Robittybob1

That seemed to cover just about every possibility. Could you get an atheist who believes in angels?

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110402222508AAY4Why seems to think it is possible!

..... Was this site built to be kept secret for its lifetime and then buried to keep it safe afterwards, possibly from worries about an approaching hostile culture? Or were they buried in sequence as each one's celestial viewing "technology" became obsolete and replaced by the newer and presumed better construct next to it.

 

....

If they built successively better versions I'd tend to believe they would reuse the stones rather than move new ones the entire distance from the quarry.

 

Robbitybob1. You state that "From an atheist's point of view the words "angels, demons, supernatural beings" can't really have any particular meaning."

 

Ironically, I am not sure what your claim that these words have no meaning to an atheist actually means.

 

One problem I have with this statement is that what an angel or demon means in one religion is typically not the same as it means in another. And certainly the word "supernatural" could apply to thousands of religions.

 

Secondly, I have no idea what how you are defining "meaning." Are you suggesting that nonbelievers can't understand the concept of an angel or the concept of supernatural?

 

Thirdly, I can only wonder if you are assuming in the discussion that angels actually exist. If not, I fail to see how your statement is any different from stating that a mother can't really understand the words "tooth fairy" because, unlike her child, she doesn't believe that they exist. .I think that a person who doesn't believe in UFOs, as commonly described in the media, can understand the word just as well as those who do believe in them.

 

Fourthly, I am not sure how this statement relates to the origins of monotheism. Are you suggesting that nonbelievers or those who deny the existence of a single god can't really understand the concept because they don't believe in it? I fail to follow your logic... Perhaps you are you suggesting that angels didn't reveal themselves to atheists or that they similarly won't reveal themselves to a person who doesn't believe in them...?

 

Fifthly, I am not sure what you mean by the "particular" meaning of these words. Is that somehow different from their general meaning?

 

If those words have the same meaning to an atheist and a believer that's OK, for I was just thinking if they are just treated by an atheist as "they don't exist" I was then wondering how they would define them.

Would someone clear that up for me then please. If our religions depend on the revelation of God via angels (but they don't exist), what is it that we have?

What would humans know about God if it wasn't for the angels? The Bible and the Koran in parts seem to be revealed through the action of angels.

From an atheist's point of view the words "angels, demons, supernatural beings" can't really have any particular meaning.

You might be interested in some of these, as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Monotheistic_religions

It gets quite disturbing when you start following all of the links. One might never get to the end.

But looking at the site on Google Earth there looks to be a valley to the ESE.

 

The hills on either side would help to funnel a herd up to the trap.

 

Branches and such could easily be piled in a V to urge the animals toward the entrance. One way in. No way out. A trap. Once the heard is in the entrance is closed and the throwers are standing above the herd in perfect position. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

What is the link to that view please?

 

If the circle equates to a corral only a handful of animals would fit in at anytime. A big bull would totally trash the place. If they were wild but fed regularly it might work.

Humans would have been trapping animals for thousands of years before this. A trap has to be a device that corners an animal. To me it is completely in the wrong place and shape for use as a trap.

The city closest to Gobekli tepe is called the "City of Prophets" is there a clue there.

Imagine if a prophet foretold of a cataclysm. If he said the site has to buried so it can survive. The cataclysm comes and goes but the people who used the buried temple are all deceased hence it is forgotten for the next 11,600 years.

 

Cos about half the world's population (to some extent or another) are religious people follow who monotheistic religions in the Abrahamic tradition. The largest non-abrahamic monotheistic is I guess Sikhism which is at least 2 orders of magnitude smaller

Monotheistic religion means they follow "one God" but does that mean they are following the same god simply because they claim the same ancestry? When I read the story of Abraham it seems rather polytheistic and he came from a tradition of Mesopotamian polytheism.

I'll have to look at what Sikhism has to say. Thanks.

Have their methods of fighting deterred us from attacking them?

Are you talking about bombing them in Syria and Iraq? It is how you handle it back on the homeland I'm talking about.

And what do we do if someone eventually calls our bluff? Execute innocent people? Or say "No, we were just saying that a deterrent, we would never actually do it"?

 

I'm confused as to what you are advocating we actually do in the event that someone breaks this "execute innocent relatives of the perpetrator" law.

Well the first thing would be to arrest the required number of relatives and or associates. That would give the FBI access to all sorts of private information that could confirm if they knew what was about to happen or if they had similar affiliations. Maybe we could grant leniency to those who are innocent.

 

I have always thought fighting back on their terms would be the best deterrent. That is just an opinion.

 

 

Why wouldn't ISIS have claimed credit for the attack if that was the law? They get the propaganda advantage of the attack as well as the propaganda advantage of the world seeing the US execute 50 people in retaliation.

 

That seems like a win-win from ISIS's perspective.

