It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Christians are becoming social pariahs in Britain, claims BBC presenter Jeremy Vine

page: 29
22
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





increasing scientific knowledge that sometimes cuts off the legs of religious hypotheses.


nonsense. religious hypotheses had their legs cut off 300 years ago. the new trend is trying to figure out how to manipulate people into disenfranchising the religious of their lives, as they are not even viewed as useful idiots, but instead, examples of how evolution occassionally misses a beat.
edit on 23-1-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   


Everything you posted is pure speculation, that's NOT scientific, you're just GUESSING based on what artists and writers did thousands of years ago. And even worse, a lot of the things they produced completely contradicts scientific findings...but instead of doubting the weak source (texts/paintings/sculptures), you claim there's a giant scientific conspiracy based on faulty "logic".


virgin birth = artifiicial insemination
flying up into the sky = heavier and lighter than air travel
flying into the heavens = space travel
creating life forms = cloning, genetic manipulation
creating hybrid life forms = genetic manipulation
walking on water = anti-gravity
walking thru walls = matter manipulation
flying contraptions that lay waste to whole cities = any number of military type applications including long range missiles to air craft with various types of weapons, including lasers and bombs
flying contraptions that can be manipulated by thought = brain computer interfaces

and on and on and on.

the question shouldn't be IF such a thing as genetic manipulation is possible, since it clearly is, but IF they did it back then. you're still stuck in IF such a thing is possible, then stating it couldn't have happened as IF it wasn't possible (flys in the face of science?). wrong question, from what i can tell.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
here's a couple quotes from a book that dates back to at least, the dead sea scrolls. it's considered hebrew pseudipigrapha, and wasn't included in the bible or torah, but let me tell you, whoever wrote it, saw something amazing:

"And I saw a deep abyss, with columns of heavenly fire, and among them I saw columns of fire fall, which were beyond measure alike towards the height and towards the depth (my edit: descending and ascending columns of energy in an active galaxy). And beyond that abyss I saw a place which had no firmament of the heaven above, and no firmly founded earth beneath it: there was no water upon it, and no birds, but it was a waste and horrible place (my edit: the black hole). I saw there seven stars like great burning mountains, and to me, when I inquired regarding them, The angel said: 'This place is the end of heaven and earth: this has become a prison for the stars and the host of heaven."

[...]

"And I proceeded to where things were chaotic. And I saw there something horrible: I saw neither a heaven above nor a firmly founded earth, but a place chaotic and horrible. And there I saw seven stars of the heaven bound together in it, like great mountains and burning with fire. Then I said: 'For what sin are they bound, and on what account have they been cast in hither?' Then said Uriel, one of the holy angels, who was with me, and was chief over them, and said: 'Enoch, why dost thou ask, and why art thou eager for the truth? These are of the number of the stars of heaven, which have transgressed the commandment of the Lord, and are bound here till ten thousand years, the time entailed by their sins, are consummated.' And from thence I went to another place, which was still more horrible than the former, and I saw a horrible thing: a great fire there which burnt and blazed, and the place was cleft as far as the abyss, being full of great descending columns of fire: neither its extent or magnitude could I see, nor could I conjecture. "

what the heck was he seeing if not a super massive black hole? and this text is at least 2000 years old.
the english translators probably had one heckuva time figuring out how to translate some of those words. can't you see the seven stars, caught in the gravity well of the super massive black hole? and i don't think it was even the milky way. i think the guy was in another galaxy at time.. pretty intense. these little gems reveal ancient texts to have alot to offer science, but science ignores it cause catholic professors 300 years ago, ruled such things scientifically impossible. so there ya go. what can i say but, i hope the milky way doesn't become active.

hey, wanna see what scientists currently think about super massive black holes? set some time aside for this:

Google Video Link


note those stars in the gravity well.

ah well, back to being a subhuman species, lacking evolutionary value.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 





virgin birth = artifiicial insemination


Speculation!!



flying up into the sky = heavier and lighter than air travel


Speculation!!



flying into the heavens = space travel


Speculation!!



creating life forms = cloning, genetic manipulation


Speculation!!



creating hybrid life forms = genetic manipulation


Speculation!!



walking on water = anti-gravity


Speculation!!



walking thru walls = matter manipulation


Speculation!!



flying contraptions that lay waste to whole cities = any number of military type applications including long range missiles to air craft with various types of weapons, including lasers and bombs


Speculation!!



flying contraptions that can be manipulated by thought = brain computer interfaces


Wait for it...waaait for it...speculation!!

I really hope you see the difference between proper scientific theories backed up by evidence and what you're doing...which is pure speculation.

