars and changing of the sky vis-ΰ-vis the Southern Cross is described by astronomers David Ellyard and Wil Tirion:
"...From 35 degrees south latitude, stars south of minus 55 degrees declination are always in view (if the sky is clear). So we can always see the Southern Cross and the Pointers, though you will find them in different parts of the sky depending on the time of the night and the year...."
"...the Southern Cross, which is high in the south-east in the early evening in May, will be high in the south-west three months later. In November it will be low in the south-west (and almost upside down), while an early February evening will find it low in the south-east but rising."225
"It has been claimed that the Southern Cross is not visible from the northern hemisphere and that, therefore, the Egyptians, for one, could not have included it in their myths. In the first place, the fact is that the Southern Cross is indeed visible in the current era from anywhere south of 27° N, which includes a large portion of Egypt, such as some of the most important sites like Abu Simbel (21° N), Luxor (25° N) and Aswan (24° N), as well as some of the most ancient sites like Nabta Playa (22° N), where, again, there is an ancient observatory at least 6,000 years old. Secondly, at the time when the gospel story purportedly took place, the Southern Cross was visible just south of 32° N, as related by astronomer Dr. Chris Dolan:
"The Southern Cross is only visible from sites farther south than 27 degrees north latitude. At the time of Christ, however, it was visible from the latitude of Jerusalem (almost 32 degrees N)."226
"... keen observers of the skies like the Egyptians surely would have noticed this striking stellar configuration centuries before that time, especially since all of Egypt is south of 32 degrees north latitude. Indeed, it is asserted that the Egyptians may have been quite aware of the Crux:
"At the latitude of Luxor...the Southern Cross would have been high in the southern sky at the winter solstice. As the first rays of the rising sun flooded the inner sanctum of Karnak Temple, the Southern Cross would still have been visible to the south...227"
The New Zeitgeist Part 1 Sourcebook (2010)
http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/zeitgeistsourcebook.pdf |
|
|
|
|
Hercules
New Member
35 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2011 : 11:04:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Hercules, the fact that ancient people were good at astronomy is not in question here. There were many civilizations accross the globe that were outstanding astronomers. Their accomplishments are impressive and no one would fail to give them their due.
What I'm talking about is tech's claim that they were better astronomers than we are now. |
I think Tech just mis-spoke. As Dr. Krupp points out they certainly were more advanced for 3,000 years. Until fairly recently. |
|
|
|
Hercules
New Member
35 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2011 : 11:33:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
The only real problem I have with the detailed description of the "Mythicist position" as a unique option is that Acharya S misrepresents atheism. The Mythicist position as described by her IS an atheist position. Just because it seeks to understand more fully the origins and meanings of various religious figures, doesn't mean it considers them to be any more real than an atheist considers them. Atheists don't have literal beliefs in the supernatural. Neither do Mythicists. So how are Mythicists not a type of atheist? Really the Mythicist position is just atheism plus a particular interest into origins of Biblical characters and how they might connect with other myths. I don't really see why this topic needs its own special grand label. |
I see this point made often. It's true that the mythicist position is largely an atheistic view of religion, however, Acharya S certainly does not misrepresent atheism in any way. There are people who claim to be atheists who are abusing the word by creating the strong/positive aspects of atheism, those people need to select or create a new word that best describes their views because atheist isn't it. The root of the word and definition for Atheist is simply an "absence of belief in god(s)," which is more of the negative/weak position. Nothing more nothing less. Some atheists such as the strong/positive crowd want all religion removed from society. That's just not necessary (or reality) when we understand the astrotheological and mythical roots of religion.
Atheism is not a philosophy, it's not even a thing. Atheism has no substance. So you're an atheist, then what? It doesn't explain anything at all.
Mythicism contains the substance missing from atheism. We Freethinkers will never change the minds of theists with atheism alone. Mythicism serves as a bridge between atheism and theism to explain the origins and evolution of religion based on natural phenomena and mythology.
And we now know that Freethinkers cannot count on atheists like Richard Dawkins, Richard Carrier, Sam Harris and others to explain these astrotheological origins and evolution like Acharya S can. It's precisely what's missing from the discussion and academia.