Well that is a difference of opinion.. I think the opposite would prevail. It would have to be tried to see its effect.

 

Where did you read that? I have only seen reports that he pledged allegiance to ISIS. But apparently there was bi evidence to any actual links (yet).

It was on the TV news in NZ. I didn't read it, it was just reported.

But your method of nipping the problem in the bud is threatening to murder people in reaction. The only way you don't murder people in reaction is if you assume that the threat of violence will deter people from ever committing an act that you will respond to.

 

Historically, that never winds up being the case, so you will have to murder innocent people in order to enforce this solution at some point.

In this case he claimed to be an ISIS fighter and ISIS is reported to have claimed responsibility. If that law had been in place both those claims may not have been made. If that was the case that would be the first benefit for ISIS would not get the propaganda advantage.

Yes, I'm sure murdering 50 people, most if not all of whom had nothing even tangentially to do with the attack and would do lots to win hearts and minds.

 

If your family was all executed because some second cousin twice removed went on a rampage, I'm sure your first reaction would be "I should make sure to turn in anyone who wants to attack the people who slaughtered my innocent relatives in the future" and not "I should kill the people who slaughtered my innocent relatives."

 

You actually managed to come up with a punishment that is worse than North Korea's three generation rule. I'm impressed.

It is meant to nip the problem in the bud. Not to murder in reaction.

Are you actually trying to recruit for ISIS?

Because that's the sort of bewilderingly stupid comment that will help them.

How will that help them? Explain please.

 

On the news here they said a person heavily armed was planning something in California but was arrested before anyone was hurt. That is what I was trying to encourage.

When we woke up this morning, the first thing my girlfriend said was how she felt so bad about the singer who was killed by a shooter following her concert in Orlando last night.

 

Then we checked the news.

 

 

Not a good night in Orlando.

 

Why do you think no one is fighting ISIS?

What would happen if you applied ISIS sort of justice to their fighters? If they kill, retribution will be meted out to them in the same proportion. If they kill 50 people 50 members of their own family will be executed.

You might think this is extreme but it sure would encourage family members to dob-in the troublemakers before disaster strikes.

Perpetrators would really consider the consequences of their potential actions too.

 

I can't imagine no one knew this attack was going to happen.

It isn't a five minute job for a band of hunter gatherers to cover an area as large as this. 300 times 300 meters to a depth of 15 meters. I'm not sure of the exact figures, but they didn't have transport and no domesticated beasts of burden. No tools other than sticks, and woven baskets. Baskets and skin loin cloths seem to be the only technology depicted in the reliefs.

Still someone organised enough labour to complete that task.

 

All done at the top of the mountain.

robittybob1,

 

OK the 1000 years later part falsifies the smell of death idea, but leaves open that one tribe or group had reason to cover up the civilization of another, for spite, or because society had changed and sought to bury the ways of the past.

 

Regards, TAR

,

Maybe somehow Neanderthals were involved and there was a desire for the Neanderthal structures to be buried, by haters of the Neanderthals.

I think in terms of human behaviour if they hated this culture they would have smashed the stones and toppled them rather than leaving them standing. Somehow the burying of them has preserved them, for really the soft limestone would be totally weathered if they were exposed to the elements.

I've just finished listening to the documentary

and it covers some interesting aspects of climate change, evolution and development of astronomy and religious motives.

Too much to take-in in one sitting.

Gunung Padang Megalithic Site seems to be older than Gobekli Tepe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunung_Padang_Megalithic_Site

Robittybob1,

 

I thought the site looked like the walled areas could have be constructed as a pen to corral edible wild animals herded in, funneled in by teams of "hunters" the prey was running from.

 

Then others stood on the top of the Ts and threw large stones down, knocking out the animals, preserving the tasty and nutritious blood without fouling the meat with bile, while safe from the hoof and claw and tooth.

 

As to filling in the sites, perhaps one would smell so of death that the next herd would not enter, and they would have to build another, or build another in a better spot for herding in the next group. Or perhaps rivals would fill in the site to keep the others from decimating the herds, as the method was so effective.

 

Just a thought.

 

Regards, TAR

Having dealt with animals all my life I'll just say that is IMO not a workable hypothesis.

http://skepdic.com/gobeklitepe.html

 

....one thing that makes the carved stones at Göbekli Tepe interesting is that the standing stones seem to have been deliberately buried around 8200 BCE.....

Used for 1000 years and then buried by carrying earth and rocks to cover the whole site. Weird

I think the discussion misses on a large part of the issue which is how to create a stable nation. The conflict is a symptom of underlying issues and just letting one side (whichever it is) win does not necessarily to sustainable stability. Unfortunately, just listing the elements could easily exhaust the capabilities of standard online discussion. But one would also have to look into the formation of a well-educated middle-class, raising standard of living, reducing the gap between urban and rural areas, improving governance, rule of law, economy and infrastructure just to randomly name a few elements that will be crucial to sustain peace.