You're essentially saying: "Hey, that's remotely possible...so it must be true!"

That's not science, that's creating your own fantasy world!!

Again, what's your evidence for your claims? We already established that works of ancient artists (!!!) and writers definitely isn't proof of anything, just like today's artists and writers aren't proof of anything either in the absence of further evidence.


edit on 23-1-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Re Undo

You wrote:

["one of the problems we all seem to have in this regard (and it's nearly universal) is the belief that only our world view is accurate, and straying outside that boundary is nearly always grounds for harrassment of various kinds."]

This, and the intial part of your post, sounds sensible to me. But as an 'amateur epistemologist' (though staying inside the bounderies of formal logic and science), I can assure you, that you don't have to stay at the point described in the quote above.

There ARE ways beyond 'worldviews', but usually we get in our own way on the way.

edit on 23-1-2011 by bogomil because: syntax



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   


Summarizes this entire discussion nicely...



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


nope, hypotheses. seems they knew about such things, way before our scientists did, then the knowledge was lost, the entities involved, left, post haste, stage left, whatever, and here we are today, discovering what they already knew thousands of years ago.

you tell me, what's that quote from the book of enoch talking about? you can at least, hypothesize! there's no rule that says you can't.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 





and here we are today, discovering what they already knew thousands of years ago.


...and more speculation. I can't believe you don't realize that what you're doing isn't scientific in the least. You're SPECULATING and making statements that aren't backed up by evidence.

That's like me saying "a giant pink turtle farted and created the universe like that" just because I see a picture of a farting turtle in some cave in Australia. For crying out loud, that's NOT scientific evidence, that's making stuff up...it's pure fiction!



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
that's making stuff up...it's pure fiction!


Just like Christianity and all other religions.

Rev.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


i'm hypothesizing based on science and ancient texts/artifacts.
the science is there, so it can't be impossible. the texts mention it, so it can't be completely unsubstantiated, and the artifacts support it, so it can't be archaelogically, unsupported. and archaeology is a science. what i can't believe is your fear of ancient data, particularly where there's so much support for the ideas what you're doing is moving the evidentary horizon again. there it goeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees..............off into the "you will never convince me!" land. which is fine. just realize, i don't have to agree with you either. lol



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Re Gorman91

You wrote:

["Oldest church in that it's one of the oldest communities of Christians in the world."]

Possibly, but that doesn't relate to my question on it.

Quote: ["Actually I will tell you I do not know a lot about the religions past mainland China. So I cannot say unless you inform me what it is about Jain that makes it relevant to the conversation."]

I'm not sure, what you mean with past mainland China, but it sure is obvious, that your knowledge of religions outside Abrahamism is questionable. As to what make Jain, Buddhism and Hinduism relevant here, is that htey relate to your vague hypothesis on 'truth'.

Quote: ["I haven't faked or ignore anything."]

Maybe not intentionally, but your ignorance on certain subjects (which you've pretended to know something about) gives the same outcome.

Quote: ["And if you want to make that claim, I invite you to prove it."]

So I'm to PROVE my points and DISPROVE yours. Dude, you belong to the 'I'm right, because I'm right school'.

Quote: ["Gnosticism in it's current state, hasn't much changed since after the Christians abused them. Before that it was something else that was related to Christianity. However, yes, traces of it predate Christianity. But these people were not the same as we know of today."]

Who are the 'we' who know 'of today'? You mean you? Anyway your standard thesis is, that unchanging doctrines etc. is a sign of positive 'truth'. But with your changing premises this doesn't seem to be the case here.


Quote: ["The core of what Gnosticism is originates from Christianity."]

You don't learn anything do you?


Quote: ["Their frame of reference is a mere couple decades."]

Where did you get this nonsense from?

Quote: ["I'm following very clear logic and scientific rules."]

No, you're following some very bad simulations of them.

Quote: [" This is the best scientific method for comparison."]

Whatever it is you're talking about, it has very little to do with science. Not even the more 'soft' social sciences.


Quote: ["And what we get for Christianity is a clear picture."]

This recurrent we, is it a royal 'we', a delusion of grandeur 'we' or just a faked co-sensus 'we', which doesn't exist?

I can only endlessly repeat my advice to you. Get to a point you actually know something about, define it, keep your premises constant, avoid semantic embellishments, when you fall short and try to relate to answers posted to you.

