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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Well that is a difference of opinion.. I think the opposite would prevail. It would have to be tried to see its effect. It was on the TV news in NZ. I didn't read it, it was just reported.

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.

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

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.

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

Having dealt with animals all my life I'll just say that is IMO not a workable hypothesis. http://skepdic.com/gobeklitepe.html Used for 1000 years and then buried by carrying earth and rocks to cover the whole site. Weird

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

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.

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. A "tell" 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/

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.

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

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.)

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.