The whole thing gets complicated due to recent history, in which the major players in the middle East as well as Western and former Soviet forces actively shaped and destabilized the region and let various forces attain power whose aim is anything but a stable region (as it would diminish their power).

That would be a great set of objectives, none of which seem unattainable. Right where do we start?

It is also important to recognize that a hundred years of our (western world) interfering with sovereignty has helped create the state of affairs we are currently in.

Somehow they have to get over that too, if they want Syria to be one country. Splitting it up is a possibility that I haven't seen being discussed.

Years ago there were little kingdoms all over the place. This wasn't conducive to peace either.

 

"Did they have tools that could make this?" - Demonstrably they did. This is SF.N let's no go down the aliens did it route.

 

I think it was abandoned rather than actively buried - btw. Also it is worth bearing in mind that just a few years back - in both our lifetimes - the suggestion of the existence of such a site would have been mocked by archaeologists; so when they confidently expound on the peoples who created it take it with a pinch of salt. There is much in archaeology which is cutting edge empirical science with some delightful and inspired techniques but there is also much which is pure bullshit.

 

Without the "hard-science" techniques of radiocarbon dating and modern stratigraphy the archaeological community would not have countenanced a stone built sanctuary created by hunter-gatherers 9-10000 years BCE - it would have been and was declared impossible. We can now provide very good empirical evidence that this impossible part of prehistory actually happened - the society which created it might well remain a complete mystery; that will not stop people discoursing on the details of that society

No aliens OK, we've just got to find the tools they used. In this case it was flint used on limestone. Not that hard to do. (In a later period they must have been using a very hard alloy of bronze, this was based on the fine particles of the tool left in the crevices of the stones, but there has not been the example of the tool with that composition discovered yet. Saws for cutting stones are mentioned in the OT, has an actual saw been found yet?)

 

As far as whether it was buried. To me the shape of the mound prior to the excavation seemed to suggest "burial" but that hasn't been discussed. The material between the walls looks too heavy just to have just blown there. If it was covered in a landslide I'd expect all the obelisques to be knocked over. The hollows could have filled with runoff but would they end up mounded?

 

It surprises me how many of these "temples" were found at that site.

wikipedia reads like it was covered through human activity.

 

Göbekli Tepe (pronounced [ɟøbekˈli teˈpe],[2] "Potbelly Hill"[3]) is an archaeological site at the top of a mountain ridge in the Southeastern Anatolia Region of modern-day Turkey, approximately 12 km (7 mi) northeast of the city of Şanlıurfa. The Göbekli Tepe (pronounced [ɟøbekˈli teˈpe],[2] "Potbelly Hill"[3]) is an archaeological site at the top of a mountain ridge in the Southeastern Anatolia Region of modern-day Turkey, approximately 12 km (7 mi) northeast of the city of Şanlıurfa. The tell has a height of 15 m (49 ft) and is about 300 m (984 ft) in diameter.[4] It is approximately 760 m (2,493 ft) above sea level. has a height of 15 m (49 ft) and is about 300 m (984 ft) in diameter.[4] It is approximately 760 m (2,493 ft) above sea level.

A "tell"

 

A tell, or tel (from Arabic: تَل‎‎, tall,[1] Hebrew: תֵּל,[2]) is a type of archaeological mound created by human occupation and abandonment of a geographical site over many centuries.

But there is no suggestion that Gobekli Tepe was ever a site of habitation, so I'm still wondering why it was covered?

I'm left thinking the purpose was to build it and cover it. Still don't know why though!

Was it a bit like the Terracotta Warriors? Where they go through this huge exercise just to bury it? https://www.travelchinaguide.com/attraction/shaanxi/xian/terra_cotta_army/

I don't suppose there is a solution then. I just believe that life forms should say that they are what other people are: I suppose I have to accept though that even that is futile, in which case all one can do is be true to themself.

My philosophy is that because a forest can exist after anything anyone says, nations should be ended.

There is no dissention in a forest either. A young seedling is very suppressed by the dominant trees in a forest. Its not all glorious living in a forest either.

If you saw Cristina De Kirchner or Jeremy Corbyn say in public that anyone in Tehran or California were as much the meaning of life as someone such as Ridley Scott (the filmmaker) or someone like Nelson Mandela what would your reaction be?

Personally it wouldn't make any difference to me. I don't quite understand your point.

 

 

 

Quite right, I should have said "What is it a leader, like Assad, truly craves?"

To be like his heroes. Is it true his heroes are Hitler and Stalin? (There was something said about this a couple of years back.)

Why wouldn't they have time? Can't David Cameron just say on a platform that "anyone on Earth is the meaning of life", or if not him then Assad or Obama?

They could but do you think that would make that much difference? Assad could have a Twitter account, he would get abused he could retaliate etc but the war goes on.