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

page: 34
22
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Undo,as you are aware ( at least you should be) there are countless flood stories across the globe each with their own Noah figure. It is plain to see (again as you are aware) that some of these stories were incorporated into Hebrew mythology .

The accounts are equally likely to be in relation to one figure and event as they are many, if the events or events did actually occur , this in no way gives any weight to the claims that the bibles are actual truth written or inspired by a god in the sky.

"There was a flood" So what if there was ?

"There was more than one flood " So what if there was ?

There was a man called Noah " So what if there was ?

"This makes the bibles true" No it does not




posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


if you have to invoke akkadian in the context of the flood it indicates that the bible is actually incorrect or at the very least it is a highly suspect version of a previous civilisation's myths. In either effect those who take a literalist view do so on shaky ground.

If you have ever seen statues of the infant horus being suckled by Isis you would see the basis of the Maddona and Child.

These factoids have eroded Xtianity as they seeped out into the public domain. Hence people in Britian may be shying away for such a suspect interpretation as used by small-minded Xtians.

I would prefer that people have a religion but pursue the truth therein than follow the empty husk of evangelical atheism.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by tiger5
 


depends, honestly, on whether or not the isis/horus story is applicable to the mary/jesus story in some way, other than merely in imagery. i'd elaborate but if you think my previous stuff was long and off topic, this subject would launch it into unrelated, encyclopedic territory.
edit on 25-1-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by tiger5
 





I would prefer that people have a religion but pursue the truth therein than follow the empty husk of evangelical atheism.


YOU would prefer. notice that YOU aren't everyone else and everyone else is not YOU?
don't you believe in free will?



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   
tiger,

sorry i keep seeing stuff i need to respond to that i didn't see on first reading.



if you have to invoke akkadian in the context of the flood it indicates that the bible is actually incorrect


read this entire thing, please. the second paragraph is important

all language from mesopotamian and the near east, has similar origins. biblical bab-el was from the late akkadian bab-ilu. when i realized this, it dawned on me that their shared stories meant that they had experienced the same thing, at the same time, and took away the stories with them, which were effected by language and culture variations. where the claim to fame of the biblical texts appears to be are the supernatural events it chose to focus on vs. the other texts.

for example, in the mainstream version of the flood, the text just claims enlil was mad because he couldn't get any sleep due to the "noisy lovemaking," of humans. whereas the biblical text reveals the problem wasn't sex, the problem was genetic modifications made to people, which caused alot of misery and death. so by understanding that noisy lovemaking was really a reference to genetic pollution that was killing literally everything on planet (and as the people died their cries went up to heaven), you have a more accurate and specific explanation of the event. this was also why it says, noah was perfect in his generations (not that he was sinless, but instead "generation" means genetically, and by genetically it means, whatever that genetic modication was that was made to humans, it was apparently very bad for humans, animals and everything else on the planet. noah, his family and his animals, apparently hadn't been polluted by whatever it was).
edit on 25-1-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Re Tiger5

You wrote:

["I would prefer that people have a religion but pursue the truth therein than follow the empty husk of evangelical atheism."]

As the only uniform and common part of atheism as a concept is the insistent request of positivistic proof of invisibilities, it's hard to create such a phenomenon as 'evangelical atheism'. Atheists come from all directions, so it would be more in accordance with the actual situation to talk about atheists' (notice the plural) personal agendas.

But such an expression wouldn't have the same propagandistic effect, wouldn't it? Not that I accuse you of having such propagandistic intentions.....or didn't I just DO that.

So you see, language has to be kept as pure as a virgin intended for sacrificial purposes.

PS The theist claims of DISPROVING invisibilities belong to a thread on logic, general semantics and epistemology, in case you're tempted.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Well I call it like I see it. Atheists on this forum are just attempting the preach the good news of nothing at all. My empty husk analogy stands. It is difficult to see how atheists have contributed to any of the threads here! Go figure.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Re Djin

You wrote:

[""There was a flood" So what if there was ?

"There was more than one flood " So what if there was ?

There was a man called Noah " So what if there was ?

"This makes the bibles true" No it does not"]


It always warms my old heart, when semantic gordic knots are unravelled. I never really felt at easy with the sword-implicating method.