Your fairytales won't gain credibilty, because you embroider on them



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I have to agree with xyz. It is speculation. It could be artificial insemination, it could be a once in a billion year asexual mutation in a sexual being, or it could have been, by rare chance, a single gamma ray burst for 5 seconds cutting a gene perfectly to make it haploid and then forcing it to reassemble. It could be anything really. These things are matters of faith. Thus the most one can go in terms of physical proof is if the people in question even existed. The most accurate way to show this is the method I showed a page or so ago. You take the current day mainstream members of a system of belief, then you take the current day excluded members of the belief who have been cut off on top of a mountain or in some lost paradise for away from mainstream influence. Then you compare the two with each other as well as what remains are left of their common ancestor. From then we can logically deduce a close-to-truth answer to several queries. IE, If the person in question is described and mentioned similarly between the two and the artifacts of the common ancestor, then it is reasonable to assume the person in question existed. This is because their common ancestor and the two have not changed their opinions or descriptions in the person. IE, there were enough people who witnessed the person to spread the word about him or her so far so soon that there was not enough time to create personalized fallacies about the person.

We can see examples of this through history. IE, The number of people who knew how to make concrete in Rome were very few. Thus, as time went on, and their wide spread existence became fewer and fewer, the formula to concrete began to change, and become corrupted. So much so that eventually the formula fell out of existence all together. And for over 1000 years, no one on Earth knew how to make concrete. People were amazed at how the Romans could create such super-massive structures. They had no idea. They could not find the stone anywhere, nor could they find anything similar anywhere. Probably some said aliens, angels, or magic, as is the tendency of those whom do not know the truth. Then, we rediscovered it about 150 or so years ago, and we realized why we were so dumb.

In the case of Jesus, as well as his miracles, there were enough people, both smart and dumb, to spread the word about him far and wide that we have a pretty clear picture of the man all these eons later. So many people witnessed him, and so many people talked about him, and it was so far-spread, that nobody could lie about him. Those whom did were known to be liars. Because the whole area had heard about him and knew the truth, because anything not in agreement with the rest of the area was dismissed. This is why Jesus was special. Weather he was the son of God is a matter of faith. What is known is that he was educated enough to realize that this method would be the greatest way to be remembered and more importantly, remembered accurately.

This is also the same reason why sooooo many leaders in history are not known about accurately nor correctly. Because very few knew them personally, and most of them were payed to lie about who he really was. In fact, it can even be correctly assumed that virtually all the gods of the Indo-European Pantheon were city-state kings in India.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Re Undo

I don't want to backstab you, but from the basic definition of science and its various methdologies, you ARE making some speculations, which even don't deserve the name of hypotheses.

Nobody is preventing you from developing your own system of 'truth-finding', but calling this you're doing for even remotely associated with science is hijacking. A great favourite with some christians.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
Re Undo

I don't want to backstab you, but from the basic definition of science and its various methdologies, you ARE making some speculations, which even don't deserve the name of hypotheses.

Nobody is preventing you from developing your own system of 'truth-finding', but calling this you're doing for even remotely associated with science is hijacking. A great favourite with some christians.


no christians normally don't ascribe to the virgin birth being artificial insemination.
most believe it was an undefineable "miracle". i think it's a word bias issue for most people who read it. sorta like saying god isn't an extra-terrestrial, when technically speaking, that's what the text says. even jesus said, "i am not of this world." there's several ways to look at the statement, but strictly speaking, that makes him an extra-terrestrial. lol

strain at a gnat, swallow the empire state building.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


yes it does. You asked which, I said which. I know a great deal of religions ranging from Mainland China, to Spain. We study them a lot in architecture, and their influence upon design. I also know a thing or two about Native American religions. I'd rank them as follows:

Well known:
Christianity
Judaism
Islam
Roman Monotheistic beliefs (stoicism)

Kind of well known:
Roman polythiestic beliefs
Greek religions
Egyptian religions
Indo-European traditions

Know enough to talk about:
Hinduism
Buddhism
Confucianism and Taoist.
Couple of African traditions.

Don't know enough to talk about:
Japanese and Other Asiatic religions not listed above
Everything else that I can't recall.

That's for your own consideration. As always, I hear statements, fact check them, and learn. So if you'd like to inform me of some things relevant to my system described before, go ahead.

In order for me to understand your statement that I am ignorant in certain subjects, I need examples. I try not to talk about things I do not know, and offer people the opportunity to teach me what they know, so that I may look up what they think they know and discover it is true or false. This was how I learned most of what I know about Hinduism and other religions bellow the ones I know a lot about. It's a simple method. I'm a indexing machine. If you spot an incorrect index, you should tell me how I am wrong so I can check if I am right or wrong. Thus far you're depth in this is just saying I'm wrong but not why. Which, to be honest, is shallow.

