I think you guys don't understand what constitutes knowledge. "A man knows naught by being told. If man must know, man must himself BE what he knows." You can't claim to know something because somebody told you. Talking about books you've read....that's an author telling you something in written form. It doesn't mean you KNOW. It means you've been informed (or misinformed). Knowledge entails the information has been internalized through experience, evidence or reasoning (as per the rules of logic, not faulty reasoning). Reading some author's interpretation of Summerian mythology and the Annunaki towards an ancient astronaut theory might be compelling. But you can't claim to "know" or have evidence of it unless you've actually studied to become fluent in reading and writing cuneiform and you've looked at the actual tablets yourself and thus arrived at the same conclusion. Don't throw words like "knowledge" or "knowing" around carelessly like that.
---------- Post added at 07:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:42 PM ----------
You're committing what's called "appeal to authority" fallacies. David Wilcock or whoever else you've read may or may not actually know what they're talking about. I don't know what their credentials are, but no matter what they know, reading their books alone won't automatically translate into you having the same "knowledge." I hope you realize this. True knowledge takes more than that.
|