Orientations toward religion

[JDHURF]

I don't make anything of it without any context. It could be a person in a seashell, could be a person in a bizarre looking boat, could be a person in some form of warrior helmet, could be a person in an imagined flying object, etc. What I do know with near certainty is that it is not evidence of the supernatural. If you think it is such evidence, please explain how it is.

[Stratego]

[JDHURF]

[The Dharma Bum]

[Stratego]

[JDHURF]

[JDHURF]

[The Dharma Bum]

[JDHURF]

It is that easily dismissed, for sure it is. You say pictures with a plural but cite only one. You claim "a whole slew of iconography" and yet cite only one picture and claim for it a context yet do not offer the context.

You know what there was also "a whole slew of iconography" dealing with? Witchcraft. That does not serve as evidence that there existed in the middle ages a confederation of witches.

Now, as I see it, there are two alternatives: either you are trolling or you are trying to be serious. If you're trying to be serious then you must cite the "whole slew of iconography" and the context and give reasons why you believe they serve as evidence of whatever it is you think it serves as evidence for (the supernatural, aliens, whatever).

If all you are going to do is cite one single picture without any context, then, yes, absolutely it will be dismissed, for the reasons I gave. I could cite pictures of any number of absurd things (Egyptian pictures with people with the heads of animals, pictures from the dark ages of elves, witches, werewolves and such), but that does not serve as evidence that the absurd things existed in reality.

[The Dharma Bum]

Clearly you don't have a reasonale explanation either.