That you'll have to repeat it next week to some noobe religionist, sent to ATS as cannon-fodder against us terrible non-believers, is part of the price we pay to have so much fun.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


i've been here for 5 years, and came here to share my stargate theory with other researchers who seemed to be more likely to understand the references. not to convert atheists. but if you want me to convert you i will.


hey, check out this video. my question is, WHAT is in superposition?






posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Re Undo

As I've formerly told you, I'm in a very relative sense actually a bit of a specialist on anomalies, due to living practically on top of what could be an interdimensional portal (half a dozen other people have experienced similar things while being at my place).

So I'm far from negative to the idea of 'invisibilities', I'm only super-duper wary of interpretations based on or from personal mindsets, where semantic considerations or pre-determined answers seem to be more important than the actual 'evidence' implied. Calling it research doesn't really justify such approaches.

I can only repeat: For all I know, I may be stark raving mad in a, sofar unknown to medicine, mental illness. OR I could be clairvoyant. Watching my back also....whatever else.

The option of clairvoyance I have discussed directly with many of with my fellow potential-clairvoyants (or co-lunatics, as you take it) and many of us have agreed on, that it's better to start from whatever evidence there is and eventually arrive at tentative answers, instead of starting with answers and adapt evidence to them.

As hard-core science, if at all considering my experiences as anything but madness, would insist on digging deep to the basics of the situation, the methodology used in evaluating it and a possible 'comparative' study (with another methodology of its own), so do I.

In the meantime I continue my normal life as a respected and socially reliable village original, whom you don't mingle with, but whom you trust to pay bills, keep agreements and follow traffic-regulations. Where I live academic discussions aren't the most popular way of spending time, but I could, if necessary, still join such also in spite of seeing spooks occasionally.

So thanks for your invitation of conversion, but I don't really need to be converted (and sorry, I don't have technology to look at videos).
edit on 25-1-2011 by bogomil because: spelling



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by The Djin
 


And so what? It is the burial of a traditional Jewish Family. And the set up of the tomb does not indicate the same family as Mary Joseph and Jesus. In as much as two families can Have a Mark, a Dark, a Julie, and a Mike, it does not mean that the two families have the same names aligned to the same positions.

If they are not the correct positions for the names, you have no evidence to suggest it is Jesus. You're the one saying Jesus never existed. So if he never existed, it could very well be anybody else named Jesus at that time. Considering that name is Joshua, it was extremely common.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Att: Djin

It seems, that Gorman has cornered you completely by his superior argumentation.

How on earth will you ever get out of that tight spot?

(A reference point to this post to you is, that I'm a devout 'Smith and Jones' fan, and I presently identify myself with them. You're not in my 'crosshairs?'...did you call it recently).



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Cornered? I merely amputated a limb too far in the wrong direction. I do the same for you, Undo, myself, and anyone else.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Re Tiger5

You wrote:

["Go figure"]

Oh dearie me, a religionist quick-witted repartee, making me go 45 years back in time and start from square one with my existential search. You certainly know how to make a man uncertain.

For your information I'm not an atheist, and contrary to you I can see a lot of rational and well-supported arguments from atheists, whereas the standard religionist methodology mostly is cottage-industry, running on the same lines as religionist doctrines themselves: Assumptions.

Building rickety constructions on a fundament of quick-sand takes more than excessive verbal embellishment to justify. Sooner or later all you guys have to relate to something more substantial than just tons of meaningless words.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Re Gorman91

You wrote:

["Cornered? I merely amputated a limb too far in the wrong direction. I do the same for you, Undo, myself, and anyone else."]

You mean as in using your VERY unique version of 'logic' examplified by this from a recent post:

["Similarly, the presence of the same archaic story of one man and his family or clan staking out against a flood is present in many cultures around the world. Thus we can logically deduce that they originate from the same story."]

No; 'WE' can't 'logically deduce' anything from this. What 'WE' (I here refer to those who use the traditional non-Gormanistic version of logic) would do is to say: "Thus we can use INDUCTIVE REASONING....."

It's ofcourse only for the record, but when you take the liberty of redefining the standard procedures of logic it should be mentioned. Because some folks may get the impression, that it's all taking place inside your own head with no references to how various systems define themselves.

But from your operational attitudes, all this is ofcourse insignificant.