The Mythicist Position: Go Beyond the Endless Theist vs. Atheist Debate http://www.project-reason.org/forum/viewthread/13439/
Acharya's Work Complements Sam Harris's Philosophy
http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3588
Richard Carrier on Zeitgeist part 1
http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21269#p21269
Richard Dawkins on ZEITGEIST, Part 1
http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=21425#p21425
One doesn't really have to know anything to be a theist or atheist, however, one does need to know the substance behind the mythicist position in order to be a mythicist. It's a more intelligent position to take.
I think it's vital to recognize the mythicist position to get past the endless theist vs. atheist debate, which never seems to get anywhere. The mythicist position raises the bar. For further explanation go here ...
Evemerist vs. Mythicist Position
http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2160 |
| Edited by - Hercules on 05/25/2011 11:37:38 |
|
|
|
Hercules
New Member
35 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2011 : 11:47:03 [Permalink]
|
| leoofno: "So its agreed, the ancient Egyptians did NOT have astronomical knowledge "surpassing even ours' today". We caught up a centuies ago. Thats your point, right?" |
False, we did catch up but certainly NOT centuries ago. More like a few decades. Gerald Hawkins 'Nature' in 1963 and 'Stonehenge Decoded' 1965 were attacked maliciously in the 60's-80's for pointing out that Stonehenge was essentially an astrotheological observatory. It was confirmed in the mid to late 80's. |
| Edited by - Hercules on 05/25/2011 11:47:42 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2011 : 12:48:24 [Permalink]
|
| Well, I think KingDavid8 can rest easy that any evidence presented by teched246 or Hercules will be examined in excruciating detail, given the insulting (to us!) stuff they've been posting. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2011 : 12:51:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hercules
| leoofno: "So its agreed, the ancient Egyptians did NOT have astronomical knowledge "surpassing even ours' today". We caught up a centuies ago. Thats your point, right?" |
False, we did catch up but certainly NOT centuries ago. More like a few decades. Gerald Hawkins 'Nature' in 1963 and 'Stonehenge Decoded' 1965 were attacked maliciously in the 60's-80's for pointing out that Stonehenge was essentially an astrotheological observatory. It was confirmed in the mid to late 80's.
|
Even if Stonehenge is an astrotheological observatory, I don't see how that means that its builders had more astronomical knowledge than we had only a few decades ago? Hell. They aren't even the same study. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2011 : 13:03:34 [Permalink]
|
Hercules wrote: | There are people who claim to be atheists who are abusing the word by creating the strong/positive aspects of atheism, those people need to select or create a new word that best describes their views because atheist isn't it. |
Getting into the differences between positive and negative atheism gets into hair splitting. Positive atheists don't need a new word for what they are, especially considering that positive atheists are much more likely to claim the label "atheist" for themselves than negative atheists, who are typically more comfortable with other labels like "agnostic".
| Some atheists such as the strong/positive crowd want all religion removed from society. |
Now you are just confusing positive atheism with being anti-religious. I'm a positive atheist, but I'm also a religious pluralist and have no interest in getting rid of religion. There's also a difference between someone who would like religious to disappear, and someone who advocates public policies that would outlaw religion. Even the so-called "New Atheism" popularly represented by Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins merely uses words to criticize religion, and the only public policies they advocate are secular laws that allow freedom of religion without special rights for any one or more religious groups.
| That's just not necessary (or reality) when we understand the astrotheological and mythical roots of religion. |
I don't think the astrotheological and mythical roots of Christianity have jack shit to do with why people believe in it today, nor do I think those supposed roots are a reason why it would be difficult, if not impossible, to rid the world of religion.
| Mythicism contains the substance missing from atheism. |
No, it doesn't. Mythicism is also not a philosophy. It is merely a set of ideas regarding the origins certain religious figures, particularly the Biblical ones. It says nothing about any significance (or lack thereof) those origins have pertaining to contemporary religious life or practice. It provides no set of values or ethics. It provides no set of practices. It provides almost no community structure. It doesn't give life a particular meaning, and it assumes nothing specific about the origin of the universe and possible hereafter. So it really isn't much of an "ism", and again, that is what annoys me about it.
