No. Post #53 was addressed. Prehistory does not show this. Certain nutters/ frauds/ liars/ deluded people claim that it does, but that's not the same as actually doing so.
Prehistory does show that the Sumerians did not think in terms of gods The thing is , to your last statement , I think of you as this , because you are an ignorant , and insults is all you have
You don't get to impose your hopes and dreams on reality. Reality is what it is and doesn't bend to your will. Myths are actually myths and don't cease being myths simply because you hope they aren't. In fact the opposite is true. You can hope and hope all day long, but at the end of the day the myth is still a myth, proving that you wasted the day on the most ridiculous form of wishful thinking.
Which has nothing to do with what's under discussion. You're trying to divert. What you originally claimed was: "The question of , " prove god exists " can be done Just look into prehistory , the Sumerians to start , the so called " mythology " of our ancient past , god is there." I.e. regardless of whether or not they were called gods prehistory (according to you) shows that gods were actually there. And THAT claim is false. Prehistory does NOT provide any "proof" whatsoever that god (or gods) exist(ed). Well you'd have to say that: you have bugger all to support your claim, so it's easier to attack me rather my argument. I have already shown [sup]1[/sup], in a different thread, that Sitchin's claims are nonsense. 1 Which you will now probably either deny all knowledge/ memory of or obfuscate in other ways.
Real water? What? If you mean they end up being shown as factual then you're wrong. There is NO research that shows them to be factual. Except for the mistaken/ deluded/ lying pseudo-research by cranks.
no, insults are not all he has and I wish he wouldn't use them (we have had words on the subject), but he has some valid points if you can ignore the insults. (hehe, that's where I am better than him..ie not using insults to make a point)
Help me out here because I'm having trouble. Are you simply incredibly forgetful, really stupid or deliberately dishonest? We have been through this. I gave numerous reasons and links (many of which are in posts available in the second link of my last post).
In which case I repeat (2/3 of) my earlier question: are you really stupid or deliberately dishonest? YOU believe Sitchin because you've read him. YOU have, multiple times, asked if I have read him (i.e. your argument is predicated on having read the books and have failed to provide anything OTHER than "go read the books" - which I have done). And yet you won't do me the simple courtesy of reading my sources that refute him. I disagree with Sitchin because he has been shown to be wrong. I'm done. In future I will continue to point out the (numerous) errors in your claims but won't engage directly. Have fun with your trolling.
Is that why you haven't responded to MY post (#2)? Because if you did you'd see that fallacy is in your argument.
Interesting response Since all I asked YOU is why you disagree with him All I get , is nothing , by your thoughts
Well I believe in God, but NOT his teachings of "NOTHING": I believe in the existence of time. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!