I'm looking forward to a rational 'defense' (in the academic sense) of your revolutionary new system of 'logic'. If you prefer to make your 'defense' with purely semantic, I then instead look forward to your 'defense' of a new revolutionary system of 'general semantics'. I guess, that we eventually COULD arrive to such as assumptions being different from axioms, but I'm probably asking too much.
edit on 25-1-2011 by bogomil because: spelling



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


it's the double slit experiment in the video. the question i have is, what is the thing that's in super position. the video presents it like this:

there's a sheet of metal with a slit in it. in front of the sheet of metal is something like a chalkboard. a device that fires marbles, shoots marbles thru the slit, where it presents itself as a single row of marbles on the board, directly in front of the slit.

then a new sheet of metal with two slits is used, and the marbles are shot at it, and it creates two rows of marbles on the board in front of it.

then a wave of water is propagated at the metal sheet with one slit, and it presents itself as a single bright band highlighted the brightest where the peak of the wave hits the board in front of the slit, similar to the single row of marbles on the board.

then the two slit metal sheet is used, and the wave of water enters the two slits, comes out the other side of the metal sheet slits, the waves interfer with each other, creating an interference pattern on the board in front of the slits.
the interference pattern is represented as several bands on the board, equivalent in appearance to the board being hit by marbles thru several slits. but without the need for several slits

then electrons are fired at the single slit, which creates a single band on the board in front of the slit.

then the two slit board is used and electrons are fired at it, and it creates an interference pattern. since it's supposed to be a particle, and is acting like a wave, they try to figure out why it's doing that.

they put a measuring device by one of the slits, to see which slit it is going thru. but observing the electron causes it to go back to acting like a particle instead of a wave. the act of observation, they conclude, has collapsed the wave function.

the math indicates that the particle is going thru both slits, and one slit. thru the left slit and the right slit. and no slit at all. this they called super position, stating that the particle before it's observed is existing in all possible states of being at once. only observation changes that. observing it, essentially, materializes it into matter.

but it only acts like that, when it's given more than one slit to go thru. if the slit is single, it continues to act like a particle (bit of matter).

weird huh?


edit on 25-1-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Re Undo

I'm familiar with the double-split experiment, and I just love it (the education to village original also includes a course in theoretical physics, just in case).

I'm not chickening out, but really, the direction this thread is taking is getting absurd. SOME respect for topic relevance ought to be observed.

I would really like to continue e.g. on the consequences of the double-split experiment, but in a more suitable context. Not that of christians becoming pariahs in UK.

Nose up a suitable thread, send me a U2U, and we can double-split all you like there.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


well i think it has a spiritual application. (the double slit, i mean).
for example, if you don't know (observe) something is wrong, how can you harbor guilt over it? human govs say, ignorance of the law is no excuse. but spiritually speaking, this is not true. had we not known what was and wasn't sin, we would not be condemned by our own consciences when we engaged in it. in this way, the law condemns us because it tells us what not to do and upon hearing it, we "collapse" the wave function, as it were.

philosophically, it's like the state of existence prior to the fall narrative, spiritually speaking. the best reference is, they didn't know they were naked or that there was even a reason to be concerned about being naked, because they hadn't been told about the laws regarding nudity (perhaps they didn't exist yet?). in this fashion, the fall narrative suggests eve is the serpent, who teaches adam about god. prior to not knowing god, he was in effect, in a super position. the act of observation or knowing, collapsed the wave function and he materialized into 3d reality. (haha, i just combined several philosophies into 1, including gnostic christianity lol)



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Again, you are labeling me but not saying how I am that label.

Allow me to explain to you a simple fact. You are not God. You're words are not true because you say they are. You must say why you are right and show examples.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Re Gorman91

I have referred you to the formal system of logic, where deductive reasoning goes like a to b to c etc, and where inductive reasoning goes like what similarities there are there between a, b and c. You confuse the two, and thus present results of inductive reasoning as being deductive.

As science almost exclusively uses deductive reasoning, you have the idea, that your 'conclusions', which you believe are deductively based, are thus 'scientific'. A very, very common misconception on the fringe of real science and logic.

Personally I'm positive to some use of inductive reasoning, but as a formal system, it needs some straightening out, before it has any evidential value. E.g. a precise definition of what similarity consists of, and how inductively based conclusions can be tested. On my own part I have settled for a syncretistic variant, where deduction and induction supplement each other.

As to examples, reference points, directions to follow up and straight, plain oldfashioned source-naming I have given you several of those in the course of the thread, and you have consequently ignored them. Read back, as I have no intentions of using my time on teaching the basics of communication, which are that you actually relate to incoming information.
edit on 25-1-2011 by bogomil because: syntax





new topics
top topics
 
22
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join