| We Freethinkers will never change the minds of theists with atheism alone. Mythicism serves as a bridge between atheism and theism to explain the origins and evolution of religion based on natural phenomena and mythology. |
Oh, right! A bunch of complicated, academic explanations about the origins of Biblical figures is going to convert Christians to freethought. Give me a break! I don't even care to read about this stuff, and I'm more interested than the average person and I love to read. Most people are not religious because they find it intellectually persuasive. They are religious because it works for them. It's personal. It's emotional. And often deeply entrenched in family histories, marriages, communities, and a specific way of life. And you think a bunch of talk about Egyptian sun gods is going to change peoples' minds? Fat fucking chance.
And for what it is worth, what I've read so far and seen in that stupid movie Zeitgeist, there are much more persuasive arguments against Christianity and other religions, and have been for hundreds of years.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 05/25/2011 13:06:25 |
|
|
|
leoofno
Skeptic Friend
USA
346 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2011 : 13:04:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by Hercules
| leoofno: "So its agreed, the ancient Egyptians did NOT have astronomical knowledge "surpassing even ours' today". We caught up a centuies ago. Thats your point, right?" |
False, we did catch up but certainly NOT centuries ago. More like a few decades. Gerald Hawkins 'Nature' in 1963 and 'Stonehenge Decoded' 1965 were attacked maliciously in the 60's-80's for pointing out that Stonehenge was essentially an astrotheological observatory. It was confirmed in the mid to late 80's.
|
Even if Stonehenge is an astrotheological observatory, I don't see how that means that its builders had more astronomical knowledge than we had only a few decades ago? Hell. They aren't even the same study.
|
Bingo!
I'm getting the feeling that some of these "Mythicists" are not the rational players they make themselves out to be.
|
"If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention." Eric Alterman
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2011 : 15:47:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hercules
| leoofno: "So its agreed, the ancient Egyptians did NOT have astronomical knowledge "surpassing even ours' today". We caught up a centuies ago. Thats your point, right?" |
False, we did catch up but certainly NOT centuries ago. More like a few decades. Gerald Hawkins 'Nature' in 1963 and 'Stonehenge Decoded' 1965 were attacked maliciously in the 60's-80's for pointing out that Stonehenge was essentially an astrotheological observatory. It was confirmed in the mid to late 80's.
|
Universal gravitation, laws of motion, classical mechanics. Isaac Newton, 1687.
Saturn has 62 moons. Titan, which is larger than Mercury, was first spotted in 1655.
Jupiter has 63 moons, one (Ganymede) also larger than Mercury. First documented in 1609.
Galilean telescope. 1609
Newtonian telescope. A concept that was thought of by Galileo and others back around 1600, Newton just put the first one together in 1668.
Cassegrain reflector, 1672.
Special relativity (inertial frames of reference) 1905.
General relativity (description of gravity), 1916.
First radio telescope, 1931.
Sumerians, Egyptian, of European druids have anything like that? Nope. So looks like we did indeed surpass them centuries ago, and in the last century we have obtained levels of knowledge they couldn't have imagined.
Sp please, stop embarrassing yourself here.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2011 : 15:54:25 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
| And for what it is worth, what I've read so far and seen in that stupid movie Zeitgeist, there are much more persuasive arguments against Christianity and other religions, and have been for hundreds of years. |
Christians, like religions before them, cannabalized the previous religions of the culture they started in. There was no way that anyone was going to stop things like Saturnalia, so the early church just coopted the holidays. There is overlap on the mythology as well, things that were taken from other religions. That is all the movie is trying to say, I think. That early christians were plagarists. Nothing new there.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Hercules
New Member
35 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2011 : 18:53:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Well, I think KingDavid8 can rest easy that any evidence presented by teched246 or Hercules will be examined in excruciating detail, given the insulting (to us!) stuff they've been posting. |
WTF? Oh for christ's sakes what are you crying about now? Apparently, one can't make any comment around here without someone claiming to be insulted.
Whaaaa  |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The Mythicist position