"So I'm to PROVE my points and DISPROVE yours" This is true. I'm not saying I am right. But this is how usual humans talk. We each have proofs in our lives. We disprove the other person's beliefs as they disprove ours. To put it simply, right until proven wrong. And that does not assume right. Like I have said over and over again. I state why I think I am right, but you just tell me I'm wrong without saying why. So, to be honest, I have no reason to see why I am wrong.

yes, unchanged doctrine is a sign of truth. Gnosticism has changed. It absorbs lots of religious beliefs from whoever is around.

The couple of decades from which exists from Jesus's death to when the first communities of Christians started forming, is a couple of decades. The earliest historic evidence for the group of people known as Christians is 64 AD when Tacitus wrote about Nero and the Christians. This puts them as an established people separate from the Jews merely 3-20 years after Christ. Depending on when you think he died. This is within 1 generation of witnesses to him. As I stated above, Christians were recorded as to how they were very early in their existence by non Christian sources. And they haven't honestly changed that much since then. Many have tried, but inevitably, the people go back to the way they were after these leaders try. The catholic church has the worst historic record of this, always trying to corrupt the faith. But if you look past Papal doctrines and political bullplop, and actually read the descriptions of the people at the serf and feudal knight level, they were essentially living the same way as described in the book of Acts. Towards the high middle ages this again began to sway, but the Protestants made sure that they got back on track. No change. While other religions break apart and go different ways and spiral out from their original orbit around their doctrine, Christianity has been stuck around the same orbit like a planet breaking up around a black hole. While the planet breaks into pieces, all the pieces cannot get our of the orbit they are in, and are stuck in place.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


i'm hypothesizing based on science and ancient texts/artifacts.
the science is there, so it can't be impossible. the texts mention it, so it can't be completely unsubstantiated, and the artifacts support it, so it can't be archaelogically, unsupported. and archaeology is a science. what i can't believe is your fear of ancient data, particularly where there's so much support for the ideas what you're doing is moving the evidentary horizon again. there it goeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees..............off into the "you will never convince me!" land. which is fine. just realize, i don't have to agree with you either. lol


But archeologists uncover ART and WRITINGS, not actual evidence that would prove the art/writings are in fact true. You are taking a HUGE mental leap to make this fit your world view. That's NOT scientific and you're speculating without properly backing up your claims.

Oh, and I don't fear ancient data, but I can differentiate between ART and WRITINGS and actual scientific evidence. Rewatch the last video I posted and you should understand...that is, unless you're so blind in your BELIEF that you lost track of reality and how scientific method works.

Here's an aboriginal cave painting:



It looks pretty alien, the face like in the famous "The Scream" painting, and the hair like some Rastafarian. But that painting is NOT evidence that anything resembling this ever existed, it could be a figment of imagination, or maybe the artist was just fooling around...who knows.

But in the absence of any other evidence, you can't claim a "scream-Rastafarian alien" existed...but it is EXACTLY what you're doing. And that's NOT scientific.
edit on 23-1-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


i'll watch it but i expect you to answer my question about the quotes
i posted above, from the book of enoch.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


nope, hypotheses. seems they knew about such things, way before our scientists did, then the knowledge was lost, the entities involved, left, post haste, stage left, whatever, and here we are today, discovering what they already knew thousands of years ago.

you tell me, what's that quote from the book of enoch talking about? you can at least, hypothesize! there's no rule that says you can't.


But again, the book of Enoch is an ancient text, it's NOT evidence!! It's not unbiased, and it's NOT scientific. It makes CLAIMS, some verifiable and others completely wrong or unverifiable.

You really don't seem to understand that witness accounts (and that includes texts/art) are at best the lowest form of evidence. They aren't enough to draw scientific conclusions or prove/disprove anything. I know you're trying really hard to convince people otherwise, but that's just not how science works.

Find credible, unbiased, objective, scientific proof and stop using SUBJECTIVE wanna-be evidence!

PS: You are ofc entitled to your belief, but you have to realize it's a BELIEF and not based on hard evidence. It's fun to speculate, but throwing logic and rationality out the window isn't a good approach if you're trying to prove anything



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I hope you realize that the book of Enoch has been proven to be a fake? The older part of it was written after the old testament, and the newer parts written after the new testament. In both cases, it was written after the original scriptures, indicating it was a copy-off and impossible to guarantee validity of originality.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by undo
 


I hope you realize that the book of Enoch has been proven to be a fake? The older part of it was written after the old testament, and the newer parts written after the new testament. In both cases, it was written after the original scriptures, indicating it was a copy-off and impossible to guarantee validity of originality.


uh, it's talking about a super massive black hole at least 2000 years ago. that's why i didn't say, 5000 years ago, when enoch was alive. still 2000 years sure predates modern science.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join